[Assail]

Morgoth, on Apr 18 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 07:26 PM, said:

Grief, on Apr 18 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 07:15 PM, said:

I would agree if Richard WAS doing the same things they were. Sure, he cut down some war protesters, it could have been handled differently. But he wasn't stealing from the poor, subjugating entire people to fight for him (D'Harans willingly followed him), raping people day and night, killing babies and young children.

Wait, violet was how old?

Oh wait, it doens't matter, she was an EVIL young child, that makes it ok.

And I would argue that slaughtering a mass of unarmed protestors is considerably worse than stealing form the poor, which is corrupt, but not close to as evil as that.

Was Violet killed? Was Violet an evil little bitch who murdered hundreds of people on a whim? Was she a a tyrantess who revelled in torture and pain? Was she an evil ruler who pushed Richard to a limit?

You're telling me if some little kid had your strung up, talking shit about raping and killing your family, was about to torture you, you'd sit and chill and not lash out in an attempt to fuck that little asshole up? Because it was a child? Okay.

Acts accumulate. You're going to say he was as evil for killing those protesters as the people who are raping people etc etc the same stuff I said above?

You seem to have a blind spot here. This girl is eight years old. Eight. Do you realise why we differentiate between children and adults in the legal sense?

All of that is however not relevant. You see, what people are generally bothered with is not that Richard could do such a thing. It's quite understandable an action. The problem is when you look at Richard's action in the context of the series. Richard is the Hero. In this ridiculous black and white world of TG, Richard is the extreeme white. Everything he does is moraly just, including kicking Violet in the jaw – an act that causes him no feelings of guilt btw. We do not react because Richard kicked Violet in the jaw. We do not react because he slaughtered protestors. Kallor has done much worse yet he's one of my favourite characters. What we react to is how Richard's actions are always moraly just. Slaughtering unarmed pacifists is just. Kicking an eight year old girl so hard her jaw shatters is just. Enforcing your idea of morality on others by the sword is just. That is what we find so disgusting.

You make the argument that Richard's actions in the end saved the day, but that does not make them better. If I wrote a book, I could write it so that a man skinning infants as a hobby ended up saving the world because the skin of one happened to be magical. The author can always make an action the correct one, no matter what it is.

Was it the right thing to do, kicking Violet in the jaw? Of course not. Doing so changed nothing, if anything it made her even worse. It was an act of hatred against an eight year old girl. Understandable, yes. Right, no.

Jesus I don't get a rest between arguments. You guys are straight tandeming it lol. Okay!

As you said, it's not relevant, now, no one has answered my question. What would you do in Richard's place? I certainly wouldn't have taken it with a smile. There, you're supposed to look through Richard's eyes and ask what he would do, so reverse it, what would you do? If you would sit there and take the torture and very real threats, then grats, you did the morally 'right' thing not to strike a child. If not, then you've just gone back on everything you said. (Yes relevance, but I wanted to throw that one out there).

It comes down to perception and perspective, I found that passage to be morally just, she didn't even get what she deserved, she got an inkling of it. I believe in an eye-for-an-eye and so I found what he did to be beyond question. Now if it was an innocent little girl, then no, you're right it would be morally reprehensible and completely wrong. The little girl wasn't innocent though. Are you going to say that those war protesters were passive? I'm not, by no means were they violent, but don't put a name to something where it doesn't belong. Actually, Grief where did you get that excerpt from earlier? I want to re-read the chapter and I don't have my book on me.

Once again, he never forced his ideals upon anyone. The Midlands accepted his rule, as did D'Hara and the Westlands, Jagang was the one invading, seeking to force HIS beliefs upon the people of Midlands etc by the sword. There is distinction.

The whole skinning analogy doesn't even have any relevance, because Richard never set out with the intent to harm children in order to save the world. She captured him, remember? He didn't go around skinning infants and magically finding a skin that made him God. No, he went around trying to save all that he loved and wanted to be free, he found opposition and dealt with it.

That's where I disagree, I agreed with what he did, probably should have done more. I wouldn't want a little girl ruling a province with the intents she harboured. Hell no.

[Assail]

Grief, on Apr 18 2009, 11:41 AM, said:

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

Morgoth, on Apr 18 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

Grief, on Apr 18 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

Ah well, the fact is though, TG created Richard, and though he told people he made Richard to be a character for people to look up to, he did make him commit morally questionable acts. This twisted his aim, and his style and in my opinion showed him to be quite a talented author, because at the end of a passage like that he had millions of people who read his book thinking "Wtf, our hero just dropped to Darken Rahl's level". He made the reader go through the crisis of realizing that even their perfectly right hero can be wrong in some instances.

No, this does not make him a talented author.

He may have made the readers think that, but if so, it is not deliberate on his part, because he created Richard as the Paragon of Good, always right, never grey or questionable etc.

So though the reader may have had these thoughts, it is not due to talent on the authors part.

In fact, I would argue that it is a definite failing on the authors part, because he set out to create a paragon of good and failed, because he made him do questionable things. However instead of then making him a questionable character, he instead went down the other road of "It's right because Richard does it and he's the paragon of good like I set out to create him".

I don't suppose you've ever considered that you can't make a paragon of good? You never considered that TG made that point with some of the things Richard did?

Since he's clearly stated that this is not the case.. No

I could now argue that it was inadvertent.

I could now argue that any author who's fans enjoy his books/characters because of something he did inadvertently lacks talent.
I could also now argue that an author who makes an evil character by accident when he believes his character to be the embodiment of good is a rather twisted individual.

To believe everything an author has written has been completely planned out is just ignorance right there. Every author within their books has inadvertently had things happen which improves the quality of his/her works. That's a given, they don't have a lack of talent because of it.

Difference of opinion I suppose, I never once considered to believe Richard evil. That's how TG works though I suppose.

[Grief]

I would say that you never once considered Richard evil a failing of the author, in that he always portrays the acts of Richard, however evil, as good. Slaughtering war protesters?
I'm sorry, but I consider that evil.
It shows that the character, the supposed good guy, is willing to slaighter innocents simply for opposing him.
That he doesn't care at all about other people, or their opinions. That is called a dictatorship.

Also, yes, authors can do things inadvertantly, which can improve things, and it doesn't always show lack of talent.

However, I would say it does show lack of talent in this case, because in this specific case it is a BIG accident. He takes a supposedly "good" guy, and makes him evil. I mean, I would say that most authors do not just inadvertantly completely change the moral stance of a character.

But that is not the worst part.
The worst part is that though he has become evil, the books still insist that he is the "good guy" and all his acts are justified. And because he is the "good guy" the acts are not evil.
And though the reader may be left thinking "WTF, he's just as bad as the evils" the books do not accept this, they still insist that he is not, he is in the moral right, is a good guy, and is never presented as otherwise.
The inability of the author to realise this failing in himself, that good guys are good because they are good, and evil because they are evil, and even if good guys act just as evil as the evil they are still evil, makes me dislike the writing.

I would not mind half so much if Richards acts were presented as immoral, if he was a grey character, who was presented as a tyrant just as bad as the other evils. But he is not. He is always right, and any evil act he does is by default not evil, in the books, even if it is in the readers mind.

So yes, you can say that you think it gives a moral ambiguity, because he does things in the books which are evil, and is just as bad as the others.
But this in the the mind of the readers.
In the books, he is a good character, and there is no moral ambiguity, and he is not just as bad as the others, which shows bad writing, in my opinion.

[HoosierDaddy]

Wait, was the question "what would I do in Rick's place?" Oh, I know this one. Bone Nikki. Big-time. Try to convince Kahlan to join in too. Rick could use a little menage-a-tois relaxation.

[Sixty]

HoosierDaddy, on Apr 18 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

Wait, was the question "what would I do in Rick's place?" Oh, I know this one. Bone Nikki. Big-time. Try to convince Kahlan to join in too. Rick could use a little menage-a-tois relaxation.

+1

That would have made a far superior ending to the lame anti-climax.

edit:
@assail:
The primary argument is not about whether he did the right thing--hell, I would've kicked her teeth out myself--but the fact that TG writes it as him being the perfect good guy, espousing self-important/self-righteous philosophy the whole way through is extremely irritating.
That and the protagonist shield is rather lame. Never at one point in the book was I scared that someone would die, because--surprise!--no important main character does (

Spoiler

the sole exception being ann, but no one gives a shit about her anyway

).

This post has been edited by Sixty: 18 April 2009 - 07:53 PM

[Grief]

What would I do in Richards place?

Quite possibly I would lash out. I do not know.

However, this is me. Richard is the "good guy". If I did it, I would damn well know that it was an evil act. But in the books it is not presented as so. It is presented as fine. Because Richard is the good guy.

If I was Richard, I would be the embodiment of good according to the books. If I was the embodiment of good, I would not do what he did. Because it is an evil act.

My problem is not so much that a character does evil things.

My problem is that a character does evil things, and because the character is the good guy, the acts are shown as good. The acts are never admitted to be evil. The character is always shown to be right.

I do not have a problem with a charcter doing evil things. I do have a problem with the writing which insists that the things are not evil, because the character is a good guy.

[Mentalist]

Grief has been doing some good work here.

Assail, to put things in perspective, since you were struck by the comparison to Stalin so much
Thanks to Stalin, millions of illiterate peasants got a chance at getting education and being somehting other than peasants. Thanks to Stalin, millions of peasants saw an electric lightbulb and plumbing in their homes.

Thanks to Hitler, Germany enjoys a superb network of roads, and he brought the country out of Economic depression and into an economic powerhouse.

now, none of this justifies their means, and you consider them tyrants. but did the people who lived at that time, that saw them bring change for the better, really think that way?

and yes, for your information, I don't believe in absolute good and evil. Yes, when I act in life, I'd like to think that I am right, but i also know that "right" and "wrong" are relative. and that I cannot force others to see it the same way I do.
Life is cruel and unfair, often. everyone makes choices they regret.

The fact that Richard is incapable of feeling regret for his action, btw, makes him a psycopath, in a clinical sense of the term,

[Sixty]

That, and, upon further review/reread of certain excerpts, he abuses the word "as" in the situation "so and so did this as so and so did that". Irritating imo.

Just nit-picking though.

[Grief]

Hmm, I use as a decent amount while writing.
Usually applied to one person though, instead of as sos and sos did this so and so did that with 2 characters, I have so and so died one thing as he did another thing(Idk, spat as he climbed from his horse, etc...)

[Werthead]

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 09:33 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.

I think I compared Richard to Stalin, not the author. I think the difference is that Richard may have killed more people than Stalin in the last two books (he lays waste to the entire civilian population of the Old World which is an empire the size of Asia according to Goodkind).

Grief, on Apr 17 2009, 11:12 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...

As mentioned earlier, it's not just those instances. It's the mass slaughter of the civilian population of the empire and the murder (by Kahlan and Zedd) of an unarmed diplomat from an allied nation whose kingdom had been ravaged by war and couldn't commit troops to Richard's cause, among many other instances.

There's also the Stupid, such as Dick winning over an enemy city's population by building the Buddy Christ version of himself and the bit where he is captured, breaks out of prison, kills dozens of guards, and is recaptured, but the guard captain is so impressed with Dick's valour he asks him to join his soccer team (WTF?). Also, the bit where Dick rips out an enemy's spine through his stomach and the enemy continues to fight for several seconds despite being an ordinary human.

[The Tyrant Lizard]

I dont know about the rest of you, but when I endured the torture scene and that little clunge of a girl came in I was hoping beyond hope that Richard was going to get his own back on her, and when it finally happened I was over the moon. That could be construde as good writing in my opinion. I was satisfied with the result of his foot in her face. I also wanted him to kill the other people that totured him, but because he's too damn 'good', he decided to love Denna to death instead of driving his fist through her face. Bad writing in my opinion.

Yes Richard was painted as the white hat wearing hero who never did anything wrong, but remember that we are seeing things from Richards perspective, so obviously the things he does he will deem as right. A man who commits murder has obviously been able to justify it in his own mind or he wouldnt have done it. Richard shows simpathy for the girl, noting that he actually feels sorry for her and an emmence sadness overcomes him. so saying that he didnt care about that act is not true.

Anyone who was getting tortured would lash out if they had half the chance, regardless of the moral standpoint (and given that it being told from Richards point of view at that moment, moral rightness is irrelevent anyway.) And even after the act, Richard tells her to roll on to her back in order to prevent her from drowning on her own blood. I'd have let the bitch die, and still felt ok afterwards.

The acts of all the characters in the SoT books are morally justified by the characters themselves. Its not Goodkind dictating to you, he's just telling a story. If you think Rick the Dick does things that are bad, good. So does Jagang. and guess what? Richards thinks the things Jagang does are bad too. As readers, we can make up our own minds. So Richard is a self important twat who thinks its ok to boot girls in the face and slaughter unarmed people.

I can relate this to the Malazan world. KArsa thinks the things he does are completely rational. the other people who witness him doing these things think he is insane. we the reader can make up our own minds.

EDIT: don't say C*NT

This post has been edited by Cougar: 01 May 2009 - 07:58 PM

[Vengeance]

The Tyrant Lizard, on Apr 20 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

I dont know about the rest of you, but when I endured the torture scene and that little clunge of a girl came in I was hoping beyond hope that Richard was going to get his own back on her, and when it finally happened I was over the moon. That could be construde as good writing in my opinion. I was satisfied with the result of his foot in her face. I also wanted him to kill the other people that totured him, but because he's too damn 'good', he decided to love Denna to death instead of driving his fist through her face. Bad writing in my opinion.

Yes Richard was painted as the white hat wearing hero who never did anything wrong, but remember that we are seeing things from Richards perspective, so obviously the things he does he will deem as right. A man who commits murder has obviously been able to justify it in his own mind or he wouldnt have done it. Richard shows simpathy for the girl, noting that he actually feels sorry for her and an emmence sadness overcomes him. so saying that he didnt care about that act is not true.

Anyone who was getting tortured would lash out if they had half the chance, regardless of the moral standpoint (and given that it being told from Richards point of view at that moment, moral rightness is irrelevent anyway.) And even after the act, Richard tells her to roll on to her back in order to prevent her from drowning on her own blood. I'd have let the bitch die, and still felt ok afterwards.

The acts of all the characters in the SoT books are morally justified by the characters themselves. Its not Goodkind dictating to you, he's just telling a story. If you think Rick the Dick does things that are bad, good. So does Jagang. and guess what? Richards thinks the things Jagang does are bad too. As readers, we can make up our own minds. So Richard is a self important twat who thinks its ok to boot girls in the face and slaughter unarmed people.

I can relate this to the Malazan world. KArsa thinks the things he does are completely rational. the other people who witness him doing these things think he is insane. we the reader can make up our own minds.

Evil Chicken = Worst plot device ever made ever.

The first book had its moments. TG's writing never improves past the first book. His plot development and character development are stunted and treat readers like they are morons. How many times does Richard have to lose his power in order to learn something about himself and people. Give me a break. He is a friggin war wizard. Who should be able to destroy mountains in a single glance. And the last book can you say moronic ending. Lets have our hero boy create seperate worlds so that everybody can live happily ever after. Shudder.

Edited out the word C*NT, Cougar.

This post has been edited by Cougar: 01 May 2009 - 07:58 PM

[stone monkey]

Hang on... That "What would Richard do?" thing is actually true? Whoa...

As we all know "what Richard would do" is: whatever the fuck he wants, to whomever the fuck he wants, whenever the fuck he wants to... that's probably not the best advice to be giving out to people.

Anyway... I don't really want to repeat myself but Richard is always right. Goodkind bludgeons the reader over the head with this so many times it goes beyond funny and into the realms of seriously creepy. It's clear that TG agrees wholeheartedly with this.

And it's also pretty clear that any kind of relativism is anathema to him. Given all of this, it becomes quite insultingly clear that the reader is absolutely not being invited to think for himself about the morality of Richard's actions (or herself, I suppose; the almost pathological overuse of rape or potential rape as a motif in TG's work makes me shudder to think about the kind of female fans he has... but I digress...).

[Assail]

I will address you all in due time! Haha, busy writing reports to write more essays in reply to you guys. Never fear, I will put down all opposition!

[The Tyrant Lizard]

stone monkey, on Apr 21 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Given all of this, it becomes quite insultingly clear that the reader is absolutely not being invited to think for himself about the morality of Richard's actions

Do we really need to be invited to think for ourselves? This issue of morality is a point of view, and its obvious that TG agrees with Richard's POV. And we all know TG is a twat.

I agree the overuse of rape, insinuated rape, and potential rape are disturbing. Men in white coats should have a little chat with him.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Werthead, on Apr 19 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 09:33 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.

I think I compared Richard to Stalin, not the author. I think the difference is that Richard may have killed more people than Stalin in the last two books (he lays waste to the entire civilian population of the Old World which is an empire the size of Asia according to Goodkind).

Grief, on Apr 17 2009, 11:12 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...

As mentioned earlier, it's not just those instances. It's the mass slaughter of the civilian population of the empire and the murder (by Kahlan and Zedd) of an unarmed diplomat from an allied nation whose kingdom had been ravaged by war and couldn't commit troops to Richard's cause, among many other instances.

There's also the Stupid, such as Dick winning over an enemy city's population by building the Buddy Christ version of himself and the bit where he is captured, breaks out of prison, kills dozens of guards, and is recaptured, but the guard captain is so impressed with Dick's valour he asks him to join his soccer team (WTF?). Also, the bit where Dick rips out an enemy's spine through his stomach and the enemy continues to fight for several seconds despite being an ordinary human.

Seriously? How the hell does he come up with that ridiculous shit? Oh yeah, by watching too many stupid, horrible D-movies....JFC!


And I agree with Grief.

[Aztiel]

I know I'll never read the rest of this trash, but it just got continuously more distasteful, in both ridiculously overusing poor philosophical thought, and using the same storyline for every book.

Wait, Richard lost his powers again? Wait, Kahlan is missing and nobody knows who she is? Didn't I just read that?

It was like: Hm! I wonder what bogus, completely new plot device I can invent to make the characters have something to fight against. There was a new, completely unreferenced, magical danger in every book.

[councilor]

I read the first book maybe six, seven years ago and it wasn't that bad, because I was at least able to finish the thing. i tried to do the same with the later books a few years and later wasn't able to get very far. it's not the highly suspect morality of his characters, because truth be told, it's not the worst i've read. what does seem to irritate me is the way he seems to justify these actions, which is along the following lines:

1. the supposedly good characters are good because the book says so.
2. because they are good characters, their aims goals and beliefs must good and noble ones.
3. conversely, anyone they oppose must be baddies
4. the ends justify the means
5. ergo, mass murder of an entire empire is right because their ruler was someone that the main characters disagree with
6. no guilt should be felt because those committing genocide are good characters

circular argument anyone?

This post has been edited by councilor: 03 May 2009 - 05:04 AM

[Elephant Tamer]

Tairy bashing lite. Oh well.
The whole story is too contrived. Beyond the obstacle created in every book, the way the story unfolds is sometimes a little unsensible. The characters who are shoehorned in are terrible, and they take the plot from the protagonists, whom we have suffered a large amount of pages with, suddenly and without need. Pillars of Creation is an example of this. Oh yeah, and the cool names, which are totally misleading. Also a forgotten scene, where richard kills a bunch of highly trained sword fighters just like that. What else what else......
Oh yeah, naked empire, which was basiclly a filler book. It advances the plot almost nothing at all, except that rich can suddenly eat meat for a morally validating reasons.
give me time, ill remember more.

[forgottenmachine]

I know this thread has been inactive for a while, but as a new poster, I thought I would offer a small contribution to the discussion.

I came across as TG interview a while back, and I bookmarked it just in case I may need it in the future, to, for example, utilise it as a last word against any one who might attempt to put TG on the same level as other fantasy authors, most of whom are in many aspects simply just better writers. I will link to the transcript of the interview, lest I be accused of taking quotes out of context, but for the benefit or those bereft of the intestinal fortitude required to actually read the entire interview, I will list what in my estimation are the things that really, to coin a phrase perhaps appropriate for this thread, slaughter the chicken.

Now, I understand the taste argument, and I understand the stance that who a person is and what they create can be held separately, but when who that person is manifests in their story in a way that goes beyond the small degree of manifestation that will always appear due to the nature of what it is to write, they themselves are bridging that gap, and opening themselves to criticism. Besides, and though I may be alone in this thought yet I think not, I have found that when I appreciate the author on a personal level, my appreciation for their work increases. So many authors now choose to present an online appearance, and thus I think it is not unfair to judge them based on that. SE, Gaiman, Rothfuss, Martin, Mieville, van der Meer.....all are authors who in interviews and such appear to be measured thinkers, pleasant, witty, and even though some such as Mieville have very distinct views on politics, they do not use their work as an advancement of their own personal agendas and philosophies.

To illustrate my point better than I could hope to, here we go:

"When you get to be 20 you think you're grown up, but you're not. Your brain doesn't even stop developing until you're 24, 25, something like that. The intellectual aspects critical to worthwhile novels don't develop in a person that young."

"You need to build up a reservoir of experience writing the sun go down so that when it comes time to write a romantic sunset scene, you know how to make that scene different with words as opposed to, say, an ominous sunset scene. The sun is going down in both scenes, but to pick the words for each scene that a human being will understand, and pick up on clues that signify that this is ominous, or romantic—those things take living, they take experience."

"Every word that I write is critical. I will sometimes spend half a day on one paragraph because I'm trying to get the exact right words that convey the exact, proper connotations of what the human beings are thinking, doing, whatever."

Now here's one where TG pretty much opens the way to be criticised in precisely the manner so many posters have done in this thread, and precisely why when someone is trying to pander their own philsophies to an unprepared and unknowing public, it really is an act to rightly be analysed, and if found wanting, be labelled as such.

"At the same time, a story is a representation of the author's values. When you share those values, when you have the same values as the author, you're reading a story and seeing your values which may be difficult to understand in daily life because they take place over such a long range. When a reader sees those values realized in a story, it energizes him into believing in himself and understanding that yes, he can be the best person he can be, he can achieve goals and overcome difficulties. "

"Q: So if I see you drowning in a river, I can choose to jump in and try to save you, but I don't have to?

Terry Goodkind: Yes, exactly."

"These situations will never happen in your life for the most part. What people [religion and state] try to do is, they try to take those examples and say "You should help another person" and then they bring that down to the real issue of what they want: for you to sacrifice your life for other people, sometimes in other ways [than death]. For example, some people want you to give up your income to give to other people who don't have the ability or desire to, and that's the real practical application: collectivism. With a collectivist sort of mentality—I don't believe in that."

"What people do is, they ascribe values to things. A tree is a value to human beings for a variety of reasons: because it makes oxygen, because you can turn it into a piano, because you can burn it in the fireplace to keep warm. So a tree has value to a human being, but a tree does not have value intrinsically, in the absence of human beings. You can't ascribe values to things that are nonhuman. You can't say that a rock in and of itself, without human beings has value. Value for what? It has a value if a human being needs a rock to build a foundation for a house, but it can't have a value independent of mankind."

"For example, take the need for people to help others, to contribute some of their income to help the welfare of other Americans. That's their faith, so they create the income tax system. If you're not willing to go along with their faith and go along with the greater good, then they come with guns and take you to jail. They are willing to force to enforce that faith. So, Americans are, in essence, sacrificing part of their life into slavery to others. That faith is enforced by guns and jails. We're not willingly giving them part of our income; people don't like paying taxes, and justifiably so, because they're sacrificing part of their life to other people. It's this concept of sacrificing for the greater good, and that faith is being enforced by a government who has guns and jails.

You can happily pay your taxes and say "There's no force involved, I'm paying my taxes." But you better believe that if you don't, they'll be happy to come and take [your tax money] from you."

And my personal favourite.....

"Take, for example, what we're doing in Iraq. The basic thing we're trying to do is enforce democracy. Democracy is a free-floating concept. There's no goodness [inherent] in democracy. Gang rape is democracy in action. Why should we enforce democracy?"

And the last, again to illustrate that his SoT series as intended as a vehicle for his own personal ideals.....

"That's what I've tried to show through the books: that you can be better, you can rise up and live a life, but there are people who are mindlessly devoted to hatred, to the destruction of life, and they use any excuse to justify their own hatred, and that's all it is: hatred for their own existence, for their own inability to live their own life. The things they come up with, like sacrificing for the greater good, are just ways of lowering the standard of everyone's life."

I have enjoyed the humour in this thread as much as the next guy, but I think there is also a serious discussion to be had. If you are an asshole, but you write stories that are not an attempt to forward your own agenda, that's fine and well. But we have a responsibilty to point out the assholes amongst us....so here's a giant finger pointed at TG! And yes, this is just my opinion, maybe I need a finger pointed at me. But I would hope that I am actually a sane, rational individual who understands how dangerous TG line of thinking is.

Here's the full link. Click here!