Without meaning to be insensitive - in regards to AMOL

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Just in defense of at least that first rule. He doesn't mean that a person individually is stupid. He means people as a whole...Like an angry mob or something to that effect. And I think he has a great point. The biggest example that comes to mind...Ummmmm WMD's! Look how easily everyone went along with that because they were afraid it was true. I think thats a pretty good example don't you?

 

I understand the mob mentality aspect of it. But I do think he was talking just as much about the individual. If people [as a whole] are stupid, and the whole is equal to the sum of the parts, then the individuals must be equally dumb.

 

Not entirely sure...but I believe that Goodkind was quoted saying that he had never before heard of the WoT series. Which imo has to be a blatant lie. Considering that it has set a new standard in writing that all fantasy series (including his own) is going to be compared to.

 

Actually it's not a lie. Mr Goodkind is actually barely literate, and doesn't read much himself.

 

I happen to like Goodkind's books, although not nearly as much as I LOVE RJ's WOT. However, many WOT fans "hate" or "despise" Goodkind because his Sword of Truth books have waaaay too many similarities to the some of the plotlines and characters over here in RJ's Wheel of Time series.

 

And RJ has waaaay too many similarities to other fantasy novels that came before him (i.e., Tolkien), and they in turn have way to many similarities to other myths and folklore stories.  If people want to use originality as a point of contention, they would have to hate all stories back until the first stories told by human kind, because they same kind of stories have been told for countless millenia.

 

1. rada'han = a'dam

 

They're not that similar, actually, other than that they are magical collars.

 

The a'dam is something that cannot be taken off by the person who is wearing it, but in the rada'han can be, and quite easily. The use of the collar is quite different as well. The a'dam is used by the Sul'dam to completely control the power of ONLY those who can channel. The rada'han can be used on gifted and ungifted alike.

 

2. Sisters of the Light = Aes Sedai (in manner and action, as well as organisation).

 

They are a bit similar, true, but there are still notable differences. The SotL are an organization on the outskirts of one region that are dedicated to teaching wizards how to use their gift and that's it. The White Tower and the Aes Sedai are involved in almost all aspects of the world of the wetlands and try and become involved in those lands and people beyond. The SotL have a very much isolationist policy.

 

I mean they're both organizations of women who are magical. That's a very general concept, especially for a fantasy series, so unless you going to assert that mr Jordan has ownership of such a concept (which he doesn't, the Norse mythology has the Valkyrie for instance), then arguing that Goodkind ripped off Jordan's concept is ridiculous.

 

3. Sisters of the Dark = Black Ajah (again in action, mythology and reaction).

 

Same thing. An evil and 'hidden' sect within said organization of magical women.

 

4. Wizards Webs = Weaves (oh, but the Wizards Webs have six elements including ice. ICE! Totally different).

 

Except the term 'weaves' is very rarely used. In general, how wizards and sorceresses use magic in the Sword of Truth series is quite different from those who can channel in the Wheel of Time. If you'd read it all in detail, you'd know that.

 

5. Kahlan = Moiraine... in terms of powerful woman come to remote destrict to sweep up soon to be significant farmer.

 

Are you serious? A heroine-female character is even MORE of a general concept than a magical order. Kahlan did not 'sweep up' Richard, and neither was Richard a farmer. Kahlan was looking for the 'great wizard', and once she did she planned on ditching Richard before he could learn what she was. Richard got caught up because he became what she wanted, which she did not foresee. In fact, when she realized what Zedd meant to do, she tried to stop him.

 

6. Seanchan = Imperial Order

 

Um... no. The Imperial Order is THE enemy of the series, and though both are empires (again, general concepts that Jordan does not 'own') they are very different in ideology and practice.

 

7. Aiel = D'hara (umm... maidens anyone?)

 

Um... no. The Aiel are people ideologically, physically, and even generally very distinct from D'Hara. I'm wondering if you've ever read the Sword of Truth series in much detail at all, other than to come to learn the basic people/groups.

 

Don't get me started on themes and events.

 

Don't get me started on the themes and events that Jordan 'stole' from stories in human history.

 

Most if not all of these things you claim that Goodkind 'stole' from Jordan are things that have been used in stories and myths and folktales for thousands of years, but I see you either did not know this or have conveniently overlooked it.

 

I think the main reason why some people dislike the Sword of Truth is because... well simply put they did not like it. A story will never be liked by everyone. I know some people who cannot stand the Wheel of Time series for various reasons, including the idea that Jordan 'stole' ideas and concepts from Tolkien. Sound familiar to anyone? It's one thing to dislike a book or books because you simply didn't like the writing style, the story, or whatever. That's a subjective issue that would be impossible to overcome, but it's quite another thing to accuse an author of stealing another author's ideas when really, 'originality' is mostly something many centuries in the past.

 

Another thing, the reason why Goodkind uses so many of Ayn Rand's concepts is because his is a series dedicated to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. He is portraying her ideals through his series as one of her adherents, he is not 'stealing' her concepts and ideals, he is reusing them in another medium. Saying so is as ridiculous as accusing any Christian author from stealing the bible's ideas or Christ's ideologies.

 

Myself, I love both the Wheel of Time and Sword of Truth series but for different reasons. I can understand people saying that they don't like the Sword of Truth series, but some of the statements like: "the world would be better if Goodkind burned in hell" or "Goodkind is the worst thing to happen to this world since Hitler", just seem to tell me that some people hold a hatred of mr Goodkind that is irrational. It sounds like they just WANT to hate him, but have no real reason to, kind of like radical relgious people hating gays, or radical muslims hating americans.

 

I'm not even going to attempt to individually address all of those things you have brought up.

 

My point of contention is that you have failed to understand that we are not arguing that all these are indentical. We are arguing that they are similar. Of course that, in itself, does not imply plagiarism or near-plagiarism. It is the exceeding number of similarities which removes the enjoyable aspect from the books.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

It sounds like they just WANT to hate him, but have no real reason to, kind of like radical relgious people hating gays, or radical muslims hating americans./i]

 

Actually Goodkind's stated views on religion and its adherents is quite close to radical Muslims hating Americans. Rand was a good writer. She expressed her views and ideology through her protagonists but she did not hit the reader over the head with her views.

 

Goodkind on the other-hand is a hack and at best makes a caricature of Rand's ideology.

 

My own dislike of Goodkind is not that he borrowed from RJ, but that he refuses to give credit were it is obviously due.  Rj obviously begins with concepts that Tolkien crystallized and many similarities between The Wheel of Time and Hurbert's Dune can be enumerated. The difference is that Rj acknowledged his debt to those who came before him.  Goodkind on the other-hand is an egomaniac who asserts that he is writing serious literature instead of "fantasy". He acknowledges Rand because not to do so would open him up to a charge of direct plagiarism as many of the speeches his characters make come close to verbatim "steals" from Rand.

 

Quote:

 

Actually it's not a lie. Mr Goodkind is actually barely literate, and doesn't read much himself.  

 

An illiterate author who writes a series of fantasy novels dedicated to Rand and includes just about every plot device that the most popular fantasy writers have used? THIS IS AN OXYMORON.  As I previously said Goodkind is a egomaniac hack whose delusions of grandeur preclude his acknowledgement of a debt to those he sees as far below him.

[BrainFireBob]

Goodkind purportedly has dyslexia, which is why he claims not to read that much. So saying he's barely literate, while cruel and excessive, is not entirely pulled out of air.

 

But yes, he has obviously read both WoT and Rand.

 

I disagree on Rand's merits as a writer- earlier, but once she became sold on her own "brilliance," I rather consider her work to have jumped the shark.

[CUBAREY]

Quote"

 

Goodkind purportedly has dyslexia, which is why he claims not to read that much.

 

I suffer from a mild form of dyslexia, so I have some knowledge of the disease.  While people with even moderate forms of the disease (its actually a dis-function) have trouble writing most can read quite well.  The hardest thing for someone with the disease is mathematics not reading.  Someone suffering from a severe case would have trouble reading but then how did Goodkind read Rand and how could he be aware of the plots and devices used by fantasy writers? he may have a collection of Audible books but then again that's akin to having the books in written form.

 

As for Rand, even at her worst her style of writing and ability to write vividly is head and shoulders above Goodkind.  But I agree her later works are hard to take without some good single malt whiskey close at hand.

[DuDZiK]

Quote:

 

It sounds like they just WANT to hate him, but have no real reason to, kind of like radical relgious people hating gays, or radical muslims hating americans./i]

 

Actually Goodkind's stated views on religion and its adherents is quite close to radical Muslims hating Americans. Rand was a good writer. She expressed her views and ideology through her protagonists but she did not hit the reader over the head with her views.

 

Neither did Goodkind. You thinking he did does not make it so, and there are millions of readers who at the very least like his writing. This is a subjective matter, there is no fact other than that there is no fact.

 

Goodkind on the other-hand is a hack and at best makes a caricature of Rand's ideology.

 

Goodkind is a great writer and IMO does a better job portraying the philosophy of objectivism than Rand did, or at least does it in a more interesting and compelling fashion. I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and only barely made it through, which is saying something considering the fact that I have never left a book unfinished, even my most hated books (damn you Margaret Atwood! You've taken hours from my life and I want them back!! >:( ::))

 

See? I can make subjective assertions too  ;D

 

My own dislike of Goodkind is not that he borrowed from RJ, but that he refuses to give credit were it is obviously due.  Rj obviously begins with concepts that Tolkien crystallized and many similarities between The Wheel of Time and Hurbert's Dune can be enumerated. The difference is that Rj acknowledged his debt to those who came before him.  Goodkind on the other-hand is an egomaniac who asserts that he is writing serious literature instead of "fantasy". He acknowledges Rand because not to do so would open him up to a charge of direct plagiarism as many of the speeches his characters make come close to verbatim "steals" from Rand.

 

How can he steal a philosophy? He stole nothing, he reiterated the philosophy of objectivism in his books. Like I said, you accusing Goodkind of 'stealing' Rand's ideologies is like accusing who uses Christian concepts of stealing from the bible or Christ. They aren't 'owned' by anyone, and can be used by anyone who wants to even if they don't adhere to it.

 

By the way, does your dislike of the author in any way affect your like/dislike of his story? Similarly, do you dislike a musical artist and/or their music because they do not give props to the pioneers of their genre that came before them? Do you dismiss a piece of advice, or an essay or scholarly work, or anything at all really, that is from a person you dislike? Does their personality make their message, their work, any less profound? If so, how much?

 

And Goodkind does not assert that he is not writing fantasy. He has said that he uses fantasy to create a fictional work around his philosophy.

 

Quote:

 

Actually it's not a lie. Mr Goodkind is actually barely literate, and doesn't read much himself.  

 

An illiterate author who writes a series of fantasy novels dedicated to Rand and includes just about every plot device that the most popular fantasy writers have used? THIS IS AN OXYMORON.  As I previously said Goodkind is a egomaniac hack whose delusions of grandeur preclude his acknowledgement of a debt to those he sees as far below him.

 

And I think you are trying to pass of your subjective and irrational feelings as fact, when they are not. Terry Goodkind is NOT a hack nor an egomaniac, and does not suffer from delusions of grandeur. How can I prove this? I can't, just like you can't prove it, because there is no fact to prove. I am basing my opinion on the interviews of his I have seen, from his Q&A sections on his site, from the things I have heard from those who know him personally and whom I trust, and from his books. What are you basing your opinion on?

 

Take a pill and calm down before you blow a blood vessel or something dude, seriously. They're stories. You know, things people read for enjoyment? Works of fiction? If you don't enjoy them that's fine, but by the frosted beard of Odin did the man rape your sister or something for you to hate him so? I think you don't give a damn about how he writes or what other authors he may resemble in his works, I think his ideologies insults you and thus you have decided to loathe he man down to the smallest cell in his body.

 

Feel free to correct me. I would very much like to be wrong.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

Take a pill and calm down before you blow a blood vessel or something dude, seriously. They're stories. You know, things people read for enjoyment? Works of fiction? If you don't enjoy them that's fine, but by the frosted beard of Odin did the man rape your sister or something for you to hate him so? I think you don't give a damn about how he writes or what other authors he may resemble in his works, I think his ideologies insults you and thus you have decided to loathe he man down to the smallest cell in his body.

 

 

Actually, I find Rand's ideology imperfect but understandable. Now when I read fantasy or write in these forums I do so for enjoyment and to relax from the stresses of the real world. So I am quite calm (opinionated but calm).  Now when reading fantasy I make allowances, I realize I am not reading Tolstoy, Cervantes, Austin, Faulkner, or Doystoyevsky (my favorite dead white authors)but I do have some standards.

 

When I first read Goodkind's series I was intrigued at his simplistic take on Rand. I therefore read everything I could on Goodkind, including several interviews in which he clearly chafes at being called a "fantasy writer".

 

As to your musical analogy I make the following points.  While I do not usually require that a musician genuflect to those who preceded him I would laugh if an American folk singer stated he was not influence by Bob Dylan Joan Baez and/or the other folk groups of the 60s.  Moreover, I would think such a singer a fool if he stated that he was not a songwriter but a poet.  I might or might not like a particular ditty that he wrote and recorded based on by particular likes ans dislikes but I would think him a fool in either case.

 

Now, as for Goodkind.  I think as a philosopher he only half understands Rand's ideology. As a writer of serious literature he is lacking. And as a fantasy writer he is, imperious, unsubtle and generally inarticulate so as to be close to unreadable (especially the 4th book of the series and beyond where the ideology becomes the only driving force).

 

Lastly, I would like to observe that whatever her shortcomings in "Anthem" Rand created a true classic, whether judged as literature, fantasy or ideology.

 

[hurryupnwait]

And I think you are trying to pass of your subjective and irrational feelings as fact, when they are not. Terry Goodkind is NOT a hack nor an egomaniac, and does not suffer from delusions of grandeur. How can I prove this? I can't, just like you can't prove it, because there is no fact to prove. I am basing my opinion on the interviews of his I have seen, from his Q&A sections on his site, from the things I have heard from those who know him personally and whom I trust, and from his books. What are you basing your opinion on?

 

Dude! Have we seriously read the same Q&A transcripts?  For instance the very one that has been linked in this very topic?  If TG is not an egomaniac, then who is?  If he does not think over much of himself than who does?  The man says those who disagree with him are evil and hate all that which is good and right in the world.  No this man obviously does not have ANY tendency towards self promotion.

[DuDZiK]

Actually, I find Rand's ideology imperfect but understandable. Now when I read fantasy or write in these forums I do so for enjoyment and to relax from the stresses of the real world. So I am quite calm (opinionated but calm).  Now when reading fantasy I make allowances, I realize I am not reading Tolstoy, Cervantes, Austin, Faulkner, or Doystoyevsky (my favorite dead white authors)but I do have some standards.

 

I'll be a victim of the first rule for you... this time ;)

 

When I first read Goodkind's series I was intrigued at his simplistic take on Rand. I therefore read everything I could on Goodkind, including several interviews in which he clearly chafes at being called a "fantasy writer".

 

Really? Because I've heard interviews and read Q&A sessions and heard reports from people who attended his book signings where he did nothing of the sort. He may not have glorified it and stuck out his chest whenever someone mentioned it, but he sure didn't chafe.

 

As to your musical analogy I make the following points.  While I do not usually require that a musician genuflect to those who preceded him I would laugh if an American folk singer stated he was not influence by Bob Dylan Joan Baez and/or the other folk groups of the 60s.  Moreover, I would think such a singer a fool if he stated that he was not a songwriter but a poet.  I might or might not like a particular ditty that he wrote and recorded based on by particular likes ans dislikes but I would think him a fool in either case.

 

This didn't really answer my question.

 

Now, as for Goodkind.  I think as a philosopher he only half understands Rand's ideology.

 

You understand that there was a schism within her philosophy, yes? Perhaps he does understand her philosophy and merely preferred to tweak it a bit to suit him better.

 

As a writer of serious literature he is lacking. And as a fantasy writer he is, imperious, unsubtle and generally inarticulate so as to be close to unreadable (especially the 4th book of the series and beyond where the ideology becomes the only driving force).

 

I disagree. I won't call him a 'classic' author, but I think his a great writer. I think he is subtle when he wants to be, and I found no parts of his book unreadable or inarticulate. I know hundreds of others personally who think the same as me, and I'm sure that there are millions more who would as well to a varying extent.

 

Lastly, I would like to observe that whatever her shortcomings in "Anthem" Rand created a true classic, whether judged as literature, fantasy or ideology.

 

See, again I disagree, in terms of the literature aspect. I mean once I read the Sword of Truth people kept telling me about Rand so I decided to read Atlas Shrugged, which everyone said to start with. Now you think Goodkind has long speeches?

 

You also seem to excuse Rand's character, which was sadly intolerant and very arrogant. But you like her and her works... and dislike Goodkind and his works... and the two of them and their works are quite similar. Inconsistent much?

[DuDZiK]

And I think you are trying to pass of your subjective and irrational feelings as fact, when they are not. Terry Goodkind is NOT a hack nor an egomaniac, and does not suffer from delusions of grandeur. How can I prove this? I can't, just like you can't prove it, because there is no fact to prove. I am basing my opinion on the interviews of his I have seen, from his Q&A sections on his site, from the things I have heard from those who know him personally and whom I trust, and from his books. What are you basing your opinion on?

 

Dude! Have we seriously read the same Q&A transcripts?  For instance the very one that has been linked in this very topic?  If TG is not an egomaniac, then who is?  If he does not think over much of himself than who does?  The man says those who disagree with him are evil and hate all that which is good and right in the world.  No this man obviously does not have ANY tendency towards self promotion.

 

Those Q&A sections I have read are the ones that have been posted on his official site. If I missed one, feel free to put it here and I will read it.

 

I have a hunch, however, as to what in reality the meaning of him making such a statement is. He is an objectivist, and he believes that certain beliefs and actions are evil. He is not saying: "everyone who disagrees with me are evil", he is saying: "anyone who is of this belief is evil" and he is also saying that "anyone who allows this evil belief to continue is evil" (a.k.a sanctioning evil; it is to him like allowing a rapist to walk free).

 

Furthermore, I know there are thousands if not millions of people who hold beliefs that say certain kinds of people and certain kinds of beliefs are evil, and they don't care if people agree with them or not. They actually say that if you disagree with them you are evil. I don't consider people who believe another is evil to be egomaniacs, so neither do I think Terry is. I don't even consider the latter people egomaniacs; I call them fanatical in their beliefs.

 

And this is my case in point. You hold values and opinions and beliefs that make you interpret his statements as being egotistical, among other things. I hold differing views that make me interpret them differently, so I do not see them in so negative a light. We are in the realm of subjective interpretation where there can be no right or wrong, and no objective fact. Trying to argue that your opinion is fact is just about as dumb as trying to teach a fish how to fly.

[Werthead]

Impressively well-timed new interview with Terry Goodkind here.

 

It's spectacularly awful. Goodkind has a famously insane ego, but he outdoes himself in this interview.

 

I'm a born storyteller. My earliest memories are of telling myself stories.

 

Okay, but couldn't you have spared the rest of us?

 

the Sword of Truth series is, in essence, a prelude to what comes next. It's a prologue to all the things in my head. There are stories that branch out from this point into all sorts of directions.]the Sword of Truth series is, in essence, a prelude to what comes next. It's a prologue to all the things in my head. There are stories that branch out from this point into all sorts of directions.

 

Oh sweet mercy, there's more?

 

I'm not writing about fantasy. Throughout the series, my goal has been to steer the covers away from traditional fantasy covers because I'm not writing fantasy. I'm accidentally published by a fantasy publisher so I get thrown in with that genre, but my books are no more fantasy than a detective novel is a "gun book."]I'm not writing about fantasy. Throughout the series, my goal has been to steer the covers away from traditional fantasy covers because I'm not writing fantasy. I'm accidentally published by a fantasy publisher so I get thrown in with that genre, but my books are no more fantasy than a detective novel is a "gun book."

 

Ah, the old favourite, trotted out for inspection one more time.

 

When you say you're fighting terror, there's no such thing as "terror" as an enemy. You're doing gang rape on 80 year-old Swedish grandmothers because you're afraid to say that the enemy are Middle Eastern men.

 

Goodkind has a vague point here but the way he says it is pure hilarity.

 

Personally, the news that Goodkind will not be completing Wheel of Time is very welcome.

[hurryupnwait]

I'll give you a fact TG is an arrogant ass.  His overblown opinion of his own intelligence and eloquence has taken another wise fairly good series (and yes I have read every one of the SOT novels), and rendered it barely readable.  In the last few books I found myself consistently trying to skim over the incessant drivel of his "philosophy".  That process began to take longer, and longer to the point that I was skimming over most of several pages.

 

If you can read that transcript and not see a man who has bought into his own success to the point of abandoning the very methods that brought him that success, then you Dudzik are sadly blind.  I do not mean insult in this, I think you are just giving way too much benefit of the doubt.  Objectivism is pure and simply exactly what TG claims to decry.  Abdicating one's God given reason so one can look at the world in stark black and white. Think about it, it's easy to say those who disagree with you are evil.  It is far more difficult to attempt to look at things from the other side.

 

I am not saying that some things do not deserve this distinction.  Islamic extremist for example I cannot even fathom what makes them view the world the way they do.  Wife beaters, murders, child rapists, these things are pure and simply evil.  However, it is a cop out to view the entire world in such a way.  I would have to very full of myself to pretend to be wise enough to be able to judge everything and everyone with absolute certainty.  This is what Tg has done.

[DuDZiK]

I'll give you a fact TG is an arrogant ass.

 

That is not a fact.

 

His overblown opinion of his own intelligence and eloquence has taken another wise fairly good series (and yes I have read every one of the SOT novels), and rendered it barely readable.  In the last few books I found myself consistently trying to skim over the incessant drivel of his "philosophy".  That process began to take longer, and longer to the point that I was skimming over most of several pages.

 

There are several million readers who disagree with you. That is a fact.

 

If you can read that transcript and not see a man who has bought into his own success to the point of abandoning the very methods that brought him that success, then you Dudzik are sadly blind.

 

Hardly. I know many people who have met the man personally, and none of them have ever uttered his name with the words arrogance in the same breath. Pride and arrogance are two seperate things, but some people try and group them together.

 

I do not mean insult in this, I think you are just giving way too much benefit of the doubt.

 

Of course you didn't, you are just 'arrogantly' assuming you are better than me, because you can obviously see what I cannot. ;)

 

Objectivism is pure and simply exactly what TG claims to decry.  Abdicating one's God given reason so one can look at the world in stark black and white. Think about it, it's easy to say those who disagree with you are evil.

 

I can see you are religious, so now I have a greater insight into your feelings about Terry. I must say I disagree with certain aspects of objectivism, but that does not mean I think any less of those who adhere to it. I am an atheist, and I don't think any less of people who adhere to a religion.

 

It is far more difficult to attempt to look at things from the other side.

 

I know, you seem to be having a great deal of trouble doing it ;)

 

I am not saying that some things do not deserve this distinction.  Islamic extremist for example I cannot even fathom what makes them view the world the way they do.  Wife beaters, murders, child rapists, these things are pure and simply evil.  However, it is a cop out to view the entire world in such a way.  I would have to very full of myself to pretend to be wise enough to be able to judge everything and everyone with absolute certainty.  This is what Tg has done.

 

No... he hasn't. He clearly outlined those who he thinks are evil, and they are everything (and a bit more) that you described in this statement. Look at his books, which you say you have read (though if you skimmed through as much of it as you say you did, I can understand how it is you remain so ignorant of his message), and you will see the distinctions.

 

I have put in my two cents, and have been slammed for it. I don't care to change people's subjective opinions, but I will defend an author whom I myself and millions of others believe wrote a great series from those who refuse to understand him, his books, and his message while insulting him and trying to pass of their beliefs as fact. I would say there are a few people here who are violating the wizard's first and third rules.

 

Good day to you all. I hope to have more civil discussions with you on more pleasant topics, and that you can put your negative views about my person aside and see who I really am. That is all I will ever ask of anyone.

[hurryupnwait]

I have put in my two cents, and have been slammed for it.

 

Really? Where was that?

 

 

Quote

I do not mean insult in this, I think you are just giving way too much benefit of the doubt.

Of course you didn't, you are just 'arrogantly' assuming you are better than me, because you can obviously see what I cannot.

 

My emotion/motivation at the time of writing my post was more one of incredulity.  In my 'humble' opinion TG self aggrandizement is a matter as easily seen as the sky is blue.  I take no 'arrogance' in know the sky is blue.  That is what it is.

 

I can see you are religious, so now I have a greater insight into your feelings about Terry. I must say I disagree with certain aspects of objectivism, but that does not mean I think any less of those who adhere to it. I am an atheist, and I don't think any less of people who adhere to a religion.

 

I am religious.  I have made no secret of that.  I do not think less of atheists either I have posted in this very topic to that very point.  It is difficult to agree with a man who states repeatedly that I am too stupid, scared, and backwards to think for myself simply because I choose to believe in my God.

 

Quote

I am not saying that some things do not deserve this distinction.  Islamic extremist for example I cannot even fathom what makes them view the world the way they do.  Wife beaters, murders, child rapists, these things are pure and simply evil.  However, it is a cop out to view the entire world in such a way.  I would have to very full of myself to pretend to be wise enough to be able to judge everything and everyone with absolute certainty.  This is what Tg has done.

 

 

No... he hasn't. He clearly outlined those who he thinks are evil, and they are everything (and a bit more) that you described in this statement. Look at his books, which you say you have read (though if you skimmed through as much of it as you say you did, I can understand how it is you remain so ignorant of his message), and you will see the distinctions.

 

I have read every word of TG's SOT. While his "look I'm smart rants of philosophy" did cause my mind to automatically skim through especially in the last three books, whenever I noticed I was wandering I would stop and go back to where I lost focus.  TG uses situations that no one will argue must be viewed absolutely as justification for viewing everything that way. 

 

There are several million readers who disagree with you. That is a fact.

 

According to TG just because millions believe something does not mean they are right. After all the Imperial Order was massive, and they were all wrong together.  I however, suspect that many of those millions that finished this series were like me: they finished to finish.  I was willing to wade through the jargon to get to the meat of the story.  I really liked the series until Chainfire on after that like I said I finished to finish.

 

I don't care to change people's subjective opinions, but I will defend an author whom I myself and millions of others believe wrote a great series from those who refuse to understand him, his books, and his message while insulting him and trying to pass of their beliefs as fact. I would say there are a few people here who are violating the wizard's first and third rules.

 

I would agree we can argue in circles forever never getting anywhere.  However I must point out that TG passes his beliefs off as fact, and insults those who disagree.  That is what I am DISAGREEING with. 

 

Good day to you all. I hope to have more civil discussions with you on more pleasant topics, and that you can put your negative views about my person aside and see who I really am. That is all I will ever ask of anyone.

 

And to you as well.  No hard feelings I hope.  I still think I'm right in this though ;D

[DPR]

check out the latest WoT news.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Neither did Goodkind. You thinking he did does not make it so, and there are millions of readers who at the very least like his writing. This is a subjective matter, there is no fact other than that there is no fact.

 

How do you claim he is speaking subjectively, and use that to dismiss his credibility, while you, in the very first words you speak, make your own subjective statement ("Neither did Goodkind.")

 

As you later qualified the entire thing as subjective, how is that statement any more relevant than what he said?

 

Answer: it's not.

 

So you can argue one way or the other all you want, but you can't prove anything either way.

 

It sounds like they just WANT to hate him, but have no real reason to, kind of like radical relgious people hating gays, or radical muslims hating americans.

 

Not to argue that either belief is legitimately based, but 'radical' religious people hate gays because they believe homosexuality is a sin, and 'radical' Muslims hate Americans because they see America as a mainly Christian nation, and therefore a threat to their way of life.

 

No one hates someone just because they want to. Or rather, if they do, they develop reasons to excuse such behavior. Of course, it's kind of like the proverbial chicken or the egg; which came first, the hate or the reason?

[DuDZiK]

Neither did Goodkind. You thinking he did does not make it so, and there are millions of readers who at the very least like his writing. This is a subjective matter, there is no fact other than that there is no fact.

 

How do you claim he is speaking subjectively, and use that to dismiss his credibility, while you, in the very first words you speak, make your own subjective statement ("Neither did Goodkind.")

 

That's my whole point. This is all subjective, and arguing about it seems rather foolish, doesn't it? When someone states their opinion on the matter, what else can I do but offer my own even though I am only countering a subjective opinion with another subjective opinion?

 

In fact I was hoping someone would notice that. We can all make such claims all we want to, but it doesn't do anything to find or prove the 'truth', does it?

 

As you later qualified the entire thing as subjective, how is that statement any more relevant than what he said?

 

Answer: it's not.

 

So you can argue one way or the other all you want, but you can't prove anything either way.

 

Entirely my point, thank you.

 

It sounds like they just WANT to hate him, but have no real reason to, kind of like radical relgious people hating gays, or radical muslims hating americans.

 

Not to argue that either belief is legitimately based, but 'radical' religious people hate gays because they believe homosexuality is a sin, and 'radical' Muslims hate Americans because they see America as a mainly Christian nation, and therefore a threat to their way of life.

 

And 'radical' anti-Goodkindists hate him because they see the values in his books and statements as attacking their own beliefs.

 

What I don't get is why people think that Terry attacks people's religion or other beliefs, as if he clearly stated that he thinks they are dumber than an egg plant or something. Last time I checked, characters such as Verna, Ann, Nathan... heck, even Zedd held beliefs akin to religion, and last time I checked they are portrayed in a positive light.

 

What people fail to distinguish is that Goodkind is not attacking all religion or all faith, he is attacking BLIND faith; people who cling to beliefs without questioning them. This could be non-religious as well. Do you follow a leader, or a person, because you want to and think they are a great leader, or do you follow them out of fear or some other emotion that clouds your reason? If you question them and still come to that conclusion, Terry does not have any qualms with that. In fact I have it from a personal friend of Terry that he believes this strongly. When the philosophy section of the SOT forum became a site of objectivists and objectivist sympathizers to bash religion, Terry let the owner know - the aforementioned friend of Terry's - that he approved of the rules the admin created whereby people were not allowed to bash religion because they thought Terry did so in his books.

 

No one hates someone just because they want to. Or rather, if they do, they develop reasons to excuse such behavior. Of course, it's kind of like the proverbial chicken or the egg; which came first, the hate or the reason?

 

I suppose I phrased that badly. People seem to hate Terry because they feel compelled to, but those compulsions are not necessarily rational or based on relevant information.

[Baldar]

I really don't hold anything against Goodkind, other than the fact that he's a hack and an egotistical jerk. Meeting him at DragonCon didn't help my opinion in the slightest.

 

Jordan - Fatherly gleeman telling a grand tale

Goodkind - self-righteous goof who's barely had an original thought in his life

 

All that aside, I did enjoy WFR the first time I read it, but I just couldn't finish the second book. It's still sitting on a shelf (I can see it from here) with a bookmark half way through it. Oh well, at least I bought it used.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

can see you are religious, so now I have a greater insight into your feelings about Terry. I must say I disagree with certain aspects of objectivism, but that does not mean I think any less of those who adhere to it. I am an atheist, and I don't think any less of people who adhere to a religion.

 

If you ever read any of Rand's non-fiction books you would know that in "Objectivest" philosophy all religion is seen as evil and all religous people as at best delusional.  Hatred of Religion is a tenent of the philosophy. 

 

Quote:

 

See, again I disagree, in terms of the literature aspect. I mean once I read the Sword of Truth people kept telling me about Rand so I decided to read Atlas Shrugged, which everyone said to start with. Now you think Goodkind has long speeches?

 

You also seem to excuse Rand's character, which was sadly intolerant and very arrogant. But you like her and her works... and dislike Goodkind and his works... and the two of them and their works are quite similar. Inconsistent much?

 

Atlas Shrugged is the novel in which Rand most clearly and fully sets out her philosophy. Anthem a much earlier and simpler novel includes her philosophy but in a much more subtle and muted way. Telling you to read Atlas Shrugged is like someone who seems to be intrigued by communist philosophy bein told to read both volumes of Das Capital instead of The Communist Manifesto.

 

As to your analysis of why I like Rand and not Goodkind I will only say in my defense that I said Anthem is a classic a lot of her other works suffer from the arrogence that I find in Goodkind. Moreover, as to the philosophy I do admit preferring the original in much the same wat I much prefer reading Marx to Engels.

 

 

[Cybertrolloc]

Hey can we take the lemming prattlings here? I hate trashing Goodkind and death-choosers in neutral forums ;)

[Davian93]

Goodkind sucks and he is a hack.

[hurryupnwait]

That forum has to be a joke!  No way even TG is that removed from reality.

[DuDZiK]

*sigh*

 

Apparently I expect too much of people.

[BrainFireBob]

Well, Dudzik, in fairness-

 

Despite the crudities of expression often levelled, I've read all Goodkind's books, and been on his forums, and the kind of condescension you are displaying is quite misplaced.

 

Shortly, it is those who have never run into Goodkind's ideas before that find them brilliant, refreshing, and innovation- while the well-read among us say "And?"

 

Well, the "and" seems to be condescension.

[hurryupnwait]

Dudzik it seems to me all we've done is state why we don't like TG or his writing as much as RJ's.  What's wrong with that?  I have never said I hate TG or his writings.  I liked the story well enough to wade through all the rants of what an idiot I am for my beliefs.  You honestly can't expect open acceptance of man whose writings lean toward an extreme view topped off with agree with me or you are an evil retard.

[DuDZiK]

I was responding to the post of that 'Goodkind is God' forum...

 

I mean they take it beyond what I consider... 'normal', even if it is a joke  ::)

 

Dudzik it seems to me all we've done is state why we don't like TG or his writing as much as RJ's. What's wrong with that?

 

Simply not liking the story, that's fine.

 

You honestly can't expect open acceptance of man whose writings lean toward an extreme view topped off with agree with me or you are an evil retard.

 

I won't bother going into the argument about how I think Terry and especially his story does not say any such thing, but that's a matter of interpretation. More importantly, I can expect at least tolerance. As you said above, what's wrong with him believing as he believes, and writing as he writes? There's certainly nothing wrong with disagreeing with him so why should there be anything wrong on the flip-side with him disagreeing with you?

 

Hell, I disagree with quite a few of his points/beliefs, but I don't hate or even dislike the man for it. Some people here not only dislike him - which is fine - but some start saying things about him that just aren't true. Their hatred, in some cases, has made them irrational.