[MTS]

the under dog is by definition never on top.

[Assail]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on May 30 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

the under dog is by definition never on top.

Don't even try to argue with 50 Cent and The Game.

[MTS]

The fact you're using them as an argumentative source proves how ridiculous your argument is.

[Assail]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on May 30 2009, 02:56 PM, said:

The fact you're using them as an argumentative source proves how ridiculous your argument is.

How could you not? These are clearly some of the most successful individuals alive.

[MTS]

We're discussing the merits of a piece of literature, not the latest rap album - only then would their input be even remotely relevant. Besides, "successful" doesn't make them smart, or good. Look at Stephenie Meyer and Eddings. Successful? Undoubtedly. Good? Not in the least.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 30 May 2009 - 10:04 PM

[Sixty]

Assail, on May 30 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on May 30 2009, 02:56 PM, said:

The fact you're using them as an argumentative source proves how ridiculous your argument is.

How could you not? These are clearly some of the most successful individuals alive.

Are you equating 50 cent with success? Because if you are I'd rather be unsuccessful.

[Cougar]

Please guys, stop spamming. If you want to slag goodkind off, or try to justify his baffling popularity then this is the place. Anything else take it to the inn.

EDIT: I'm sure Assail posted before he could read this but quit it, if you want to discuss the merits and relative success of Fiddy, Ghostface, Roxette, A-ha or whatever the hell it is you kids listen to these days then do it in the appropriate places not in a thread for mocking/apologising for the yeard.

This post has been edited by Cougar: 30 May 2009 - 10:13 PM

[Assail]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on May 30 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

We're discussing the merits of a piece of literature, not the latest rap album - only then would their input be even remotely relevant. Besides, "successful" doesn't make them smart, or good. Look at Stephenie Meyer and Eddings. Successful? Undoubtedly. Good? Not in the least.

No, we're talking about success now. You wouldn't link being good with being successful? Does success not come through being good? They must be doing something right as authors/businessmen and women.

Sixty, on May 30 2009, 03:04 PM, said:

Assail, on May 30 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on May 30 2009, 02:56 PM, said:

The fact you're using them as an argumentative source proves how ridiculous your argument is.

How could you not? These are clearly some of the most successful individuals alive.

Are you equating 50 cent with success? Because if you are I'd rather be unsuccessful.

The guy went from the slums to a multi millionaire. I personally don't like him or his music, but he's good at what he does and is successful because of it

[MTS]

You heard Cougar Assail, stop going off topic.

Now, Goodkind may be popular, but that in no way implies he's a good writer. It simply means people don't care whether a piece if literature is good. All they care about is whether the story is entertaining, and quite often those things don't meet.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 30 May 2009 - 10:12 PM

[Slum]

Assail, you should have been here for the Shiny Enigma guy (Goodkind advocate). It was pretty funny.

Is that thread still around?

[Assail]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on May 30 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

You heard Cougar Assail, stop going off topic.

Now, Goodkind may be popular, but that in no way implies he's a good writer. It simply means people don't care whether a piece if literature is good. All they care about is whether the story is entertaining.

Mappo-Enforcer!


Yeah I was in the middle of typing the post when he posted it, so I didn't see it.

Or perhaps you just don't agree with the writing, this doesn't make him a bad writer, it just means YOU don't like it. I personally believe there are more yea-sayers to Goodkind than nay-sayers. That tells me that chances are they're not all disregarding the quality of the story for the entertainment aspect of it.

[MTS]

Perhaps I only hate Goodkind because I can't get my head around his, quite simply, retarded moral stance? It's possible. I also think his style is abominable and his characterisation is uninspired and contrived. Some people don't care about that though.

[Assail]

Mappo's Travelling Sack, on May 30 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

Perhaps I only hate Goodkind because I can't get my head around his, quite simply, retarded moral stance? It's possible. I also think his style is abominable and his characterisation is uninspired and contrived. Some people don't care about that though.

Repeating the same argument again, concerning the morality of his books. "He said this concerning morals, and then wrote this in his books." This is therefore premise to dislike said books entirely. As for style and characterisation these are merely matters of personal taste, each to their own I suppose.

[bwgan]

Assail, on May 30 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

*snip*

Or perhaps you just don't agree with the writing, this doesn't make him a bad writer, it just means YOU don't like it. I personally believe there are more yea-sayers to Goodkind than nay-sayers. That tells me that chances are they're not all disregarding the quality of the story for the entertainment aspect of it.

Are we here again? Popular does not equal good - cite Twilight.

There are lots of people with dubious taste in the world (not like what we are on here like ). It doesn't make them right...it doesn't make us right either, but the point as I see it is lots of US don't like TG, and that's fine. Lots of people can't get on with SE, but I don't go around telling them they are wrong not to adore SE...I just agree to differ with them. I don't insult them or say they aren't mature enough to understand his writing, but that's exactly the sort of treatment dished out by TG and his minions adoring fans...I don't like it. I don't like his books. I don't like the way they are written. I don't like his philosophy. I don't like being bashed over the head when attempting to read said books, by the said philosphy. I don't like being called stupid. I don't like his attitude. I don't like how he comes over in interviews...I will stop short of saying I don't like him, because I don't actually know him....but please, please don't tell me that because lots of people like his stuff he must be good.

Sorry this isn't very articulate, but I'm tired...

[Mentalist]

meh
Goodkind's interview argument about morality is wrong.

I must save the drownign person,

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

What it comes down to is he isn't a good writer, in any sense you an think of. And no, I'm not just saying that because i don't like him. There are plenty of authors who I don't like that i am perfectly willing to admit are good writers, they just don't write what I want to read. Goodkind is just not good. That doesn't mean you can't find him enjoyable. Lot's of people, myself included, like things that aren't technically good. However, in those situations I am aware that just because I like them, doesn't make them good. Goodkind is a tehnically bad writer. Weak characterization, silly hole filled plots, pointless violence written in an unconvincing manner, loaded with cliches, he's ripped off other authors on a regular basis, unconvincing motivations for his characters, even his names are bad. The list is virtually endless.

[Elephant Tamer]

I'm trying real hard here to come up with reasons why goodking is bad other than i just dont like it. I'm all for the merits of relativism, but there are occasions when something is lacking enough in so many aspects that you just cant let it go. Ok, so sir rapesalot and the chicken are done. They have been done a lot. But they dont even touch the tip of the iceburg on goodking's suckiness. I mean come on people, there is more, far more. For a book about morallity and weilding a heavy mace of philosophy to clobber your head with, it is consistently contradictory. But leave that aside for a moment, and imagine your a fan of goodking. Not a diehard one, but someone who was interested in the plot and ignored the endless sermons. The problem is, the books 7 and onwards would still suck,because they do so little to forward the plot, introduce an annoying troupe of sidecharacters, and continue to torture the heros for no explicable reason. In short, it shoddy writing, agree with it or not.

[Grief]

I'm sorry, but as you may have noticed, this section has been renamed from "Other Fantasy" to "Other Literature".

As such, I have to close this thread.

Any questions, feel free to pm me.

-Grief.

[Grief]

Thread re-opened.

Turns out one of the admins is a rather large goodkind fan, and I wasn't going to argue...

[MTS]

I was thinking the same thing, I must admit. But I don't have vast and terrible mod powerz, and so had to suffer with the indignity of Goodkind existing within a 'literature' forum.

This post has been edited by Mappo's Travelling Sack: 31 May 2009 - 11:57 AM