Options

Legend of the Seeker: Look upon me book continuity, and despair.

12357

Posts

  • Options
    DibsDibs Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    At least we agree on something.

    Any professional sport that has a sudden death gimmick that does not mirror the way the real game is played is ludicrous. What kind of evil commissioner who is not a commissioner thought up the NHL shootout? Outrageous. Your thoughts on NFL OT?

    Dibs on
  • Options
    Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    The wrong Terry got alzheimers.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Options
    A Dabble Of TheloniusA Dabble Of Thelonius It has been a doozy of a dayRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    NFL OT is an abortion.

    That being said, I'll stop derailing the thread now.

    Carry on.

    A Dabble Of Thelonius on
    vm8gvf5p7gqi.jpg
    Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
  • Options
    valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Bloods End wrote: »
    see317 wrote: »
    Dibs wrote: »
    Also, the whole tone is off. It'd be one thing if Richard killing the unarmed protesters was treated as a tragedy, a necessary evil that he loathed doing but couldn't prevent. Instead, the atmosphere is "fuck yeah, get those worthless hippies."
    Except that, in context, it reads as brainwashed people acting as human shields for their oppressors. Whatever.

    I've never seen so much concentrated negativity in my life. Why don't one of you literary critics suggest a fantasy series worth reading? Should I dredge through entire chapters of singing in LoTR in order to appreciate TRUE GENIUS?

    The man wrote a solid series with a few weak books. Stop sniping.
    I'd recomend you pick up the Acts of Caine by Matt Stover as a good fantasy series.
    Hell, I'd recomend the latest Drizzt dreck before SoT.

    Acts of Caine are so fucking good oh my god.

    :^: this is right
    I don't know why they're not more popular or well known. It makes me sad.

    free Matt Stover short stories:
    Brer robert: http://www.fantasticmetropolis.com/i/robert/
    In the sorrows: http://www.desertwords.com/fiction/inthesorrows.html

    valiance on
  • Options
    DaxonDaxon Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Okay, the "let's kill the hippies passage" is just a transparent attempt to provide an analogy for anti-war protesters in our time. Of course Goodkind provides "justification" in the context of the world he creates; he's trying to justify the idea that America is fighting a righteous war and those who protest against it are brainwashed, deluded hippies who are such a barrier to justice that they should in fact be killed. It's not even depicted as something to regret, or a tragedy, it's depicted as glorious meting out of justice and people getting what they deserve. It's Goodkind doing what he always does: taking his personal, extreme philosophy and trying to justify it by creating a fantasy world analogous to our own and demonstrating how right he is. Except that even in that world Richard is a horrible tyrant, and the people who think he isn't seem brainwashed and deluded.

    It's an articulation of Goodkind's twisted fantasy of killing and brutalizing anyone who disagrees with him or his philosophy, which is played out time and time again throughout the series.

    Even while drunk, which I am, I understand and completely agree with you. Terry Goodkind is a bad man in every way you could ever think of.

    Edit: About Acts of Caine, I think I might read them cause of this thread. Reading The Blade Itself by Joe Abercrombie at the moment, it's really good if anyone is interested.

    Daxon on
  • Options
    TamTam Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    The wrong Terry got alzheimers.

    Man don't joke about that kind of shit

    it makes me sadder every time I read/hear it.

    Tam on
  • Options
    DaxonDaxon Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    So I watched the newest episode of this show.. I'm pretty sure there never was a mapmaker that made maps that tracked the seeker. You know.. if it continues down this path then the show could turn out alright and a lot more like Xena/Hercules really... Which would be pretty damn cool.

    Acting is still a bit painful, and the fight scenes are still like something out of the matrix o_O

    Edit: At least Richard doesn't seem to be the "KILL THE EVIL DEFENCELESS WAR PROTESTERS" type in the tv series. He might, you know, have some humanity in him..

    Daxon on
  • Options
    toastergargletoptoastergargletop Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Dibs wrote: »


    To whoever puts Wheel of Time above Sword of Truth has a lot more patience than I do. Jordan's writing is intolerably slow, and I don't think anything has happened in three books - I will keep reading though, because while he does prattle on about the scenery and stupid gender bantering, the first three books were good enough for me to want to know how it's going to end.

    well, how it ends is like this: ROBERT JORDAN DIES BEFORE FINISHING THE LAST BOOK.

    thats not a joke. i got the first 3 WOT books in the early-mid 90's some time. as a trilogy. that ass hat has taken up so much of my time, and his books get worse and worse. he brings back bad guys from the dead, so there is still a bunch of Forsaken for him to kill before it finishes........ugh. i will finish it, though i do with great effort.

    anyway, i actually am a fan of the sword of truth series. i dont care about the parallels between RL and his fantasy world, because i am just trying to immerse myself in a fantasy book. so if he was trying to get me to think about world issues he fucked up. sorry dude.

    i would be interested to know just how many people here have actually perserverd an read the whole lot to date, or if they just gave up?

    toastergargletop on
  • Options
    see317see317 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Daxon wrote: »
    So I watched the newest episode of this show.. I'm pretty sure there never was a mapmaker that made maps that tracked the seeker. You know.. if it continues down this path then the show could turn out alright and a lot more like Xena/Hercules really... Which would be pretty damn cool.

    Acting is still a bit painful, and the fight scenes are still like something out of the matrix o_O

    Edit: At least Richard doesn't seem to be the "KILL THE EVIL DEFENCELESS WAR PROTESTERS" type in the tv series. He might, you know, have some humanity in him..
    IIRC, he wasn't like that in the beginning of the first book either. IIRC, he didn't really delve into dickishness until late 2nd or early 3rd book. Aside from kicking the little girl in the face, that happened in the first book, but she had it coming so some amount of dickishness could be allowed.

    Granted, it's been a while since I've read the books.

    see317 on
  • Options
    Bloods EndBloods End Blade of Tyshalle Punch dimensionRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Daxon wrote: »
    Edit: About Acts of Caine, I think I might read them cause of this thread. Reading The Blade Itself by Joe Abercrombie at the moment, it's really good if anyone is interested.

    When you do start, prepare to have you balls rocked off.

    Bloods End on
  • Options
    setrajonassetrajonas Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    What was this prostitution train people were talking about on page 1? I don't remember that, and I read up through Pillars of Creation.

    setrajonas on
  • Options
    AnarchiaAnarchia Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    setrajonas wrote: »
    What was this prostitution train people were talking about on page 1? I don't remember that, and I read up through Pillars of Creation.

    It was the Sylph or whatever. She was basically a magic well lady that could transport you incredibly long distances by taking you into her quicksilver body and carrying you through underground tunnels to another magic well.

    The reason she's a prostitute, is that, well, she's a prostitute. She was one a really long time ago, and got turned into a magic creature because all the wizards kept banging her and got upset when she wouldn't tell one of them who else she was banging. This carried over by having her constantly talk about "serving her master," and "wanting to bring her master pleasure." When Richard is inside of her, everything is pure ecstasy and rainbows.

    Anarchia on
    SteamID : LizWiz
  • Options
    RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Balefuego wrote: »
    To be fair Tolkien's prose is not very good, it's dry and longwinded.

    But he wasn't really a writer anyway, so its forgiveable.

    Retract man! Retract!

    As they say in rustic circles, Tolkiens prose has the "mad skillz". British authors who grew up in the years prior to WWI tend to have a way with words that is exceedingly rare afterwords. Neil Gaimon on a good day comes close but not quite there.

    If you want an example of those kinds of skills without the length of LOTR check out Alexander Lloyds books.

    RiemannLives on
    Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
  • Options
    EriosErios Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Echo wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    The sport you love so much involves cutting the heads off of the losers. That is not creating a believable world.

    That's what I call rapid team turnover rate.

    Also, to be fair (I think Goodkind is mindless and if you don't pay too much attention the first few books at least are decent...things go bad in the third one): the Maya would like to have a word with you about the unbelievable world thing.

    Popular myth. It was a ritual reenactment of their creation cycle regarding the struggle between the hero twins and the underworld. Loser sacrificed self willingly. Source: Terry D'Altroy, Professor, Columbia University. (We were literally just talking about this misconception before I posted)

    Erios on
    Steam: erios23, Live: Coconut Flavor, Origin: erios2386.
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited November 2008
    It is a stretch to say that Richard kills anyone he disagrees with.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Balefuego wrote: »
    To be fair Tolkien's prose is not very good, it's dry and longwinded.

    But he wasn't really a writer anyway, so its forgiveable.

    Retract man! Retract!

    As they say in rustic circles, Tolkiens prose has the "mad skillz". British authors who grew up in the years prior to WWI tend to have a way with words that is exceedingly rare afterwords. Neil Gaimon on a good day comes close but not quite there.

    If you want an example of those kinds of skills without the length of LOTR check out Alexander Lloyds books.

    I've read Alexander Llyod and Neil Gaiman

    I dont see the Tolkien comparisons at all.

    and to toast: I gave up on the Sword of Truth book after the 6th or 7th, and the Wheel of Time books I've read the first 10, I bought the 11th when it came out and still havent read it and dont really have a desire to anymore.

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Balefuego wrote: »
    Balefuego wrote: »
    To be fair Tolkien's prose is not very good, it's dry and longwinded.

    But he wasn't really a writer anyway, so its forgiveable.

    Retract man! Retract!

    As they say in rustic circles, Tolkiens prose has the "mad skillz". British authors who grew up in the years prior to WWI tend to have a way with words that is exceedingly rare afterwords. Neil Gaimon on a good day comes close but not quite there.

    If you want an example of those kinds of skills without the length of LOTR check out Alexander Lloyds books.

    I've read Alexander Llyod and Neil Gaiman

    I dont see the Tolkien comparisons at all.

    and to toast: I gave up on the Sword of Truth book after the 6th or 7th, and the Wheel of Time books I've read the first 10, I bought the 11th when it came out and still havent read it and dont really have a desire to anymore.

    Oddly enough, from what I hear, book 11 manages to cover a lot of ground and tie a lot of shit up.

    Jragghen on
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I've never understood why fantasy series get so ridiculously huge.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning LoserdomRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    It is a stretch to say that Richard kills anyone he disagrees with.

    Only a bit of one. Like, when I get up on my toes to see the top of the fridge.

    Let's see here...
    His friend Giles (and Giles' horrid bitch of a girlfriend, Lucy Fleckner). Berdine and Rikka (whom he disapproved of for being lesbians; that's fine, though, because Rikka died in the plague). Several Sisters of the Light, most specifically the Prelate (but she was killed in the final book by an Imperial sorceress). Anyone he disagreed with whom his endless fucking monologues manage to convince. ...hmm. I'm pretty much tapped out after that.
    I've never understood why fantasy series get so ridiculously huge.

    It's not all fantasy series. It's just the ones where the early books sell well. i.e. Money.

    Shadowen on
  • Options
    JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    It is a stretch to say that Richard kills anyone he disagrees with.

    Only a bit of one. Like, when I get up on my toes to see the top of the fridge.

    Let's see here...
    His friend Giles (and Giles' horrid bitch of a girlfriend, Lucy Fleckner). Berdine and Rikka (whom he disapproved of for being lesbians; that's fine, though, because Rikka died in the plague). Several Sisters of the Light, most specifically the Prelate (but she was killed in the final book by an Imperial sorceress). Anyone he disagreed with whom his endless fucking monologues manage to convince. ...hmm. I'm pretty much tapped out after that.
    I've never understood why fantasy series get so ridiculously huge.

    It's not all fantasy series. It's just the ones where the early books sell well. i.e. Money.

    Alternatively, some (Malazan) are planned that way and stay that way - from the first book to the last it's always been planned as 10 novels. Of course, now they're talking about further suplemental works in the same universe, but the actual "story" was always at ten novels.

    I think it's mostly that a lot of fantasy authors are busy thinking "epic story!" which can't be told in a single, or a few novels. Then add in the flowery prose that seems to be exclusive to the genre, and you've got a lot of padded novels which end up stretching it out further.

    For all the joking, even if you strip out the useless stuff, Wheel of Time would have to have 1000+ page books to fit it into a trilogy, for example.

    Jragghen on
  • Options
    ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning LoserdomRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Jragghen wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    I've never understood why fantasy series get so ridiculously huge.

    It's not all fantasy series. It's just the ones where the early books sell well. i.e. Money.

    Alternatively, some (Malazan) are planned that way and stay that way - from the first book to the last it's always been planned as 10 novels. Of course, now they're talking about further suplemental works in the same universe, but the actual "story" was always at ten novels.

    I think it's mostly that a lot of fantasy authors are busy thinking "epic story!" which can't be told in a single, or a few novels. Then add in the flowery prose that seems to be exclusive to the genre, and you've got a lot of padded novels which end up stretching it out further.

    For all the joking, even if you strip out the useless stuff, Wheel of Time would have to have 1000+ page books to fit it into a trilogy, for example.

    True enough, though it varies from author to author. Goodkind claimed roundabout the middle of the series that he had no planned endpoint; he would end the series when he came up with one. (I used to be a big fan. Much like my faith, fandom waned when I found myself unable to reconcile the implications of some of the "scripture".) Naomi Novik (who writes Temeraire, an awesome series) says she has a planned endpoint, expecting to be done by the ninth book, though she has not made any promises. Martin started A Song of Ice and Fire as a trilogy (notice a pattern...?), by the second book realized it would have to be at least six books, and now claims to have locked himself in to seven. Harry Potter was planned from the start to be seven books telling the main story; all other books relate to the series have been supplemental material--textbooks, fairy tales, and so on. Pratchett, I think, will keep writing Discworld till he can't--it seems that as long as he has opinions on some aspect of modern life that can be told via allegory in a comedic fantasy universe, the Disc will keep spinning, and I am happier for it. Brooks has started linking Shannara to the modern era recently; maybe once he gets the full "future world to Four Lands" thing plotted out he'll stop, but I've heard no such plans.

    I'm not so sure about the Wheel of Time point, though. There were a lot of useless plot points in that series. If you want to keep the plot points as they were told intact, fine, but if you excise all the subplots that were pure padding, for example, not just redundant phrases which I swear Jordan had macroed on his Word Processor, and go with the core story of the three Ta'veren trying to save the world, you might be able to compress it into a fast-paced trilogy.

    Shadowen on
  • Options
    ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    10 planned? Sheesh. From my media consumption it seems to me different formats have ideal lengths. TV and Comics, 5 years (75-100 episodes/60 issues); movies, standalone, trilogy, or series of standalones (like Bond) and books...the only series longer than 3 that have worked for me are standalones, like Discworld. After that they tend to turn to crap.

    Scooter on
  • Options
    setrajonassetrajonas Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Anarchia wrote: »
    setrajonas wrote: »
    What was this prostitution train people were talking about on page 1? I don't remember that, and I read up through Pillars of Creation.

    It was the Sylph or whatever. She was basically a magic well lady that could transport you incredibly long distances by taking you into her quicksilver body and carrying you through underground tunnels to another magic well.

    The reason she's a prostitute, is that, well, she's a prostitute. She was one a really long time ago, and got turned into a magic creature because all the wizards kept banging her and got upset when she wouldn't tell one of them who else she was banging. This carried over by having her constantly talk about "serving her master," and "wanting to bring her master pleasure." When Richard is inside of her, everything is pure ecstasy and rainbows.
    Oh, yea, I completely forgot about that thing. Probably because it was one of the lesser offenses in the series. All I can remember at the moment is coercive magic that involves cutting off one of a person's nipples or something.
    Jragghen wrote:
    Oddly enough, from what I hear, book 11 manages to cover a lot of ground and tie a lot of shit up.
    WoT 11 is a huge step up from the 10th book. I mean, the 10th is probably universally considered the worst of the series in terms of nothing happening, but things actually happen in 11 and I definitely enjoyed it quite a bit.

    setrajonas on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited November 2008
    Shadowen wrote: »
    His friend Giles (and Giles' horrid bitch of a girlfriend, Lucy Fleckner). Berdine and Rikka (whom he disapproved of for being lesbians; that's fine, though, because Rikka died in the plague). Several Sisters of the Light, most specifically the Prelate (but she was killed in the final book by an Imperial sorceress). Anyone he disagreed with whom his endless fucking monologues manage to convince. ...hmm. I'm pretty much tapped out after that.

    Excuse me? Just about all of that is terribly off.
    First of all, the discussion line was "Does Richard kill the people with whom he disagrees". He didn't kill Giles or Giles' wife. He didn't kill Berdine or Rikka. Further, the context in which Giles was introduced was Richard saying he'd always regretted the fact that they were no longer friends. And Richard tells Berdine and Rikka that despite him not understanding their attraction, he accepts them as friends.

    What horribly unjust things does he do to the Prelate and the rest of the Sisters of the Light?

    You're 'tapped out' and yet you still haven't provided one of the countless examples of Richard killing innocents for disagreeing with him.

    A lot of ya'll are reaching at straws, IMO.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    BalefuegoBalefuego Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I've never understood why fantasy series get so ridiculously huge.

    I think the reason is because of thier serialized nature. The author could have a plan for a 3 book series but maybe halfway through book 2 he thinks of something better, except now thats gonna add an extra book.

    Or what more likely happens is they get to a certain point and they realize thier plan dosen't work, so they have to fix it somehow - only that first book (or first few books) are already publishes so he's locked into a situation he dosen't know how to get out of.

    And yes there's also the money thing, if the first book or 2 sell huge then suddenly the author can think "people love these, now I can add all this other stuff I liked but couldn't fit in before!"

    Balefuego on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    valiancevaliance Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Bloods End wrote: »
    Daxon wrote: »
    Edit: About Acts of Caine, I think I might read them cause of this thread. Reading The Blade Itself by Joe Abercrombie at the moment, it's really good if anyone is interested.

    When you do start, prepare to have you balls rocked off.

    'it will dropkick you in every neuron you own"

    valiance on
  • Options
    ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning LoserdomRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    His friend Giles (and Giles' horrid bitch of a girlfriend, Lucy Fleckner). Berdine and Rikka (whom he disapproved of for being lesbians; that's fine, though, because Rikka died in the plague). Several Sisters of the Light, most specifically the Prelate (but she was killed in the final book by an Imperial sorceress). Anyone he disagreed with whom his endless fucking monologues manage to convince. ...hmm. I'm pretty much tapped out after that.

    Excuse me? Just about all of that is terribly off.
    First of all, the discussion line was "Does Richard kill the people with whom he disagrees". He didn't kill Giles or Giles' wife. He didn't kill Berdine or Rikka. Further, the context in which Giles was introduced was Richard saying he'd always regretted the fact that they were no longer friends. And Richard tells Berdine and Rikka that despite him not understanding their attraction, he accepts them as friends.

    What horribly unjust things does he do to the Prelate and the rest of the Sisters of the Light?

    You're 'tapped out' and yet you still haven't provided one of the countless examples of Richard killing innocents for disagreeing with him.

    A lot of ya'll are reaching at straws, IMO.

    EDIT to remove insult.

    My descriptions were the only exceptions I could think of. At any other point, where he disagrees on someone about something he considers to be important, and when he's right and they don't convince him he's wrong, he kills 'em. Eventually.

    Shadowen on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited November 2008
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    His friend Giles (and Giles' horrid bitch of a girlfriend, Lucy Fleckner). Berdine and Rikka (whom he disapproved of for being lesbians; that's fine, though, because Rikka died in the plague). Several Sisters of the Light, most specifically the Prelate (but she was killed in the final book by an Imperial sorceress). Anyone he disagreed with whom his endless fucking monologues manage to convince. ...hmm. I'm pretty much tapped out after that.

    Excuse me? Just about all of that is terribly off.
    First of all, the discussion line was "Does Richard kill the people with whom he disagrees". He didn't kill Giles or Giles' wife. He didn't kill Berdine or Rikka. Further, the context in which Giles was introduced was Richard saying he'd always regretted the fact that they were no longer friends. And Richard tells Berdine and Rikka that despite him not understanding their attraction, he accepts them as friends.

    What horribly unjust things does he do to the Prelate and the rest of the Sisters of the Light?

    You're 'tapped out' and yet you still haven't provided one of the countless examples of Richard killing innocents for disagreeing with him.

    A lot of ya'll are reaching at straws, IMO.

    My descriptions were the only exceptions I could think of. At any other point, where he disagrees on someone about something he considers to be important, and when he's right and they don't convince him he's wrong, he kills 'em. Eventually.

    So make with the examples, please. One has (arguably) already been pointed out: the relish with which he tears into the anti-war protesters, reminiscent of the "rich people dying on a train in a tunnel" scene in Atlas Shrugged. Ok, I'll take that as the one 'example'.

    I'd just like to hear about the dozens of others that plague the million+ word long series that make it "rife" with indicriminate murder.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning LoserdomRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    His friend Giles (and Giles' horrid bitch of a girlfriend, Lucy Fleckner). Berdine and Rikka (whom he disapproved of for being lesbians; that's fine, though, because Rikka died in the plague). Several Sisters of the Light, most specifically the Prelate (but she was killed in the final book by an Imperial sorceress). Anyone he disagreed with whom his endless fucking monologues manage to convince. ...hmm. I'm pretty much tapped out after that.

    Excuse me? Just about all of that is terribly off.
    First of all, the discussion line was "Does Richard kill the people with whom he disagrees". He didn't kill Giles or Giles' wife. He didn't kill Berdine or Rikka. Further, the context in which Giles was introduced was Richard saying he'd always regretted the fact that they were no longer friends. And Richard tells Berdine and Rikka that despite him not understanding their attraction, he accepts them as friends.

    What horribly unjust things does he do to the Prelate and the rest of the Sisters of the Light?

    You're 'tapped out' and yet you still haven't provided one of the countless examples of Richard killing innocents for disagreeing with him.

    A lot of ya'll are reaching at straws, IMO.

    My descriptions were the only exceptions I could think of. At any other point, where he disagrees on someone about something he considers to be important, and when he's right and they don't convince him he's wrong, he kills 'em. Eventually.

    So make with the examples, please. One has (arguably) already been pointed out: the relish with which he tears into the anti-war protesters, reminiscent of the "rich people dying on a train in a tunnel" scene in Atlas Shrugged. Ok, I'll take that as the one 'example'.

    I'd just like to hear about the dozens of others that plague the million+ word long series that make it "rife" with indicriminate murder.

    How about no?

    I hate this series. I'm not going to go trawling through books I hate in order to confirm what is plainly obvious: every important character with a name that Richard disagrees with on any kind of moral issue, he kills. The exceptions have already been listed.

    Oh, and Shota, whom he was too much of a pussy to kill even when she threatened the love of his life.

    But as the grand example:
    While he doesn't kill them personally, in the final book of the series he has everyone who doesn't think as he does banished to a world where, when they die, there is no afterlife as there is known to be in his world: just oblivion, without even offering the option of knowing what they're choosing. Just "Do you want to live in a world with magic? No? Okay, you go here. Enjoy your dark ages." With his infinite power, he could say, "This is the objective truth of the world. Would you like to live in this world or one more to your liking?" But no, he just says, "Spellcasting or non? Non? All right, have a happy oblivion."

    Shadowen on
  • Options
    BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    His friend Giles (and Giles' horrid bitch of a girlfriend, Lucy Fleckner). Berdine and Rikka (whom he disapproved of for being lesbians; that's fine, though, because Rikka died in the plague). Several Sisters of the Light, most specifically the Prelate (but she was killed in the final book by an Imperial sorceress). Anyone he disagreed with whom his endless fucking monologues manage to convince. ...hmm. I'm pretty much tapped out after that.

    Excuse me? Just about all of that is terribly off.
    First of all, the discussion line was "Does Richard kill the people with whom he disagrees". He didn't kill Giles or Giles' wife. He didn't kill Berdine or Rikka. Further, the context in which Giles was introduced was Richard saying he'd always regretted the fact that they were no longer friends. And Richard tells Berdine and Rikka that despite him not understanding their attraction, he accepts them as friends.

    What horribly unjust things does he do to the Prelate and the rest of the Sisters of the Light?

    You're 'tapped out' and yet you still haven't provided one of the countless examples of Richard killing innocents for disagreeing with him.

    A lot of ya'll are reaching at straws, IMO.

    My descriptions were the only exceptions I could think of. At any other point, where he disagrees on someone about something he considers to be important, and when he's right and they don't convince him he's wrong, he kills 'em. Eventually.

    So make with the examples, please. One has (arguably) already been pointed out: the relish with which he tears into the anti-war protesters, reminiscent of the "rich people dying on a train in a tunnel" scene in Atlas Shrugged. Ok, I'll take that as the one 'example'.

    I'd just like to hear about the dozens of others that plague the million+ word long series that make it "rife" with indicriminate murder.

    “We must fight the war our way. We must fight it for what it really is—not armies on a field of battle acting as surrogates for ideas, but a war for the future of mankind.
    “As such, it is a war in which the Old World is totally committed, in which everyone on their side has dedicated themselves to the struggle. They are passionate about their cause. They believe in what they are doing. They think they have right on their side, that they are acting morally, that they are fulfilling the Creator’s wishes, and so they are justified in murdering whoever they wish in order to define how mankind will live. […]
    “All the people who believe in the ways of the Order, who contribute, who encourage, who support, who pray for their soldiers to crush us, are part of their war effort. Each of those people adds something to their cause. As such, they are just as much the enemy as the soldiers swinging the swords for them. They are the ones who feed their blades with a supply of young men and everything they need to come after us, from food to moral support and encouragement.”
    Richard pointed south. “In fact, those people who make this war possible are perhaps even more of an enemy because each one is a silent enabler who wishes us harm from afar, who hates by choice, who believes that there is no consequence for them forcing their will on us.
    […] He drew his hands into fists. “We must bring this war home to the people who support and encourage it. It must not simply be the lives of our friends, our families, our loved ones who are thrown into the bloody cauldron these people of the Old World stoke. It must now be their lives as well.
    “They see this as a struggle for the future of mankind. I intend to see that it is. I want them to fully understand that if they set out to murder and subjugate us-for whatever reason-then there will be consequences.
    “From this day forward, we will fight a real war, a total war, a war without mercy. We will not impose pointless rules on ourselves about what is ‘fair.’ Our only mandate is to win. That is the only way we, our loved ones, our freedom will survive. Our victory is all that is moral. I want any supporter of the Order to pay the price for their aggression. I want them to pay with their fortunes, their future, their very lives.
    “The time has come to go after these people with nothing but cold black rage in our hearts.”
    Richard lifted a fist. “Crush their bones to blood and dust!”
    There was a moment of silence as everyone took a collective breath, and then a thunderous cheer erupted, as if they had all secretly known that they had no chance to succeed and that they were doomed to face only death and failure in the end, but now they had been shown that there was a way. There was, at last, a real chance to save their homes and loved ones, to save the future.
    […] “The army of the Order has the support of the people of their homeland. The soldiers of the Order each know that their families, friends, and neighbors support them. The men of the Order need to hear from those back in the Old World. What I want the men of the Order to hear are wails of agony. I want them to know that their homes are being gutted, their cities and towns leveled, their businesses and crops destroyed, and their loved ones left with nothing.
    […] We must deny them those supplies they need to survive here in such numbers. We must cut that vital link. If the Imperial Order’s soldiers starve to death they are just as dead. […]
    “Also, the recruits coming up from the south will be much more vulnerable since they will not yet have joined up with experienced men, or be in massive numbers. They are poorly trained and little more than young thugs going off to rape and pillage. Slaughter them before they go north and have the chance….Seeing the bodies of these young heroes-to-be rotting on their doorsteps will help us crush the spirit of the people of the Old World.”


    You either live in the New World or we're going to murder you.

    Brolo on
  • Options
    setrajonassetrajonas Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    His friend Giles (and Giles' horrid bitch of a girlfriend, Lucy Fleckner). Berdine and Rikka (whom he disapproved of for being lesbians; that's fine, though, because Rikka died in the plague). Several Sisters of the Light, most specifically the Prelate (but she was killed in the final book by an Imperial sorceress). Anyone he disagreed with whom his endless fucking monologues manage to convince. ...hmm. I'm pretty much tapped out after that.

    Excuse me? Just about all of that is terribly off.
    First of all, the discussion line was "Does Richard kill the people with whom he disagrees". He didn't kill Giles or Giles' wife. He didn't kill Berdine or Rikka. Further, the context in which Giles was introduced was Richard saying he'd always regretted the fact that they were no longer friends. And Richard tells Berdine and Rikka that despite him not understanding their attraction, he accepts them as friends.

    What horribly unjust things does he do to the Prelate and the rest of the Sisters of the Light?

    You're 'tapped out' and yet you still haven't provided one of the countless examples of Richard killing innocents for disagreeing with him.

    A lot of ya'll are reaching at straws, IMO.

    My descriptions were the only exceptions I could think of. At any other point, where he disagrees on someone about something he considers to be important, and when he's right and they don't convince him he's wrong, he kills 'em. Eventually.

    So make with the examples, please. One has (arguably) already been pointed out: the relish with which he tears into the anti-war protesters, reminiscent of the "rich people dying on a train in a tunnel" scene in Atlas Shrugged. Ok, I'll take that as the one 'example'.

    I'd just like to hear about the dozens of others that plague the million+ word long series that make it "rife" with indicriminate murder.
    All the people who believe in the ways of the Order, who contribute, who encourage, who support, who pray for their soldiers to crush us, are part of their war effort. Each of those people adds something to their cause. As such, they are just as much the enemy as the soldiers swinging the swords for them. They are the ones who feed their blades with a supply of young men and everything they need to come after us, from food to moral support and encouragement.”
    Richard pointed south. “In fact, those people who make this war possible are perhaps even more of an enemy because each one is a silent enabler who wishes us harm from afar, who hates by choice, who believes that there is no consequence for them forcing their will on us.
    Captian Zimmer stood tall. "Thank you, Lord Rahl, for allowing me and my men to rid the world of those who preach this poison."
    "There's one other thing I'd like you and your men to do for me."
    "Yes, Lord Rahl?"
    "Bring me their ears."
    Captain Zimmer smiled as he put a fist to his heart. "There will be no escape or mercy for them, Lord Rahl. I will bring you proof."
    “The attackers made no move to slaughter the escaping refugees if they offered no armed resistance, but they made it quite clear to the fleeing people that they intended to lay waste to all of the Old World and anyone who supports the Imperial Order.
    “The soldiers told the people that it is the Order and their beliefs that has brought this strife upon them, and who will bring them and their land to ruin. The soldiers vowed that they would haunt the people of the Old World into their graves and then into the darkest corners of the underworld if they did not give up the teaching of the Order and their belligerent ways that flowed from those teachings.”

    Edit: Blah, beat on the first one.

    setrajonas on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited November 2008
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Shadowen wrote: »
    His friend Giles (and Giles' horrid bitch of a girlfriend, Lucy Fleckner). Berdine and Rikka (whom he disapproved of for being lesbians; that's fine, though, because Rikka died in the plague). Several Sisters of the Light, most specifically the Prelate (but she was killed in the final book by an Imperial sorceress). Anyone he disagreed with whom his endless fucking monologues manage to convince. ...hmm. I'm pretty much tapped out after that.

    Excuse me? Just about all of that is terribly off.
    First of all, the discussion line was "Does Richard kill the people with whom he disagrees". He didn't kill Giles or Giles' wife. He didn't kill Berdine or Rikka. Further, the context in which Giles was introduced was Richard saying he'd always regretted the fact that they were no longer friends. And Richard tells Berdine and Rikka that despite him not understanding their attraction, he accepts them as friends.

    What horribly unjust things does he do to the Prelate and the rest of the Sisters of the Light?

    You're 'tapped out' and yet you still haven't provided one of the countless examples of Richard killing innocents for disagreeing with him.

    A lot of ya'll are reaching at straws, IMO.

    My descriptions were the only exceptions I could think of. At any other point, where he disagrees on someone about something he considers to be important, and when he's right and they don't convince him he's wrong, he kills 'em. Eventually.

    So make with the examples, please. One has (arguably) already been pointed out: the relish with which he tears into the anti-war protesters, reminiscent of the "rich people dying on a train in a tunnel" scene in Atlas Shrugged. Ok, I'll take that as the one 'example'.

    I'd just like to hear about the dozens of others that plague the million+ word long series that make it "rife" with indicriminate murder.

    How about no?

    I hate this series. I'm not going to go trawling through books I hate in order to confirm what is plainly obvious: every important character with a name that Richard disagrees with on any kind of moral issue, he kills. The exceptions have already been listed.

    Oh, and Shota, whom he was too much of a pussy to kill even when she threatened the love of his life.

    But as the grand example:
    While he doesn't kill them personally, in the final book of the series he has everyone who doesn't think as he does banished to a world where, when they die, there is no afterlife as there is known to be in his world: just oblivion, without even offering the option of knowing what they're choosing. Just "Do you want to live in a world with magic? No? Okay, you go here. Enjoy your dark ages." With his infinite power, he could say, "This is the objective truth of the world. Would you like to live in this world or one more to your liking?" But no, he just says, "Spellcasting or non? Non? All right, have a happy oblivion."

    Ah, the always convenient "there are so many examples that my brain's actually overloaded and I can't quite remember any of them" excuse... which is ironic considering that two of the characters in your 'examples of exceptions' appeared on one page only- of one of the books. So is your memory incredibly selective or what?

    To your spoiler: how is that indiscriminate murder? A large mass of people said "we want this, we'll kill for this, we'll help people kill for this, we'll feed people who kill for this, we'll pray for people who kill for this"; you're bitching because he gave them that, and allowed them to live out the rest of their natural lives living in that world for which they strived... rather than just killing them all?





    Rolo: are you kidding, dude? One of the quotes there is essentially: "ok these are angry young men coming to murder and rape the women. Let's kill them before they do that". Is that supposed to be indicative of Richard being a mindless emulation of Caligula? And why are you using the example of "kill their supply base" as... something indicating an indiscriminate mass murderer? These are people enabling rape and slaughter of an innocent populace. Also it's incredibly obvious, it being a fantasy world, that he's caricaturing "people who support their cause" and "people who don't". I think it's an absurd case of "seeing what you want to see" to think he's actually consigning to death people who live in secluded villas who have nothing to do with the war effort. Frankly I didn't really see anything in your post that supports the claims that people are making.





    setrajonas: you, too. What there is damning? That the New World wants their soldiers to fight brutally and send a message?





    "Here is an example of the author advocating killing people" is nothing like the bloated, hyperbolic claims being made in this thread. Again, I'm still waiting for the "kills people who disagree with him" excerpts, since just about all of the things put forth thus far talk about the killing of enemy soldiers, suppliers, supporters, etc. There is maybe one reasonable example in all three of your posts combined.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    setrajonassetrajonas Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Um, all the quotes I posted were about killing civilians, not soldiers.

    setrajonas on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited November 2008
    setrajonas wrote: »
    Um, all the quotes I posted were about killing civilians, not soldiers.

    Yes, I realize that. Civilians who continually supply and support the legitimacy of the mass murder of the New World. That is not 'indiscriminate murder on moral grounds'.

    That would be:

    Richard: I believe in free enterprise.
    Old World dude: I don't support the murder of innocent New World folk, I won't support this marauding, pillaging army of savages that is formed in the Old World, supplied by the Old World, cheered on by the Old World, etc.- however I believe in communism.
    Richard: OFF WITH YOUR HEAD, COMMIE FUCK.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Organichu wrote:
    Rolo: are you kidding, dude? One of the quotes there is essentially: "ok these are angry young men coming to murder and rape the women. Let's kill them before they do that". Is that supposed to be indicative of Richard being a mindless emulation of Caligula? And why are you using the example of "kill their supply base" as... something indicating an indiscriminate mass murderer? These are people enabling rape and slaughter of an innocent populace. Also it's incredibly obvious, it being a fantasy world, that he's caricaturing "people who support their cause" and "people who don't". I think it's an absurd case of "seeing what you want to see" to think he's actually consigning to death people who live in secluded villas who have nothing to do with the war effort. Frankly I didn't really see anything in your post that supports the claims that people are making




    If you can't see that Goodkind is trying to create some kind of bizarre justification for the wholesale slaughter of unarmed people, then you haven't been paying enough attention. The hero in Goodkind's fantasy has just told his soldiers to start killing unarmed people, and if innocents die, well the end justifies the means. Just to make sure you don't confuse the good guys (who are murdering innocent people) and the bad guys (who are murdering innocent people), Goodkind takes the extra step of making the bad guys communists with a bastardized parody of what he himself says is 'a Muslim-like religion'.


    I am now going to godwin the fuck out of this thread.
    One of the men toward the back cleared his throat, then spoke up. “Lord Rahl, innocent people down there are going to die. These aren’t soldiers we will be attacking. A lot of children are going to die in this kind of thing.”
    “Yes, that is unfortunately true, but don’t let your mind be clouded or your determination turned aside by such a spurious and irrelevant charge. The Order is responsible for conducting a war of aggression against innocent people who have done them no harm-including women and children. We seek only to end the aggression as swiftly as possible.
    “It’s true that innocent people-including children-will be hurt or killed. What is the alternative? Continuing to sacrifice good people out of fear of harming someone innocent? We are all innocent. Our children are all innocent. They are being harmed, now. The Order’s rule will eventually harm everyone, including all those children in the Old World. The Order will turn many of them into monsters. Many more people will die in the end if the Order wins.
    “Moreover, the lives of the people in the Old World are not our responsibility, they are the Order’s responsibility. We did not start this war and attack them-they attacked us. Our only proper course of action is to end the war as swiftly as possible. This is the only way to do that. In the end, this is the most humane thing wed can do because in the end this will mean the least loss of life."

    Is essentially
    Regarding the Imperial Order, Lord Rahl is determined to clear the table. He warned the Order that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Imperial Order must be its necessary consequence. We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Order. We should have sympathy rather with our own D'haran people. If the D'haran people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives.

    Get it yet? No?
    Regarding the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to clear the table. He warned the Jews that if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction. Those were not empty words. Now the world war has come. The destruction of the Jews must be its necessary consequence. We cannot be sentimental about it. It is not for us to feel sympathy for the Jews. We should have sympathy rather with our own German people. If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives.

    Brolo on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    setrajonas wrote: »
    Um, all the quotes I posted were about killing civilians, not soldiers.

    Yes, I realize that. Civilians who continually supply and support the legitimacy of the mass murder of the New World. That is not 'indiscriminate murder on moral grounds'.

    That would be:

    Richard: I believe in free enterprise.
    Old World dude: I don't support the murder of innocent New World folk, I won't support this marauding, pillaging army of savages that is formed in the Old World, supplied by the Old World, cheered on by the Old World, etc.- however I believe in communism.
    Richard: OFF WITH YOUR HEAD, COMMIE FUCK.

    You mean the pacifists?

    Hate top break it to you man, but Goodkind is such a bad author that even the farmers who provide food for their kids in the army are cast as villains.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    Der Waffle MousDer Waffle Mous Blame this on the misfortune of your birth. New Yark, New Yark.Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    setrajonas wrote: »
    Um, all the quotes I posted were about killing civilians, not soldiers.

    Yes, I realize that. Civilians who continually supply and support the legitimacy of the mass murder of the New World. That is not 'indiscriminate murder on moral grounds'.
    Lets see.

    Change "new world" to either "Middle East" or "Holy Land" and you've got the mindset of your average al'qaida suicide bomber.






    Godwin really needs to get with the times.

    Der Waffle Mous on
    Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: DerWaffle#1682
  • Options
    NibbleNibble Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    How about the time he massacred a group of pacifists protesting war just to prove a point? Or when Zedd (or one of his wizards) killed Kahlan's half-brother because he was loyal to his queen and wanted to stay out of the war in order to protect the safety of his citizens?

    Nibble on
    sig.php?id=178
  • Options
    setrajonassetrajonas Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    setrajonas wrote: »
    Um, all the quotes I posted were about killing civilians, not soldiers.

    Yes, I realize that. Civilians who continually supply and support the legitimacy of the mass murder of the New World. That is not 'indiscriminate murder on moral grounds'.

    That would be:

    Richard: I believe in free enterprise.
    Old World dude: I don't support the murder of innocent New World folk, I won't support this marauding, pillaging army of savages that is formed in the Old World, supplied by the Old World, cheered on by the Old World, etc.- however I believe in communism.
    Richard: OFF WITH YOUR HEAD, COMMIE FUCK.
    Do you really not see a problem with killing civilians? I don't think I've ever met anyone quite like that. Or at least they weren't this open about it.

    setrajonas on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    setrajonas wrote: »
    Um, all the quotes I posted were about killing civilians, not soldiers.
    Yes, I realize that. Civilians who continually supply and support the legitimacy of the mass murder of the New World. That is not 'indiscriminate murder on moral grounds'.

    That would be:

    Richard: I believe in free enterprise.
    Old World dude: I don't support the murder of innocent New World folk, I won't support this marauding, pillaging army of savages that is formed in the Old World, supplied by the Old World, cheered on by the Old World, etc.- however I believe in communism.
    Richard: OFF WITH YOUR HEAD, COMMIE FUCK.
    Really? You really want to go there?

    Do I even need to draw the parallels with the Palestinians? Or are we just going to accept that maybe that's the wrong track to go down?

    Thanatos on
Sign In or Register to comment.