[Aptorian]

Easy to condemn a man for kicking a girl when you're not in his place. Richard had been tortured for... months? at the time, broken down, a mental and physical wreck. Getting the chance to rid the world of one last, horrid little creature probably gave him the resilience to get through that whole ordeal.

You make the example of the Somalian child soldier, and you're right, the humanitarian thing would be to try and reeducate and salvage what ever humanity in that child. But you know what, if I was hanging in that Somali child's tin hut, I'd seen it, practically, execute innocent men and women at a whim, and it was telling me that it was going to commence torturing me soon and then rape my loved ones... I think I'd kick the little son of a bitches head off as well. Probably laughing in satisfaction at the little bastards plight.

[Werthead]

Aptorian, on Apr 17 2009, 06:19 PM, said:

Easy to condemn a man for kicking a girl when you're not in his place. Richard had been tortured for... months? at the time, broken down, a mental and physical wreck. Getting the chance to rid the world of one last, horrid little creature probably gave him the resilience to get through that whole ordeal.

I think it was a week or two at most. The first book doesn't cover a huge length of time that I remember.

Quote

You make the example of the Somalian child soldier, and you're right, the humanitarian thing would be to try and reeducate and salvage what ever humanity in that child. But you know what, if I was hanging in that Somali child's tin hut, I'd seen it, practically, execute innocent men and women at a whim, and it was telling me that it was going to commence torturing me soon and then rape my loved ones... I think I'd kick the little son of a bitches head off as well. Probably laughing in satisfaction at the little bastards plight.

False comparison. As I said earlier, Violet wasn't personally going to do anything. All she did was make threats and tell him what other people did. If she was about to torture and kill him, maybe attacking her would be a viable option. Since she wasn't, it wasn't.

One of the biggest problems in SoT is that a story about good versus evil, as this series allegedly is, requires the hero to be morally superior to the bad guys and not stoop to their level, and if he does (like say Rand al'Thor does on occasion in WoT) than there should be some kind of moral price to pay for that. Instead, Dick Rahl is morally inferior to his enemies and as the series continues he becomes more ruthless, amoral and his actions more disturbing and bloody. One of the reasons why this series is a complete failure, aside from the piss-poor writing, is that it has absolutely no moral centre at all, and is sexually violent and nasty for its own sake.

I remember holding out hope that in the final book there would be some kind of scales-falling-away-from-the-eyes moment when Dick saw the millions of corpses his tactics had created and the right-wing ultrafascist state he had created which despises differences between peoples and demands conformity to the leader's will. It never happened, and that for me makes this series despicable. It's right-wing neocon propaganda and nothing more.

[Aptorian]

I wouldn't call "blaiming" violet a false comparison. Officers are to be held accountable for their mens actions, whether they order an execution, torture, rape, etc. or do it themselves is the same difference. Violet, that's her name is it?, would have done all manners of unspeakable nastyness to Richard just for fun.

I maintain my position that the princess deserved what she got. Evil little bitch.

Interesting that she comes back though... who heals her? And what does she do? I'm guessing the Black Sisters/The Keeper is involved?

[Assail]

Werthead, on Apr 17 2009, 10:09 AM, said:

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.

If you would like to re-read what I said, I never said it was okay because of the Bible said it was so, I was just using it as an example that many of us could relate to and know.

Your statement is wrong for a number of reasons, and here they are. Her evil was beyond rehabilitation, simply because once her mother was killed it was left to her to run the kingdom, and what did she do? Continue the acts of torture, cruelty and general evil. Yes, I agree, she is a by-product of her earlier life, but at a young age she found herself governing Tamarang without any other influence, and as you said no child cannot be rehabilitated, so what was her problem? She chose to act the way she was, sure she didn't have a positive influence to help her change her ways but in the end she coherently made the decision to torture Richard, and to bait him with the perceived destruction of his loved ones. What he did was justifiable, and correct simply because she knew the difference between right and wrong and still she continued going down the wrong path, the evil path, because she felt it was her authority as Queen that allowed it. Simply because of her choice does it show that yeah, some children are beyond rehabilitation because she got to the age where she could have decided for herself, and so chose to continue being evil.

He also shows that every human has a point where they won't take anymore, this is also after he had already been captured and held by Denna for MONTHS, do you think as a human character that is as flawed as any other human being he would sit there and not react to a snotty little bitch saying how shes going to have his loved ones killed, raped, tortured etc etc? Child or not, what she was doing is irreprehensible.

What an ignorant statement to compare TG to Joseph Stalin.

Spoiler

I mean, are you kidding me? You may as well call SE Hitler because he creates an organisation called "The Patriotists" within the Lether Empire after the Edur take over that is basically the equivalent of the Gestapo, not to mention him writing of the genocide of entire tribes within MBotF.

Listen to what you say before you go and call an author Joseph Stalin, no matter how much you dislike his writing.

Aptorian, on Apr 17 2009, 10:46 AM, said:

I wouldn't call "blaiming" violet a false comparison. Officers are to be held accountable for their mens actions, whether they order an execution, torture, rape, etc. or do it themselves is the same difference. Violet, that's her name is it?, would have done all manners of unspeakable nastyness to Richard just for fun.

I maintain my position that the princess deserved what she got. Evil little bitch.

Interesting that she comes back though... who heals her? And what does she do? I'm guessing the Black Sisters/The Keeper is involved?

It was Six, the witch woman that stole Richard's power. Or I believe it was, I admit not reading SoT in some time.

[Aptorian]

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 10:33 PM, said:

What an ignorant statement to compare TG to Joseph Stalin.

Spoiler

I mean, are you kidding me? You may as well call SE Hitler because he creates an organisation called "The Patriotists" within the Lether Empire after the Edur take over that is basically the equivalent of the Gestapo, not to mention him writing of the genocide of entire tribes within MBotF.

Listen to what you say before you go and call an author Joseph Stalin, no matter how much you dislike his writing.

The problem with Goodkind is that there is more than one interview with him spouting crazy pseudo political nonsense, where he claims that Richard is "Terry Goodkind" if Terry Goodkind was a fantasy character... or something like that. Basically he stands by all the crazy things Richard says and does in those books.

Also Goodkind is really fond of women being raped, it's like no good story is complete without some woman being bent over a table and a group of soldiers gangbanging her.

There is something very disturbing about that man.

[Assail]

Aptorian, on Apr 17 2009, 01:50 PM, said:

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 10:33 PM, said:

What an ignorant statement to compare TG to Joseph Stalin.

Spoiler

I mean, are you kidding me? You may as well call SE Hitler because he creates an organisation called "The Patriotists" within the Lether Empire after the Edur take over that is basically the equivalent of the Gestapo, not to mention him writing of the genocide of entire tribes within MBotF.

Listen to what you say before you go and call an author Joseph Stalin, no matter how much you dislike his writing.

The problem with Goodkind is that there is more than one interview with him spouting crazy pseudo political nonsense, where he claims that Richard is "Terry Goodkind" if Terry Goodkind was a fantasy character... or something like that. Basically he stands by all the crazy things Richard says and does in those books.

Also Goodkind is really fond of women being raped, it's like no good story is complete without some woman being bent over a table and a group of soldiers gangbanging her.

There is something very disturbing about that man.

Sure, if I watched those interviews them I would probably find them weird as well, but I mean, that doesn't stop me enjoying his books. Sure, he also has a rape fantasy that he portrays in his books, I'm not going to hate on the author because of it, nor does it affect the entirety of the series enough to make me not enjoy that either.

The guy is probably weird, thing is, I'll never know unless I chill with the bloke so why bother talking about it?

These aren't facts that give people the right to go around and call an author Joseph Stalin.

[Macros]

er, I think the point was, Dicky rahl is as an evil if not greater evil tool than the badies he fights.
Trying to set SE up as hitler becasue (RG spoilers_

Spoiler

the patriotists movement is stupid. The patriotists are clearly displayed to be evil petty men consumed by greed and twisted by their power, the edur, purpportedly once an evil race, even try to stamp them out, and they get their come upance.

Now I'll freely admit I havent read all the series, I simply wouldnt be willing to invest my time in such tripe, but from everythign i've reada bout it and followed here, dickery gets no such come uppance, no balancing for being a douchebag. I'm normally a proponent of fire with fire, but some of the story lines are just ridiculous

[Assail]

Macros, on Apr 17 2009, 02:18 PM, said:

er, I think the point was, Dicky rahl is as an evil if not greater evil tool than the badies he fights.
Trying to set SE up as hitler becasue (RG spoilers_

Spoiler

the patriotists movement is stupid. The patriotists are clearly displayed to be evil petty men consumed by greed and twisted by their power, the edur, purpportedly once an evil race, even try to stamp them out, and they get their come upance.

Now I'll freely admit I havent read all the series, I simply wouldnt be willing to invest my time in such tripe, but from everythign i've reada bout it and followed here, dickery gets no such come uppance, no balancing for being a douchebag. I'm normally a proponent of fire with fire, but some of the story lines are just ridiculous

All that Richard set out to do in the books was essentially to put an end to the greater scheme of evil. He did that, he had his come uppances, he was tortured, he was abused, he lost things and people and didn't have any easy time doing what he did.

And I think you might be right, I may have misunderstood the Stalin comment lol. Ah well.

[Macros]

From what I can gather his ending the evil caused devastation on a mass scale.
If you suggest reading the books to see for myself you loose a testicle.

I shall find an unbiased and succinct review ont he net

ah, here we go

[Assail]

Macros, on Apr 17 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

From what I can gather his ending the evil caused devastation on a mass scale.
If you suggest reading the books to see for myself you loose a testicle.

I shall find an unbiased and succinct review ont he net

ah, here we go

Such is war though, people died, if that's what you're talking about. In the end though, he won out.

Lmfao, that uncyclopedia is gold. Seriously some funny stuff in there.

Edit: "In this last book of the series, Richard finds out that the Sword of Truth shows people the truth of Kahlan existing. Therefore, he gets everyone he knows to molest his sword. Then, he is able to rescue Kahlan from Jagang but first- he must win the Superbowl. He succeeds which causes a riot between the Raiders and 49ers fans."

LMFAO

This post has been edited by Assail: 17 April 2009 - 09:39 PM

[Grief]

If memory serves Richard slaughters a group of unarmed anti-war protesters, sure i've read the scene somewhere.

How the hell can the protaganist supposed to be the good guy, be more moral than his enemies in instances like that...

[Assail]

Grief, on Apr 17 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

If memory serves Richard slaughters a group of unarmed anti-war protesters, sure i've read the scene somewhere.

How the hell can the protaganist supposed to be the good guy, be more moral than his enemies in instances like that...

I'm unfamiliar with the actual passage, though I do remember it. I want to say there is provocation but as I said, I can't quite remember it. Anyone got the excerpt?

[Illuyankas]

Grief, on Apr 17 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

slaughters a group of unarmed anti-war protesters

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

provocation

Grief, on Apr 17 2009, 03:12 PM, said:

mass murder of signwaving pacifists

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

provocation

See my avatar.

[Grief]

Here we are:

Quote

They raced out from the long shadows of the buildings and poured around the corner. The people off at the end of the street all turned when they spotted Richard's force coming. More people--men and women from the city--surged into the street in front of the compound of buildings the soldiers had taken oup as barracks and a command post. The people looked like a scraggly lot.

"No war! No war! No war!" the people shouted as Richard led the men up the street at a dead run.
"Out of the way!" Richard yelled as he closed the distance. This was no time for subtlety or discussions: the success of their attack depended in large part on speed. "Get out of the way! This is your only warning! Get out of the way or die!"
"Stop the hate! Stop the hate!" the people chanted as they locked arms.
They had no idea how much hate was raging through Richard. He drew the Sword of Truth. The wrath of its magic didn't come out with it, but he had enough of his own. He slowed to a trot.
"Move!" Richard called as he bore down on the people.
A plump, curly-haired woman took a step out from the others. Her round face was red with anger as she screamed. "Stop the hate! No war! Stop the hate! No war!"
"Move or die!" Richard yelled as he picked up speed.
The red-faced woman shook her fleshy fist at Richard and his men, leading an angry chant. "Murderers! Murderers! Murderers!"
On his way past her, gritting his teeth as he screamed with the fury of the attack begun, Richard took a powerful swing, lopping off the woman's head and upraised arm. Strings of blood and gore splashed across the faces behind her even as some still chanted their empty words. The head and loose arm tumbled through the crowd. A man mad the mistake of reaching for Richard's weapon, and took the full weight of a charging thrust.
Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel.
At the realization that their defense of the Imperial Order's brutality would actually result in consequences to themselves, the crowd began scattering in fright, screaming curses back at Richard and his men.

[Assail]

Grief, on Apr 17 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

Here we are:

Quote

They raced out from the long shadows of the buildings and poured around the corner. The people off at the end of the street all turned when they spotted Richard's force coming. More people--men and women from the city--surged into the street in front of the compound of buildings the soldiers had taken oup as barracks and a command post. The people looked like a scraggly lot.

"No war! No war! No war!" the people shouted as Richard led the men up the street at a dead run.
"Out of the way!" Richard yelled as he closed the distance. This was no time for subtlety or discussions: the success of their attack depended in large part on speed. "Get out of the way! This is your only warning! Get out of the way or die!"
"Stop the hate! Stop the hate!" the people chanted as they locked arms.
They had no idea how much hate was raging through Richard. He drew the Sword of Truth. The wrath of its magic didn't come out with it, but he had enough of his own. He slowed to a trot.
"Move!" Richard called as he bore down on the people.
A plump, curly-haired woman took a step out from the others. Her round face was red with anger as she screamed. "Stop the hate! No war! Stop the hate! No war!"
"Move or die!" Richard yelled as he picked up speed.
The red-faced woman shook her fleshy fist at Richard and his men, leading an angry chant. "Murderers! Murderers! Murderers!"
On his way past her, gritting his teeth as he screamed with the fury of the attack begun, Richard took a powerful swing, lopping off the woman's head and upraised arm. Strings of blood and gore splashed across the faces behind her even as some still chanted their empty words. The head and loose arm tumbled through the crowd. A man mad the mistake of reaching for Richard's weapon, and took the full weight of a charging thrust.
Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel.
At the realization that their defense of the Imperial Order's brutality would actually result in consequences to themselves, the crowd began scattering in fright, screaming curses back at Richard and his men.

Well there you go, she raised her meaty fist at him, this explains everything. But really, this is interesting because it shows that TG created a character that is flawed, and in extreme circumstances can be driven to act in ways that are frowned upon.

[Myshkin]

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

All that Richard set out to do in the books was essentially to put an end to the greater scheme of evil. He did that, he had his come uppances, he was tortured, he was abused, he lost things and people and didn't have any easy time doing what he did.

To use Stalin again: Stalin fought Hitler; does that make Stalin a good guy? Becoming evil to fight greater evil does not make Dick Rahl "good".

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

Well there you go, she raised her meaty fist at him, this explains everything. But really, this is interesting because it shows that TG created a character that is flawed, and in extreme circumstances can be driven to act in ways that are frowned upon.

This would be ok, if it were true. The fact is that TG did not set out to create a "flawed" character; he set out to create a paragon of morality. TG has stated on more than one occasion that he wants his readers to ask "What would Richard do?" when faced with real life moral dilemmas. This means that TG never intended Richard's actions to be seen as morally questionable. The simple fact is that TG 1) subscribes to a fascist world view, and 2) substitutes his basest desires for moral righteousness.

Going back to Violet: the whole scene would have been fine if it were portrayed as a man lashing out violently at a child after having been pushed over the edge by torture, both physical and mental. It however was not portrayed that way. It was portrayed as a man lashing out violently at a child because it was the Right thing to do. If you remember, one of Richard's super special abilities was "partitioning his mind", allowing him to stay sane throughout his torture. This means he had no excuse for his actions.

This post has been edited by Myshkin: 18 April 2009 - 12:54 AM

[stone monkey]

We know (because Tairy makes it abundantly clear) that Richard is always right. It's made very obvious in pretty much every book (all of the ones that I've been able to stomach reading, that is; I've not read them all because I'm quite careful about what I let into my head) that the reader is supposed to think that anyone who opposes Richard is utterly in the wrong; the fact that really the author thinks they're wrong merely because they're up against his Mary Sue is another issue entirely. And thus anything Richard does to further his own cause is right - the very fact it's him that's doing it would appear to be what makes his actions right; and nothing to do with the actions themselves.

That is most definitely not an example of flawed character, it's an example of a flawed writer.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 18 April 2009 - 01:07 AM

[Assail]

stone monkey, on Apr 17 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

We know (because Tairy makes it abundantly clear) that Richard is always right. It's made very obvious in pretty much every book (all of the ones that I've been able to stomach reading, that is; I've not read them all because I'm quite careful about what I let into my head) that the reader is supposed to think that anyone who opposes Richard is utterly in the wrong; the fact that really the author thinks they're wrong merely because they're up against his Mary Sue is another issue entirely. And thus anything Richard does to further his own cause is right - the very fact it's him that's doing it would appear to be what makes his actions right; and nothing to do with the actions themselves.

That is most definitely not an example of flawed character, it's an example of a flawed writer.

What you're describing concerning Richard being always right is how it is. That's it. Do you not also believe that whatever causes you take in are right? For the most part, 100%? Of course anything/body that opposes the protagonist is wrong. That's how books are, the CG is 100% wrong because he's the antithesis to MBotF's protagonists. Bad example because MBotF isn't solely from one protagonists view point, hell they're even hard to discern but you get what I'm saying. It never had to be Richard doing it, his soldiers could have done it, anyone could have done it and it would have been considered right, just because the whole series was narrated from the protagonist side of things, and of course they're going to see the things they do as right. Just because he chose to write Richard committing the acts it doesn't mean he was saying "Because Richard was there it's okay, but no one else", he was probably doing it because hell, Richard is an interesting character and the story set him up to be in that place at that time.

I say it's a great example, because without flaws he would be a perfect character, which he is not. This is shown through is slaughter of protesters. Just because Richard is shown to be right it doesn't mean he's perfect. There's a difference there.

[Assail]

Myshkin, on Apr 17 2009, 05:52 PM, said:

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

All that Richard set out to do in the books was essentially to put an end to the greater scheme of evil. He did that, he had his come uppances, he was tortured, he was abused, he lost things and people and didn't have any easy time doing what he did.

To use Stalin again: Stalin fought Hitler; does that make Stalin a good guy? Becoming evil to fight greater evil does not make Dick Rahl "good".

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

Well there you go, she raised her meaty fist at him, this explains everything. But really, this is interesting because it shows that TG created a character that is flawed, and in extreme circumstances can be driven to act in ways that are frowned upon.

This would be ok, if it were true. The fact is that TG did not set out to create a "flawed" character; he set out to create a paragon of morality. TG has stated on more than one occasion that he wants his readers to ask "What would Richard do?" when faced with real life moral dilemmas. This means that TG never intended Richard's actions to be seen as morally questionable. The simple fact is that TG 1) subscribes to a fascist world view, and 2) substitutes his basest desires for moral righteousness.

Going back to Violet: the whole scene would have been fine if it were portrayed as a man lashing out violently at a child after having been pushed over the edge by torture, both physical and mental. It however was not portrayed that way. It was portrayed as a man lashing out violently at a child because it was the Right thing to do. If you remember, one of Richard's super special abilities was "partitioning his mind", allowing him to stay sane throughout his torture. This means he had no excuse for his actions.

See now I don't think what Richard did was evil, nor do I feel that a character becomes instantly evil through one act. You can't call Richard an evil character due to a minor act, I mean shit you need to look into the context of the passage as well. He was desperate to get somewhere (Can't remember where but you get my meaning) and he was blocked after warning the people, they got what was coming to them in the circumstances. Furthermore, Stalin never fought Hitler for what could be considered good reasons. They were selfish reasons, reasons created because of Stalin's insecurity concerning Hitler's rising domination of Europe. Stalin wanted to oust Hitler so as to remain in his own state as an effective tyrant of Europe, not because Hitler was committing genocide. Anyway, that was off topic.

I don't see the relevance of this, I mean I understand TG stated that he wanted people to look up to Richard's morality and "Ask what Richard would do". The thing is though, you can't take the whole story behind Richard and do that. We have to take a step back and realize for a second that he lives in a world that is imaginary. A world to which we can't compare, and for the most part, cannot apply "What Richard would do" to our own lives. He lives in a world of medieval wars, magic and aspects that we don't have, so how can you argue such a point? Sure, some things Richard did can be compared to life in general, but TG obviously didn't think about what he said concerning what Richard would do when he made that statement. Because in actuality (Reiteration yes) we just can't look up to him because of the different types of worlds we live in. Now if this was set in modern day, no magic and was fully non fiction, then that would be another story, but it's not.

Good point, then again you still have to consider that partitioning ones mind did not make him fully immune to the effects of torture. Do you think that after being tortured by Denna, he would go and let it happen again? I've already been over this, in my opinion, at least, I find that what he did was justifiable. The things she did to Rachel, the general inhabitants of Tamarang, Richard and his associates within the book, everything. She deserved it, child or not. If she could step up to govern a province as lead it as queen then she can step up and stop being a child and take what is given out to her WHEN it's warranted, which it was.

God so much opposition, will no one help me? Lol.

This post has been edited by Assail: 18 April 2009 - 01:37 AM

[Mentalist]

No, no one will

Assail, one thing you have to understand

many of us love Erikson's work, precisely because it gives us a world where every person has motives, even most hated person can put up a defence to make you pause before condemnation.

Because that's real life.

Goodkind paints you the world of absolutes--there is Absolute Good (Richard) and there is Absolute Evil (varies throughout the series)

and Malazites don't buy it. We don't believe in absolutes, because the world is not like that. That is why we reject Goodkind's view of self-righteousness, and we find his pathos in defending it worthy of ridicule. It's because he tells us the world is fundamentally different from what we think it is like.
His stories are farces--they would probably make great, really deep satire, were it not for the author's constant fervent re-stating that he means every word that he writes.

That is why, aside from episodic agreements with some members about small aspects of the work, you will never meet approval for the concept as a whole--we don't believe in black and white, we believe in shades of gray. that's the fundamental root of all disagreement here.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 18 April 2009 - 02:47 AM