I have a scenario to propose then, let's pretend Min stayed behind. Rand recognizes Semi and tries to stop her, LTT does the same preventing him from using Saidin. So he jumps, gets away and perhaps doesn't get injured like before. However Semi then goes on and reveals how Rand is hearing LTT and was unable to control the flow. Then Rand does the whole tetering on the edge of sanity bit and this time because Min isn't there he doesn't have his anchor and goes mad.

Hmmm... very interesting point, I hadn't thought of that.

As for Min, she's just stubborn,

...and? Every last character would be the most stubborn person I have ever met. ::) In fact, I'd say she's among the LEAST stubborn characters. Oh she'll put her foot down every now and then, but oftentimes she is justified in being stubborn in those situations, and more often than most characters she will allow her decision to be changed by someone else.

As for Mat I agree with Demandred. He DOES take responsibility, but not if the 'responsibility's is forced or bullied upon him by someone else and even then he sometimes does (like when Rand bullied him into helping him plan to beat Sammael). That is not something I can hate in him, because I'm the same. In fact, I don't think there is a person alive that truly LIKES it. If the person asks Mat nicely, or if Mat sees the need for responsibility by himself, he will take that burden upon himself. He did it in Book Three when he first lead Thom away from self-destruction and when he saved the girls, he did it in Book 4 when he followed Rand and the prophecy given to him, he did it in book 5 when he saved the Wetland troopers from being butchered by the Aiel, he did it with Olver, and he has done it with Nynaeve and Elayne on a few occasions and most recently with Tuon.

Goodkind is an arrogant prick and has no original thoughts.  All his books are simply soapboxes for the works of Ayn Rand.  Yet people continue to read his crap thinking it is so original.  He also claims his books aren't Fantasy but they just happen to have some fantasy elements in them blah blah blah.  Goodkind is a jackA$$.  He also has some weird rape fetish that he has to put in everyone of his books.  My guess would be that some girl broke up with him at some point and now he essentially has every female character he writes about get repeatedly raped throughout his books.  The man's got issues and his books suck.

This is exactly what I have been talking about.

And then kick seven kinds of crap out of her suldam.

Except if she were in a stedding or Far Madding she wouldn't be able to channel.

One of the main reasons why I love the Sword of Truth series is because it reflects my own values and likes/dislikes so much.

 

One of the main reasons why I didn't finish the Sword of Truth series is because it does not reflect my own values and likes/dislikes.

I touched on that in the same post, I believe.

Honestly, I am fine with reading a book by a person whose values show through into the book, even if they are contrary to my own. What I have a problem with--why I will not have a Goodkind book in my personal library or buy one with my own money--is when a "novelist" (or anyone who produces something) equates us liking (or disliking) their writing as meaning that we agree (or disagree) with their values. The parenthetic part is doubly bad, because that is almost like saying "Well, you just don't like my writing because I believe different from you. Not because of any fault of my own."

I'm no expert on what Terry has said outside his books, like in interviews and whatnot, so I will not be aware if he said any such thing. I have, however, had dealings with people who know Terry personally and who are experts on what Terry has said outside his books and I will quote for you a statement from the Terry Goodkind official forum owner, and personal friend of Terry:

Now if you read the new Q and A and philosophy sections, you will see that Terry is not trying to promote his philosophy with his books. It is there because it is part of his life, not because he wants everyone to be an objectivist.

EDIT: I just found this on his forum, its Terry's outline of his philosophy in relation to his story:

I am an Objectivist. Let me say right here, though, that my books are not intended to explain, advance, or promote Objectivism. My intent with my novels is simply to tell a good story. My Objectivist beliefs, however, guide what I think is a good story and how I tell it, just as every writer, whether they realize it or not, is guided by their philosophy. Because our outlook on life — our philosophy — governs our every action, it is essential to have a complete and integrated philosophy in order to live the fullest life possible.

This seems quite contrary to what you are saying the Sword of Truth is doing.

Furthermore, having been on that forum for over two years, I have also come into contact with people of all sorts of beliefs who love the books as much if not more than I do: atheists, agnostics, catholics, mormons, conservatives, liberals, anarchists, socialists, communists, objectivists, reasonists etc. I have heard someone from just about every belief system say that their beliefs in one way or another were reflected in the series.

While I agree that there is a particular set of values that is more overt than others (and communist sympathizers saying that it is reflected in the series is something I cannot wrap my head around), and that the values of the author are perhaps more obviously portrayed in the SoT series than in others, that still should not, IMO, detract from the story. All writings, even documents that are supposed to be completely devoid of bias and personal beliefs, will contain even the slightest bit of the person's beliefs/values, and in fantasy stories its more obvious. The reason is that all fantasy novels are about battles between good and evil, and the author has to define what good and evil is.

Heck, I would probably refuse to buy something made by someone with similar values, even, if they operated by that line of logic.

Even still, I have a bit of a pet peeve with people who use 'he's not original and doesn't accept his borrowing from others' as justification to completely slag him personally and his abilities as a writer.

 

Exclude "completely" from that:

 

"Even still, I have a bit of a pet peeve with people who use 'he's not original and doesn't accept his borrowing from others' as justification to completely slag him personally and his abilities as a writer."

 

If it were true that he borrowed (consciously) and didn't accept that, would it not be sufficient justification?

In my opinion? No, but as I've said before, I've studied much mythology and I've seen many stories from the last few centuries that have consciously borrowed and accepted it to varying degrees, and I don't hold it against any of them.

That's a valid point you raise. I had a few doses of the love potion back in high school, and I can relate (somewhat) to Kahlan and Richard. And I certainly don't mind a love story in whatever genre I am reading.

 

The thing is, though, while it may appear realistic, it can get annoying after a while (personal opinion). A bit fewer of those reminders, and the rest would have been enough to convince me that they are deeply in love. Too much of anything can ruin it, and that's what happened in this case. I can understand wanting to make a painting colorful, but if you stress a bit too much some of those colors, it could simply ruin it.

I think it could if you already didn't like seeing so much of it. I personally had no problems with the frequency of that sort of thing.

For the record, the love thing doesn't make him a bad writer in my eyes. I enjoyed quite a bit of his story. That he failed to see that the way he wrote the relationship could become tedious doesn't look good on his credentials, though, in my eyes.

Sorry, I was speaking in a general sense at that point and didn't mean for it to appear as if I was speaking directly to you.

But I digress; some people see it as tedious, others do not. Who is the author to write to? Personally, I think he should first and foremost write to himself. I'm sure that when he wrote it it didn't seem tedious to him. Maybe his editors said something and he overrode them, and maybe they didn't; either way it all comes down to something known as 'author's license'  ;D

And I could point out to you that while you think he is good because you can relate to it so much, it may not be so for others. Reverse the situation, think of a writer you may not like, then think of someone who likes her/him. Ultimately it's a personal thing.

Of course, I would not want to intentionally say that he's a good writer because I like him. I was trying to say that the quality of an author's writing ability or skill, rather than the end product itself being enjoyable or not, is something that cannot be judged by a person's bias.

But I think what most people complain about is his [percieved] lack of originality (him borrowing, and then not accepting that he borrowed).

And to be honest, I haven't seen many people who point out the relationship as a negative thing. Just a pet peeve of mine.

Bit of a different matter isn't it? ;)

Even still, I have a bit of a pet peeve with people who use 'he's not original and doesn't accept his borrowing from others' as justification to completely slag him personally and his abilities as a writer.

I should clarify, since I got caught with you for not doing so, that I am not confining this last statement with people on this forum alone. I have browsed many other forums and talked with other people, and there has been a small group of people whom I have encounter who exhibit what I am talking about.

On the topic of fantasy authors borrowing ideas from other sources, here's an interesting tid-bit about the Green Man:

http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/CeltPan.html

The Green Man One of the most ancient figures in European tradition, pre-dating perhaps even the Aryan invasions. He seems to be a God of vegetative strength, a masculine figure of fertility and life-energy. He is usually imaged as a large or giant male, clad entirely, or perhaps actually composed entirely, in green leaves. He appears on the fringes of popular awareness in a bewildering number of guises: his archetype may be recognized in as widely divergent sources as the central figure in the 14th century poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight on the one hand, and on the other as the basis behind the modern commercial image of the Jolly Green Giant.

No, no, it's not that I find it graphic ;D

 

You can't call that graphic if you have read GRRM's ASoIaF. Luckers came close to expressing what I mean.

The relationship itself doesn't bother me, rather it's the way they go about it. Every other page Richard is thinking about Kahlan, how he loves her, how he is nothing without her etc etc, and the same goes for her. They fill each other's minds to nearly the exclusion of everything else.

 

I mean we're bombarded with the fact that they are in love every other paragraph.

I for one could have done without those hourly reminders of their affair. Too much of it, is what I am trying to say.

 

Remind you of someone in WoT?

Ever been in love?

I have, or I should say I am, and my thoughts are almost exactly as described between Richard and Kahlan.

Now, part of the reason why I like the series and do not find the 'lovey-dovey' scenes between Richard and Kahlan may be because of the way I think of love and the way I have and still am experiencing it, while for you it is perhaps different and thus you may not relate to/appreciate that kind of thing in a story.

One of the main reasons why I love the Sword of Truth series is because it reflects my own values and likes/dislikes so much. If people don't like it because they are the opposite, I can understand that but I don't think that gives them an excuse to say that Terry is a bad writer.

I read the first 3 or 4 books of The Sword of Truth, and while i liked them i quickly realized that these books were The Wheel of Time, just not nearly as good. I stopped reading them soon after.

I think that if i would have read TSoT prior to WOT i would have liked them fine but after then were no comparison.

This is also pretty interesting, because I read the SOT series after WOT, and I liked it as much if not more. Other than a few superficial things - things unimportant to the actual story itself - I didn't find anything to be comparable to WOT other than the typical fantasy archetypes that I find in every fantasy book/story or myth I encounter.

I mean, when you read a fantasy story is it just the magical things and people that make it for you? Personally I'll always take the story and character development over the magic. The reason for that is, as I already stated, because the idea of magic has existed for thousands of years, and you're going to encounter similarities or exact borrowings of concepts.

But I could never stand the Richard-Kahlan relationship. That I found positively disgusting. >:(

 

If I want to read 'romance' I'll pick up Danielle Steel (I think that's her) or watch a cheap soap.

I find this statement rather interesting; how exactly do you find it disgusting? Is it too... graphic? Do you just find it out of place, or is this the kind of thing that you would call disgusting in any book or even real life? I mean, there's relationships akin to Richard-Kahlan in a sense in the Wheel of Time as well (Rand and his three SOs, Perrin and Faile, Nynaeve and Lan, Egwene and Gawyn even if its in her dreams only), do you find that disgusting or is it more toned down?

We've discussed whether or not it Goodkind is a liar, and there was no resolution to that.

 

But suffice to say that no matter where any of these ideas came from, the number of similarities makes it impossible for me (and a lot of people) to enjoy both series.

Out of curiosity, how many different fantasy series have you read, read and enjoyed, and which series was the first you ever read?

The problem I have with goofkind is not his numerous thefts from RJ, but that he is such an incredibly poor writer. He has the language of an illiterate 15 year old. A whiny little gothkid who desperatly wants to be "special" even though he can't even spell the word 'original'.

The beauty of subjectivity; you see a 'whiny little gothkid' who is an 'illiterate 15 year old', where I see a good writer who wove together a marvelous story.

You know, the Sword Of Truth books are rather good. Yes, Goodkind appears to have 'stolen' ideas, and maybe he's..borrowed..a few; but just you try and think of an idea for a story, then see how much looks copied from another book.

Every fantasy book is likely to have something in common. At least, that's what I've noticed. Of course; Sword of Truth will never, ever, be anywhere near as good as Wheel Of Time.

Jelly has it right.

People always say that SoT 'steals' ideas from WoT, and others say that WoT 'steals' ideas from LotR, and LotR in turn 'steals' many ideas from Celtic Myth and Folklore (a little known fact is that Tolkien was a Celtic Philologist; thats where he got his inspiration for all his languages; that and old Norse and old English).

# 1 the main character finds out his father is not his father,

That's not an uncommon motif in myth/folklore or fantasy

there are no men that can use magic alive anymore,

Actually there is. The idea is that they are dying out, whereas in WoT men are actually VERY numerous as we find out when Rand starts recruiting them.

the main female magic character is called the mother confessor,

I fail to see how this was a theft from WoT...

his sword is magic and can cut through anything,

Again, magic swords that can cut through anything is something that is EXTREMELY ancient. If you accuse Goodkind of theft in that manner you'll also have to include Robert Jordab.

anger is what gives him his power,

Again, how is this a theft from WoT?

the evil is called the nammless one,

That, again, is a common mythological and folk motif

the sisters of the light live for a very very long time,

First of all, they can live for 1000 years as opposed to a few hundred tops, and second of all that is because of a magic spell on the palace they house not because their being magical extends their lifespan, and third of all once again people living for such a long time is an ancient idea in myth and folktales.

there castle is on an island,

There's lots of castles on islands... not only in myth but in reality.

they hold male magic useers prisoner,

They are not technically 'prisoners' in the conventional sense, they keep them there to teach them how to use their gift so they don't die.

they use collars to control them,

Another common motif

there are a group of people called the blood of the fold that wear shinning silver armor and blood red capes that believe they are acting on the better good by killing everything with magic.

Witch trials? Fairy changelings (for you Gaels out there)? These all reflect actual historical and mythological motifs, Goodkind isn't the only one who's 'stealing' these things.

the list goes on and on driveing me nuts, oh and he just got his own group of female body gurads. the author is terry goodkind and i do like the story but my god is it agrivateing.

It's funny... I read WoT before SoT, and as I was reading it I had a similar reaction only I saw Jordan as stealing all these ideas and such from Tolkien. I thought all those things: "Jordan doesn't have an original thought in his head," etc etc. I still read the whole series, such as it was. Eventually I came to two realizations:

1) I started reading other series, like SoT, and started studying myth and folktales, and I realized just how common some of these ideas and motifs were.

2) I realized that these 'copied' ideas were but a drop of water in a bathtub compared to all the other original and innovative ideas.

So Jordan might have copied or borrowed a few things (Fades, ravens being used as spies, many names and character motifs from Arthurian myths) but he also used them differently and in new ways, and he created many different things like shadowspawn (except the Fades) that were original. Goodkind might have borrowed some ideas, but he also used them in different ways, and created new things like confessors, gars, mriswith, witch women, dreamwalkers etc.

So if you're going to judge a story by its originality, you might want to look deeper than the superficial surface and delve into the things that mean more to the story. Either that, or judge it more on the quality of the story by itself. By keeping an open mind you'll enjoy yourself much more. This isn't to say you shouldn't take note of such things, just that you shouldn't make such a big deal about it, or let it ruin the story for you.