[Lisheo]

Oh dear, the Yeard thread is back.

[Assail]

Lisheo, on Apr 15 2009, 05:25 AM, said:

Oh dear, the Yeard thread is back.

Tremble!

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Jumpy, on Apr 10 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

It is a shame that Goodkind has fallen so far. I loved Wizard's First Rule. And Even the Stone of Tears. Then there was Blood of the Fold. Weak. Temple of the Winds? Good. Soul of the Fire. AWFUL. Goodness, after Soul of the Fire there was only one book worth my money, and that was Faith of the Fallen.

SoT was the first Fantasy I ever read -- oh, back in '94? I have them sitting on my bookshelf, with like an inch of dust accumulating over them.

Next was The Belgariad, swiftly followed by the Mallorean. David Eddings ftw.

He didn't fall far, he wasn't that good to begin with. What am I saying? He was awful to begin with! Wizard's First Rule was absolute drivel IMO, but then again, I had read a bit of fantasy before I started SoT...





Evil Chicken! Meet my Meat Cleaver of Awesomeness!

 cleaver_front.jpg (21.52K)
Number of downloads: 14

[The Tyrant Lizard]

ok the chicken was a shit idea. but thou doth protest too much!

I reckon if Goodkind never came out with his biblically rubbish evil chicken, and Erikson done it first, you'd all be falling over laughing at how ingenious it was.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

The Tyrant Lizard, on Apr 16 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

ok the chicken was a shit idea. but thou doth protest too much!

I reckon if Goodkind never came out with his biblically rubbish evil chicken, and Erikson done it first, you'd all be falling over laughing at how ingenious it was.

if so, it would be because Erikson is an awesome writer, whereas TG is not...

[Grief]

That is some awesome cleaver.
And you're right about TG being rubbish and Erikson being fantastic.

The other thing is, Erikson would have deliberately made the chicken funny, whereas TG it was srss business that just came out as funny because the stupidity of him.

[Assail]

Grief, on Apr 16 2009, 06:45 AM, said:

That is some awesome cleaver.
And you're right about TG being rubbish and Erikson being fantastic.

The other thing is, Erikson would have deliberately made the chicken funny, whereas TG it was srss business that just came out as funny because the stupidity of him.

This is where I disagree, but haven't we already been over this? Maybe it's just my humour, but there was DEFINITELY a slight sarcastic approach to the writing of the evil chicken, despite it's seriousness as a chime.

[James Hetfield]

This is where I disagree, but haven't we already been over this? Maybe it's just my humour, but there was DEFINITELY a slight sarcastic approach to the writing of the evil chicken, despite it's seriousness as a chime.



Hmm...are you suggesting the owner of the yeard has a sense of humor? Rape! Now thats funny! Errrr not.

Have you seen how serious he looks in every photo?

Wow, unless you are just being funny by saying that Fairy is funny.

[Assail]

James Hetfield, on Apr 16 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

This is where I disagree, but haven't we already been over this? Maybe it's just my humour, but there was DEFINITELY a slight sarcastic approach to the writing of the evil chicken, despite it's seriousness as a chime.



Hmm...are you suggesting the owner of the yeard has a sense of humor? Rape! Now thats funny! Errrr not.

Have you seen how serious he looks in every photo?

Wow, unless you are just being funny by saying that Fairy is funny.

So... SE has no sense of humour because some of his characters have been raped as well? Right? Errrr not.

Are you really going to come into this thread and and say someone has no sense of humour because he doesn't smile in photos?

Wow, unless you are trying to be stupid by acting like a douche bag and taking this banter between me and the other Goodkind haters seriously, then gtfo.

Oh my.... did I just get trolled?

This post has been edited by Grief: 17 April 2009 - 01:40 AM

[Grief]

Both posts editted.

Keep it civil.

I don't think that, even if deliberate, he should have made the evil chicken. Maybe it's meant to be funny, but that takes away from any point it would have as a serious chime in my eyes, because it's as if the issues connected are being made light of.

With SE, Kruppe for example, yes he sometimes fulfills a serious role, but the fact that he is a generally humourous character does not take away from that, because there are hints that the comedy is just a trick, and he never makes a farce of things that the author has previously built up.

[Assail]

Grief, on Apr 16 2009, 06:48 PM, said:

Both posts editted.

Keep it civil.

I don't think that, even if deliberate, he should have made the evil chicken. Maybe it's meant to be funny, but that takes away from any point it would have as a serious chime in my eyes, because it's as if the issues connected are being made light of.

With SE, Kruppe for example, yes he sometimes fulfills a serious role, but the fact that he is a generally humourous character does not take away from that, because there are hints that the comedy is just a trick, and he never makes a farce of things that the author has previously built up.

Well you have to take into consideration what exactly the chimes were. They were primal aspects that weren't exactly like a human in terms of consideration or thought. Apart from from existing to destroy magic they held no other purpose. So TG decided to throw one in (In a humourous context I'd like to think) a scene with Kahlan.

What you're talking about with Kruppe comes solely down to a writers style and how they portray a funny or humourous character.

I was civil, what you talkin' bout Grief?

[HoosierDaddy]

Who are the other funny characters in SoT?

[James Hetfield]

Not trying to upset anyone here.(Assail) It's just that every Tairy fan I know is a complete moron. I am not insinuating that every fan is, just that in my experience they are.

I abhore his writing and what messages he tries to get across to his readers through his grotesque and disturbing style of writing.

Example-It's okay to hurt a child if they hurt you because someone encourages such behaviour! I believe that is in the first book when he kicks the girl in the jaw and possibly kills her. The other horrible thing about that is Tairy made me feel like Ricardo was justified in doing it and I felt exulted by the act.

Wow, I am getting way too serious here. Such emotions!

OK, how about a joke to lighten the mood?----Why does Snoop Dog need an umbrella?








wait for it====










wait for it========






Fo drizzle!!!!! hahahahahahahha

Anyway not trying to get anyone riled up just posting my feelings on this thread. It seemed an appropriate place.

This post has been edited by James Hetfield: 17 April 2009 - 03:43 AM

[Assail]

James Hetfield, on Apr 16 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

Not trying to upset anyone here.(Assail) It's just that every Tairy fan I know is a complete moron. I am not insinuating that every fan is, just that in my experience they are.

I abhore his writing and what messages he tries to get across to his readers through his grotesque and disturbing style of writing.

Example-It's okay to hurt a child if they hurt you because someone encourages such behaviour! I believe that is in the first book when he kicks the girl in the jaw and possibly kills her. The other horrible thing about that is Tairy made me feel like Ricardo was justified in doing it and I felt exulted by the act.

Wow, I am getting way too serious here. Such emotions!

OK, how about a joke to lighten the mood?----Why does Snoop Dog need an umbrella?








wait for it====










wait for it========






Fo drizzle!!!!! hahahahahahahha

Anyway not trying to get anyone riled up just posting my feelings on this thread. It seemed an appropriate place.

So because the majority of something is something disagreeable you would act like an ass to every one of them? Nice, and we're talking about getting positive messages across here?

Furthermore, if you would pay attention to what was written, Richard was put into a situation where a girl, with MINIMAL prompting was partaking in cruel and unusual punishment (Yes fantasy blah blah but whatever) and so was put in her place with a swift kick. It was a message that said "For every action there is a reaction". And personally, if it came down to it in real life, if a child was toting a gun at me and had the intent and ability to shoot, I'd put a bullet where it needed to be. If a girl was ready to torture the fuck out of me, I'd kick her face in too. Or maybe I'm a cold blooded baby killer. Lol, damn this conversation has gotten serious.

Let's start over.

Hi, I like oreos.

[Assail]

HoosierDaddy, on Apr 16 2009, 08:39 PM, said:

Who are the other funny characters in SoT?

I found Zedd's antics to be entertaining, Nathan Rahl was a humourous character. Some of the Mud People (Can't remember the names currently). I could keep going on if I really want to think about it, but I'm starting Reaper's Gale right now

[Myshkin]

Let's straighten some things out here:

Tairy himself has said that the chicken was meant to show that evil can take on even the most mundane of aspects. Therefor he was not trying to be funny. Therefor he deserves to be ridiculed mercilessly for it.

As for kicking Violet, the problem isn't that Richard kicked a child in the face, the problem is that Tairy portrayed it as the Good and Right thing to do. All of us can be pushed to a point where we will lash out violently, but most of us can understand that lashing out violently is not morally justifiable in most cases. Not so for Richard (Tairy). Richard never once has misgivings or feelings of guilt about kicking a child in the face so hard that her teeth shattered and her tongue was severed.

[Assail]

Myshkin, on Apr 16 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

Let's straighten some things out here:

Tairy himself has said that the chicken was meant to show that evil can take on even the most mundane of aspects. Therefor he was not trying to be funny. Therefor he deserves to be ridiculed mercilessly for it.

As for kicking Violet, the problem isn't that Richard kicked a child in the face, the problem is that Tairy portrayed it as the Good and Right thing to do. All of us can be pushed to a point where we will lash out violently, but most of us can understand that lashing out violently is not morally justifiable in most cases. Not so for Richard (Tairy). Richard never once has misgivings or feelings of guilt about kicking a child in the face so hard that her teeth shattered and her tongue was severed.

I would like to see the information behind TG himself saying that, I'm really quite curious.

Is the triumph of good over evil in a world of fantasy not the right, morally justifiable thing to do? I certainly think so. The girl was a tyrantess in training, shit she was shown to be the closest thing to straight evil that there could be in a 'normal' human being. So the message could also be seen that yes, it is morally justifiable and correct to punish the wicked. Story of the bible too I believe...

[Aptorian]

Quote

"Hissing, hackles lifting, the chicken's head rose. Kahlan pulled back. Its claws digging into stiff dead flesh, the chicken slowly turned to face her. It cocked its head, making its comb flop, its wattles sway. "Shoo," Kahlan heard herself whisper. There wasn't enough light, and besides, the side of its beak was covered with gore, so she couldn't tell if it had the dark spot, But she didn't need to see it. "Dear spirits, help me," she prayed under her breath. The bird let out a slow chicken cackle. It sounded like a chicken, but in her heart she knew it wasn't. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken. This looked like a chicken, like most of the Mud People's chickens. But this was no chicken. This was evil manifest."-- Soul of the Fire

Here's the first part of the chicken scene. Absolutely nothing funny in there, just ridiculous drama. It's a FUCKING CHICKEN!!! KICK IT... sigh... worst part is that scene where it gets a whole of her hand and is worrying the meat on the back of her hand. stupid chicken.

Seriously... "shoo"? Shoo...? ...seriously...

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 03:59 AM, said:

Well you have to take into consideration what exactly the chimes were. They were primal aspects that weren't exactly like a human in terms of consideration or thought. Apart from from existing to destroy magic they held no other purpose. So TG decided to throw one in (In a humorous context I'd like to think) a scene with Kahlan.

The chicken was a chime? I never got more than a hundred pages into that book, but I thought they were... like... real chimes or something. So these chimes were actually taking on form and walking the world, kicking ass? Then why didn't that chicken chime kill Kalam? or attack Richard, Zed and Bonewoman?

I always thought the chicken was just some weird nether beast like that thing that once came out of the Underworld and couldn't be killed with arrows.

That chicken just became even more stupid.

James Hetfield, on Apr 17 2009, 05:43 AM, said:

Example-It's okay to hurt a child if they hurt you because someone encourages such behaviour! I believe that is in the first book when he kicks the girl in the jaw and possibly kills her. The other horrible thing about that is Tairy made me feel like Ricardo was justified in doing it and I felt exulted by the act.

Uhm, not everything Richard does I take as being the authors personal beliefs writing down on the page. Just because something bad happens in a book, doesn't mean that the author is supporting it.

That said, the Jawkick of Truth from the first book was one of my favorite scenes in that book. I was so happy when, despite being completely broken, Richard still was able to muster enough will to freaking kick that little bitches head to pieces.

Maybe it's just me, not being a parent and all... maybe its that little seething part of me that hates noisy, whining children... but I see nothing wrong in what Richard did to the princess. She was an evil little creature, and that's meant in the strictest sense of that word... evil. She wanted to see RIchard tortured, she talked about having Kahlan raped, etc. If a child harbors that kind of thoughts and that kind of malicious will, they stop being innocent, sweet little things in my opinion and I wouldn't blink if you threw them in front of a bus.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Grief, on Apr 16 2009, 01:45 PM, said:

That is some awesome cleaver.
And you're right about TG being rubbish and Erikson being fantastic.

The other thing is, Erikson would have deliberately made the chicken funny, whereas TG it was srss business that just came out as funny because the stupidity of him.

yes, my thoughts exactly!



And I also enjoyed the "kick the little girl in the face" - scene. That little monster deserved it(and no, I'm not a big fan of kids). But it was probably the ONLY scene I liked. The only scene I remember, except for passages of stupid bad guy licking his fucking eyebrows. WTF?

[Werthead]

Quote

Is the triumph of good over evil in a world of fantasy not the right, morally justifiable thing to do? I certainly think so. The girl was a tyrantess in training, shit she was shown to be the closest thing to straight evil that there could be in a 'normal' human being. So the message could also be seen that yes, it is morally justifiable and correct to punish the wicked. Story of the bible too I believe...

Given the death and destruction perpetuated by religion or in religion's name, saying something is okay because the Bible said so is a non-argument.

Violet was a nasty little girl raised in a society and by people who were callous, uncaring and unfeeling. She is a product of her upbringing and environment. She is the fantasy equivalent of a Somali child soldier in that sense. However, just as Somali child soldiers can be rehabilitated and grow up to be a decent individual if put in a nurturing and supportive environment, Violet was not 'evil' beyond redemption. No eight-year-old child ever could be.

Now, if Violet had literally been pointing a gun at the hero's head and was about to pull the trigger, his actions would be understandable. But that was not the case. He remained incarcerated and his actions did nothing to help him escape. Violet herself wasn't going to be doing the torturing, various minions were, so him incapacitating her did nothing practical to help him escape or avoid the torture at all. In fact, it turned Violet into even more of a twisted child and traumatised her to the point of bending all her will on revenge (she comes back, magically healed, in a later book), so it was actually a counter-productive move. He lashed out in blind rage and anger. If this was a moral lesson that Dick later came to regret, fair enough. It wasn't. Even if Violet's fate was immaterial and the act itself made Dick ponder that lashing out without thinking is not a good idea, that would be at least something, but it wasn't.

It was an evil act perpetuated by epic fantasy's answer to Josef Stalin. I find arguments defending that act to be extremely disturbing.