[Assail]

Mentalist, on Apr 17 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

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.

You act as if I don't believe the same. So, he paints a world of absolutes, in the end, what does it matter? It's fantasy, a bunch of books that can be entertaining if you just sit there and enjoy it as a book, not a technical (While it is) piece of matter to pick apart and find something to hate about it. I enjoy both as books, and also appreciate about them their differing aspect, SE his complexity and depth and TG his ability to write (I think but we've been over this) a good, entertaining story.

You speak about how Goodkind writes about absolutes, and my answer is so what? I personally read fantasy as a means to escape the daily troubles of life, to sit down and enjoy the ups and downs of made up characters. I don't necessarily (It varies) want to compare how this is such an in depth book that every aspect of it is relative to real life struggles.

All stories are farces, they're fantasy, they have that right. It doesn't always HAVE to make perfect sense and it doesn't always have to be as the world you live in, not to mention the world as we all differently see it is subject to our own perceptions, perhaps Goodkind's is the right one? For him atleast.

I think a lot of the people who don't like TG and SoT aren't disagreeing with the concept as a whole, they're disagreeing with little bits of the book and how it's written. The concept is that it's a book, whether or not he intended to show us a different way of life or anything like that. In the end it's a fantasy book written for pure enjoyment, that's the concept, so why pick it apart? Just enjoy it, that's what I did anyway lol.

I realize I'm talking a lot about "I", and I do realize we're all different in our perspectives and opinions. That much is clear, but this is a discussion of opinions, so there you have it

[Mentalist]

lol
well, now this goes back to the stereotype of malazites as fantasy snobs,

I don't like pure good vs. Evil.
I tend to avoid books like that. Which is probably one of the key reasons I haven't been tempted to pick up a goodkind book.

as for the arguments about philosophy--due to the publicity around the author, it is often related to the series, and few people here separate their arguments into "the books themselves", "the mesages they convey" (and ALL books contain messages, fantasy or not) and "the persona and beliefs of the author" You can separate these and read the series without thinking about them, good for you.

However, if others do not do that, it's hard to get anywhere,s since you are asrguing about different things.

[Assail]

Mentalist, on Apr 17 2009, 08:14 PM, said:

lol
well, now this goes back to the stereotype of malazites as fantasy snobs,

I don't like pure good vs. Evil.
I tend to avoid books like that. Which is probably one of the key reasons I haven't been tempted to pick up a goodkind book.

as for the arguments about philosophy--due to the publicity around the author, it is often related to the series, and few people here separate their arguments into "the books themselves", "the mesages they convey" (and ALL books contain messages, fantasy or not) and "the persona and beliefs of the author" You can separate these and read the series without thinking about them, good for you.

However, if others do not do that, it's hard to get anywhere,s since you are asrguing about different things.

Haha I'm a huge fan of SE and am not a snob, don't know about the rest of you

Well yeah, in the end it all comes down to differences of opinion, I feel most of us have valid points, but that's what forums are for; discussion.

I agree, I never thought about it that way but it makes sense. I'll keep that in mind before arguing discussing TG haha.

[Myshkin]

Assail,

1) It was not a single act on Richard's part that led me to deem his character as evil. It was an accumulation of evil acts. Killing unarmed protesters, kicking children, killing and mutilating civilians...... the list goes on and on. Not to mention the way he forced his rule and his philosophy, through threat of war, on every ruler in the midlands. This is called fascism.

2) Regarding Violet; ask yourself why he never kicked Denna in the face. Was Denna not guilty of everything Violet was guilty of? But Denna was a hot young woman, who Tairy planned to be seduced and "turned" by Richard, while Violet was just a bratty kid.

[Assail]

Myshkin, on Apr 17 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

Assail,

1) It was not a single act on Richard's part that led me to deem his character as evil. It was an accumulation of evil acts. Killing unarmed protesters, kicking children, killing and mutilating civilians...... the list goes on and on. Not to mention the way he forced his rule and his philosophy, through threat of war, on every ruler in the midlands. This is called fascism.

2) Regarding Violet; ask yourself why he never kicked Denna in the face. Was Denna not guilty of everything Violet was guilty of? But Denna was a hot young woman, who Tairy planned to be seduced and "turned" by Richard, while Violet was just a bratty kid.

That's not a list, that's 3 acts. As for his philosophy, it was a philosophy based off of the good of the Midlands, and it turned out to be good. He never forced it on anyone, the only people who opposed it were the ones committing the evil and need for Richard Rahl in the first place. There are parallels yes, but I wouldn't couldn't it a fascist movement.

I look at it like this. Denna submitted him to much more debilitating torture than Violet did, he was never in the physical condition to kick her, let alone escape. It had nothing to do with her being portrayed as an attractive character. Violet, on the other hand, held no magical power over him and he was not nearly as submitted to her will as he was to Denna.

[Aptorian]

Oh boy this is going to be a big post...

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

[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?

I am going to "hate on the author" and have a problem with the series if EVERY SINGLE BOOK has women being raped en masse.

It would be one thing if it was just a storytelling ploy of Goodkinds in one book. Everyone knows you can't have much more drama in a book or film than if a character gets raped, hell even random fluff character number 67993 getting raped is despicable... (unless this is a porno, but that's not the point!)

It's like it's an obsession with Goodkind. Kahlan must be nearly raped in each book, and preferably become naked. Anyone female not Kahlan must be beaten into submission, raped, broken or what ever else by big, muscular careless men. Every single soldier rapes women, because this apparently what soldiers do. Even the random Mord-sith must be brought down so that they can be raped by the likes of Darken Rahl or Cunty Rahl, Dicky Rahls half brother. There are no strong women able to withstand the rule of truthrape in these books.

It's fucking sickening.

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 02:18 AM, said:

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

Here we are: [excert from that scene with slaughter of unarmed civilians]

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.

Frowned upon? He fucking cut his was through unarmed, warprotestors, just because they dared stand in his way! One does not "just" frown upon such things.

It's not even so much that he used force to remove them, its the way he did it. He's the fucking Seeker and a warwizard to boot. Just fucking call a wind or something and blow them down the street. Make a wedge and keep the protestors seperated by a magical barrier. Use some kind of mind trick and put the fear of god in them or something like that. But noooo, Dicky Rahl just massacres them. Because they were wrong, he was right and besides, he was in a hurry.

Myshkin, on Apr 18 2009, 02:52 AM, said:

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.

Actually, the scene was just a scene, it's not like Goodkind inserted a page worth of Richard having a moral discussion with himself emerging upon the conclusion that kicking children is good.

Richard was hanging there, having a bad day, and this little monster comes up to him and starts being a bitch, so Richard layed the smack on her. Nothing particularly gauling in that. Richard is just a human, he reacted. Shit happens. I loved that scene.

And this partitioning argument isn't actually valid, because the sane, logical, fair part of his mind wasn't active, it was hidden and burried deep down. It was the wounded, slightly insane Richard hanging there.

Also have I mentioned I don't particularly like children

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

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,....]

But the Richard character takes this one step further. Richard is always right. Somehow he always looks at things and just makes the "right" decision. Afterwards Kahlan or Zed or for example one of the sisters of light, will argue with him because what he just did was really really uncaring/destructive/ignorant/irritating(that last one covers 90% of Dickys actions) but then Richard holds a speech and everyone comes around to understand the brilliant insanity of this woodsman dictator, or 400 pages later the character has mental fart and they suddenly realise everything Richard said/did was right and they have been so terribly wrong. Now all they want to do is find Richard so that they can tell him how awesome he is and suck his dick...

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

... 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.

I do get what you're saying. But I think there are plenty of us readers who see's what the CG is doing, who knows his history and condition, and are capable of understanding why is doing what he is doing. The CG isn't evil. He's yet another one of Eriksons grey characters. He's desperate and tired and in pain. What else is he to do than try and break his chains or kill Burn? Nobody wants to suffer for ever, it will drive you insane in the course of 100.000 years

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

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.

Actually no she can't. All though her childhood she's been conditioned to be a little tyrant, through always giving her what she want, letting a child condemn men death, letting that child watch them be killed, letting her witness torture and never telling her when or why an action is right or wrong.

This will produce a human being than in its adult years is comepletely unable to see the horror of its own cruelty. So Violet can't actually help herself.

Did she die in the end?

Myshkin, on Apr 18 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

2) Regarding Violet; ask yourself why he never kicked Denna in the face. Was Denna not guilty of everything Violet was guilty of? But Denna was a hot young woman, who Tairy planned to be seduced and "turned" by Richard, while Violet was just a bratty kid.

Richard never kicked Denna in the face because just thinking about kicking her caused him unimaginable pain. Goodkind spent a good half a dozen pages just painting that picture. I believe that was the first lesson Denna taught Richard.

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

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

You were warned. These are not the Goodkind friendly forumites you are looking for

[James Hetfield]

Everything you read is relative to who you are.

It is like reading the bible. Two people can read one passage and get two completely different opinions on what the author was saying. People have predisposed ideas of how things should be. Everyone has a differrent minds-eye picture of what the perfect world should be like.

Some people read TG and it appals them(me) and others read it and they feel a connection with the author or his characters. Just depends on how one views the word choice and the description of the character's actions.

I don't hate Tairy, just dislike his writing style because the way I interpret it is offending to me. I can dig others like of him as long as they don't try and convince me that I am wrong for my opinion.

[Grief]

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

As for his philosophy, it was a philosophy based off of the good of the Midlands, and it turned out to be good. He never forced it on anyone, the only people who opposed it were the ones committing the evil and need for Richard Rahl in the first place. There are parallels yes, but I wouldn't couldn't it a fascist movement.

That is entirely the point people are trying to make.

It is based off the good of the midlands.

And anyone who opposed it was evil anyway.

So, regardless of the facts that Richard did things just as evil, it is OK for him to force it upon them, because they are evil, and he is good. Convinient that the people who oppose him are also "evil" isn't it.

He is in the right because he is the good guy, and they oppose him, and are evil, so it's ok, in fact it is "righ" for him to force it on them. Yes, they might be doing evil things too, but SO IS HE. He is no better than they are. Just more powerful.

[Assail]

Aptorian, on Apr 17 2009, 11:38 PM, said:

Oh boy this is going to be a big post...

Assail, on Apr 17 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

[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?

I am going to "hate on the author" and have a problem with the series if EVERY SINGLE BOOK has women being raped en masse.

It would be one thing if it was just a storytelling ploy of Goodkinds in one book. Everyone knows you can't have much more drama in a book or film than if a character gets raped, hell even random fluff character number 67993 getting raped is despicable... (unless this is a porno, but that's not the point!)

It's like it's an obsession with Goodkind. Kahlan must be nearly raped in each book, and preferably become naked. Anyone female not Kahlan must be beaten into submission, raped, broken or what ever else by big, muscular careless men. Every single soldier rapes women, because this apparently what soldiers do. Even the random Mord-sith must be brought down so that they can be raped by the likes of Darken Rahl or Cunty Rahl, Dicky Rahls half brother. There are no strong women able to withstand the rule of truthrape in these books.

It's fucking sickening.

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 02:18 AM, said:

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

Here we are: [excert from that scene with slaughter of unarmed civilians]

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.

Frowned upon? He fucking cut his was through unarmed, warprotestors, just because they dared stand in his way! One does not "just" frown upon such things.

It's not even so much that he used force to remove them, its the way he did it. He's the fucking Seeker and a warwizard to boot. Just fucking call a wind or something and blow them down the street. Make a wedge and keep the protestors seperated by a magical barrier. Use some kind of mind trick and put the fear of god in them or something like that. But noooo, Dicky Rahl just massacres them. Because they were wrong, he was right and besides, he was in a hurry.

Myshkin, on Apr 18 2009, 02:52 AM, said:

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.

Actually, the scene was just a scene, it's not like Goodkind inserted a page worth of Richard having a moral discussion with himself emerging upon the conclusion that kicking children is good.

Richard was hanging there, having a bad day, and this little monster comes up to him and starts being a bitch, so Richard layed the smack on her. Nothing particularly gauling in that. Richard is just a human, he reacted. Shit happens. I loved that scene.

And this partitioning argument isn't actually valid, because the sane, logical, fair part of his mind wasn't active, it was hidden and burried deep down. It was the wounded, slightly insane Richard hanging there.

Also have I mentioned I don't particularly like children

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

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,....]

But the Richard character takes this one step further. Richard is always right. Somehow he always looks at things and just makes the "right" decision. Afterwards Kahlan or Zed or for example one of the sisters of light, will argue with him because what he just did was really really uncaring/destructive/ignorant/irritating(that last one covers 90% of Dickys actions) but then Richard holds a speech and everyone comes around to understand the brilliant insanity of this woodsman dictator, or 400 pages later the character has mental fart and they suddenly realise everything Richard said/did was right and they have been so terribly wrong. Now all they want to do is find Richard so that they can tell him how awesome he is and suck his dick...

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 03:25 AM, said:

... 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.

I do get what you're saying. But I think there are plenty of us readers who see's what the CG is doing, who knows his history and condition, and are capable of understanding why is doing what he is doing. The CG isn't evil. He's yet another one of Eriksons grey characters. He's desperate and tired and in pain. What else is he to do than try and break his chains or kill Burn? Nobody wants to suffer for ever, it will drive you insane in the course of 100.000 years

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

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.

Actually no she can't. All though her childhood she's been conditioned to be a little tyrant, through always giving her what she want, letting a child condemn men death, letting that child watch them be killed, letting her witness torture and never telling her when or why an action is right or wrong.

This will produce a human being than in its adult years is comepletely unable to see the horror of its own cruelty. So Violet can't actually help herself.

Did she die in the end?

Myshkin, on Apr 18 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

2) Regarding Violet; ask yourself why he never kicked Denna in the face. Was Denna not guilty of everything Violet was guilty of? But Denna was a hot young woman, who Tairy planned to be seduced and "turned" by Richard, while Violet was just a bratty kid.

Richard never kicked Denna in the face because just thinking about kicking her caused him unimaginable pain. Goodkind spent a good half a dozen pages just painting that picture. I believe that was the first lesson Denna taught Richard.

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

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

You were warned. These are not the Goodkind friendly forumites you are looking for

I agree, the guy does have an obsession with rape, I never paid too much attention to it because it wasn't a huge deal and it didn't affect the story in a major sense. He overused a tool to help degrade the characters he needed to degrade for his story to progress. People don't like it, I don't really care about the fact he overused it, I'm not going to sit there after a chapter and be "OMG HE RAPED 3 PEOPLE F THIS GUY". Not a big deal.

Well part of the reason he used more martial means so cut down the citizens is because he never had a grasp upon his power.
Part of Richard's struggle was that he could never call on his power whenever he wanted, he couldn't just teleport through the crowd, or use wind to push the back, it was all relative to his need. Not just a whim to get people out of the way, but a true NEED in his eyes.

I wish I could remember the whole chapter, I can't remember what exactly he was trying to get to. 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.

CG isn't evil, you're right, he's a grey character who isn't so much out to kill people, but out to free himself. Although he has become more twisted over the thousands of years he has been imprisoned, thus pushing him to commit 'evil' acts. But we're back to the different styles of TG and SE. Every author does it differently, it's just how it is.

I can see your reasoning, but I fail to believe that people have no inate sense of good and bad. I personally cannot comprehend someone not knowing the difference, maybe that's me. I think there can always been redemption through willpower and common sense. Obviously this is a singular view but hey, it's just how I see it. I'd expand more but I'm rushing due to going to breakfest with family soon lol.

Yeah, she dies in the end. Trying to kill Rachel she dies of course.

And yeah, I know these forums aren't the most TG friendly, I just said it as a statement of exasperation lol. Didn't expect so many to want to come and bash TG. Bloodthirsty lot. Hahaha. Lucky I'm intelligent, without me you guys wouldn't have anyone to argue with about TG

James Hetfield, on Apr 18 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

Everything you read is relative to who you are.

It is like reading the bible. Two people can read one passage and get two completely different opinions on what the author was saying. People have predisposed ideas of how things should be. Everyone has a differrent minds-eye picture of what the perfect world should be like.

Some people read TG and it appals them(me) and others read it and they feel a connection with the author or his characters. Just depends on how one views the word choice and the description of the character's actions.

I don't hate Tairy, just dislike his writing style because the way I interpret it is offending to me. I can dig others like of him as long as they don't try and convince me that I am wrong for my opinion.

Oh but you are wrong, TG is the greatest author of all time! LOL

[Assail]

Grief, on Apr 18 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

Assail, on Apr 18 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

As for his philosophy, it was a philosophy based off of the good of the Midlands, and it turned out to be good. He never forced it on anyone, the only people who opposed it were the ones committing the evil and need for Richard Rahl in the first place. There are parallels yes, but I wouldn't couldn't it a fascist movement.

That is entirely the point people are trying to make.

It is based off the good of the midlands.

And anyone who opposed it was evil anyway.

So, regardless of the facts that Richard did things just as evil, it is OK for him to force it upon them, because they are evil, and he is good. Convinient that the people who oppose him are also "evil" isn't it.

He is in the right because he is the good guy, and they oppose him, and are evil, so it's ok, in fact it is "righ" for him to force it on them. Yes, they might be doing evil things too, but SO IS HE. He is no better than they are. Just more powerful.

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.

I don't feel that you can condemn a person for a single act, atleast not in a fantasy setting and in Richard's situation. Especially when at the same time he's liberating people and improving their quality of life.

[Grief]

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".

[Grief]

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 doesn'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.

[Assail]

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?

[Assail]

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?

[Morgoth]

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

[Assail]

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.

[Grief]

I would imagine that the people families(who Richard never thinks of) would certainly think so.

Also, how many people would a single person rape?

I doubt it close to approachs the number of protesters who died there because of Richards actions.

I am not saying that makes it a better act, because both are morally reprehensible.

The people richard forces his philosophies on are judged as evil for the things they have done, however Richard never looks at himself and submits himself to similar judgement for his wrongs. He always has reasons, was always forced into doing it, so it's not his fault, he's still a good guy. The other characters, the "evil" ones. Does he ever spare a moment to think that they might also have reasons that at the time made it ok for them? Do the readers get the "evil" peoples side of the story, or think that though they've done evil acts, they may have, like Richard, thought it necessary at the time?

No. Because they are evil, and Richard is good.

Richard is forgiven because he had reasons which are deemed acceptable.
The evil people are not, because they did not have reasons, they simply did it because they are evil.

This is another problem I find with good vs evil writing.

Evil people do evil things. Why? Does it gain them anything? Well, many times it is actually a waste of their resources, and a bad move. They do it simply "because they are evil".

And whatever a good guy does is fine because he is good, and so has good reasons behind it.

Which I find to be bad writing, personally.

[Grief]

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.

[Morgoth]

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.

[Assail]

Grief, on Apr 18 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

I would imagine that the people families(who Richard never thinks of) would certainly think so.

Also, how many people would a single person rape?

I doubt it close to approachs the number of protesters who died there because of Richards actions.

I am not saying that makes it a better act, because both are morally reprehensible.

The people richard forces his philosophies on are judged as evil for the things they have done, however Richard never looks at himself and submits himself to similar judgement for his wrongs. He always has reasons, was always forced into doing it, so it's not his fault, he's still a good guy. The other characters, the "evil" ones. Does he ever spare a moment to think that they might also have reasons that at the time made it ok for them? Do the readers get the "evil" peoples side of the story, or think that though they've done evil acts, they may have, like Richard, thought it necessary at the time?

No. Because they are evil, and Richard is good.

Richard is forgiven because he had reasons which are deemed acceptable.
The evil people are not, because they did not have reasons, they simply did it because they are evil.

This is another problem I find with good vs evil writing.

Evil people do evil things. Why? Does it gain them anything? Well, many times it is actually a waste of their resources, and a bad move. They do it simply "because they are evil".

And whatever a good guy does is fine because he is good, and so has good reasons behind it.

Which I find to be bad writing, personally.

Said families supported their sons going to war to die for their brutal cause. Of course he's not going to spare a thought for them, afterall he is also a ruler, do you expect a ruler to take time out of his day (In his time) to think about those families? No.

From your statement I'm going to assume you haven't read the whole series, but I assure you, a HELL of a lot.

Richard had reasons, as did those people who were evil. Jagang acted upon the reasoning that he thought every free thinking individual should be put to death. Thus, he was evil. The Sisters of Dark did it because they wanted to free the Kepper, thus they are evil. They had their reasons, Richard had his. His reasons WERE acceptable (For the most part) and so he is still considered a good guy.

Sure, if you want to pick apart a book and examine everything about it you're going to find things you dislike. The fact that he rights in absolutes.

If I wanted to sit down and dissect MBotF I could find a plethora of things wrong with it, but I'm not out to do that. Why bother about it? It's an enjoyable series.