Yeah but the 2nd book is also written a million times better than the first.
also h5 Thelonius, I can't stand either Cat or Dany.
Balefuego on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
I honestly don't get the love for GRRM. ASoIaF is several orders of magnitude better than Goodkind's work, but that isn't saying much. After reading a guy like Michael Chabon, who is not only a talented storyteller but also an excellent craftsman, I'm having a lot of difficulty finding fantasy writers I still enjoy. But I never enjoyed Martin's work; it's not the length that bothers me, it's the repetition. I often feel like I'm reading the same sentences over and over again, even if the content of the story is different. Everyone acts the same way. Everyone speaks the same way. At the time I read it, I thought A Game of Thrones was a fantastic book, but after reading the sequels, I am less sure of my original opinion. The overwhelming geek majority on the internet seem to love him, so I'll try and keep my dislike to myself. Besides, I already made it pretty well known on the first few pages of this thread.
I suppose I shouldn't begrudge people their long-winded series. I have a particular obsession with Stephen King's The Dark Tower (if you hadn't guessed by the avatar). For tight plots and solid writing, check out Ursula LeGuin.
yeah the dark tower is pretty terrible. i like book 1 and the ending of the final book, but the series itself is a massive failure, i think.
The only way I might consider them a failure is if I were trying to read them over the course of his release. The first three were done in the 80s, then the 4th book came out in '97, then the last three between 2005-2007. That's a long damn time to wait for books.
But the quality of the writing holds up. Like his stories or not, Stephen King is an excellent writer, and while people might deride the quality of his content as lowbrow shit, his structure and craft hold up with the best.
Me, I thought DT was great. I've since recommended it to five other people, and they love them. But hey, what do I know? Maybe we're the only six people in the world. 8-)
But this is woefully off-topic. Can we get back to ridiculing Terry Goodkind now?
"sfd: Why do you think your books provoke such strong reactions, pro and con?
TG: I think the reason is because the books take a very clear philosophical and moral stance, and there is a great aversion in the world today to clarity. Clarity means that this is right, and this is wrong. For example, when people say "Oh, you know, I experimented a little bit with drugs..." You know, Mr. Esteban in Columbia wanted to get rid of one of his cohorts, so he took down an airliner and 127 innocent people were murdered, just so he could kill one person. So when some has this wishy-washy clarity about the morality of taking drugs, as far as I'm concerned, they are a party to murder. Some people don't like that kind of moral clarity because it doesn't allow them to act on whim. I believe in a clear philosophy of understanding the meaning of life, its values and its purpose. And there are a number of people who don't like to be confronted with those values, and I think that's why they don't like my novels."
...
(He makes a good point about moral equivalency, which can be problematic: )
"The basic structure of his theory is that since you can't know reality, you can't know right from wrong, and since you can't know right from wrong, everything has a moral equivalence. Moral equivalency is what rules the world today."
(And then he goes and ruins it with this: )
"You see this kind of theory filtered down through everything in life; for example, on the evening news you'll see Brokaw and Jennings and their ilk giving equal credence to a news conference by General Brooks and they'll give the same straight face to a news conference by Baghdad Bob!"
....
(Keep in mind Goodkind has stated that he sees Richard as largely a representation of himself: )
"I get letters from young people that say "I live in a world of violence and drugs, and I never knew what to do, and now that I've read your books, I ask myself 'What would Richard do?'"
....
But the philosophy behind them is clearly defined, so that the reader is able to sense, through the character of Richard, a valid sense of life, a noble sense of life. And it's something they want to live up to, because they know it's embracing life, as opposed to the things they're presented with in the world that's embracing death."
"As a matter of fact, there's probably no higher compliment anyone could pay me, because I consider Ayn Rand to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle. In many ways, I think she surpassed Aristotle. Ayn Rand, philosophically, has accomplished what physicists have been trying to accomplish with the Unified Field Theory. The clarity of her philosophy [Objectivism] and the brilliance of it is awe inspiring to me. "
"Look at the war with Iraq. You basically had most of the world siding with a man who put human beings into shredding machines just to watch them scream to death. And they're saying it's wrong to stop him."
" The United States is the only country on earth, in the history of mankind, that was founded on the principle that an individual has the right to live his own life. There's no other country that says a human being has a right to his own life. To this day, in any other country around the world, you are not allowed to say things against the state, because the state is considered above individual lives."
"The last book, Pillars of Creation, was about a serial killer. I have friends in the FBI that are experts on things like that, so this character - his name is Oba - is very accurate. The forensic psychology is true to life. It's fascinating to watch this character's endless self-justification and self-pity"
Evil Multifarious on
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Y'know, for a guy who claims to utilize objective thought, Goodkind has no problems whatsoever with setting up small armies of straw men to smack down.
You'd also think that someone who arrives at their moral convictions through nothing but objective reasoning shouldn't have too much trouble getting it across to others. The fact that his only option when confronted with another philosophy is to eradicate it through overwhelming force says a lot about how obvious and convincing his own ideas are.
Plus, the complete and total misrepresentation of Kantian philosophy is painful.
And I've read that interview before. It's just as bad now.
Isn't he responsible for murder? Like, if you take it out to that level of abstraction, I'm sure someone murdered someone over something you've ever done/eaten/bought/taken/read/whatever.
Edit: Wait.
Has he never traveled? I mean, I'm in Quebec right now and I talk about how terrible the government is all th-
. . . I just wanted to talk about the show based off of a book series that I loved. I asked no one to like the books as much as me, I didn't want to get sucked into having to defend them (to late for that though eh?). I just don't think that the show is doing any justice to this book that was wildly popular to many people.
Back on topic, I did see the latest episode, and it continues its mass deviation from the books. I've read each book at least twice (I know, I know: "how could you read that shiiiiiiiiiiit") and I fear that they're just gonna run straight off the reservation, returning to normal book continuity only when Richard has to kill Darken Rahl.
I like the series too, but I haven't seen any of the TV series yet. Honestly I'm a bit scared to, since I already knew it was deviating a decent amount and it's been reinforced here by those who've seen it.
I know I'm going to watch them eventually, and probably soon-ish, but I'd like to keep the fantasy for a bit longer that a good TV series that sticks to the books' story can exist. . .
How far are they going with the series? Just the first book, or longer? Or does it depend on the ratings?
On topic: I like the series. I'm glad they've deviated from the original books because it provides the audience with all new adventures with the same characters that we love. After the last book, I'm sure many people who liked the books were craving more adventures of Richard, Kahlan and Zedd - now we're getting them.
In the middle: Respect other people's viewpoints, don't bother attacking my on topic thoughts - thanks.
Off topic: Feel free to shred me for these, but after reading that interview (except for the pro-US 'I can say anything here!!' shit) I'm starting to see why I liked his writing so much. Straw man all you want, I find it very easy to see things in black and white (non-racially, thank you). I personally see things as either 'right' or 'wrong' all the time, and have no problem expressing my opinion. If a man steals a loaf of bread, once I weigh the situation that he is in I will not beat around the bush on whether I feel he has made a 'good' or 'evil' decision.
No, see, if you weigh the situation where he stole the bread, you don't have moral clarity. Goodkind would recommend chopping his head off with a sword because he's a damn dirty thief.
On topic: I like the series. I'm glad they've deviated from the original books because it provides the audience with all new adventures with the same characters that we love. After the last book, I'm sure many people who liked the books were craving more adventures of Richard, Kahlan and Zedd - now we're getting them.
In the middle: Respect other people's viewpoints, don't bother attacking my on topic thoughts - thanks.
Off topic: Feel free to shred me for these, but after reading that interview (except for the pro-US 'I can say anything here!!' shit) I'm starting to see why I liked his writing so much. Straw man all you want, I find it very easy to see things in black and white (non-racially, thank you). I personally see things as either 'right' or 'wrong' all the time, and have no problem expressing my opinion. If a man steals a loaf of bread, once I weigh the situation that he is in I will not beat around the bush on whether I feel he has made a 'good' or 'evil' decision.
Well I hope you follow it up by crushing those who fear your moral clarity.
Nope. I get drunk until they admit that calling a cake a cake the minute it goes into the oven is just not right. It's not a pizza pie the minute it goes in the oven, it takes time!
No, see, if you weigh the situation where he stole the bread, you don't have moral clarity. Goodkind would recommend chopping his head off with a sword because he's a damn dirty thief.
I can't remember if the specific situation was ever brought up in the book. Somehow I think Richard would explain to the bread-thief what a horrible person he was for fucking over the bread-baker, and that maybe he should try earning a living for once, rather than stealing one. Other circumstances not withstanding, of course.
You must hate Victor Hugo.[/quote[
With a passion. I had to skim his wikipedia entry until I saw "political left'. Sounds like a hippy to me - I should probably lop his head off before his paintings have a statue effect.
Dibs on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
With a passion. I had to skim his wikipedia entry until I saw "political left'. Sounds like a hippy to me - I should probably lop his head off before his paintings have a statue effect.
...He was a writer. He wrote Les Miserables, which I was referencing, because one of the main conflicts is that Jean Valjean was sentenced 20 years for stealing a loaf of bread.
Well I hope you follow it up by crushing those who fear your moral clarity.
Nope. I get drunk until they admit that calling a cake a cake the minute it goes into the oven is just not right. It's not a pizza pie the minute it goes in the oven, it takes time!
How far are they going with the series? Just the first book, or longer? Or does it depend on the ratings?
The first season of the Legend of the Seeker show looks to be basically Wizard's First Rule, in that it's all about confronting Darken Rahl and stopping him from taking over the world.
In theory, if the show is renewed for a 2nd season, it would loosely be based on the 2nd book.
With that said, it's possible that individual elements from the later books will be worked into the earlier episodes of the show. But they're obviously not going to jump straight into Chainfire or anything.
And for me, the show is fun. I had considered re-reading the books right before the show and I'm glad I didn't. As now I can enjoy the show as a show, and not always be comparing it to the books.
So, from what I've read on this thread, I'm not exactly sure what the differance between the two orders is. If the series is anything like other series, its that the old murders civilians, but Richard seems to love doing that, so isn't it king of like if Goodkind brought down a plane full of people to prevent one drug smuggler (or even user) from getting into the US just to stick it to "Mr. Esteban."
The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
0
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
I think it's right to question relativism and moral equivalency, as Evil put it. These are valid inquiries into the nature of moral reality and what makes us human.
However, judging by that interview it appears that TG is no longer questioning, but has in fact decided what reality is and is not. That's where he's lost all credibility with me, because if you're truly interested in moral philosophy, you'll be questioning reality for your entire life.
I think it's right to question relativism and moral equivalency, as Evil put it. These are valid inquiries into the nature of moral reality and what makes us human.
However, judging by that interview it appears that TG is no longer questioning, but has in fact decided what reality is and is not. That's where he's lost all credibility with me, because if you're truly interested in moral philosophy, you'll be questioning reality for your entire life.
"Bagdhad Bob." What an idiot.
It's important to question the black-and-white morality that just isn't functional and leads to absolutism; it's also important to question relativism and find a way to operate within a subjective morality while realizing that morality isn't absolute, without seeing everything as relative; I agree.
TG has decided what is reality, and has decided that people who can't see that reality, that disagree with it, are stupid and wrong and deserve punishment or will be converted when shown the light. He's decided that he has the answers.
This is a poor decision.
Evil Multifarious on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited November 2008
I'm just going to go ahead and say that being a moral realist doesn't make you a jackass. It's a Venn diagram, and Goodkind is in the middle.
I'm just going to go ahead and say that being a moral realist doesn't make you a jackass. It's a Venn diagram, and Goodkind is in the middle.
in that everyone is to some degree a moral realist, because otherwise it is impossible to actually have a system of morality, yes
There's a flowchart in my metaethics textbook. Here's how you get to the group of positions I was labeling moral realism:
Do moral judgments express beliefs?
Yes, (No leads to Non-Cognitivism)
Are those beliefs at least sometimes true?
Yes (No leads to error theory)
Do those beliefs concern facts that are constitutively independent of human opinion?
Yes (No leads to Judgement-dependent accounts)
Answering yes to those three questions doesn't make you an objectivist dick.
Some clarification would be nice there, my interpretation of that goes
Do moral beliefs exist as sentient beings?
Yes
Are those belief at least sometimes correct in identifing what they are?
Yes
Is an individual person's experience of said beliefs entirely irrelevant
I can see how this leads to you not being a dick, but surely here we've gone through the actual physical manifestation of said beliefs not necessarily being aware of the belief they are manifesting? (i.e Richard could be the manifestation of Moral Relativism since he is certain he is right but only judges from his own point of view rather than even considering that there might be some larger framework that is beyond his understanding - which would explain how he realises that he never actually needed to be vegatarian even though at the time it was part of how magic worked.)
Tastyfish on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Some clarification would be nice there, my interpretation of that goes
Do moral beliefs exist as sentient beings? Instead, this should be read as: Is my judgment that murder is wrong a belief that I have? Or is it something else, like the expression of an emotion? For instance, Ayers thought that saying "murder is wrong" was functionally equivalent to saying "boo murder!" And since "boo murder!" doesn't have a truth value (it expresses a sentiment, not a proposition), neither does "murder is wrong." That's emotivism, one form of non-cognitivism.
Yes
Are those belief at least sometimes correct in identifing what they are? Instead, this should be read as: are people's moral beliefs ever correct? Mackie thought no, for instance, because in order for people's moral beliefs to be true there would have to be some objective and independent feature of the world that constituted 'rightness' (this is presupposed by commonsense morality, he says). Since there is no such feature, our moral beliefs are systematically and universally false.
Yes
Is an individual person's experience of said beliefs entirely irrelevant Instead, this should be read as: Does the truth of a moral belief just depend on people's opinions about what's moral, or does it depend on something else? For instance, whether I have ten fingernails doesn't depend on people's opinions about how many fingernails I have (even if everyone thought I had eight I would still have ten). Some, however, argue that moral judgments really are true or false based on their concurrence with people's opinions (sometimes whose opinion counts is restricted).
. . . I just wanted to talk about the show based off of a book series that I loved. I asked no one to like the books as much as me, I didn't want to get sucked into having to defend them (to late for that though eh?). I just don't think that the show is doing any justice to this book that was wildly popular to many people.
Back on topic, I did see the latest episode, and it continues its mass deviation from the books. I've read each book at least twice (I know, I know: "how could you read that shiiiiiiiiiiit") and I fear that they're just gonna run straight off the reservation, returning to normal book continuity only when Richard has to kill Darken Rahl.
I like the series too, but I haven't seen any of the TV series yet. Honestly I'm a bit scared to, since I already knew it was deviating a decent amount and it's been reinforced here by those who've seen it.
I know I'm going to watch them eventually, and probably soon-ish, but I'd like to keep the fantasy for a bit longer that a good TV series that sticks to the books' story can exist. . .
How far are they going with the series? Just the first book, or longer? Or does it depend on the ratings?
They're going to go as long as they can, depends on the ratings. And since they're making shit up as they go, they can go forever. There is no way the'll have the clear cut BEING EVIL MAKES IT OK FOR SOMEONE TO KILL YOU angle on the show, so it'll be them chasing Rahl from castle to castle like mario for 10 seasons!
And it seems Selner beat me to that responce, but cleverly hid it among the arguing about moral clarity. Sneaky.
If the show had some of that moral clarity it be a hell of a lot more interesting.
Having only seen one episode of this show, is it always so full of gratuitous shots of Bridget Regan's cleavage? Because that seems to be the main focus of the show so far.
Having only seen one episode of this show, is it always so full of gratuitous shots of Bridget Regan's cleavage? Because that seems to be the main focus of the show so far.
Having only seen one episode of this show, is it always so full of gratuitous shots of Bridget Regan's cleavage? Because that seems to be the main focus of the show so far.
Having only seen one episode of this show, is it always so full of gratuitous shots of Bridget Regan's cleavage? Because that seems to be the main focus of the show so far.
...are...are you complaining?
It's... excessive.
Hey, anything to help the show. It's not like it's gonna make off of the excellence of its plot, or character acting.
Witch_Hunter_84 on
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
Having only seen one episode of this show, is it always so full of gratuitous shots of Bridget Regan's cleavage? Because that seems to be the main focus of the show so far.
...are...are you complaining?
It's... excessive.
Hey, anything to help the show. It's not like it's gonna make off of the excellence of its plot, or character acting.
Posts
also h5 Thelonius, I can't stand either Cat or Dany.
I suppose I shouldn't begrudge people their long-winded series. I have a particular obsession with Stephen King's The Dark Tower (if you hadn't guessed by the avatar). For tight plots and solid writing, check out Ursula LeGuin.
The only way I might consider them a failure is if I were trying to read them over the course of his release. The first three were done in the 80s, then the 4th book came out in '97, then the last three between 2005-2007. That's a long damn time to wait for books.
But the quality of the writing holds up. Like his stories or not, Stephen King is an excellent writer, and while people might deride the quality of his content as lowbrow shit, his structure and craft hold up with the best.
Me, I thought DT was great. I've since recommended it to five other people, and they love them. But hey, what do I know? Maybe we're the only six people in the world. 8-)
But this is woefully off-topic. Can we get back to ridiculing Terry Goodkind now?
Proof that Goodkind is a fucking douche:
http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug03/terrygoodkind.htm
Some good bits:
"sfd: Why do you think your books provoke such strong reactions, pro and con?
TG: I think the reason is because the books take a very clear philosophical and moral stance, and there is a great aversion in the world today to clarity. Clarity means that this is right, and this is wrong. For example, when people say "Oh, you know, I experimented a little bit with drugs..." You know, Mr. Esteban in Columbia wanted to get rid of one of his cohorts, so he took down an airliner and 127 innocent people were murdered, just so he could kill one person. So when some has this wishy-washy clarity about the morality of taking drugs, as far as I'm concerned, they are a party to murder. Some people don't like that kind of moral clarity because it doesn't allow them to act on whim. I believe in a clear philosophy of understanding the meaning of life, its values and its purpose. And there are a number of people who don't like to be confronted with those values, and I think that's why they don't like my novels."
...
(He makes a good point about moral equivalency, which can be problematic: )
"The basic structure of his theory is that since you can't know reality, you can't know right from wrong, and since you can't know right from wrong, everything has a moral equivalence. Moral equivalency is what rules the world today."
(And then he goes and ruins it with this: )
"You see this kind of theory filtered down through everything in life; for example, on the evening news you'll see Brokaw and Jennings and their ilk giving equal credence to a news conference by General Brooks and they'll give the same straight face to a news conference by Baghdad Bob!"
....
(Keep in mind Goodkind has stated that he sees Richard as largely a representation of himself: )
"I get letters from young people that say "I live in a world of violence and drugs, and I never knew what to do, and now that I've read your books, I ask myself 'What would Richard do?'"
....
But the philosophy behind them is clearly defined, so that the reader is able to sense, through the character of Richard, a valid sense of life, a noble sense of life. And it's something they want to live up to, because they know it's embracing life, as opposed to the things they're presented with in the world that's embracing death."
"As a matter of fact, there's probably no higher compliment anyone could pay me, because I consider Ayn Rand to be the greatest philosopher since Aristotle. In many ways, I think she surpassed Aristotle. Ayn Rand, philosophically, has accomplished what physicists have been trying to accomplish with the Unified Field Theory. The clarity of her philosophy [Objectivism] and the brilliance of it is awe inspiring to me. "
"Look at the war with Iraq. You basically had most of the world siding with a man who put human beings into shredding machines just to watch them scream to death. And they're saying it's wrong to stop him."
" The United States is the only country on earth, in the history of mankind, that was founded on the principle that an individual has the right to live his own life. There's no other country that says a human being has a right to his own life. To this day, in any other country around the world, you are not allowed to say things against the state, because the state is considered above individual lives."
"The last book, Pillars of Creation, was about a serial killer. I have friends in the FBI that are experts on things like that, so this character - his name is Oba - is very accurate. The forensic psychology is true to life. It's fascinating to watch this character's endless self-justification and self-pity"
Plus, the complete and total misrepresentation of Kantian philosophy is painful.
And I've read that interview before. It's just as bad now.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Isn't he responsible for murder? Like, if you take it out to that level of abstraction, I'm sure someone murdered someone over something you've ever done/eaten/bought/taken/read/whatever.
Edit: Wait.
Has he never traveled? I mean, I'm in Quebec right now and I talk about how terrible the government is all th-
I like the series too, but I haven't seen any of the TV series yet. Honestly I'm a bit scared to, since I already knew it was deviating a decent amount and it's been reinforced here by those who've seen it.
I know I'm going to watch them eventually, and probably soon-ish, but I'd like to keep the fantasy for a bit longer that a good TV series that sticks to the books' story can exist. . .
How far are they going with the series? Just the first book, or longer? Or does it depend on the ratings?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
In the middle: Respect other people's viewpoints, don't bother attacking my on topic thoughts - thanks.
Off topic: Feel free to shred me for these, but after reading that interview (except for the pro-US 'I can say anything here!!' shit) I'm starting to see why I liked his writing so much. Straw man all you want, I find it very easy to see things in black and white (non-racially, thank you). I personally see things as either 'right' or 'wrong' all the time, and have no problem expressing my opinion. If a man steals a loaf of bread, once I weigh the situation that he is in I will not beat around the bush on whether I feel he has made a 'good' or 'evil' decision.
I can't remember if the specific situation was ever brought up in the book. Somehow I think Richard would explain to the bread-thief what a horrible person he was for fucking over the bread-baker, and that maybe he should try earning a living for once, rather than stealing one. Other circumstances not withstanding, of course.
...huh? Are you sure you're not drunk right now?
So... I don't know. I'm a confused and scared young man.
The first season of the Legend of the Seeker show looks to be basically Wizard's First Rule, in that it's all about confronting Darken Rahl and stopping him from taking over the world.
In theory, if the show is renewed for a 2nd season, it would loosely be based on the 2nd book.
With that said, it's possible that individual elements from the later books will be worked into the earlier episodes of the show. But they're obviously not going to jump straight into Chainfire or anything.
And for me, the show is fun. I had considered re-reading the books right before the show and I'm glad I didn't. As now I can enjoy the show as a show, and not always be comparing it to the books.
However, judging by that interview it appears that TG is no longer questioning, but has in fact decided what reality is and is not. That's where he's lost all credibility with me, because if you're truly interested in moral philosophy, you'll be questioning reality for your entire life.
"Bagdhad Bob." What an idiot.
It's important to question the black-and-white morality that just isn't functional and leads to absolutism; it's also important to question relativism and find a way to operate within a subjective morality while realizing that morality isn't absolute, without seeing everything as relative; I agree.
TG has decided what is reality, and has decided that people who can't see that reality, that disagree with it, are stupid and wrong and deserve punishment or will be converted when shown the light. He's decided that he has the answers.
This is a poor decision.
"Moral realist" is the most ridiculous term I've ever heard.
Being a Randian objectivist certainly does make you a jackass, and Goodkind masturbates over her corpse daily.
Have you ever read some of the interviews with him about his philosophy? They're fucking terrifying.
in that everyone is to some degree a moral realist, because otherwise it is impossible to actually have a system of morality, yes
There's a flowchart in my metaethics textbook. Here's how you get to the group of positions I was labeling moral realism:
Do moral judgments express beliefs?
Yes, (No leads to Non-Cognitivism)
Are those beliefs at least sometimes true?
Yes (No leads to error theory)
Do those beliefs concern facts that are constitutively independent of human opinion?
Yes (No leads to Judgement-dependent accounts)
Answering yes to those three questions doesn't make you an objectivist dick.
Do moral beliefs exist as sentient beings?
Yes
Are those belief at least sometimes correct in identifing what they are?
Yes
Is an individual person's experience of said beliefs entirely irrelevant
I can see how this leads to you not being a dick, but surely here we've gone through the actual physical manifestation of said beliefs not necessarily being aware of the belief they are manifesting? (i.e Richard could be the manifestation of Moral Relativism since he is certain he is right but only judges from his own point of view rather than even considering that there might be some larger framework that is beyond his understanding - which would explain how he realises that he never actually needed to be vegatarian even though at the time it was part of how magic worked.)
They're going to go as long as they can, depends on the ratings. And since they're making shit up as they go, they can go forever. There is no way the'll have the clear cut BEING EVIL MAKES IT OK FOR SOMEONE TO KILL YOU angle on the show, so it'll be them chasing Rahl from castle to castle like mario for 10 seasons!
And it seems Selner beat me to that responce, but cleverly hid it among the arguing about moral clarity. Sneaky.
If the show had some of that moral clarity it be a hell of a lot more interesting.
Steam | Twitter
...are...are you complaining?
It's... excessive.
Steam | Twitter
Hey, anything to help the show. It's not like it's gonna make off of the excellence of its plot, or character acting.
Yes, it's very faithful to the books that way.
Steam | Twitter