Without meaning to be insensitive - in regards to AMOL

[animus]

There is less than one in a million chance that I am wrong here, so why argue?

[Vambram]

There is less than one in a million chance that I am wrong here, so why argue?

I believe that there is only about a one in a hundred chance, animus, that you are correct.

 

[animus]

 

Individually all of these are fairly common fantasy ideas, but it is in their specific layout within the story that the similarities become blunt, especially when added to the number of themes, objects and characters correlate between the two.

 

 

I don't see how containing many fairly common fantasy ideas makes it obvious Goodkind stole them from Jordan. There are only a few objects that are similar. The characters are not alike at all; Jordan's characters are complex while Goodkind's are rather simple. Richard is basically a walking talking (and recently boring) code of ethics and Kahlan or whatever is a dumbed down Ayn Rand character with all the interesting bits of Any Rands philosophy stripped away. Rand doesn't seem to advance many political beliefs at all, but is more a reflection on inner turmoil. Not to mention he has multiple wives, an idea that would baffle Richard and no doubt induce Goodkind to write an entire book praising monogamy. Even the themes are not very similar. Goodkind's books revolve around Richard finding this or that magical item, magical person, magical dildo (temple of the winds) in order to save the world from bad politics, while Jordans character basically seek to survive, protect things, and kill bad guys. As for common organizations (whitecloaks/blood of the fold) both books contain so many different organizations that it would be strange if some of them weren't alike. The only argument I can really see anybody trying to make would be that the women control the men in both series, but in both books thats just the logical way to structure the society in regards to the story. The male half is tainted, while the female half is clean, so of course the females will want to control the males. On the other hand, males are more rarely born with the gift, especially the subtractive side. This also would imply female dominance.

[dyring]

Now, its ages since I read TG, (and tbh, I liked the wizards first rule. after that it went down fast thou)

 

The simularities where quite clear at some parts (blood of the fold being so damn anoying, as was the "foreign army comes from a land everyone had forgotten about and uses enslaved channelers/magicians to beat all opposition" not to mentions alot of other things.

 

What made me quit reading his books was the damn political crap his putting in it. If he now absolutely needs to put that über kapitalist wonder world propaganda in it, atleast be abit subtle about it :p

 

//dyring

 

 

 

 

 

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

I don't see how containing many fairly common fantasy ideas makes it obvious Goodkind stole them from Jordan.

 

You don't see how common ideas, when combined in a similar fashion, imply near-plagiarism?

 

If someone writes about a female dominant society, well, that is okay. If someone writes about a female society of witches who hunt out men with power and chain them/gentle them, well then, that really makes you think. And if someone does that for many different concepts in a book, then you are really questioning the originality.

 

As I said, and I'll repeat myself to make sure you are clear of this, it's easy to have a few ideas that are the same (by accident) and its only a little questionable when two authors have multiple ideas combined in a similar fashion. But when there are several common ideas, combined in a unique way, and used by two authors where the one who published his work afterwards claims not to have even read the series, then you really have to wonder about their integrity.

 

There is less than one in a million chance that I am wrong here, so why argue?

 

Because if you were really convinced you were right, then you would try to prove that I am wrong, since there can be no proof to the contrary, and you have nothing to lose by debating unless your arguments are insufficient for persuasion, or utilize fallacy. In which case, you would look like a fool. But, being certain of yourself as you are, you'll persist in debating. (Not arguing.)

[animus]

The problem with this statement you keep repeating in order to make clear to me what is already clear, is that you are simply speaking non-truths. You incorrectly believe that your points imply a level of creativity on Jordan's part that is impossible for Goodkind to have managed without stealing his ideas. But these ideas are not all that unfathomable. It is easy for me to believe that multiple authors could write books containing the similarities you detail without ever having read each others work. And if you believe that I am debating because I am not convinced of my own argument, this is only further proof of your poor judgment. I am merely trying to remain somewhat polite when your statements lead my to think you quite simple-minded. And not very well read.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

And if you believe that I am debating because I am not convinced of my own argument, this is only further proof of your poor judgment. I am merely trying to remain somewhat polite when your statements lead my to think you quite simple-minded. And not very well read.

 

Clearly, in your skim of my post, you misunderstood me. I don't believe that you are debating because you are not convinced of your own argument (sounds like you got me backwards in the above quote ^^). I was simply stating that the reason to continue arguing, if you are certain you are right, is because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Read my post again, because I believe you got me backwards.

 

And, I might like to point out that if you think I am simple-minded, apparently everyone else here but you is also, simply because we all (except for you and one other) think this is a blatant stealing of ideas (which appears to be the criteria for being "simple minded" according to you). So, if I were to apply Occam's Razor, I'd come to the assessment it is far more likely you are the one who is narrow-minded in your view. Of course, I only say this as retaliation for what you said in the above post, which was clearly a blatant insult, and not accidental. And thinking back, I probably shouldn't have called you an ignoramus, but that really isn't an insult, because it doesn't imply stupidity, just a lack of understanding of the nature of my argument. Of course, mudslinging does not cause progress.

 

Regardless, I only repeat what I say because from what you say it always appears like you either misunderstand me (which you did in your last post) or do not catch all of what I say.

 

And I've never said that I believe it is impossible for the two to have done so. I just think that in this case, it didn't happen that way, because there is more evidence to the contrary (evidence, not proof, mind--for if there was proof, you would probably be agreeing with me now). While on the other hand, there is no evidence on your side, unless you could show multiple books by authors who claim to have not read Jordan, or not have been influenced in their books, which have used 3 or 4 ideas of Jordans in almost the exact fashion.  Now its your turn to concede that it is not entirely impossible for you to be wrong. Will you admit that, as I did of my own argument?

 

And I'd also like to ask you if you really believe Goodkind never read the NYTimes Bestselling series WoT. Don't you find it highly improbable that he never did?

And doesn't that marr his credibility and make it all the sudden more likely that, even subconsciously, he was influenced? Not to plagiarise, because I never said that it was.

 

And I never said the books were completely similar, so it does no good to point out what is obviously dissimilar, such as what you have in the post you addressed to Luckers. We acknowledge some things are not similar, but a great many concepts and cultures and the like appear to be near-identical.

 

So, in short, my argument, is this:

 

1) He claims to have never read a Number 1 bestselling High Fantasy series.

 

2) Occam's Razor: It is more likely than not that even if he hasn't read the books, he has heard and read a great deal aboout them.

 

3) Judge for yourself whether or not he has any credibility after you read this text:

Click Here

 

PS: I don't have the original text, so you can ignore the words in blue (basically, the criticism of the rant) though I'd advise not to, because it really sums up much of how I feel about him.

 

And going back to the original purpose of this topic, I'll answer a single question:

 

Did Goodkind do something or say something truly awful?

 

Tell me what you would think of a man who says this:

 

What I have done with my work has irrevocably changed the face of fantasy. In so doing I've raised the standards. I have not only injected thought into a tired empty genre, but, more importantly, I've transcended it showing what more it can be-and is so doing spread my readership to completely new groups who don’t like and wont ready typical fantasy.

[Vambram]

3) Judge for yourself whether or not he has any credibility after you read this text:

Click Here

Thank you for that weblink you provided. It is interesting and enlightening aboout Mr. TG.

 

[animus]

I've never claimed to like Terry Goodkind. In fact most of my post make him out to be a rather un-noteworthy author. I merely believe that he is being truthful when he says he hasn't read the WoT series. There are similarities only in the broadest sense, and that implies that they both interpreted already existing ideas in different ways. You claim Goodkind stole them from Jordan. I claim that both authors took their views from others, and in an obviously different fashion. You wish to believe Goodkind stole from Jordan simply because the two series contained similar ideas, but they did so only in the broadest sense. All the similarities you have mentioned lay in the uninteresting parts of both the series, because they are the parts that are average, already explored, and hardly unexpected. I point out the differences because the parts you point out aren't noteworthy, they are textbook. SoT lacks inspiration to such a degree that it seems impossible it could be ripped off anybody directly. His plots and twists have existed in a thousand other books, all just as similar as Jordan's work. And don't fool yourself with this new york times best-seller bullshit. New York Times has a million best sellers at all times. It makes them money. 

[Luckers]

Both of you, play nice. You especially Animus. Whilst generic 'not one chance in a million your right, so i feel comfortable not answering' comments do nothing for your argument, they do serve to offend others, and thats just plain disruptive. So cut it.

 

As for your stance, as i said i can see the logic in the arguments of a third base source, but that being said the sheer number of similarities, and the exact specific nature of those similarites does make a very impressive counter. Yes, you will see many common elements in fantasy--especially in terms of worldbuilding and concept basis--but the difference is that when these similarities appear they are not only similar nature, but similar in action and influence on the society and world of the story. And im sorry, but whilst you find them uninteresting, that is a key sign of fictional plagarism. Creating your on story and giving it depth by drawing on the meat of another story.

 

Incidently, as an amusing side note, according to my editor, this almost always coincides with the main character being a vision of the author, or rather what the author wants to be. Lord knows it did in my pathetic first attempt at a book, which read like Isobelle Carmody's the gathering and stared a handsome young black belt who always had awesome combacks. Reading that interview with Goodkind... oh yeah, he thinks he's Richard. Douchebag.

[animus]

I'm sorry, I will try to refrain from self-indulgent smart ass comments. I wasn't aware dry humor was so frowned upon here.

 

Having heard things about Jordan's books is not the same as having read them himself. People are convinced that he has personally read them, and I claim they lack hard evidence. A "sum of the parts" argument is being used to prove Goodkind has read this series, but the sum of the parts are completely different. As in, not at all alike. They both contain a few similarities which are unconvincing as proofs of plagiarism. To think otherwise is almost laughable.

 

And don't assume I've skimmed your post simply because I ignore the parts that lack depth or relevance.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

To quote Bill Parcells: This conversation's going nowhere.

 

I wasn't aware dry humor was so frowned upon here.

Not really frowned upon, though not smiled upon either. It's just that I and Luckers feel that it does nothing to contribute to the debate and only results in productive discussion being substituted for name-calling. I think you can agree with that.

 

To think otherwise is almost laughable.

This is where we disagree. I think (almost) the same thing about your position, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it (for politeness' sake).

 

The bottom line, I think, is that we are clearly viewing the situation from a subjective standpoint, and using subjective terms. We disagree as to the amount of similarity, and we disagree as to how much similarity amounts to a suspicious parallel.

 

And don't assume I've skimmed your post simply because I ignore the parts that lack depth or relevance.

That's not really correct. I claimed you must've skimmed my post because you misread what I was saying. That's all.

 

And I don't think anything I've said has lacked relevance.

To add, anything that I've said which has seemed to have a lack of depth, has only seemed so because I try my best to make my post plainly written and easily understood. This is because I find that many people can (and do, see some of my arguments) easily mistake what I say when I speak in terms that can be misinterpreted.

 

Of course, it isn't that you have done so, because the issue between us is simply a fundamentally different viewpoint of what constitutes true similarity, and what doesn't.

 

Having heard things about Jordan's books is not the same as having read them himself.

 

True, it's not the same. But, depending on how much he has heard about the series, it can amount to the same thing.

 

I admit that it isn't impossible that he didn't steal Jordan's ideas. I'm not going to concede any more than that, because I will continue to think that he probably did use multiple things from the WoT series.

 

I'll go so far so as to say that even if he didn't read the books or steal some of the ideas, his books contain so many similarities that (in my mind) Books 5 and up are not even worth reading.  And you may not agree. But you don't have to, because this is a personal decision that everyone is entitled to make for themselves.

 

This decision is of course influenced by the fact that he (and his character Richard Rahl) becomes so incredibly self-righteous and preachy that I refuse to support such a person. If I ever decide to finish the series, I'll make sure and borrow them from the library.

[animus]

Not everything has to apply to the debate. Relax a little. Tell a joke or two.

 

If you don't consider it impossible why not take the man at his word? But I fear you are right, this is a pointless debate now. I feel there is plenty of reason to believe he is not lying, even though some things may seem too similar to you. But much like people believe that Dark Side of the Moon was choreographed to The Wizard of Oz, it is most like just coincidence.

[drewcifer84]

personally, i think when we look into the development, writing style, and other real life parts of an author's book, my willing suspension of disbelief usually is impeded.  i dont like to get into the psyche of authors, id rather just read the book.  i mean obviously the books are fictional fantasy, but reading about how authors are takes the story away.

 

i enjoy the SoT series, but damn TG does seem a bit self righteous, pompous, and arrogant.  it kind of makes me dislike the series in some way because he's too opinionated in that article.  id rather the books just say "A Sword of Truth Novel" by "Anonymous."  or just be like RJ and claim to be a storyteller, no less and no more, and thats it.

[CUBAREY]

I enjoyed the first three books in SOT but TG's insistence on remaking the series into an objectivest diatribe spoiled it for me.  Don't get me wrong I think Rand was a major thinker-author but TG is no Rand. 

[Luckers]

I'm sorry, I will try to refrain from self-indulgent smart ass comments. I wasn't aware dry humor was so frowned upon here.

 

It isn't.

 

Having heard things about Jordan's books is not the same as having read them himself. People are convinced that he has personally read them, and I claim they lack hard evidence. A "sum of the parts" argument is being used to prove Goodkind has read this series, but the sum of the parts are completely different. As in, not at all alike. They both contain a few similarities which are unconvincing as proofs of plagiarism. To think otherwise is almost laughable.

 

Firstly, Animus, how is it that you progressed from the first point apologising for the generic dissmissal of your opponants stance to this in which you generically dismiss your opponants position as 'laughable'?

 

Now, as for your point... yes mate, we've all commented on your position about limited similarity. We all know you think that, and we've all given our reasons as to why we disagree, which you've not addressed other than to dismiss it as laughable.

 

As for the 'sum of its parts' comment... how is that relevant? I ask that honestly? My claim was the total sum of the similarities, the amount of their occurence, and the consistancy in the way they are included within the text and subsequent influence on the world of the text and the progression of the plot is indicative of plagarism, to which you respond... what? 'they're not exactly the same on every point'? I'm honestly confused. Short of an intentional misreading i cannot understand what you were getting at. Perhaps if you actually addressed the specific points in our posts it would help us understand. Which brings us to our next issue.

 

And don't assume I've skimmed your post simply because I ignore the parts that lack depth or relevance.

 

Firstly, I know you were responding to Ealdur here, but you should probably know that the assumption that you skimmed the post is replaced by the assumption that you were simply unable to respond by that comment. It has to do with how defensive you are when you speak of comments that you think lack 'depth or relevance'.

 

You see, others, when they come accross comments that lack depth or relevance actually address it. Now it may be that you've found that in Ealdur's, or mine (Lord knows it happens), but lacking an addressal that is our assumption. I'm sorry.

 

But furthermore, lacking that direct addressal you lose any right to even address the issue. Its simple arrogance, my friend. And I should know, I'm one arrogant bastard.

 

 

 

[trakand_01]

To be honest i'm not really bothered if one copied the other or not, I just enjoy reading them, along with the Belgariad / Mallorean, Shannarah and the Dragonbone Chair, although that's a standalone. They're all series i read and re-read at regular intervals, and will always continue to do so.

 

 

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

I'd just like to know, animus, for what reason you chose your specific name, and what definition of "animus" you feel best suits it as your name.

 

It could be the name of a god, a band, a marvel comic character, a greek concept, or just the literal translation.

[animus]

Luckers: "It isn't"

 

...oh snap!

 

"Firstly, Animus, how is it that you progressed from the first point apologising for the generic dissmissal of your opponants stance to this in which you generically dismiss your opponants position as 'laughable'?" 

 

...non-linearly? I'm sorry that I find your position laughable. sometimes my conscience interjects. damn him.

 

"Now, as for your point... yes mate, we've all commented on your position about limited similarity. We all know you think that, and we've all given our reasons as to why we disagree, which you've not addressed other than to dismiss it as laughable." 

 

...I have addressed them, maybe it is you who is skimming my posts. I've added plenty of substance in plenty of places but to cover everything completely would require a small novel in itself. I choose to assume certain conclusions will be made logically by those reading. I assume too much, mate.

 

"As for the 'sum of its parts' comment... how is that relevant? I ask that honestly? My claim was the total sum of the similarities, the amount of their occurence, and the consistancy in the way they are included within the text and subsequent influence on the world of the text and the progression of the plot is indicative of plagarism, to which you respond... what? 'they're not exactly the same on every point'? I'm honestly confused. Short of an intentional misreading i cannot understand what you were getting at. Perhaps if you actually addressed the specific points in our posts it would help us understand. Which brings us to our next issue."   

 

...did you read your first three sentences? besides that, the amount of occurrence is low. The way they are included within the text is not at all alike, not to mention inconsistent, plus the influence on the worlds is different. The progression of the plot is not even remotely similar. I honestly don't see how you can think any of those things true. But the burden of proof is on you to provide examples as of how this is so, if there are any, and then I will explain why they aren't. So far I have seen the collars mentioned, and the existence of a female dominant group. I counted these ideas in previous posts.

[animus]

As for my name. I took it because of multiple reasons. It is the masculine of anima, to begin with.

 

purpose; intention; an animating or energizing spirit.

 

An attitude that informs one's actions; disposition.

 

1820, "temper" (usually in a hostile sense), from L. anima "living being, soul, mind, disposition, passion, courage, anger, spirit, feeling," from PIE base *ane- "to blow, to breathe" (cf. Gk. anemos "wind," Skt. aniti "breathes," O.Ir. anal, Welsh anadl "breath," O.Ir. animm "soul," Goth. uzanan "to exhale," O.N. anda "to breathe," O.E. eðian "to breathe," O.C.S. vonja "smell, breath," Arm. anjn "soul"). It has no plural. As a term in Jungian psychology for the masc. component of a fem. personality, it dates from 1923.

 

I like that it is usually associated with animosity, active hostility, and ill will. Not because I like to be an ass but because society generally disgusts me and/or disappoints me.

 

 

[Luckers]

"Firstly, Animus, how is it that you progressed from the first point apologising for the generic dissmissal of your opponants stance to this in which you generically dismiss your opponants position as 'laughable'?" 

 

...non-linearly? I'm sorry that I find your position laughable. sometimes my conscience interjects. damn him.

 

Indeed. How very... sad, for you.

 

...I have addressed them, maybe it is you who is skimming my posts. I've added plenty of substance in plenty of places but to cover everything completely would require a small novel in itself. I choose to assume certain conclusions will be made logically by those reading. I assume too much, mate.

 

I'm sorry, forgive me if i am being dense, but you assumed that we would immediately understand why our own points were wrong when you failed to be able to respond to them? That, to me, doesn't inspire any sense that i was wrong... and yep, looking back over my argument i see neither inconsistancies or falsehoods.

 

You do realise the world doesn't work like that? People arn't going to fall over themselves agreeing with you when you can't even offer an argument. I'd suggest you learn this lesson now. Terry Goodkind hasn't and we all know what an enormous douche he ended up becoming. Will that be your next argument? People who disagree with me are not only laughable, but they hate life, kill puppies, and worship the ground i walk on even as they hate me for it?

 

Do you have rippling muscles and eyes that warn people that you're the most dangerous man on the planet? Richard Rahl walks amongst us.

 

Please.

 

...did you read your first three sentences?

 

Yes, I did. Here they are again for you.

 

 

"As for the 'sum of its parts' comment... how is that relevant? I ask that honestly? My claim was the total sum of the similarities, the amount of their occurence, and the consistancy in the way they are included within the text and subsequent influence on the world of the text and the progression of the plot is indicative of plagarism, to which you respond... what? 'they're not exactly the same on every point'? I'm honestly confused."

 

My claims are quite clear there puppy. Care to actually respond to them?

 

besides that, the amount of occurrence is low. The way they are included within the text is not at all alike, not to mention inconsistent, plus the influence on the worlds is different.

 

And yet ive made several comments to the direct opposite which you've still not addressed. Another pesky moment were actual effort is required on your part?

 

Let me state them again for you, with specific addressal of those two statements onf yours.

 

Rada'han = a'dam. Included in the text as collars used to control and inflict pain on people with magic. Used on main characters in the second books. Main characters escape that control, but only after it is used to torture them. Influence on the world is the ongoing use to leash and control those with the gift. Moreover, they're linguistically similar.

 

Pebble in the bond = Ta'veren. Included in the text as people whose direct presense alters chance and influences reality around them. Their presense causes change and fluidity allowing for social growth. Influence on the story, allows for characters to have greater influence of people set in their positions. It also allows their enemies to track them to a limited degree.

 

Sisters of the Light = Aes Sedai. A neo-militant organisation involved in seeking out and finding men with the ability for both controlling them, and helping them. Similar traits of arrogance and displays of blind belief in the function of their own order. Matriarchal submission of the male gift is similarily fairly uniqe in Fantasy.

 

Sisters of the Dark = Black Ajah. Secret organisation dedicated to a dark deity of death that live beyond the circle of reality for the express purpose of attaining long life and political power working against our hero.

 

Wizards Webs = Weaves of the Power. Oh wait, Ice is an element in these wizards webs. Forgive me, they are completely different.

 

What about the three wives requirement? The naming of the Caharin and the Car'a'carn? If I havn't read these books in nearly four years and i can name that many, what does that say.

 

But, as much has been said before. If you could not respond then, i do not know why i expect you to be able to respond now.

 

The progression of the plot is not even remotely similar. I honestly don't see how you can think any of those things true. But the burden of proof is on you to provide examples as of how this is so, if there are any, and then I will explain why they aren't. So far I have seen the collars mentioned, and the existence of a female dominant group. I counted these ideas in previous posts.

 

... Thats all you've seen? Well thats a relief, at least now i know you merely didn't read what was written.

 

Thank you. I feel satisfied leaving this conversation now.

[animus]

I did respond to them. See the post where I described why collars and female societies are not unexpected themes in a magical universe. Pebble in the pond/ta'veren, also a rather simple and obvious idea. many authors have used the idea that a few people control the fates of many. the authors describe this idea differently however, and use it differently as well. A dark and light side to the female faction. Who would have thunk it? Wizards webs, Jordan wasn't the first author to describe magic as something one weaves. The similarities of names? please. i'll look into word roots later but I would assume those names are both stolen from some ancient words.

 

In sentence one you ask how a sum of the parts argument is relevant, and in sentence three you claim your argument was a sum of the parts.

[Wayhey]

To this whole discussion, I give a big MEH.

[Kadere]

total side note, Confessor came out today. Totally just ran out and bought it. Now I just have to finish up GRRM's Dreamsongs. Can't wait.

[wvlr]

total side note, Confessor came out today. Totally just ran out and bought it. Now I just have to finish up GRRM's Dreamsongs. Can't wait.

 

Was that today!

 

Damn - Could you e-mail me a copy to i'mreallygoingtohatemyselfforbuyingthistrash@butiwill.com or i'dratherbereadingrjorgrrm@goodstuff.com