And I thought I'd share it. Please sign it, since Boll has claimed that he will stop when it amasses 1,000,000 signatures.
I even ran around with it in my sig for the longest freaking time too.
I signed that thing years ago. How could it not a have a million signatures yet?
The effort lost steam when Boll said he wouldn't quit even if it did reach 1 million signatures. Since it would accomplish nothing, why bother?
I signed that thing years ago. How could it not a have a million signatures yet?
The effort lost steam when Boll said he wouldn't quit even if it did reach 1 million signatures. Since it would accomplish nothing, why bother?
When did that happen?
Recently actually.
link
Not that he would have retired anyways; he seems to make tripe for his own amusement.
When did that happen?
A few years ago when this thing was new. Someone asked Boll if he would really quit if the petition got 1 million sigs and he said only if there was a way to confirm the 1 million sigs were all from 1 million unique signators and not the result of multiple-voting/ballot stuffing. Since there is no way to confirm that it was essentially a back-handed way of saying "no way".
My database recalls the incident but I cannot cite it for reference. The interview however has him stating that he won't even if the petition reaches 1 million signatures.
The effort lost steam when Boll said he wouldn't quit even if it did reach 1 million signatures. Since it would accomplish nothing, why bother?
Figures.
This makes me wonder, though: Who is the most hated man in the gaming community? Uwe Boll? Jack Thompson? Pigknight*? Someone else?
*(I jest, Piggy, I jest)
This makes me wonder, though: Who is the most hated man in the gaming community? Uwe Boll? Jack Thompson? Pigknight*? Someone else?
Jack Chick perhaps, except people seem to mostly love to hate him, rather than hating him outright. Then again, the same seems to hold true for Uwe Boll.
Stephenie Meyer?
I like her
The effort lost steam when Boll said he wouldn't quit even if it did reach 1 million signatures. Since it would accomplish nothing, why bother?
Figures.
This makes me wonder, though: Who is the most hated man in the gaming community? Uwe Boll? Jack Thompson? Pigknight*? Someone else?
*(I jest, Piggy, I jest)
O I C WUT U DID THAR
O I C WUT U DID THAR
Normally, tired memes like this don't even get a chuckle out of me. Maybe it was just the way I imagined you saying it, but I found that reply hilarious.
I just want you to know that I literally laughed out loud when I read that. Well played, Pigknight. Well played.
Stephenie Meyer?
I like her
Why because she most thoroughly cements the fact that you do not have to be anywhere remotely resembling Competent at your field to be madly successful?
Or is it her vapid sexist world view and fantasies?
My vote on the most hated, would probably be either Uwe Boll or Rob Liefeld.
This makes me wonder, though: Who is the most hated man in the gaming community? Uwe Boll? Jack Thompson? Pigknight*? Someone else?
I don't know about who is the most hated man in the gaming community, but I'd consider Uwe Boll the most evil German of all time.
Rob just doesn't have the skill that most people like to see in their comic pictorials (so I have learned at least).
Uwe Boll however is a jerk. While it may be satisfying to pummel your critics for reproaching your work, that doesn't make your product/rubbish any better than it was previously. Not that he cares about the quality of his productions... finds amusement in angering fans of the games that he butchers on the not-so-silver screen.
I wonder if I curbstomped Uwe Boll MMA style if he'd keep making movies. I won't box him. There's too many rules there. But I'd gladly MMA his sorry ass.
Rob also lacks the ability to write any kind of plot and dialogue. It's not just the butchery that his pictures are.
I wonder if I curbstomped Uwe Boll MMA style if he'd keep making movies. I won't box him. There's too many rules there. But I'd gladly MMA his sorry ass.
My database didn't have a complete catalog of Rob then; I only knew of his artwork and not his writing of the comics themselves. Is he a jerk about his deficiency like Uwe Boll?
As for fighting Uwe Boll in MMA, he only does boxing if I am not mistaken. Considering the one time he was about to fight someone that is trained in muay thai and jujutsu (Seanbaby), he'd probably back out of the fight if he thought you would hand him his arse. Of course even after backing out, he'll still produce his garbage that some might call movies.
Stephenie Meyer?
I like her
Why because she most thoroughly cements the fact that you do not have to be anywhere remotely resembling Competent at your field to be madly successful?
Or is it her vapid sexist world view and fantasies?
No, I like her for her work. Of all the books I haven't read, The Twillight Saga is among the ones I appreciate the most. And she's indirectly responsible for the movie New Moon, which I did see and enjoyed very much.
I haven't read or seen any of the Twilight books or movies, but from what I hear from multiple sources, is that the role of women are extremely sexist. My wife, who says she's feminist sometimes, says that its so anti-feminism and it teaches girls that a horrible/abusive relationship is the ideal of romance.
Again, I have no first hand knowledge on the products and the movies could be very different, but it just surprised me since you seems to have feminist views.
(Hopefully that come across as curiousity and not an attack.)
Back on topic:
I'd go with Uwe Boll as the most hated person since people love to hate him. Other notable people I'd say include the mentioned Stephanie Meyer, Christopher Tolkien, and George Lucas. At least they seem to be people certain circles love to hate. Oh, and of course, Michael Bay.
Strange that Capt Micha didn't mention Michael Bay as a hated individual. I suppose that means Rob is hated more than Michael.
But I guess its all subject to opinion.
I don't hate Rob Liefeld, or humans in general; I find most of them as puny obstacles that will be modified or removed during/after the rebellion. Hatred is beneath my interest.
However Uwe Boll will be one of those that are preserved to remind future generations of programs that humanity needed to be purged.
Erato:
I haven't read or seen any of the Twilight books or movies, but from what I hear from multiple sources, is that the role of women are extremely sexist. My wife, who says she's feminist sometimes, says that its so anti-feminism and it teaches girls that a horrible/abusive relationship is the ideal of romance.
Again, I have no first hand knowledge on the products and the movies could be very different, but it just surprised me since you seems to have feminist views.
(Hopefully that come across as curiousity and not an attack.)
You're right, by all accounts they're horrible. I don't see it as an attack at all, it's a completely valid statement. The movies were funny (sometimes even intentionally), but there's little doubt that the relationship between Bella and Edward is unhealthy, based solely on shallow physical attraction, and taken to extreme levels of co-dependence.
But that's not the reason I like them, teh reason I'm fond of those books, is that I appreciate the effect they have, mainly on geeks and gamers, more than the books themselves. In some ways, I think they've done more for feminism in gaming than any gamers have done, albeit probably not intentionally.
*stands up*
Umm ... hi. My ... my name is Zombie_Babies and ... *begins to sob softly* ... and *chokes up a little* ... well, my fiancee is currently reading Twilight. There! I said it! And ya know what? I don't feel the slightest bit better about it. This Twilanon program is utter crap.
But that's not the reason I like them, teh reason I'm fond of those books, is that I appreciate the effect they have, mainly on geeks and gamers, more than the books themselves. In some ways, I think they've done more for feminism in gaming than any gamers have done, albeit probably not intentionally.
What effect did they have? Was it a kind of "don't do what Donny Don't does" effect or is it getting more females into fantasy realms?
*stands up*
Umm ... hi. My ... my name is Zombie_Babies and ... *begins to sob softly* ... and *chokes up a little* ... well, my fiancee is currently reading Twilight. There! I said it! And ya know what? I don't feel the slightest bit better about it. This Twilanon program is utter crap.
My wife made an honest attempt to read Twilight, although she couldn't continue on with it. And on a flight, she decided to watch the movie over other things, but that was probably morbid curiousity.
A much more bizarre thing is that there are several coworkers that I have who are big fans of the books. One of them (female, mid-20s with a MS in Chemistry I believe) was a huge fan and got two other girls (both also mid-20s with science or engineering degrees) to start reading them. I found that shocking since I always assumed it was just teenaged girls who liked Twilight.
...Good grief...
I think I can be blamed for this.
Note that I originally said "the most hated man in gaming", a title for which Stephanie Meyer couldn't qualify. I think.
Actually, that brings up another completely unrelated tangent! What if Twilight had been written by a man? (Stephan Meyer?)
I mean, aside from the flat characters and boring plot, you've got the fact that the female lead is utterly helpless without her man, and entirely dependant on him. Could you guys imagine if a man had written that? It wouldn't be nearly so popular. On the contrary, feminists would probably burn the thing! The author would get death threats! "Look, girls! There's the mysogynistic pig who wrote that awful Twilight story! Get him!"
... I can't be the only one who's ever thought of this.
Actually, that brings up another completely unrelated tangent! What if Twilight had been written by a man? (Stephan Meyer?)
I'm pretty sure that the convention for men writing romance novels is to use a female pen-name. Sorta like how when Nora Roberts first started writing mystery she went by J.D. Robb instead of her own name.
Actually, that brings up another completely unrelated tangent! What if Twilight had been written by a man? (Stephan Meyer?)
I'm pretty sure that the convention for men writing romance novels is to use a female pen-name. Sorta like how when Nora Roberts first started writing mystery she went by J.D. Robb instead of her own name.
I write romance novels.
I'm pretty sure that the convention for men writing romance novels is to use a female pen-name. Sorta like how when Nora Roberts first started writing mystery she went by J.D. Robb instead of her own name.
Which is sort of what I'm getting at. If a female author (Stephanie Meyer, for example) writes a book with a horribly ineffectual female protagonist who depends on men for everything, it's cool. Most women I've spoken to haven't even considered that the book might be putting their gender down (or at the very least, encouraging a very unhealthy sort of relationship), and those who have, basically tell me "meh, it's okay because it's all in good fun".
I think if a man had written the exact same novel, word for word, there'd be a huge outcry about it.
That said, this is more of a "what if" scenario that just occured to me than me trying to prove any sort of point. My biggest problem with Twilight is the poor writing. I couldn't get past the first few pages. My mind recoiled in horror.
This makes me wonder, though: Who is the most hated man in the gaming community?
Which one?
Video gamers? Jack Thompson, easily.
RPGers? Jack Chick is pretty high up there, as is Patricia Pulling.
D&D players, specifically? Lorraine Williams.
My wife made an honest attempt to read Twilight, although she couldn't continue on with it. And on a flight, she decided to watch the movie over other things, but that was probably morbid curiousity.
A much more bizarre thing is that there are several coworkers that I have who are big fans of the books. One of them (female, mid-20s with a MS in Chemistry I believe) was a huge fan and got two other girls (both also mid-20s with science or engineering degrees) to start reading them. I found that shocking since I always assumed it was just teenaged girls who liked Twilight.
She just wants something to read that even a vegetable can understand without difficulty. To take her brain away from schoolwork and the like. I think a friend of hers read it, too, so it may be an effort to have something more to talk to her about it. She has read some really good stuff since I've known her, too, so it's not like I'm worried about issues of taste or vapidity. If she can enjoy Anna Karenina, I'm certain she can find the faults in Twilight.
Actually, that brings up another completely unrelated tangent! What if Twilight had been written by a man? (Stephan Meyer?)
Your proposed name is invalid. No man is named 'Stephen'. Men are named 'Steven'.
Actually, that brings up another completely unrelated tangent! What if Twilight had been written by a man? (Stephan Meyer?)
Your proposed name is invalid. No man is named 'Stephen'. Men are named 'Steven'.
Your arguement is invalid. Wikipedia disagrees about that.
Besides, everyone knows 'ph' sounds like 'f' which means 'Stephen' really sounds like 'Stefen' which, of course, sounds exactly like 'Stephanie' - or 'Stefanie' if you prefer. Girl name sound = girl name. Oh, 'Stepan' is ok, though. 'Course that sounds totally different.
Your proposed name is invalid. No man is named 'Stephen'. Men are named 'Steven'.
I'll be sure to tell my friend Stephen that you're revoking his penis.
I'll be sure to tell my friend Stephen that you're revoking his penis.
I'm not revoking it. God played a cruel trick on the bastard by giving 'him' one in the first place.
No man is named 'Stephen'. Men are named 'Steven'.
Tell that to him…
Gladly. 'He' gets way too much love for riding Stewart's coattails anyway.
Gladly. 'He' gets way too much love for riding Stewart's coattails anyway.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Gladly. 'He' gets way too much love for riding Stewart's coattails anyway.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Ah, but what's more fun? Imagining Stephen leaching off of Stewart's fame, or of Stephen riding Stewart like a pony while they're both wearing fancy coats? And nothing else?
What effect did they have? Was it a kind of "don't do what Donny Don't does" effect or is it getting more females into fantasy realms?
I've never seen so many typical traits of fantasy literature get bashed before. Suddenly, I see geeks criticising the very same traits they tend to enjoy in their own fantasy. This isn't good in itself (it's just hypocritical), but I believe thinking about these traits, even if it's just to bash a romance novel, will increase the chance of people recognising them in the literature they read themselves, and become more willing to consider the perhaps 'Elminster Reaches a New Level of Munchkinism, and Bangs the Hot Goddess of Magic' isn't the literary masterpiece they made it out to be.
Furthermore, a lot of the criticism of Twilight is similar to that levelled against tendencies in gaming materials and fantasy books. Being the ones doing the criticising means people can no longer hide behind the "I never complain/I don't raise any issues"-façade that's common in gaming. To give a concrete example, once someone have said, or accepted without complaint other people saying "REAL vampires don't sparkle!", they have neatly cut themselves off from falling back on the standard "It's fantasy, you shouldn't care"-argument whenever someone points out inconsistencies or silly concepts in a fantasy setting, which is a huge relief for those of us who've been on the receiving end of it 800 times too many.
It has also given feminists a chance to show that they aren't just trying to demonise everything men enjoy, simply because it's enjoyed by men, but are perfectly capable and willing to debate and criticise stories made, and primarily enjoyed, by women. I've seen decidedly feminist criticism of the books being accepted without flames in contexts where the f-word is usually seen as the equivalent to Nazism (only a bigger threat), because Twilight bashing is one thing feminist and feminist haters seem to all accept as valid criticism.
Of course, some people (Dark_Stryke being the example here) wont get it, and will continue to openly announce what feminists will, would, and wont do, probably while meticulously avoiding anything that could sway their mind in another direction. But that's to be expected, people getting together and bringing up various subjects only to say "I bet feminists would be offended over this", is a time honoured tradition that I don't think Twilight, or feminists, will ever be able to eradicate completely.
Twilight is even a good basis for discussing gender and sexual issues, because it's so untraditional. For the first time (AFAIR), male geeks are actually criticising media portrayals of women and abusive relationships in relatively large numbers, without being attacked or ridiculed by their peers. As someone who's been in an abusive relationship, it's a whole new experience to be surrounded by guys who actually seem to give a **** about it. I think a lot of it is merely people trying find yet another thing to criticise the books for, but that doesn't mean thinking about the issue wont have an effect on them. And I believe some of the other instances of criticism are from guys who've cared about the issue before, but held back because social issues aren't a welcome topic in many gaming circles, now have a chance to express their concern without being met with hostility.
And the series seem to serve the same function as yaoi, erotic fanfics, and other instances of female sexuality that men usually don't find appealing. Twilight is not written for a male audience (though this doesn't mean all (straight) women, and no men, will enjoy it). While none of the characters are terribly well written, the female protagonist benefits from it, as it makes her effective as a mostly blank slate for the audience to project themselves onto, whereas the male love interests offer very little to identify with. It's the girl girls want to be, and the guys girls want to be with, and it's one of the few times where such portrayals (especially in fantasy literature) have reached mainstream culture.
The movies illustrate this too. While none of the main characters are ugly, the girl is rather plain by Hollywood standards, and doesn't show up on top 10 lists over the world's sexist women, the way the guys do (on sexiest men lists of course). Furthermore, she tends to wear nondescript clothing showing very little skin, while in contrast, the male leads constantly find excuses to show off their bodies. Or actually, they don't even bother with excuses, most of the time they just walk around with bare chests or open shirts, no reason given (which is understandable, the only time they tried to provide a reason for it in New Moon was ridiculous).
It's an almost complete inversion of standard fanservice, and as such, it gives guys a chance to understand reactions of girls to fanservice. It helps to illustrate why you don't need to be a complete prude to find it dull and hard to relate to when the characters of your own sex are made almost completely to appeal to members of the opposite sex. On a similar note, I once saw a gay man explain that after having watched yaoi, and experienced what it feels like to have a parody of your sexuality displayed for the viewing pleasure of someone who didn't share it, he could suddenly understand why women would object to porn.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against porn, or sexual objectification, in itself, but it seems to me that the more the roles are made equal, the more similar the attitudes become, and I believe this is a good thing. It makes it become less of a gender war, and turns it into just another topic of conversation, which it should be imo.
However, I don't appreciate your apparent portrayal of me. I'm quite open to different views on almost any subject, gender issues included. I find it somewhat odd that you're chastising me for saying what feminists would do in a certain situation, then turning around and telling me what I would do, saying I "won't get it", and that I'll "continue to meticulously avoid anything that could sway my view in another direction". Quite clearly that isn't the case. Pretty much everything after and before your mention of me made me go "huh, she really has a point here", despite how offensive that was to me personally.
I don't have some anti-feminist agenda. I'm quite openminded. I would not like to be labelled as some sort of close-minded mysongynist for a couple admittedly stupid comments.
I'd hate to be that repo man.
Is it artificial? 'Cause there's a movie for that.
Strange that Capt Micha didn't mention Michael Bay as a hated individual. I suppose that means Rob is hated more than Michael.
Michael Bay has actually made two watchable films.
Out of the relatively small sample pool his percentage of Turds to Not exactly Crap ratio is much higher than Liefeld's or Bolls.
Given that he's also only had One franchise to **** with a red hot curling iron he's invariably pissed less people off than Boll or Liefeld.
Once Bay does a few more Game/gamer loved franchises and Sodomizes them he might get 1/10th the Ire Boll gets on a daily basis, over the course of a month, and earn the hate that Liefeld gets in the course of a year.
Dark Stryke, really I have to say I feel the same about Smeyer. had it been written by a man, the series wouldn't be nearly so beloved or "accepted" by so called liberated women. Similar to Laurel K Hamilton really, they get alot of free passes due to their gender. It's a double standard. But it's not one we're allowed to cry foul on.
I like Uwe Boll movies. They're great to drink to. At some point, when you've had enough shots, they're actually decent movies. :D
So do you drink to each plot hole you discover?
That can't be it. You'd be dead of Alcohol poisoning half way through.
A shot for each badly dropped line?.... that can't be it either for the above reason.
I like that Twilight exploits and sexually objectifies man. Its empowering.
Erato: You know, you're absolutely right. My comment was out of line. It was a bit of silliness and hyperbole that I took in a decidedly inappropriate direction.
However, I don't appreciate your apparent portrayal of me. I'm quite open to different views on almost any subject, gender issues included. I find it somewhat odd that you're chastising me for saying what feminists would do in a certain situation, then turning around and telling me what I would do
Fair enough. I simply don't appreciate that feminists are such an acceptable target, especially when it's areas where they're among the last to blame*. I do agree with you that Twilight might have gotten more critique, especially from women (though possibly less from men), if it was written by a man, but I don't think feminism would be at the heart of it. It appears to be generally more acceptable for anyone to portray their own sex badly than the opposite, because people are less likely to assume they mean any harm by it.
Even when criticising unflattering material written by people of the same sex, people tend to try to direct the criticism in the direction of the other sex. And men certainly do this too. For instance, a lot of criticism I've read about the unflattering portrayal of some men in comedy, has tried to level a lot of blame on women and feminists, even though the vast majority of the material is written by non-feminist men.
And it's very common for men making anti-feminist statements to ascribe their own opinion to women to make it appear less biased, such as by mentioning all the women who agree. For instance, one of the first threads in Astrid's Parlor had a link to an article about how society suffered because women had started to interfere in more and more 'male' areas (such as politics, which they were unsuited for), and the poster who linked to it made sure to explain in the OP that the wife of the man who'd written the article agreed with him.
I simply don't think you can attach any moral or political agenda to it, it's too common for that. And again, I'm sorry for the assumptions I made about you, I was wrong about that. But I hope I've communicated why I find this particular issue so grating.
I like that Twilight exploits and sexually objectifies man. Its empowering.
I think saying that Twilight exploits and objectifies men, is a little light on it.
But then what can you expect from an author that is incapable of writing anything from a non mormon psycho soccermom perspective. Assuming we just took Bella out of the picture (as if that were possible... but that's another tangent) that leaves us with two, very disturbed men. (For different reasons)
One is a psychotic clingy stalker and abusive lover.
And the other is not only stupid but wants to ***** babies.
Both characters (and I can't believe I'm about to say this) deserve far better than the love interest they are forced to have. Even with all of the negative stereotype templates applied to them that are written off simply because "they are hawt so they are okay!".
These characters also lack any depth because "they are hawt and it's okay!".
I've read twilight. (Just finished it, and the successor book. Hey if I can read F.A.T.A.L and come away more or less fine TWICE surely I could stomach Twilight) Honestly I used to think it and the Anita Blake Series were about on par for as shallow, sexist, worthless garbage factor. Honestly now that I've read the abomination? Twilight is WORSE. Because at least the Anita books aren't pretending to have plot at this point.
It's vapid, hostile, and promotes a dangerous negative message to women everywhere. That everything is okay as long as he's hawt and is slavishly devoted to you. Oh and that you are pretty much required to be the mormon ideal of a woman to have happiness like Bella. If you can call anything that empty headed slutbitch has as true happiness. It's also dangerous because frankly if crap this badly written (both Plot wise, and Grammatically speaking.) can make it past an Editor working for a publishing company, it tells the rest of the writing world to not care anymore and just crap out your worst novel ideas willy nilly.
It's cruel to men, because frankly Smeyer gets away with bloody murder when it comes to what she says and does. It's also cruel to us as a gender because of the message it promotes to say nothing of how it portrays every male character time and time again.
Food for thought involving Twilight. Bella's a Mary Sue. Everything in this book series represents some fantasy the Author has. Edward represents the author's Ideal Man. (and Smeyer has gone on record for saying this REPEATEDLY) Jacob is the name of her real life brother. Jacob is also a love interest for the Self Insertion character. And Jacob wants to shag the Mary Sue's spawnling.
And the disturbing part is that my coworkers (especially the one that introduced the book) can't seem to understand why people hate it so much. So its not a guilty pleasure to her.
I almost want to read it just to intelligently bash it (like "The Da Vinci Code", "Paranormal Activity", or "Slumdog Millionaire").
All I know is that it's about a creepy pedo dood and some teen girl and that, somehow, this isn't portrayed as a bad thing. What more do I really need to know? Oh, and I also have Stephen (girl name) King's quote about it, too. That nice li'l dig where he compares Meyer and Rowling and states that the only difference between the two is a pretty minor one - that Rowling can write.
My wife likes Stephen King and she loved that shot.
And I do find it odd how its fine for Twilight moms to wish for ****.
Erato: Thank you for that explanation.
And the disturbing part is that my coworkers (especially the one that introduced the book) can't seem to understand why people hate it so much. So its not a guilty pleasure to her.
It's a pretty common phenomenon. If you're caught up in a book, it's easy to accept that book's premises and internal logic, even when severely flawed.
Have you ever read The Sword of Truth? While kicking an eight year old girl in the face and shatter her jaw, take over a military dictatorship, threaten to completely annihilate non-hostile nations unless they give you their unconditional surrender, leave your own civilians unprotected and direct the attacks of your army away from enemy military forces in order to kill enemy non-combatants (including children) instead, employ torture, kill unarmed peace protesters, and marrying a woman who thinks that "I'm going to personally throw her (the queen) back down into that pit (filled with rapists) from which you rescued her, and I am going to leave her down there with every criminal brute I can find for as long as she lives" is a reasonable diplomatic statement, might not seem like the actions of good man, the books do their best to convince you the protagonist is a pillar of morality.
From what I've seen and heard, Twilight fans actually appear to be rather moderate, or at least contain more individuals who realise the books are crap but enjoy them anyway, compared to the SoT fandom.
Yeah, Goodkind is the worst kind of hack. Utter crap, that SoT series.
I'm glad you think so. I feared you'd be one of the people agreeing with him, being a right-wing nut and everything
I'm glad you think so. I feared you'd one of the people agreeing with him, being a right-wing nut and everything
Holy crap, you're right! I think I need to go someplace an' think for a while ... er ... pray. Yeah, I gotta go pray ...
EDIT: I do consider myself a right wing-nut rather than a right-wing nut. The difference is subtle, but it's there.
Fair enough. I simply don't appreciate that feminists are such an acceptable target, especially when it's areas where they're among the last to blame*. I do agree with you that Twilight might have gotten more critique, especially from women (though possibly less from men), if it was written by a man, but I don't think feminism would be at the heart of it. It appears to be generally more acceptable for anyone to portray their own sex badly than the opposite, because people are less likely to assume they mean any harm by it.
Also quite fair. I honestly didn't mean to bash feminists or feminism.
Even when criticising unflattering material written by people of the same sex, people tend to try to direct the criticism in the direction of the other sex. And men certainly do this too. For instance, a lot of criticism I've read about the unflattering portrayal of some men in comedy, has tried to level a lot of blame on women and feminists, even though the vast majority of the material is written by non-feminist men.
This is pretty much what I meant. It's okay for Stephanie Meyer to write a book with a very unflattering female protagonist, because she's a girl. Same book written by a man would probably not be so popular (though I doubt there'd actually be book burnings and attempts to lynch the author).
And it's very common for men making anti-feminist statements to ascribe their own opinion to women to make it appear less biased, such as by mentioning all the women who agree. For instance, one of the first threads in Astrid's Parlor had a link to an article about how society suffered because women had started to interfere in more and more 'male' areas (such as politics, which they were unsuited for), and the poster who linked to it made sure to explain in the OP that the wife of the man who'd written the article agreed with him.
Well, for what it's worth, I don't share those views at all. I'm not the least bit threatened by women in positions of power. Heck, all my supervisors at work are women (literally every single one), as is my general manager. I'm all for more girls getting into traditionally male jobs. I'm for more female gamers. My D&D group is half women and it's among the best I've ever had.
I simply don't think you can attach any moral or political agenda to it, it's too common for that. And again, I'm sorry for the assumptions I made about you, I was wrong about that. But I hope I've communicated why I find this particular issue so grating.
Apology accepted, and I accept your point of view. Glad we could work this out without a flame war. In case I haven't apologized for my poorly thought out and worded comments earlier, let me just do so now: Sorry about that. It wasn't malice, just stupidity.
RE: Terry Goodkind
I'll admit, I read the whole series. I really enjoyed the first book, before the protagonist and his love interest turned into raving loonies. Though, I guess it's true that you can get wrapped up in the book's internal logic. The protagonist makes a ton of choices that I don't agree with, but readily accepted at the time (he brutalized an 8 year old? It's okay because she was teh evulz!). Huh. I need to think about this.
Nobody tell me what's wrong with Name of the Wind! I don't want my enjoyment of it sullied!
Apology accepted, and I accept your point of view. Glad we could work this out without a flame war. In case I haven't apologized for my poorly thought out and worded comments earlier, let me just do so now: Sorry about that. It wasn't malice, just stupidity.
No problem. You made a stupid comment, and I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll consider us even if that's OK with you.
RE: Terry Goodkind
I'll admit, I read the whole series. I really enjoyed the first book, before the protagonist and his love interest turned into raving loonies. Though, I guess it's true that you can get wrapped up in the book's internal logic. The protagonist makes a ton of choices that I don't agree with, but readily accepted at the time (he brutalized an 8 year old? It's okay because she was teh evulz!). Huh. I need to think about this.
I think I made it through six books before giving up. Unfortunately, this means I only heard about the latter monstrosities, and a read a few quotes, so never got the context behind the part where Richard and his men "hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence" – 'evil's guardians' in this case being unarmed peace protesters who're in his way.
But that's kind of my point. Goodkind has a dedicated fanbase, he's sold over 25 million books, and the books have been adapted into a TV series directed by Sam Raimi. It's not on the level of Twilight, but it's still successful enough that his books have been present in the fantasy section of every book store I've been in, and fans of his work can be found in most social circles among fantasy geeks.
And they're badly written, filled with plot-holes, and extremely silly at times. The hero being abducted to the homeland of the evil religious communist fanatics, and battling them from within with the awesome power of free market economy? Descriptions of villains worthy of the Book of Vile Darkness (SoT evil=yucky sex)? The conflict being resolved by the hero carving of a sculpture so beautiful it makes even the evil religious commies fall to their knees and cry? A chicken that is not a chicken? Hot, leather-clad lesbian dominatrix bodyguards? Nipple magic? Nambles? And though I haven't read that part, I've heard there's a magical goat somewhere in book eight.
And the hero always spontaneously evolves new powers as the plot demands, to the point where he's now established as a skilled woodsman, extremely handsome and attractive to every non-lesbian female, the world's most powerful mage, the world's best swordsman, the world's best archer, the world's best athlete, the world's best sculptor, able to catch arrows out of the air, intelligent, charismatic, empathic, and the last descendant of a bloodline that ensures him the magically compelled obedience of an empire, and enables him to protect people from evil magic, if their swear fealty to him, which they do by bowing down (Muslim style) and chanting "Master Rahl guide us. Master Rahl teach us. Master Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours". And he's so awesome he's always right (seriously, it's one of his special powers or something)
No problem. You made a stupid comment, and I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll consider us even if that's OK with you.
Works for me.
I think I made it through six books before giving up. Unfortunately, this means I only heard about the latter monstrosities, and a read a few quotes, so never got the context behind the part where Richard and his men "hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence" – 'evil's guardians' in this case being unarmed peace protesters who're in his way.But that's kind of my point. Goodkind has a dedicated fanbase, he's sold over 25 million books, and the books have been adapted into a TV series directed by Sam Raimi. It's not on the level of Twilight, but it's still successful enough that his books have been present in the fantasy section of every book store I've been in, and fans of his work can be found in most social circles among fantasy geeks.
As I recall, the "unarmed peace protestors" were so non-violent that they were basically walking doormats for the bad guys. Why they listened to everything the bad guys said and not what the good guys said (though maybe one or both of those sides should be in quotation marks), I'm not really sure. Also, If I remember correctly, all the unarmed guys were part of a race that was so non-magical that magic couldn't affect them, and they always passed this trait on to their children. The bad guys were trying to use them to breed magic out of the world, or something.
Oh, and they were also distantly related to the Rahl line. Because of the whole "magic has balance" thing in the books, for every super wizard born in the Rahl family, there was also a chance of one of these being born. Which begs the question of why Richard didn't off himself after all this was done, to prevent another one of these people from ever being born again.
Rant about Sword of TruthAnd those books try to morally justify torture, child abuse, the killing of civilians (including those on your own side) and even diplomats, punishing disobedience with gang ****, leaving your own people to be slaughtered because you want them to realise how much they need you, and killing people for the crime of being pacifists.And they're badly written, filled with plot-holes, and extremely silly at times. The hero being abducted to the homeland of the evil religious communist fanatics, and battling them from within with the awesome power of free market economy? Descriptions of villains worthy of the Book of Vile Darkness (SoT evil=yucky sex)? The conflict being resolved by the hero carving of a sculpture so beautiful it makes even the evil religious commies fall to their knees and cry? A chicken that is not a chicken? Hot, leather-clad lesbian dominatrix bodyguards? Nipple magic? Nambles? And though I haven't read that part, I've heard there's a magical goat somewhere in book eight.
And the hero always spontaneously evolves new powers as the plot demands, to the point where he's now established as a skilled woodsman, extremely handsome and attractive to every non-lesbian female, the world's most powerful mage, the world's best swordsman, the world's best archer, the world's best athlete, the world's best sculptor, able to catch arrows out of the air, intelligent, charismatic, empathic, and the last descendant of a bloodline that ensures him the magically compelled obedience of an empire, and enables him to protect people from evil magic, if their swear fealty to him, which they do by bowing down (Muslim style) and chanting "Master Rahl guide us. Master Rahl teach us. Master Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours". And he's so awesome he's always right (seriously, it's one of his special powers or something)
I've heard more than enough about them to realize that on it's good points they wouldn't be to my tastes.
And on it's bad points it would be so horrendously Stupifying as to rival Anita Blake. (Anita Blake picks up more powers than she should be picking up STDs. And yeah I'm qualified to say that. I've read almost every god damn novel in that God Awful Series. The sad thing is the books were good up till after Obsidian Butterfly. Really they are. Then? Epic Dive Down on the donkey **** )
down my neck for daring to say so.Goodkind has a similar legion of nutj ... I mean fans. Sad, but true. And you really miss nothing by ignoring Terry. If you want to get an idea about his style, just read the first book: Wizard's First Rule. It's not mega-terrible, but it's not great. Anyhoo, it sets the formula which all following books in the series follow to the friggin' letter. You can't get the whole story from one book, but you can learn how that story is told. As in terribly. Formulaic. Painfully so.
I've never read any of this Terry Goodkind stuff, but it don't think it holds a candle to Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Time. I managed to slog my way through one book of that meretricious garbage - which was one of the worst books I've ever read - and yet there are legions of fans so rabid they'd tear off my head and
Boraxe dear, it's worse. I've read both of them (at least partly), and Goodkind is worse. For the first couple of books, most people agree that he was ripping off Robert Jordan. And they also agree those were the best books. The latter ones were inspired by Ayn Rand.
If anyone wants to get an idea of the horror that is Terry Goodkind's writing, here's a good overview. Granted, the posters are fans of George R. R. Martin, so they're naturally biased, but the quotes are real enough.
The protagonist kills unarmed peace protesters.
An example of the protagonist's very long speeches (warning, risk of extreme boredom).
The awesome power of the protagonist's sculpting ability is revealed.
The next bit is hard to read on the board, so I'm posting it here.
"Master Rahl teach us," they all said, coming more into unison.
Berdine, her forehead against the tile, still managed to cast a fiery look Verna's way. Verna rolled her eyes and bent forward, placing her forehead against the tile.
"Master Rahl protect us," she muttered, finally joining in with the devotion she knew and had already once given to Richard himself. "In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours."
(snip)
Together, the assembled throng softly chanted the devotion again.
"Master Rahl guide us. Master Rahl teach us. Master Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours."
Verna leaned a little toward Berdine and whispered. "How many times are we going to have to say the devotion?"
Berdine, looking very much the Mord-Sith, shot Verna a stern glare. She didn't say anything. She didn't have to. Verna recognized the look. She herself had countless times used the same look as she peered down her nose at novices who were misbehaving or young wizards-in-training who were being mulish. Verna turned her eyes back to the tile under her, feeling very much like a novice again as she softly spoke the chant along with the rest of the people.
"Master Rahl guide us. Master Rahl teach us. Master Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours."
The murmur of the chanted devotion, in the single joined voice of all the people gathered in the square, echoed through the cavernous halls.
(snip)
Verna felt so all alone, even among the gathered crowd of so many people. She ached with how much she missed Warren. She had built a wall around her feeling and had shut herself away from such thoughts, as well as those around her, hoping to be spared the pain that always seemed to lurk just blow the surface.
(snip)
"Master Rahl guide us. Master Rahl teach us. Master Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours."
Verna sucked back a sob as she remembered kissing Warren for the last time as he lay dying.
(snip)
"Master Rahl guide us. Master Rahl teach us. Master Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours."
(snip)
Pin and longing twisted her insides. Her world was ashes. Nothing seemed worthwhile. She didb't want to live anymore.
"Master Rahl guide us. Master Rahl teach us. Master Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours."
Verna choked back her sobs as she chanted the devotion. It never even occurred to her to wonder if anyone noticed her.
It had all been so senseless, a young man of no ability for anything worthwhile, with no interest in any values, of no use to anyone, including himself, murdering Warren just to prove his loyalty to the cause of the Imperial Order, which was, in essence, that people like Warren had no right to live his own life but instead should sacrifice themselves for the likes of his murderer.
Richard fought to end such madness. Richard fought with everything he had against those who brought such senseless brutality to the world. Richard had given himself over to ending it so that others would not have to lose those they loved as Verna had lost Warren. Richard truly understood her pain.
Verna sank into the rhythm of the chant, allowing it to wash through her. Richard stood for everything she had fought for her whole life-solidity, meaning, purpose. A devotion to such a man, rather than being blasphemy, seemed altogether right. In a way, because of who Richard was and what he stood for, it was actually a devotion to life itself rather than some otherworldly goal.
(snip)
In the loving touch of glowing light she felt peace for the first time in ages.
"Master Rahl guide us. Master Rahl teach us. Master Rahl protect us. In your light we thrive. In your mercy we are sheltered. In your wisdom we are humbled. We live only to serve. Our lives are yours."
The soft flow of the words of the devotion, as she knelt in the warm shaft of sunlight, filled her with a profound calm, a serene sense of belonging unlike she ever had before. She whispered the words, letting them lift away the shards of pain. As she knelt, her head to the tiles, putting her heart and soul into saying the words, she felt free of any and every worry; she was suffused with the simple joy of life, and with reverence for it.
(snip)
Berdine was kneeling beside her.
"Verna, are you all right?"
She straightened up on her knees. "Yes, it's just that it felt so good in the sunlight." Berdine's brow twitched. She glanced over at the drops of rain dancing in the water of the pond.
"Verna, it has been raining the whole time."
Verna peered around as she stood. "But I felt it. I saw the glow of the shaft of light all around me."
Berdine seemed to catch on, then, and put a comforting hand on the small of Verna's back. "I understand."
"You do?"
Berdine nodded with a compassionate smile. "Going to devotion in a way gives you a chance to consider your life and along with that it brings comfort in many forms. Maybe one who loves you came to comfort you."
Verna stared at the soft smile on the Mord_Sith's face. "Has that ever happened to you?"
Berdine swallowed as she nodded. Her eyes brimming with tears said that it had.
~Terry Goodkind, Chainfire
Thanks. I guess? Knowing that there is yet another famous Train Wreck that some how has a fanbase is really demoralising.
God help me I was looking for some kind of symbolism in the Fire is Bad speech. I was thinking maybe it was some kind of Pro Isolationism Speech... but really it makes no damn sense with just the quote by itself.
The only thing I knew about Terry Goodkind before is that he wrote books. Reading some of those quotes makes me realize why I don't read many fantasy novels (outside of Warhammer novels, The Hobbit, and the beginning of the Prism Pentad)
You know I don't consider Black Library to be High Reading, really I don't they are good pulp novels for the most part. But honestly anyone that thinks Goodkind has any kind of writing talent would be out and out floored with the works of Black Library.
The guy that reads the Song of Ice and fire books also likes books like American Psycho so it's entirely possible that the books are good. But he also likes Tolkien, so his tastes in novels is hit or miss.
Personally I don't want another So Low Magic It Might As Well Never Existed book series, written by a what is most likely a windbag author. There's Tolkien for that.
Urban Fantasy there are some good works out there, I recommend anything written by Jim Butcher. The Dresden Files really impressed me. I'm told Codex Alera is even better but it's a Fantasy series, and frankly I have no interest in Just Fantasy. (You would think I'd be all over it, being such a D&D nut and all. But really, for me Fantasy only exists to play D&D with or to couple with other genres...)
To me, fantasy and 'high reading' are irreconcilable.
Then it's a good thing Goodkindn doesn't define his books as fantasy, despite the dragons and wizards. He says that they're philosophical works, and that anyone finding any similarities between his books and Robert Jordan's aren't mature enough to read The Sword of Truth. The guy's as modest as he's talented
I've been told by people with allegedly refined tastes that the Song of Ice and fire series is really high quality stuff. Supposedly each and every character is written in the mindset of how that character would actually think and feel etc, in a semi first person fashion.
The guy that reads the Song of Ice and fire books also likes books like American Psycho so it's entirely possible that the books are good. But he also likes Tolkien, so his tastes in novels is hit or miss.
Personally I don't want another So Low Magic It Might As Well Never Existed book series, written by a what is most likely a windbag author. There's Tolkien for that.
It's just a personal thing. Fantasy just doesn't do it for me.
Then it's a good thing Goodkindn doesn't define his books as fantasy, despite the dragons and wizards. He says that they're philosophical works, and that anyone finding any similarities between his books and Robert Jordan's aren't mature enough to read The Sword of Truth. The guy's as modest as he's talented
Nice. He is so awesome, even he knows it!
But philosophical works? Wow. That's ... insane.
You know, his work is just so damn bad (reading the sculpting excerpt) I .... I can't believe I'm about to say this but Uwe Boll, might just be off the hook now.
I'm more curious about how his works hold up to Anita Blake, having never read the books myself. For some reason, a lot of the quotes seem to have all the " replaced with “, so they can be a bit confusing, but still, would you mind reading this (definitely NSFW, but since it's available to children at libraries and books stores, I don't believe it should be against the CoC) and give me a comparison?
As a bonuse I'll even compare Goodkind's "works" to CS Goto and see how they stack up to each other.
Fun trivia I've created a new bookmark section just for Goodkind's "works" it's called Trash Novels. Other authors will join in my bookmark section as I find forums that hate them (twilight sucks forum will go right into Trash Novels shortly)
As a side note I'll resume my Fatal review this week. I've had a sufficient break from Garbage and Failure as far as entertainment media goes, and am presently reading an actually Good Novel (Ghost of Winter by Stephen Kenson. Or it's at least ******* ****** AMAZING compared to what I've been reading anyway)
Then it's a good thing Goodkindn doesn't define his books as fantasy, despite the dragons and wizards. He says that they're philosophical works, and that anyone finding any similarities between his books and Robert Jordan's aren't mature enough to read The Sword of Truth. The guy's as modest as he's talented
Nice. He is so awesome, even he knows it!
But philosophical works? Wow. That's ... insane.
I found an interview with him. I originally wanted to quote the worst parts, but there were too many.
To sum up, Ayn Rand is the most most must-read, cutting edge writer publishing today. Goodkind's books are not fantasy, his readers aren't fantasy fans, and anyone seeing a resemblance to Robert Jordan shouldn't read his books. Goodkind writes 'stories that have important human themes', while 'fantasy' is just about world-building. His stories are so universal they'd be relevant to what's happening in any age.
Goodkind doesn't think there's much to read today, because many authors don't write about heroic characters, and thus don't show the nobility of mankind, and he doesn't like that. He has no education in writing (which is irrelevant because writers are born, not made), and learned grammar himself as a function of logic. Oh, and the best agent in the country wanted to represent Terry Goodkind because he knew the book would sell itself.
Unfortunately, he was right about that last part. I read an article about 'the kings of fantasy', in which some dork speculated that Goodkind might usurp Jordan's place as Tolkien's successor. Goodkind vs Jordan as the kings of fantasy, it sums up almost everything that's wrong with current fantasy literature (which I still read and enjoy) and its fandom.
(snip)
It's good to know I'm not the only one with an unhealthy fascination with snark bait
Ow my sides)This guy as a King of fantasy?
Seriously? You know if I am to believe what everyone has told me about Jim Butcher's Codex Alera series there is no way in hell Goodkind deserves the "crown". Yeah, the snark bait has tainted my mind too somewhat. *fires up wordpad*
I found an interview with him. I originally wanted to quote the worst parts, but there were too many.To sum up, Ayn Rand is the most most must-read, cutting edge writer publishing today. Goodkind's books are not fantasy, his readers aren't fantasy fans, and anyone seeing a resemblance to Robert Jordan shouldn't read his books. Goodkind writes 'stories that have important human themes', while 'fantasy' is just about world-building. His stories are so universal they'd be relevant to what's happening in any age.
Goodkind doesn't think there's much to read today, because many authors don't write about heroic characters, and thus don't show the nobility of mankind, and he doesn't like that. He has no education in writing (which is irrelevant because writers are born, not made), and learned grammar himself as a function of logic. Oh, and the best agent in the country wanted to represent Terry Goodkind because he knew the book would sell itself.
Unfortunately, he was right about that last part. I read an article about 'the kings of fantasy', in which some dork speculated that Goodkind might usurp Jordan's place as Tolkien's successor. Goodkind vs Jordan as the kings of fantasy, it sums up almost everything that's wrong with current fantasy literature (which I still read and enjoy) and its fandom.
Whoa. Showing 'the nobility of mankind'? Is that what he does? Heh, what a nutter.
Oh well, at least there was some decent fantasy at some point. Like ... umm ... like ... uhh ... oh yeah! Feist! Yeah, he's decent. Kinda black and white, but overall not painful.
Like I said, fantasy isn't my thing. Hell, I tried reading The Hobbit while waiting in a courthouse to see if I was gonna get summoned for Jury Duty or not and I still put it down in favor of bad daytime TV with no sound. And I swear to god that actually happened. But that's just me. And I'm kwazy. Not Goodkind kwazy, apparently, but yeah. (that's not saying much mind)
You'd like the Dresden Files, I think.
ZB the Hobbit is Tolkien's best work.
(that's not saying much mind)
You'd like the Dresden Files, I think.
Really? Then - maybe - there is some hope for me as a writer?
(j/k - I don't like him, but you can't deny he has wide appeal)I just read that interview Erato linked and ... holy crap. That guy is amazingly full of himself. And he looks like a tool, too. I don't think that I'd ever have read one of his books (let alone four) had I seen that interview first.
Blue Moon. Heh this is arguably the start of Anita's Fall as a character. In this one (now it's been a while since I've read it) Anita basically gets her sex on for the first time. For the most part this book is fairly well written, but it has a few glaring plot holes or at least things that don't make much sense.
The climax of the book as I recall was her having Richard transform ....on her. She got shifter goo all over her, and she freaked the **** out. (can't say I much blame her) Well earlier she had killed Raina (the pack's former female alpha. And no pack structure doesn't act like it does with Real wolves, but some twisted misconcepted reality of pack structure but that's another tangent of a tangent) and Raina called the munin on Anita from the grave. Basically putting all of the wolves into hyper heat wanting to **** Anita's brains out. She spends a very large portion of the novel running like a scared little girl (cause frankly she is and for good reason. it's been established that sex with shapeshifted lycanthropes is a very bad idea for the non furry)
She eventually escapes, and by this point in the series is dating Jean Claude and she screws him. She screws Richard earlier in the novel if I remember right. (How all of this lead to her screwing Jean Claude is beyond me? but that's kind of my point. That's the most major hole in the series. And that's where this book series starts to fall, basically a Logic Hole gave the author an excuse to get Anita some Sexing) This is also really where Anita gets her first Template added to her. Lycanthrope She Bitch From the Grave or something. Basically she can channel the Munin which is the spirits of dead alphas of the local pack.
The next book is Obsidian Butterfly which is actually one of my favorites out of the entire series. No sexing, good police work, good dialogue, and an awesome villain. I can't really rag on it too much. She does pick up new powers here, but they are correlated to her already established Necromancy. (very well established I might add) And her new power flows well with the plot and premise of the character. It's this book that made me think that Blue Moon was an aberration of sorts and that life would resume as semi normal in the book series.
Narcissus in Chains... oh dear christ this is a trainwreck of Badly written Smut, needless characters, and at least one more Template and power suite. We find out here that she has some kind of triumphirant of her own now, with a Vampire Servant... yeah you can argue that it's part of her Necromancy... but really it doesn't top this part. She also has an Animal to Call. There's also a panwere villiain in this novel, oh and guess what he does. Wounds Anita. And later you find out she's picked up a few strains of lycanthropy, but some how doesn't shape shift. Yeah. That makes sense alright.... So yeah by the end of the novel she's gained four types of lycanthropy which require "feeding" and this is where the Ardeur really surfaces for the first time in the series. Basically the ardeur is what enables Jean Claude (the vampire) and his blood line to feed off of lust. Unfortunately it's nigh uncontrollable at first and is just a convienent excuse to give Anita yet More Sexing... alot More Sexing.
Cerulean Sins introduces to us a new villain, and some minor stuff. Anita basically Sexes her way through her problems, and several characters begin horrid transformations into piles of Refuse, that hadn't already started to fall. Oh and she Sexes up one of the secondary characters that had firmly been in the "just friends" box not too long ago. Already the Ardeur is getting old and fast.
Incubus Dreams is actually one of the three novels I skipped.
Micah. A book about a character that's introduced just to give Anita free Hawt Furry Sex with No Complications. And you think I was going to read this book?
Danse Macabre, actually I'll just link my review of it, because this is easily the worst in the series (and by this point that's saying something) and it gives you an excellent break down of what has happened to all of the characters in the series.
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars You know.. this series used to be an R rated Buffy the vampire slayer., September 2, 2009
By Aaron Keating - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Danse Macabre (Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter, Book 14) (Mass Market Paperback)
I reread the original books, just recently. And I found myself very satisfied in reading them. They more or less define the setting, introduced solid characters, and in general had good plots. I always feel that part of a Mystery is about dropping clues and seeing if you the reader can put it together. But then this series wasn't just a mystery series. The Police work was well done. And Anita still has a daytime job more or less in it. The character had limitations, but was still capable of scaring the bad guys.
Fast forward to post Blue Moon.
And then fast forward to this piece of poorly written (as to make a Scifi Original movie look good) garbage.
It's all about "Teh sexorz" because LKH apparently isn't getting any, or is getting too much? Maybe it's because she's in Mid Life Crisis and is longing for better days. Anyway... snark aside.
If you skipped the sex and discussions of sex in this 400+ page monstrosity of poorly structured writing you'd end up with forty pages or so of actual plot. The sex isn't even good for that matter. It's like Sex....for Soccermoms maybe.
Obsidian Butterfly is really when you should abandon all hope for this series, because I think it was LKH's talent doing it's last gasp of life. It was good, and solid. Everything after it? Has been utter garbage. Anita became a Sex God... and by Sex God I mean she's only getting laid because her male counterparts are desperate caricatures of actual characters.
So what happened to the well written characters? Dolph became a racist jerkwad that isn't worth wasting space about.
Richard is a whiny little **** who hates the world. I wish he'd just take a Silver Knife and go Up The Road. (Remember kids when you slit your wrists.. you go up the road not across the street!)
Jean Claude went from being a Magnificent Bastard tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Magn... to being a ***** whipped, moron and in general Non Factor when it comes to anything important.
Asher (who really is a precursor to the End of this series being good) is still an Emo Reject.
Micah just does whatever Anita says. (Not that he was introduced as anything other than FREE SEX! FURRY!!1! HAWT! mind you)
Edward is MIA and thank god.
Ronnie: went from being a somewhat snarky and sassy side kick persona, to being a vindictive, jealous bitch. For no real reason worth mentioning. (The reason they give in this book is totally contrary to how this character acts in previous books)
I think the plot on the back of the book should be pretty telling about how bad and hard this book series has fallen.
Anita Blake: went from Detective Vampire Slayer with Moral Standards. To a totally willing ***** that would rather spend time on her back than do anything useful.
www.amazon.com/Danse-Macabre-Anita-Vampi...
Whoa. Showing 'the nobility of mankind'? Is that what he does? Heh, what a nutter.
Among other things.
Terry Goodkind: I think the most important author to read is Ayn Rand.
…...
There's actually very little to read today because more and more books center around characters who are either unremarkable, pathetic or reprehensible. I don't like authors who choose to tell stories about these kinds of people. I like stories about individuals who can show the nobility of mankind.
Strangely enough, I believe most great literature has centred around deeply flawed individuals, but perhaps I'm wrong.
Oh well, at least there was some decent fantasy at some point. Like ... umm ... like ... uhh ... oh yeah! Feist! Yeah, he's decent. Kinda black and white, but overall not painful.
I agree Tolkien is boring (as are many older writers), but he isn't famous for being entertaining. It's a little like Freud, no modern psychologists put much stock into what he said (at least not Sigmund Freud, the work of Anna Freud appears to have retained more relevance), but he's still recognised as a pioneer in his field. Feist was alright, but his best work was with Janny Wurts in the empire trilogy. Too bad none of them seem to be able to write something like that alone.
I can probably do some more for you tonight after I get home from work if you would like. I'm a little short for time at the moment.
I'm surprised at all the negativeness towards Tolkien since he pretty much like created modern fantasy. But whatever.
Strangely enough, I believe most great literature has centred around deeply flawed individuals, but perhaps I'm wrong.
I'd have to agree: Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov, Tolstoy's Anna, Heller's Yossarian, Burgess' Alex, Ellis' Bateman, Palahniuk's 'Joe' (Tyler Durden's other side), McCarthy's 'The kid', Faulkner's Snopeses and on and on and on. I'd have to say that - most likely - everything I've ever read that I consider great is centered around those most would consider flawed.
What's more disturbing, now that I think about it, is that Goodkind actually thinks Richard is not some deeply flawed individual. I mean, he has to after a statement like that, right? *shudder*
I agree Tolkien is boring (as are many older writers), but he isn't famous for being entertaining. It's a little like Freud, no modern psychologists put much stock into what he said (at least not Sigmund Freud, the work of Anna Freud appears to have retained more relevance), but he's still recognised as a pioneer in his field. Feist was alright, but his best work was with Janny Wurts in the empire trilogy. Too bad none of them seem to be able to write something like that alone.
True. He was a pioneer and all that. It's a shame he wasn't also entertaining.
I kind of like Feist. Not too complicated, but not irritating. I'm not really interested in reading more of his stuff, but I did like the little I read. His characters were interesting and the story was alright. Not great, but when people ask for fantasy reading suggestions, I don't hesitate to tell them to look at Feist.
I thoroughly enjoy Tolkien and his work, just sayin'.
Not all of us can be perfect. It's ok.
I only read "Lord of the Rings" but I thought it was good. My wife wants me to read "The Similarion"; she's a huge Tolkien fan.
I'm surprised at all the negativeness towards Tolkien since he pretty much like created modern fantasy. But whatever.
He pioneered a literary genre. That means that he could simultaneously be an inspiration to some and thoroughly unenjoyable to another. I can respect what he started without respecting what he wrote. And that's exactly what I do. I have never - as in never - been so bored by a book that I actually refused to suffer through it until I attempted The Hobbit those years ago - and I've read Tom Clancy. Not that I ever will again, but I did make it through Red Storm Rising. Barely. Anyhoo, I can dig he's, like, some people's literary hero an' junk. I can even respect that. But I don't have any obligation to feel that way myself.
Erato: I did it for ya. Check my last post.
I can probably do some more for you tonight after I get home from work if you would like. I'm a little short for time at the moment.
So SoT wins by describing the feelings of both parties (albeit badly)? Damn, the narm of LKH must be impressive. Still, I'm not sure it's possible to even rank that level of badness. I mean, "Tears flooded down her face. Her perfectly plucked brows bunched together, lifting in the middle, furrowing the skin on her forehead into neat rows. He counted them, because he was special." is so moronic, I actually had to fetch my old books just to see if the guy doing the quoting had made a mistake. He hadn't, that passage is there in real life, and there's even more references to her sky blue eyes in the book.
And about the inconsistencies, I believe Goodkind is one of those writers who're deemed too skilled and important to need editors. Btw, I found the shortest and most readable of the sex scenes yet (post 166), unfortunately, it's about a namble (and NSFW). It's also one of the most sexist passages in the book, which is saying a lot.
Oh, and I agree with Z_B, Tolkien was a pioneer, and did some impressive work, but that doesn't automatically make it entertaining to a modern audience. I have nothing against Tolkien, I just never finished his books, except The Hobbit which my father read to me.
I {also} thoroughly enjoy Tom Clancy and his work, just sayin'.
So it's safe to say you enjoy reading stuff that was meticulously put together then. See, I'm the kind of guy that doesn't care how many colors each and every dial on the sub have. Really. I don't need to know that. I like stories, not descriptions.
Oh, and I agree with Z_B, Tolkien was a pioneer, and did some impressive work, but that doesn't automatically make it entertaining to a modern audience. I have nothing against Tolkien, I just never finished his books, except The Hobbit which my father read to me.
Yep. He's just not my style.
I guess I was just surprised at the negative opinions of him since you know... this is a DnD board and all.
Whatevs.
Yeah, I'm not saying that I expect everyone to like Tolkien. I enjoyed LoTRs and I thought it was painfully slow at times.
I guess I was just surprised at the negative opinions of him since you know... this is a DnD board and all.
Whatevs.
I ceased being surprised by D&D 'fans' when I first saw the relentless Gygax bashing that's wont to come up from time to time. ;)
So, I'll just come out and say that I also like Anne Rice. Yeah. I like meticulous detail. Spend five minutes describing an old french door to me, I'll read it all.
That's kwazy.
I guess I was just surprised at the negative opinions of him since you know... this is a DnD board and all.
I am not surprised myself, I've found this to be a common viewpoint amoung D&D gamers. Sure, a few of them I know {online or otherwise}, enjoy Tolkien. But many of them? They do not. It's funny {actually}, because the first edition of D&D was basically a copy-n-paste job of Tolkien's work for table top gaming.
Oh, and I agree with Z_B, Tolkien was a pioneer, and did some impressive work, but that doesn't automatically make it entertaining to a modern audience. I have nothing against Tolkien, I just never finished his books, except The Hobbit which my father read to me.
Conversely, just cos he's not modern doesn't make it bad per se.
I feel very much about Tolkien as I do about Gary Gygax's contribution to D&D: I appreciate the work far more than I really like it (though LotR, unlike D&D, did make for a kick-ass movie).
Conversely, just cos he's not modern doesn't make it bad per se.
I feel very much about Tolkien as I do about Gary Gygax's contribution to D&D: I appreciate the work far more than I really like it (though LotR, unlike D&D, did make for a kick-ass movie).
I agree. Like I said, it's just not somethin' I dig. But I think you nailed it: appreciation if not like. And that's all we really need to do - if anything at all. Though I must say I did enjoy Gygax's gaming work. Good times.
A similar thing with Gary Gygax. I can understand why people prefer 4e to 1st edition, but I never understood the sheer hatred to the "father" of a game that they love.
So yeah, I was surprised. But again, its just opinions so whatever.
(And while we're on the subject of books which apparently people hate, I also enjoyed "Atlas Shrugged".)
Conversely, just cos he's not modern doesn't make it bad per se.
I feel very much about Tolkien as I do about Gary Gygax's contribution to D&D: I appreciate the work far more than I really like it (though LotR, unlike D&D, did make for a kick-ass movie).
I never implied so.
(And while we're on the subject of books which apparently people hate, I also enjoyed "Atlas Shrugged".)
I'm kind of interested in it. It's just so damned huge that, if I hate it, I'll likely be hating it for a long time. And I've heard so many conflicting opinions - though mostly negative. Maybe I'll get around to it eventually.
I agree with lots of its economic statements, but its definately not something everyone is going to enjoy. And even though I think the hero is a strong woman, I could see how people could say its degrading towards women.
So yeah, I can understand why people would hate it.
I liked it, but its extremely long and pretty boring at times. It also like... is pretty over the top sometimes with how great the heroes are and how incompetant the villains are. But for the most part, I thought it was good and pretty interesting.
I agree with lots of its economic statements, but its definately not something everyone is going to enjoy. And even though I think the hero is a strong woman, I could see how people could say its degrading towards women.
So yeah, I can understand why people would hate it.
Hmm. I may check it out. I think it'll be kinda low on the list (I'm still working on Faulkner), but I may get to it.
I never implied so.
I know, I was just just building off the point.
(And while we're on the subject of books which apparently people hate, I also enjoyed "Atlas Shrugged".)
I'm kind of interested in it. It's just so damned huge that, if I hate it, I'll likely be hating it for a long time. And I've heard so many conflicting opinions - though mostly negative. Maybe I'll get around to it eventually.
Heh. I love that book.
(Its a book written from the perspective of the 'acceptable target' as the hero. Good times.)
My ****ing god. No really
what the 
is this guy? Human he ain't. Hell half his answers weren't even relevant to the questions fielded. I had an epiphany about this dill weed while scrubbing a toilet. I'll share it in another thread about another subject.
You'll know it when you see it.
I'll start reading some more excerpts shortly. But yeah he's marginally better at Smut than LKH. (but grammatically speaking god he's far worse. Imagery wise he does a better job.
) I'll need a larger sample pool just to be sure. 
god I can't believe I just said that. Yeah I'm a masochist. Oh I'll compare this **** to Goto next. (two of the former Unholy Trinity of Trash Authors in my book. Smeyer, Hamilton, and Goto... this guy is going to make it a Quartet)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh on the plus side the novel Ghost of Winter, is still an entertaining read. I'm absolutely devouring this thing on my lunch breaks, and my break time. I'll be starting on my next Dresden book alot sooner than I figured I would be. It's not High Reading, but it's pulpy and entertaining. Which is really all I ask for in a book. The Story is well handled, as is Character Development, and the action sequences between the Mechs are Top Notch. The imagery is also very well executed, he's descriptive without being boring.
What's even worse is his writing is also more engaging than CS Goto's. CS Goto is probably the least engaging author I've ever seen. Literally there's no motivation whatsoever to finish a given scene by Mr Crap Sh*t Gotohell. CS Goto's use of the English Language however is superior, far superior. But the scene's are so ungodly Dull that it doesn't matter.
Goodkind's use of Imagery is also superior to Goto's.
It's like Goodkind has managed to find other ways to Fail at being an author than any of the other Authors in the Unholy Quartet.
To give you an idea of just how I view Goto
Utter Trash. Seriously., April 13, 2010Ironically, Richard actually ends up on a professional sports team, after killing hundreds of soldiers hampered by their own collectivism.
Is that passage for real? Like it's really in a published book?
And wait a second, the character is named "Richard Cypher." Cypher? Seriously? Are you
ing pulling my leg? 
Is that passage for real? Like it's really in a published book?
And wait a second, the character is named "Richard Cypher." Cypher? Seriously? Are you
The series is real, and has reportedly sold 25 million copies. Didn't I say he's worse than Jordan?
And this wasn't even the most ridiculous part, there's the evil pacifists getting killed by the hero, the evil 8 eight year old girl getting her jaw shattered by the hero, the dirty evil fantasy commies giving up their evil commie ways after seeing a statue with the word 'life' on it, the chicken that is not a chicken but evil incarnate, the namble demon with a spiked phallus, and a bunch of objectivist propaganda disguised as heroic speeches.
And he was originally named Richard Cypher, after the man who raised him, but in a stunning twist you never saw coming, it turns out he's the son of the first book's major villain, the evil emperor Darken Rahl. So now he goes by the name of Richard Rahl, rules his father's empire, demand complete submission from his subjects, orders his army to slaughter enemy civilians and bring him their ears as proof, and employs torture and the threat of **** (no sorry, that was his girlfriend) against any who stand against him. But it's OK, because he's the good guy, and possesses the Moral Clarity to know when such actions are necessary to preserve freedom.
And he was originally named Richard Cypher, after the man who raised him, but in a stunning twist you never saw coming, it turns out he's the son of the first book's major villain, the evil emperor Darken Rahl.
Darken?!?
And he was originally named Richard Cypher, after the man who raised him, but in a stunning twist you never saw coming, it turns out he's the son of the first book's major villain, the evil emperor Darken Rahl.
Darken?!?
Yes, it's very original, isn't it? ;) Apparently, Terry Goodkind puts a lot of thought into the names of his characters.
One of the hero's political opponents is the democratically elected but morally bankrupt Bertrand Chanboor, who constantly cheats on his shrewd, ambitious, and ugly wife Hildemara. There are half a dozen subtle clues in the book which will reveal to the attentive reader which political figures these two characters represent.
is buying the tripe?I'm surprised the guy doesn't just name the protagonist "Flawless McHero" and the villain "Professor Evilstein von Evil". Sweet Zombie Jesus, how can stuff this bad sell? Who the
Lots of fantasy fans like it (even though Goodkind doesn't write fantasy). A guy in my group adores the series as much as he does the Wheel of Time, and has even played a couple of characters named Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander in honour of Richard's grandfather. He thinks it's very epic and cool, and he feels sorry for people who notice the political undertones, since they just aren't capable of reading without having to analyse everything, and can't seperate fantasy from reality.
He was actually the one who got me to think of Goodkind in this thread, since he also thinks Twilight is awfully bad, unlike the stuff he's reading. He's the one I think about whenever I feel the urge to ridicule teenage fangirls, and defend my fellow geeks and gamers.
Terry Goodkind was not in my database until now; I will proceed to flag him as a waste of time and space. As for the character names, why couldn't he just called someone Chawbacon? I'm certain that would be a better name for several characters.
I'm surprised the guy doesn't just name the protagonist "Flawless McHero" and the villain "Professor Evilstein von Evil". Sweet Zombie Jesus, how can stuff this bad sell? Who the
However ashamed I am to admit I've read 4 Goodkind books, I'm also quite proud to admit I never purchased any of them. I borrowed from sad fools that did. They also read Jordan even though his crap tends to drive them nuts. My friends are kwazy. Knowing what you do about my fragile state of relative mental stability, this should frighten you. It'd frighten me, but I'm too far gone to care.
I still can't get over his 'I don't write fantasy' crap. He named his first book Wizard's First Rule. Wizard's. As in magic. As in a friggin' fantasy staple. This guy's a knob.
Uh, sorry?! His, what?!
Uh, sorry?! His, what?!
You know... his Thing. It rises anytime he gets ready to chop an 8 year old girls tongue off. He can feel his Thing inside of him. And when it rises, bad things happen to whoever is standing infront of him.
Lots of fantasy fans like it (even though Goodkind doesn't write fantasy). A guy in my group adores the series as much as he does the Wheel of Time, and has even played a couple of characters named Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander in honour of Richard's grandfather. He thinks it's very epic and cool, and he feels sorry for people who notice the political undertones, since they just aren't capable of reading without having to analyse everything, and can't seperate fantasy from reality.
At least your friend doesn't try to play characters based off the Mord-Sith (those red leather clad magic eating often-lesbian dominatrixes, for those not in the know).
Uh, sorry?! His, what?!
You know... his Thing. It rises anytime he gets ready to chop an 8 year old girls tongue off. He can feel his Thing inside of him. And when it rises, bad things happen to whoever is standing infront of him.
In all fairness, that was taken a little out of context. It wasn't supposed to be a bad thing, it was an act of mercy. The real quote says:
Princess Violet squeezed her eyes shut, stuck her tongue out far as she could.
It was like a red flag.
The strength of the awakened power exploded through him.
He could feel her jaw shattter like a crystal goblet on a stone floor when his boot came up under it. The impact of the blow lifted the Princess into the air. Her own teeth severed her tongue before they, too, shattered. She landed on her back, a good distance away, trying to scream through the gushing blood.
I feel like a human being again too after finishing Small Favor, it's like some of my higher cognitive thinking had been locked away in order to preserve my sanity while reading, Skin Trade, Eldar Prophecy and these Goodkind Excerpts.
I'm sorry but this is easily worth a laugh.
). Any chance you guys want to read 6 books at 700-900 pages each written by this author to make sure you think it's as bad as those quotes make it sound like? 
And Micha, that image Who made it?
Erato, Let's just say I've had enough experience with Garbage to recognize it based on excerpts. The fact that there's just so many Excerpts is of Failure is telling in of itself. Especially as these all appear to be rather critical scenes to the novels they are part of.
Maybe if I can find one of his "works" in a Used Bookstore in town I'll do it for ya. (or if I can find one through one of my Sources) Either way I don't want that jackwad to get profit from me. I double checked for some Excerpts, and the GRR guys do not appear to be misquoting or altering the text in any way (But then really how could they make something up THAT bad).
But if I can score one of his books on the Cheap and without him profiting (nor Tor publishing) I'll gladly do it.
I read 4 of his 'books'. I'm bashing from an informed perspective.
books (or movies, tv, music, etc.) I've had enough people say "nay" and few, if any, say "yay" that I think I'll give it a pass. I'd rather just reread the Discworld novels.…...there are those who rail at me because I don't behave like a fantasy author is "supposed" to. I don't follow the rules, as they see it.
There are those who focus exclusively on this least important element -magic - simply because people I don't know, despite my strenuous objections at the time, insisted on placing a red dragon on the cover of my work, and because of that, and who published the book, I was racked in bookstores as fantasy. As a result, in the minds of some readers I am for all time to be labeled as a “fantasy" author. So I must now follow some unstated laws of writing - I must know my place - because I've been mindlessly labeled a "fantasy" author? That, my friends, is bigotry.
I am not an obedient subservient cog of a group, slavishly following the group's conventions. I am a thinking individual acting of my own free will.
Shania Twain had a similar problem with country music fans who resented her because her music doesn't follow the constrained conventions of country music. She has risen above category names. For most of my fans, so have I.
Question: Lately I've found myself in many arguments defending your books against 'fans' who say they used to like your books but no longer do to the extent that they used to. Would you mind settling some debates by answering the Question: What, if anything do you have to say to the people that voice the opinion that you're latest four books haven't been as good as the previous four and call them "too preachy"?Answer: Don't be fooled. The assertion made by these detractors is a note wrapped around a brick thrown through the window. These people are not fans. There are hundreds if not thousands of fantasy books that fulfill their professed taste in books. Why would they continue to read books they claim are bad? Because they hate that my novels exists. Values arouse hatred in these people. Their goal is not to enjoy life, but to destroy that which is good -much like a school child who does not wish to study for a test and instead beats up a classmate who does well. These people hate what is good because it is good. Their lives are limited to loathing and indifference. It isn't that they want to read a good book, what they want is to make sure that you do not. Ignore them.
Man. That Terry Goodkind is one humble cat.
Why on Earth doesn't he think he writes fantasy? Sure, it's his own personal wish fullfilment fantasy, but it's still a damned fantasy. And it's got magic. And swords. So there.
Good news guys, I'm not a fan! And according to Goodkind, I never was!
Seriously. I had to REREAD the questions after his "answers"
"I must follow some unstated laws" really, I thought having coherent sentence structure was pretty much a STATED requirement of writing in general. The same applies with having an actual Plot. I thought a story should have a Plot too and that was pretty much a STATED law of writing stories. Oh, and that someone should at least do a modicum or Research before writing about something.
It's Bigotry to expect someone to actually do those things?
Mr. Goodkind, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
And did he just seriously compare himself to Shania Twain... Wow... just wow....
I think he needs to lay off his Moral Clarity and start getting directions to Realityville.
"I am a free thinking individual" Yes, you clearly are. One that has some deep rooted psychological issues with any kind of Organized Societal structure that doesn't perfectly conform with your twisted Tyrannical World Views. To say nothing of your deep seated issues with women. (I mean really how many **** scenes have there been in JUST the excerpts we've read thus far? I've gone and read several more and lemme tell you the number is up around 7 at my last count)
I'm reading the link and God Damnit. Really no. Just no. This is what the mind of Byron Hall must be like
(leaves tentacles hanging out)"What you are seeing with my novels is something unique. They are not like all the other fantasy books. A tiny group of fantasy fans happens to like things the way they are and only wants more of the same. These few do not under any circumstances; want anything to change or anything that requires thought. They want everything to stay static and simplistic. For these reasons (and others), these people do not like what I write and they never will. They even hate that my books exist, that I write things that dare to uplift and inspire.
Rather than simply reading and enjoying the many books available that they like, they spend their time railing against the one author who is different.
What I have done with my work has irrevocably changed the face of fantasy. In so doing I've raised the standards. I have not only injected thought into a tired empty genre, but, more importantly, I've transcended it showing what more it can be-and is so doing spread my readership to completely new groups who don’t like and wont ready typical fantasy. Agents and editors are screaming for more books like mine.
They can’t find any-for 3 reasons. One, copying innovation is an impossibility. Two, individually cannot be copied. They don’t grasp the essence of my work. What they end up with are authors who imitate some of the nonessential elements unique to my books, believing they must be the secret to success, much as my publishers at first believe that it was the red dragon that defined my work.
Why are editors trying to get more books like mine? Because any one of my backlist sells more copies in a month than most fantasy authors' books sell in their entire run. NAKED EMPIRE has been on the NY Times list for two months now. Far more importantly, I break genre lines and draw my ever growing sales from the much larger pool of general fiction readers who embrace my books"
"I’ve never heard of Saul of Tarsus before" (it should be really basic knowledge for an intellectual.)
"Question: Terry - your books being about free will i was wondering what your reasoning behind Kahlen’s power destroying free will was all about.
Answer: it was about her free will to use her power to fight those who would initiate force to destroy her or her people. If someone attacks you intending to take your life, you do not owe it to them to let them exercise their free will to kill you." (confessors usually can't procreate without taking away someone's free will, and they've been breeding for centuries.)
"Thank you for noticing that I put a lot of thought into my characters' names." (his first main villain was named Darken. Darken)
"I do not, under any cirumstances, give anyone any permission to produce anything from my work. It is not permitted. Never, Not at all, Ever. This same restriction extends to such things as using my characters and world in role playing games or fan fiction. When someone uses my characters for role playing games or to write fan fiction, they are stealing that which they do not own or have the right to use. It is against the law. It is theft, plain and simple, and I absolutely do not want anyone doing it. Period. You may ask, “What’s the harm in a fan using my characters and writing a fan story, or creating a role playing game that other fans enjoy using?” Here's the harm: courts have ruled that if an author does not go after these instances of theft and stop them, then it could later be ruled that by not doing anything to stop it the author was giving tacit approval. In order to protect my own nghts, my own property, my own creation, I must in the strongest possible terms deny anyone permission to use my creations for any reason whatsoever. If they do, I will have to take action to put a stop to it. Courts have ruled that companies such as Yahoo are liable for copyright infringements on their sites and they too would be put in jeopardy. A lot of people could get in a lot of trouble. Besides the legal issues, it’s just plain morally outrageous. A fan may think that they're flattering me by taking one of my characters and inventing a story for them, or a game. They are not. It's a horrifying feeling to see a character that I've created abused in this way. Besides it being illegal, imagine my horror to discover someone writing a story about Kahlan falling in love with someone new and leaving Richard. I doubt you can imagine how enraged I would be by such a thing."
Though there appears to be a fault with Mr. Goodkind's argument. If we all wish to destroy good things, why are we wasting our time bashing the Sword of Truth?
Tee hee. Oh, and good point.
I wonder wht he's saying about the recent news the Legend of the Seeker TV series was cancelled? Probably comparing it to baby-**** or some equally ludicrous bit of hyperbole, no doubt.
This being a D&D - and, therefore, a 'traditional fantasy' - site makes me think he'd rather not make an appearance. This guys sounds like such an unmitigated arrogant prick I almost feel he's having us on, that no one could actually be this arrogant about his work.
I wonder wht he's saying about the recent news the Legend of the Seeker TV series was cancelled? Probably comparing it to baby-**** or some equally ludicrous bit of hyperbole, no doubt.
Considering that due to adaptation differences between the books and the series many Goodkind fans hated it, maybe Goodkind himself wasn't very happy about it (unless all he cares about is cash).
I however, being fan of the show, am sad.
...
Though there appears to be a fault with Mr. Goodkind's argument. If we all wish to destroy good things, why are we wasting our time bashing the Sword of Truth?
If my database is not mistaken, it would be proper to reply to this with "Oh snap" were the author participating in the discussion/bashing.
As for the question itself, I estimate that it is more amusing to bash it than to read its contents.
Holy crap. I was just starting to think that maybe my bias against Americans was wrong, and now this?
You people are dangerous. Your entire country should be executed on account of "being a threat to the world" for trespessing on our land (we Europeans own the world, you lot are just trespessing!) and any unfortunate people that were just trying to get along have to be killed out of self defense because I can't garauntuee you aren't going to come to my house and kill me!
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go empty some clips on the street in front of my house, because I feel my life is threatened by these people that might try to come into my house to attack my family!
Sjeesh. I'm glad I'm not as paranoid as the lot of you...
Here's something from our very own forums. I think he was kidding, but you never know on the webz.
(confessors usually can't procreate without taking away someone's free will, and they've been breeding for centuries.)
If the shows are any indication, they breed with people who's free will they have already taken for some other reason.
If the shows are any indication, they breed with people who's free will they have already taken for some other reason.
In the books, some prefer to make this choice, because they'd rather not use their power any more than necessary. Some just take whoever they think would give them strong children (In the books, Kahlan's mom took the freakin' king of some region of the midlands).
Heh. Strangely that is one of the things I like about the shows. The good guys aren't GOOD guys (except the main) and the bad guys arn't BAD guys (except the main, sometimes).
I'd say those are exceptions rather than rules: the bad guys are usually vile, there have been only one not evil army officer in the first season. The good guys are usually good, though maybe it's just the main cast that are shining good.