Without meaning to be insensitive - in regards to AMOL

[Cybertrolloc]

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.

Let's see. 174 posts in thread. Most of the first 7 pages were about the topic, so that leaves like 90. Out of those 90 posts, how about two specific examples of two different people having irrational hatred?

[DuDZiK]

Apologies, I browse around alot of forums, especially for various fantasy series and general fantasy, and there has almost always been a group of those who hold irrational hatred. None the less, in this and other threads I have seen a few members whom I would qualify in such a group.

 

Let me try and remember some of the things I have heard...

 

1) He's the anti-christ. This is a popular one among the more radical religious folk

2) He's the worst thing to happen to literature in human history. Even if they're exaggerating for rhetorical purposes, that's a sign for me.

3) He doesn't have an original thought in his head. This usually goes along with the previous one. Actually I've seen this one in this thread already.

4) The more general insults: arrogant ass, jerk, idiot, bigot... all occasionally accompanied by words I can't utter here.

 

When I say irrational hatred, I mean they are allowing their dislike of the man to create a bias that they will henceforth be seeing the author and his works through. They refuse to give him or his works a chance, and will not respect contary opinions - such as my own - that see him in a more positive light, or at least a more neutral one.

 

Take my posts here for example. I try and offer a contrary opinion, that Terry is not as bad as some people have said and neither is his story, and almost immediately a few people will respond with: "he's a hack, he's a jerk, he's self-righteous" etc. The fact that I also argue that all such opinions - including my own - are subjective and none can be 'right or wrong' does not lessen their invective or their clinging to the idea that their opinions are somehow fact.

 

I'm repeating myself again, and I've learned to realize that's a bad sign for a discussion. I already said I'd leave this thread, but alas I can't stay away from a good discussion if I can help it, maybe this second time around I will be able to control myself ;)

 

Good day to you all.

[hurryupnwait]

OH! OH! the arrogant ass insult was mine! 

 

Let me clarify my position.  I thought the story behind SOT was fine, it was entertaining, and good enough I read through to the end to see how it ended.  However right around the Chainfire novel I thought TG let himself get in the way of his works.  He was so compelled to force his life's views on the reader that I felt the story was obscured by this.  The reason I have repeatedly stated that I prefer RJ and his works is this: RJ wants to tell me a story,  TG wants to convert me to his belief system failing that the failure is my fault. (I'm too blind, stupid, and afraid to think for myself)

 

That is the difference I don't know what RJ's belief structure was whether he was catholic, protestant, LDS, Muslim, buddhist, hindu, atheist, agnostic, or nihilist.  He took a variety of culture's beliefs, myths, and traditions.  He then took these and blended them into a rich tapestry of a world.  Whereas anyone who has read TG's works quickly learns what he believes and what he values.  Anything that is different he presents as at best worthless, and misguided.  I think once he decided to use his work as a platform for his views that very work suffered (IMO) as a result.  I think this shows TG's arrogance.  That is my whole argument.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

My disagreement and consequential dislike of Goodkind stems from the fact that he interprets the success of his book to mean that people agree with his philosophy.

 

And, quite simply, I don't.

 

He's said quite a few things which I find offensive. From his interviews, he's come across as a really self-righteous man who has an inflated sense of his own importance. And he's done nothing to dispel that image, which leads me to believe that either I interpreted what I've read correctly, or he doesn't care too much about his self-image. And if he doesn't care about his self-image enough to clearly articulate his stances in a way that cannot be misunderstood, then I don't feel accountable for potentially misinterpreting his views.

 

This site (click here is a critical analysis of one of Goodkind's speeches ("interviews"). It represents my views on him quite accurately.

 

Here, I'll quote one of the many things he says which leads me to my conclusion:

 

Question: Lately I've found myself in many arguments defending your books against 'fans' who say they used to like your books but no longer do to the extent that they used to. Would you mind settling some debates by answering the Question: What, if anything do you have to say to the people that voice the opinion that you're latest four books haven't been as good as the previous four and call them "too preachy"?

 

Answer: Don't be fooled. The assertion made by these detractors is a note wrapped around a brick thrown through the window. These people are not fans. There are hundreds if not thousands of fantasy books that fulfill their professed taste in books. Why would they continue to read books they claim are bad? Because they hate that my novels exists. Values arouse hatred in these people. Their goal is not to enjoy life, but to destroy that which is good -much like a school child who does not wish to study for a test and instead beats up a classmate who does well. These people hate what is good because it is good. Their lives are limited to loathing and indifference. It isn't that they want to read a good book, what they want is to make sure that you do not. Ignore them.