Terry Goodkind

[Coldfire]

Has anyone else read the Sword of Truth series on this site? And if so, what did you think of it?

I'm kind of excited because they are supposed to be making a TV series based on the books. I say kind of because I'm afraid that they will ruin it. Any thoughts?

Here's the link to his website: http://terrygoodkind.com/

[Veneficus]

Beware, I'm about to rant so don't be offended or anything.

I hate Goodkind, the man needed to stop spewing Ayn Rand in every single one of his books. He also needed to cut with the five or six rape scenes every book. Richard Rahl's wife Kahlan was raped/sexually assulted nine times. Throughout the entire series. Yet, somehow she doesn't suffer from severe trauma. That's also counting only one character. I didn't even include Kahlan's sister, the Sisters of the Light, Darkhan Rahl's exploits and Jagang himself.

Richard himself is a Gary Sue of the highest order. He just always seems to be right about everything and everyone who hates Jagang basicly must love Richard and if you dislike Richard you suck since Richard is right and good, and Richard is of course not a capitalist prophganada machine.

I also have an issue with how large Jagang's army is. The man commands millions of men, enough that even when Zedd slays a million of them with that old Light Burst articfact, it hardly makes a dent in Jagang's forces. How does he feed those millions of soldiers? Apparenlty the grain stores of one nation is enough to do so, ridiculious.

The Mord-Sith also annoy me. A bunch of mentally deranged psycho women in leather skinsuits who have been raised as the perfect domatrixes that end up serving Richard like loyal dogs. Combine this with the rampant rape scenes and I start to wonder what Goodkind and his wife do together.

The series started off okay, but went downhill rather fast.

[Lord Sorgo]

Beware, I'm about to rant so don't be offended or anything.

I hate Goodkind, the man needed to stop spewing Ayn Rand in every single one of his books. He also needed to cut with the five or six rape scenes every book. Richard Rahl's wife Kahlan was raped/sexually assulted nine times. Throughout the entire series. Yet, somehow she doesn't suffer from severe trauma. That's also counting only one character. I didn't even include Kahlan's sister, the Sisters of the Light, Darkhan Rahl's exploits and Jagang himself.

Richard himself is a Gary Sue of the highest order. He just always seems to be right about everything and everyone who hates Jagang basicly must love Richard and if you dislike Richard you suck since Richard is right and good, and Richard is of course not a capitalist prophganada machine.

I also have an issue with how large Jagang's army is. The man commands millions of men, enough that even when Zedd slays a million of them with that old Light Burst articfact, it hardly makes a dent in Jagang's forces. How does he feed those millions of soldiers? Apparenlty the grain stores of one nation is enough to do so, ridiculious.

The Mord-Sith also annoy me. A bunch of mentally deranged psycho women in leather skinsuits who have been raised as the perfect domatrixes that end up serving Richard like loyal dogs. Combine this with the rampant rape scenes and I start to wonder what Goodkind and his wife do together.

The series started off okay, but went downhill rather fast.

This was bad. A terrible rant followed by terrible spelling. You don't usually post like this, Veneficus. This was horrible. It seems you don't know anything about the book. Here is proof:

"I also have an issue with how large Jagang's army is. The man commands millions of men, enough that even when Zedd slays a million of them with that old Light Burst articfact, it hardly makes a dent in Jagang's forces. How does he feed those millions of soldiers? Apparenlty the grain stores of one nation is enough to do so, ridiculious."

It doesn't dent his forces because of an abundant amount of soldiers under his command. Is it not obvious? Sure, he has a ridiculous amount but you've seen to discredit the series due to a lack of realism.

It's a fucking fantasy series. Are you serious, Veneficus?

Also, Kahlan is the Confessor. She was raped, captured and tortured various times as a testament to deteriorate her power and make her appear weakened.

Also, she was never raped nine times and at the series end, she is ALMOST raped.


I'm not offended by this or anything of that sort but I've seen a better quality of criticism from you, Veneficus.

[Coldfire]

Beware, I'm about to rant so don't be offended or anything.

You're entitled to your opinion, so I won't be offended ^^

I hate Goodkind, the man needed to stop spewing Ayn Rand in every single one of his books. He also needed to cut with the five or six rape scenes every book. Richard Rahl's wife Kahlan was raped/sexually assulted nine times. Throughout the entire series. Yet, somehow she doesn't suffer from severe trauma. That's also counting only one character. I didn't even include Kahlan's sister, the Sisters of the Light, Darkhan Rahl's exploits and Jagang himself.

I agree with the whole rape thing; it was just a little bit over the top. I don't remember her being assaulted nine times, but then again my memory isn't that good. She is a symbol of power though, which would account for everyone wanting to demean her in such a manner. True, you would think that she would suffer some trauma, but I guess it could also be because she had a job to do and couldn't afford to succumb to her emotions *shrugs*

Richard himself is a Gary Sue of the highest order. He just always seems to be right about everything and everyone who hates Jagang basicly must love Richard and if you dislike Richard you suck since Richard is right and good, and Richard is of course not a capitalist prophganada machine.

That part was a little bit over the top, but I guess he was just trying to make a point; he didn't want anyone getting in the way of defeating Jagang.

I also have an issue with how large Jagang's army is. The man commands millions of men, enough that even when Zedd slays a million of them with that old Light Burst articfact, it hardly makes a dent in Jagang's forces. How does he feed those millions of soldiers? Apparenlty the grain stores of one nation is enough to do so, ridiculious.

There are many people who want to get rid of magic in the world, that think it only causes more problems than it helps. Although that is a bit hypocritical, considering they use people with magic to get rid of magic... But anyways, it even says in the books that they are constantly low on food supplies because the army is so large; one of the drawbacks of such a force.

The Mord-Sith also annoy me. A bunch of mentally deranged psycho women in leather skinsuits who have been raised as the perfect domatrixes that end up serving Richard like loyal dogs. Combine this with the rampant rape scenes and I start to wonder what Goodkind and his wife do together.

The series started off okay, but went downhill rather fast.

It's not their fault that they are like that. They were torn away from their families and forced to do what they were told. In turn they were trained to do the same thing to others because Darken Rahl and his father delighted in causing others pain.

[Veneficus]

This was bad. A terrible rant followed by terrible spelling. You don't usually post like this, Veneficus. This was horrible. It seems you don't know anything about the book. Here is proof:

"I also have an issue with how large Jagang's army is. The man commands millions of men, enough that even when Zedd slays a million of them with that old Light Burst articfact, it hardly makes a dent in Jagang's forces. How does he feed those millions of soldiers? Apparenlty the grain stores of one nation is enough to do so, ridiculious."

It doesn't dent his forces because of an abundant amount of soldiers under his command. Is it not obvious? Sure, he has a ridiculous amount but you've seen to discredit the series due to a lack of realism.

It's a fucking fantasy series. Are you serious, Veneficus?
You'll have to forgive the spelling, for whatever reason my Firefox spell checker crapped out.

Anyways...

Just because it's a fantasy series does not excuse it from something so far fetched. Suspension of belief is one thing, but am I expected to believe that millions of soldiers can be effectively moved across a large continent just because “it’s a fantasy series”. A good author wouldn’t have such a ridiculous number and if he did, would come up with a plausible explanation of the logistics involved in moving such a massive number of people. For that matter how does the Old World even support such a movement of men in the age range for fighting?


Also, Kahlan is the Confessor. She was raped, captured and tortured various times as a testament to deteriorate her power and make her appear weakened.

Also, she was never raped nine times and at the series end, she is ALMOST raped.
There are better ways to weaken Kahlan than to have her abused with enough frequency that the reader begins to expect it. Goodkind blurs the lines between rape and ALMOST rape; Kahlan suffers enough sexual abuse that any regular human woman would be suffering server psychological trauma from. Kahlan just shrugs it off and gets over it. That is not the way a human being behaves. It is poor writing and terrible characterization.


It's not their fault that they are like that. They were torn away from their families and forced to do what they were told. In turn they were trained to do the same thing to others because Darken Rahl and his father delighted in causing others pain.

I'll agree to this point, but I always felt that the Mord-Sith when combined with all the other S&M elements was overdone and overused.

[Lord Sorgo]

Just because it's a fantasy series does not excuse it from something so far fetched. Suspension of belief is one thing, but am I expected to believe that millions of soldiers can be effectively moved across a large continent just because “it’s a fantasy series”. A good author wouldn’t have such a ridiculous number and if he did, would come up with a plausible explanation of the logistics involved in moving such a massive number of people. For that matter how does the Old World even support such a movement of men in the age range for fighting?

Actually, the fact that it is fantasy does excuse it. Let's walk through this:

"fan·ta·sy (fnt-s, -z)
n. pl. fan·ta·sies

6. An unrealistic or improbable supposition."

I don't expect realism from something that is meant to be wildly unrealistic. That is ignorant.

A good author wouldn't have such a ridiculous number? Since when does the amount matter? In order for an author to be of considerable skill, he needs to make his armies smaller? What kind of logic is this?



There are better ways to weaken Kahlan than to have her abused with enough frequency that the reader begins to expect it. Goodkind blurs the lines between rape and ALMOST rape; Kahlan suffers enough sexual abuse that any regular human woman would be suffering server psychological trauma from. Kahlan just shrugs it off and gets over it. That is not the way a human being behaves. It is poor writing and terrible characterization.

No, he does not blur anything of that sort. If you did not understand the actions that occurred in the book, you cannot attack the writer for that.

You are clearly having some trouble understanding the concepts within this series. I'm not trying to insult you or patronize you but you come across as someone who ran through this book without paying attention.

Your judgment in this case is absolutely awful. The whole purpose is that Kahlan is NOT a regular human woman. She is the Confessor. She is a magician. Also, she has the ability to completely dominate someones mind on contact.

"Regular human woman?"

Where?

The greatest way to demean someone of such outstanding power is to force them through unimaginable physical and mental turmoil. What better way to punish a woman of such prowess than to rape her? Beat her? Spit on her?

Also, maybe Goodkind wanted the character of Kahlan to express her feelings in such a matter. She may be bottling these affections inside of her without mention.

I thought the purpose of reading was to think outside of the box.

The novel delivers it's purpose in being an outstanding fantasy series without audacious output. Expecting more out of it is silly and spoiled.

[Lsnake]

There is a limit to suspension of disbelief. I can buy magic, but I have a hard time when things happen that are TOO absurd. For instance, a man punching another man through the gut and tearing his spinal column out, an actual tactic in war being 'strip down, paint yourself white, charge into battle against the enemy, aroused and head on' and it ACTUALLY WORKING and other things.

Yes, it's fantasy, but fantasy has to remain within some parameters. Most of it is Goodkind's lack of knowledge over how battles are fought, how logic or physics work and the books becoming thinly disguised political rants, with the most vile and repulsive 'heroes' in fantasy?

Do we cut Christopher Paolini slack for some things that happen that make no sense, even by fantasy parameter just because 'it's fantasy?' No, he gets torn to bits and rightly so. Goodkind is an egomaniac and a hack to boot and his ratty little series is one of the worst on the market.
One of the worst ever, rather.

Oh, and Sorgo? Do stop making excuses for terrible writing. That Kahlan is a Confessor means she is given a great deal of privilege in her life and taught to hold herself above others as a leader and example. Someone with that much power nearly suffering degrading rape numerous times, even when, in the last trio, she thinks she IS a normal human? She suffers NONE of the psychological effects. Her being a Confessor, a woman trained to power and the like, brought down to a level of helplessness like that should make the mental fuck ups even worse.

She is still a human being and a woman and this is pointed out for us in the series.

Oh, and it doesn't succeed in anything. It's some of the worst prose, with terrible characters, with awful, AWFUL moral hypocrisy. Don't tell us 'it's just fantasy' when Goodkind constantly claims it's more and that it's 'relevant' to what's going on in the world.

[Lsnake]

You're entitled to your opinion, so I won't be offended ^^



I agree with the whole rape thing; it was just a little bit over the top. I don't remember her being assaulted nine times, but then again my memory isn't that good. She is a symbol of power though, which would account for everyone wanting to demean her in such a manner. True, you would think that she would suffer some trauma, but I guess it could also be because she had a job to do and couldn't afford to succumb to her emotions *shrugs*
She's nearly assaulted about nine times a book. And many, many other women are raped or nearly raped throughout the whole thing.
Not to recall Richard's 150 page sado-masochism ordeal in the first book.
Even when the issues are over, Kahlan has no issues




That part was a little bit over the top, but I guess he was just trying to make a point; he didn't want anyone getting in the way of defeating Jagang.
Richard murders unarmed protesters, butchers defenseless cities and leaves innocent people to horrible death and torture.
That's not just 'over the top.'


There are many people who want to get rid of magic in the world, that think it only causes more problems than it helps. Although that is a bit hypocritical, considering they use people with magic to get rid of magic... But anyways, it even says in the books that they are constantly low on food supplies because the army is so large; one of the drawbacks of such a force.
'millions' of men? You'd be lucky to feed them for a day with how it's portrayed



It's not their fault that they are like that. They were torn away from their families and forced to do what they were told. In turn they were trained to do the same thing to others because Darken Rahl and his father delighted in causing others pain.
By that logic, it's not the fault of any Old World soldier that they're like that themselves. The Mord-Sith should not become happy, jokey, well-adjusted people after Richard just shows them affection.

[Veneficus]

Actually, the fact that it is fantasy does excuse it. Let's walk through this:

"fan·ta·sy (fnt-s, -z)
n. pl. fan·ta·sies

6. An unrealistic or improbable supposition."

I don't expect realism from something that is meant to be wildly unrealistic. That is ignorant.

A good author wouldn't have such a ridiculous number? Since when does the amount matter? In order for an author to be of considerable skill, he needs to make his armies smaller? What kind of logic is this?
So, because we call it fantasy, it has to be widely unrealistic? Where does that make sense? We call it fantasy because it deals with things that aren’t real or in a fictional universe, that doesn’t mean it has to be filled with Deus ex Machina and ridiculously large armies. Look at G.R.R.M’s Song and Ice and Fire. It is a fantasy series, but also still tries to work within realistic boundaries. It doesn’t go out of it’s way to “wildly unrealistic” and yet it is a beautifully written series.

In order for an author to be of considerable skill, he needs to make his armies smaller? What kind of logic is this?
When you show me where I said anything of the sort, you point it out to me.

No, he does not blur anything of that sort. If you did not understand the actions that occurred in the book, you cannot attack the writer for that.
I understand perfectly what occurred in the series and I am fully within my rights as a reader to believe it to suck.

You are clearly having some trouble understanding the concepts within this series. I'm not trying to insult you or patronize you but you come across as someone who ran through this book without paying attention.
It has been some time since I last read the series, but that doesn’t mean I skimmed through it.

Your judgment in this case is absolutely awful. The whole purpose is that Kahlan is NOT a regular human woman. She is the Confessor. She is a magician. Also, she has the ability to completely dominate someones mind on contact.

"Regular human woman?"

Where?

The greatest way to demean someone of such outstanding power is to force them through unimaginable physical and mental turmoil. What better way to punish a woman of such prowess than to rape her? Beat her? Spit on her?

Also, maybe Goodkind wanted the character of Kahlan to express her feelings in such a matter. She may be bottling these affections inside of her without mention.
My judgment is absolutely awful? Nice use of words to describe my judgment Sorgo, enough with the ad hominem.

So, just because Kahlan has the power to make people love her absolutely means that she shouldn’t still have the emotional response as a typical human? Does this make her immune to trauma? Does this give her the ability to shrug off emotional and mental damage just because she has power. Oh and Sorgo, Kahlan is not a Sorceress, or magician as you said. She’s a confessor, merely a person with the magical mutation that allows her to inspire unwavering loyalty in anyone she touches.

I thought the purpose of reading was to think outside of the box. I’m not sure how this any relevance to the argument whatsoever.

The novel delivers it's purpose in being an outstanding fantasy series without audacious output. Expecting more out of it is silly and spoiled.
This is rambling opinion, much like first post, which I will admit was sub par, but otherwise I have no idea what you’re talking about here. “Outstanding fantasy series without audacious output?” That doesn’t make any sense.

[Lord Sorgo]

So, because we call it fantasy, it has to be widely unrealistic? Where does that make sense?

I never said it had to be. Stop putting words in my mouth. This is absurd.

It doesn't make sense because that is not what I said. It is a fantasy series and you appear to be expecting such realism. Seriously? I wasn't expecting complete realism when I read the FANTASY series. There is no major inconsistencies and you just seem to be bashing the series with terrible excuses.


We call it fantasy because it deals with things that aren’t real or in a fictional universe, that doesn’t mean it has to be filled with Deus ex Machina and ridiculously large armies. Look at G.R.R.M’s Song and Ice and Fire. It is a fantasy series, but also still tries to work within realistic boundaries. It doesn’t go out of it’s way to “wildly unrealistic” and yet it is a beautifully written series.

Some are more realistic than others and some are extremely unrealistic because that is the intention. You appear to just be stating the obvious and you make it sound like he created an error by leaving certain things unexplained when this is not the case. Goodkind did not intend to have such boundaries in his series. This is apparent when you read it.


When you show me where I said anything of the sort, you point it out to me.

Right then:

A good author wouldn’t have such a ridiculous number

Anything else, Veneficus?

You stated that a good author would not have such a ridiculous number, in terms of the grand size of the army.

I asked you a question that you've yet to answer.


I understand perfectly what occurred in the series and I am fully within my rights as a reader to believe it to suck.

No, you don't. Here is evidence:

Goodkind blurs the lines between rape and ALMOST rape

He never did that. He made it clear when the Confessor had been ravaged and when she had not in the end of the series. This is a misread from YOU, not an error from GOODKIND.

Jagang wished to capture Richard to make her watch the raping of Kahlan. Kahlan managed to escaped (Via the assistance of Samuel) so it never occurred.

How is anything blurred? I shouldn't have to explain the book to you. Holy.



It has been some time since I last read the series, but that doesn’t mean I skimmed through it.

As I said, I'm really not trying to insult you or anything. I just thought your criticism seemed very vague and of poor quality.

My judgment is absolutely awful? Nice use of words to describe my judgment Sorgo, enough with the ad hominem.

Clearly you do not know what an Ad Hominem is.

I did discredit your debate by saying your judgment was awful nor did I contribute it as the reason to you having such a skewered argument pattern. It was an add-on to my rebuttal and it was a part of my opinion.

Come on, Veneficus.

So, just because Kahlan has the power to make people love her absolutely means that she shouldn’t still have the emotional response as a typical human?

What the fuck?

She is a magician. Also, she has the ability to completely dominate someones mind on contact.

That is what I said. I never said she was making people love her.

She might not have a parallel emotional response to a human simply because she does not share the same properties as a regular human.

Also, humans have thousands of different ways to deal with traumatizing incidents. She doesn't have to automatically have a break down or scream and go insane because she went through these things. Honestly.

Does this make her immune to trauma? Does this give her the ability to shrug off emotional and mental damage just because she has power. Oh and Sorgo, Kahlan is not a Sorceress, or magician as you said. She’s a confessor, merely a person with the magical mutation that allows her to inspire unwavering loyalty in anyone she touches.

Actually, she's the MOTHER Confessor and the WW Shota refers to her as "using magic" in TWFR.

Also, there is nothing mere about her magic, considering she can also cause death by touching people and is the most powerful MC in the SOT series. Ever.

Oh my god . . .


This is rambling opinion, much like first post, which I will admit was sub par, but otherwise I have no idea what you’re talking about here. “Outstanding fantasy series without audacious output?” That doesn’t make any sense.

"au·da·cious /ɔˈdeɪʃəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[aw-dey-shuhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. extremely bold or daring; recklessly brave; fearless: an audacious explorer.
2. extremely original; without restriction to prior ideas; highly inventive: an audacious vision of the city's bright future.
3. recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; brazen.
4. lively; unrestrained; uninhibited: an audacious interpretation of her role."


The series is a calmed set of fantasy novels that doesn't offer anything amazingly bold or outstanding but still stands as a great set of books.

I grow tired of having to explain everything more than once, Vene.

[Lsnake]

And unfortunately for the series, it isn't great. It's stupid, sickening and bad.

[Lord Sorgo]

And unfortunately for the series, it isn't great. It's stupid, sickening and bad.


No, this is getting ridiculous. Can you provide a half decent criticism of the series instead of bashing it?

I'd like to hear your opinion on the Sword of Truth series. Why do you detest it so much?

[Veneficus]

Sorgo I'm pretty sure that we could go round and round and never agree. This is a debate of opinion so let's just agree to disagree.

[Lsnake]

No, this is getting ridiculous. Can you provide a half decent criticism of the series instead of bashing it?

I'd like to hear your opinion on the Sword of Truth series. Why do you detest it so much?

Well, let's think:
1. Horrific characters
2. Terrible prose
3. Filler. LOTS of it. Entire books where nothing of significance happens
4. Vile, fascist, right wing political message
5. Some of the most laughable excuses for logic scene in fantasy.

It's late, so I'll elaborate on this tomorrow

[Lord Sorgo]

Well, let's think:
1. Horrific characters
2. Terrible prose
3. Filler. LOTS of it. Entire books where nothing of significance happens
4. Vile, fascist, right wing political message
5. Some of the most laughable excuses for logic scene in fantasy.

It's late, so I'll elaborate on this tomorrow


Alright then.

I hope you do elaborate because that was very vague.

[Lord Sorgo]

THIS POST IS FROM LORD SORGO. NOT COLDFIRE.


There is a limit to suspension of disbelief. I can buy magic, but I have a hard time when things happen that are TOO absurd. For instance, a man punching another man through the gut and tearing his spinal column out, an actual tactic in war being 'strip down, paint yourself white, charge into battle against the enemy, aroused and head on' and it ACTUALLY WORKING and other things.

Again, you've made the same mistake Veneficus did. These are not normal men. They do not share the same characteristics as a normal human male who does not possess such power. That would be like me hating Star Wars because Count Dooku (An eighty something year old man) does a front flip over a thirteen foot balcony.

The series intended for some of it's primary and secondary characters to have ridiculous power.

Also, what makes you think the tactic mentioned would not work? It has enormous shock value when something like this occurs. I recall another army in history do something like this but not to this extent and they won due to sheer surprise and innovation.



Yes, it's fantasy, but fantasy has to remain within some parameters. Most of it is Goodkind's lack of knowledge over how battles are fought, how logic or physics work and the books becoming thinly disguised political rants, with the most vile and repulsive 'heroes' in fantasy?

Nothing is "thinly disguised" about the political aspect of this book. Jesus, are you people reading the fucking novels? Honestly?

"Goodkind offers his political views in many of the volumes of the Sword of Truth series. The book Naked Empire is often interpreted as a critique of the American anti-war movement. Terry Goodkind himself has stated in interviews that he is not writing fantasy, but rather is writing about important human themes"

He makes it clear in the novels and in his interviews about his political themes in the series.

Do we cut Christopher Paolini slack for some things that happen that make no sense, even by fantasy parameter just because 'it's fantasy?' No, he gets torn to bits and rightly so. Goodkind is an egomaniac and a hack to boot and his ratty little series is one of the worst on the market.
One of the worst ever, rather.

Christopher Paolini is often criticized for his lack of creative thinking and for plagiarizing from the works of Lucas and Tolkien alike. I agree though. I think Paolini's work does not add up a lot of the time and it's a contributing reason as to why I despise his small series. Goodkind is not Paolini and I didn't see him making any glaring mistakes or writing anything that did not make sense.

Again, this could be a lack of understanding on your part. I *NEVER* had trouble reading through this novel or understanding it's philosophical and political concepts.



Oh, and Sorgo? Do stop making excuses for terrible writing.

No, I'm not making excuses. Relax yourself.

That Kahlan is a Confessor means she is given a great deal of privilege in her life and taught to hold herself above others as a leader and example. Someone with that much power nearly suffering degrading rape numerous times, even when, in the last trio, she thinks she IS a normal human? She suffers NONE of the psychological effects. Her being a Confessor, a woman trained to power and the like, brought down to a level of helplessness like that should make the mental fuck ups even worse.

She's a Mother Confessor, actually. I explained this to Veneficus regarding the psychological aspect. If she is supposed to be a leader, she cannot display that she has become influenced with weakness or even emotional discord. Leaders always have to keep their cool and control their surroundings. If she was like "OMFG, I WAS RAPED AND STUFFZ. HELP! I SUFFR FROM CONDITIONS. I NEEDZ THERAPYTS!!1J1" then that would not help her situation much as a leader or a powerful figure, would it?

She is still a human being and a woman and this is pointed out for us in the series.

Oh, I know. I'm perfectly aware of that. Did you read my argument before though? She does not share the same characteristics as a human. Therefore, it is possible that she does not react or even act the way humans do when under intense pressure or after a traumatizing incident.

Oh, and it doesn't succeed in anything. It's some of the worst prose, with terrible characters, with awful, AWFUL moral hypocrisy. Don't tell us 'it's just fantasy' when Goodkind constantly claims it's more and that it's 'relevant' to what's going on in the world.

It is more and he's made this clear. Failure to see that is the authors fault? Misinterpreting clear and concise information within a novel is the authors fault? It would be if this author was disgustingly terrible but he is not. I never said it was just fantasy and your debating pattern is awful. Don't put words in my mouth. His goal wasn't just to implement fantasy. He wanted to get a broader message across to his readers.

All great authors, writers and creators do this. Lucas did this. The SW series is clearly majorly influenced by the second world war and the Nazi regime.

THAT was easy to stop amongst a heavy and engaging storyline. Why is it so difficult to do so with the SOT series?

I'm not saying the two are parallel. At all. Let me make that clear. SW is a much more organized and creative piece of work than the SOT series is.

It's just not an awful series like you make it out to be. I'm not saying it's legendary or anything beyond that. It's a good series with some interesting and valuable points.

[Coldfire]

Oh Jesus, I'm signed into Ambers account. Shit.

[Janus]

In defense of Veneficus and LS here, a couple of things need to be cleared up:

1. Any book which shows numerous scenes or alludes to numerous scenes of a woman of power being brutalized throughout the history of the story has some serious issues. It's poor taste, and further clarification isn't needed. Unless the fictional work takes place entirely in a female prison or is about Marquis de Sade, this amount of sexual abuse is disgusting and unnecessary.

2. Rape has an incredibly reasonable and consistent way of leaving emotional and psychological damage to the victim, whether they be male or female. Simply having innate powers regardless of their nature does NOT negate this. Jean Grey can read minds. If she was raped, she would most certainly have some trauma. If she was raped repeatedly, she would probably be emotionally damaged. Any person, fictional or no, taking this amount of abuse and showing no ill effects is sending out the wrong message.

3. A million troops would require an infrastructure and supply lines which would boggle the minds of even today's military experts, let alone a High Fantasy setting realm. Unless they eat each other, or live off of the land like savages, there's no way this army can function easily as a single entity. Even broken up, the amount of resources consumed by each group would require enough to sustain a city, and in middle ages most cities were mere weeks away from starvation, having to live frugally off of the land without the benefit of modern refridgeration and preservatives.

4. This baseless assertion needs proof:

She might not have a parallel emotional response to a human simply because she does not share the same properties as a regular human.

5. This statement undermines the purpose of a High Fantasy "epic novel":

I don't expect realism from something that is meant to be wildly unrealistic. That is ignorant.

So if Richard Cypher fought by having bunnies hop out of his ass, this would be acceptible because the material is not meant to be "realistic"?

[Lord Sorgo]

In defense of Veneficus and LS here, a couple of things need to be cleared up:

1. Any book which shows numerous scenes or alludes to numerous scenes of a woman of power being brutalized throughout the history of the story has some serious issues. It's poor taste, and further clarification isn't needed. Unless the fictional work takes place entirely in a female prison or is about Marquis de Sade, this amount of sexual abuse is disgusting and unnecessary.

I agree with that. I think it is unnecessary but I think Goodkind wanted Jagang to make a strong statement against the MC and Goodkind also made it clear he wanted to have damaged heroes who triumphed over terrible adversity. Is this not an outrageous but great example of such a thing?

I think this is a good statement for adult fantasy because it makes a unique and bold statement within some of it's political aspects and even it's bold examples.



2. Rape has an incredibly reasonable and consistent way of leaving emotional and psychological damage to the victim, whether they be male or female. Simply having innate powers regardless of their nature does NOT negate this. Jean Grey can read minds. If she was raped, she would most certainly have some trauma. If she was raped repeatedly, she would probably be emotionally damaged. Any person, fictional or no, taking this amount of abuse and showing no ill effects is sending out the wrong message.

I'm aware of this. I know quite a few women who have gone through this. It is more common than you'd think. The thing is, they each react differently when explaining these situations and by their explanation, it appears they have different effects to it. I know some of my female friends are so damaged by what happened that they cry and sob when the word is even mentioned. I also have one friend in particular who is unaffected by the experience. AT LEAST that is how she passes herself off. It is how she expresses her feelings for that situation.

I have to agree with this though. She was raped numerous times and seemed to show little emotion over these incidents. As I said though, it is possible that this is a form of coveting her experiences of torture. She might be hurting incredibly inside. Who knows? She has a position as an MC and therefore has to stand tall as a leader. Showing further weakness demeans that position.

3. A million troops would require an infrastructure and supply lines which would boggle the minds of even today's military experts, let alone a High Fantasy setting realm. Unless they eat each other, or live off of the land like savages, there's no way this army can function easily as a single entity. Even broken up, the amount of resources consumed by each group would require enough to sustain a city, and in middle ages most cities were mere weeks away from starvation, having to live frugally off of the land without the benefit of modern refridgeration and preservatives.

I cannot argue with this because I agree with it.

4. This baseless assertion needs proof:

I am saying it is possible. If I could prove it, I would have listed it as a fact.

I just think that it is a factor to her acting differently. Why not? It's not like it does not make sense.



5. This statement undermines the purpose of a High Fantasy "epic novel":

Goodkind expected his novels to be unrealistic which is why he wrote a fantasy novel.



So if Richard Cypher fought by having bunnies hop out of his ass, this would be acceptible because the material is not meant to be "realistic"?

Of course not. There always has to be boundaries or else you can taint your material.

[Janus]

I agree with that. I think it is unnecessary but I think Goodkind wanted Jagang to make a strong statement against the MC and Goodkind also made it clear he wanted to have damaged heroes who triumphed over terrible adversity. Is this not an outrageous but great example of such a thing?

I think this is a good statement for adult fantasy because it makes a unique and bold statement within some of it's political aspects and even it's bold examples.

I'd rather have cliche Good triumphs over evil, sans the overuse of rape. It's an uncomfortable subject for many, and while it can easily make a bad guy look horrendous (Think Rob Roy for example), there's a point at which enough is enough.

Additionally, this is a good point that alluding to an act and describing it in detail are different levels of taste. However, repetition does more to dull the effects of something and undermine any potential point it has to make than reinforce anything good. If you're reading a book and you think "What, is this the fifth or sixth rape scene for her? I can't remember", that's a shitty book.

I'm aware of this. I know quite a few women who have gone through this. It is more common than you'd think. The thing is, they each react differently when explaining these situations and by their explanation, it appears they have different effects to it. I know some of my female friends are so damaged by what happened that they cry and sob when the word is even mentioned. I also have one friend in particular who is unaffected by the experience. AT LEAST that is how she passes herself off. It is how she expresses her feelings for that situation.

I have to agree with this though. She was raped numerous times and seemed to show little emotion over these incidents. As I said though, it is possible that this is a form of coveting her experiences of torture. She might be hurting incredibly inside. Who knows? She has a position as an MC and therefore has to stand tall as a leader. Showing further weakness demeans that position.

It is entirely possible that she's simply put on a show for everyone and shrugged off the horror in person and around friends. But you would at least expect her to think about it internally, or react more defensively against it each time, or even break down and cry having a nightmare. It's entirely possible she's hiding it very well, but that makes a wealth of assumptions about her motives which are clearly unstated and the author's intentions. I could assume that she's like the Queen of Sparta and she can just tough it out for the greater good and still retain some dignity. I could assume that Terry Goodkind is either too clever, or too deep to have her show a typical human emotion regarding this one recurring trauma.

But I could also chalk it up to shitty characterization, too. And since Ockham's Razor points us more towards the simplest explanation which has the least assumptions, I'll go with this one personally.

I am saying it is possible. If I could prove it, I would have listed it as a fact.

I just think that it is a factor to her acting differently. Why not? It's not like it does not make sense.

When you have human-like characters in a fantasy novel, unless explicitly indicated in advance, you expect them to have what? Human-like emotions. You don't expect hobbits to take abuse as a natural turn of events, and you don't expect elves to be alien to any concept of love. You don't think of dragons as being above arrogance and jealousy, and you certainly don't think of goblins and orcs as being immune to fear.

So why would you conclude that this woman necessarily doesn't feel residual trauma?

Goodkind expected his novels to be unrealistic which is why he wrote a fantasy novel.

You're ignoring the point - a fantasy novel takes place in a setting where things exist which cannot necessarily exist in our world. But this is not a blank check to have things happen which do not make sense within the context of the very setting being described.

You couldn't say "Star Wars is a space fantasy and thus is immune from stupid oversights and mistakes in storytelling", could you? Don't you think three million Clone Troopers is insufficient to man an Inter-Galactic War in a Republic with millions of star systems? Don't you find it amusing that millions upon millions of battledroids lost huge battles against roughly the population of Maine and New Hampshire? Many people have pointed this out as not plausible, and many have cited it as an example of poor story telling, because it asks us to believe that the SW universe is real within its own setting, and then asking us to further believe in a war being fought among grossly uneven numbers on battlefields too numerous to count. In a realistic scenario, the battle droids outnumber the Clone Troopers 10 to 1 on any given battleground and annihilate them, while continuing to occupy planets which do not have standing armies as the Jedi and Senate have both acknowledged.

So the comparison puts it into light - stupid stuff is not excuseable, even in the context of a "fantasy setting".

Of course not. There always has to be boundaries or else you can taint your material.

Then you agree that Goodkind's unrealistic numbers of troops in an age which could, ideally, barely support ten million worldwide should reflect badly on his storytelling, since he's asking us to believe in something which clearly cannot exist within the context of the story.

[Lsnake]

THIS POST IS FROM LORD SORGO. NOT COLDFIRE.




Again, you've made the same mistake Veneficus did. These are not normal men. They do not share the same characteristics as a normal human male who does not possess such power. That would be like me hating Star Wars because Count Dooku (An eighty something year old man) does a front flip over a thirteen foot balcony.
Stop telling me 'I made a mistake,' when you keep using this justification. By and large a good deal of them are mortal men and I don't care how 'not normal,' you are, if Alexander the Great decided his strategy on the fields of Gaugamela was 'strip down and charge naked into the Persians' we'd call him 'Alexander The Fucking Ddiot.'
Dooku has the force empowering him. The Sword of Truth expects us to believe these are LEGITIMATE MILITARY TACTICS and that Richard just by STIFFENING HIS HAND with no magical empowerment, drives it through another human being Mortal Kombat style.

The series intended for some of it's primary and secondary characters to have ridiculous power.
Magic? Sure. But it pushes the realms of credibility. Goodkind has no idea how battles or fights work. Richard can just kill 25 swordsmen at once because he's a great swordsman, no other justification. That is bad writing.
George RR Martin has an amazing swordsman, Sandor Clegane, nearly cut down because he's facing two inferior fighters, who are still great fighters, working in conjunction and hemming him from both sides. That is believable. A man butchering over two dozen master warriors with almost no training? It's stupid.

Also, what makes you think the tactic mentioned would not work? It has enormous shock value when something like this occurs. I recall another army in history do something like this but not to this extent and they won due to sheer surprise and innovation.
....Ok, please tell me this wasn't serious.
1. The 'shock value' dies quickly when you realize you're covered in armor and the enemy has no defense.
2. Charge a massive, well armed force superior to yours in every way. Head on. Seeing the flaw there?
3. Charge into battle with an erection. Not only can you not focus, but you have a niiiice little target standing at attention
It's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen done in fantasy. The only thing you can hope for is the enemy paralyzed with laughter





Nothing is "thinly disguised" about the political aspect of this book. Jesus, are you people reading the fucking novels? Honestly?
Oh, should I have just said 'fucking blatant,' then?
Perhaps we should discuss book 5, when a society is a pink-commie liberal paradise, ruled by an evil minority who brands their lighter skinned majority from speaking out against them and are ruled by thinly disguised analogues of Bill and Hillary Clinton?

"Goodkind offers his political views in many of the volumes of the Sword of Truth series. The book Naked Empire is often interpreted as a critique of the American anti-war movement. Terry Goodkind himself has stated in interviews that he is not writing fantasy, but rather is writing about important human themes"
Further proof Goodkind is an idiot.

He makes it clear in the novels and in his interviews about his political themes in the series.
Yes, and that he devotes page upon page of massive speeches about Objectivism? Hello flaws.



Christopher Paolini is often criticized for his lack of creative thinking and for plagiarizing from the works of Lucas and Tolkien alike. I agree though. I think Paolini's work does not add up a lot of the time and it's a contributing reason as to why I despise his small series. Goodkind is not Paolini and I didn't see him making any glaring mistakes or writing anything that did not make sense.
Except mistakes cover the books. Paolini is more aware of how a battle works than Goodkind. Oh, and Goodkind is just as much a thief. Don't believe it? He stole several passages from Ayn Rand for book 6 and stole very liberally in Stone of Tears from the late Robert Jordan, who notoriously got very annoyed whenever someone asked him if he 'shared' anything with Terry.
Oh, and Goodkind and the late Mr. Jordan share the same publisher. Which might explain the lack of lawsuit

Again, this could be a lack of understanding on your part. I *NEVER* had trouble reading through this novel or understanding it's philosophical and political concepts.
Neither did I. I just found them absolutely fucking vile.





No, I'm not making excuses. Relax yourself.
Yeah, you are. The 'it's fantasy' excuse is just absurd. It needs to remain within a logical parameter



She's a Mother Confessor, actually. I explained this to Veneficus regarding the psychological aspect. If she is supposed to be a leader, she cannot display that she has become influenced with weakness or even emotional discord.
Yeah, because human beings are capable of flipping a goddamn switch in their heads for this.
At NO POINT, even when she believes she is an ordinary human in the final three books and nearly raped at every turn, does she express anything resembling trauma.
One of eragon's criticisms was Arya's lack of reception at being imprisoned, abused and nearly raped. People of power will suffer even worse mental problems when they're degraded from a position of power.
Kahlan is a weepy wreck throughout a good portion of the first book, consistently emotional. She remains like this for a lot of the series at that and only tough when the plot demands.

Leaders always have to keep their cool and control their surroundings. If she was like "OMFG, I WAS RAPED AND STUFFZ. HELP! I SUFFR FROM CONDITIONS. I NEEDZ THERAPYTS!!1J1" then that would not help her situation much as a leader or a powerful figure, would it?
You know, I can't figure out if I'm saddened or disgusted by your characterization of a traumatized woman. I used to volunteer in a trauma clinic, Sorgo, and you know something?
WOMEN DON'T FUCKING CHOOSE TO ACT THAT WAY WHEN THEY'RE ABUSED
When a human being goes through something that horrible, degrading, experiencing pure helplessness and violation that comes from even being almost raped, especially multiple times over the period of a few months. It doesn't matter who depends on them, it doesn't matter if they don't want to. Unless Kahlan is trained to handle this sort of thing-and there is no evidence she is and plenty against it- then she is going to suffer the effects. She is never even remotely effected or traumatized, even when the issue is done and nobody counts on her. She just goes back to fawning over Richard, laughing it up with the main cast and displaying none of the emotion or trauma that would affect a high standing woman who was nearly subjected to utter helplessness and degradation.
Contrast and compare to her sister, who is also a leader who people depend on but acts like a damned human being when she's raped. Oh, and her trauma manifesting itself? Kahlan's response to the withdrawal of support? Threatens to send her troops to her homeland, burn it and send her sister back to the rapists.




Oh, I know. I'm perfectly aware of that. Did you read my argument before though? She does not share the same characteristics as a human. Therefore, it is possible that she does not react or even act the way humans do when under intense pressure or after a traumatizing incident.
Throughout the entire books, Kahlan shares the characteristics as a human. Several women who are raped throughout the books-Nathan's book 4 love interest, random war leader girl in Book 5 and some of the Sisters- display no trauma either. Kahlan is overemotional a good deal of the time and has no issues abandoning her responsibilities when Richard is involved.
She hurts the same, loves the same, is overly emotional at times and is extremely proud.
None of this equates to being totally different than other humans. In the first book? She bursts into tears when explaining to Richard why they can't together.
Her status 'above' normal people should make the trauma even worse



It is more and he's made this clear. Failure to see that is the authors fault? Misinterpreting clear and concise information within a novel is the authors fault? It would be if this author was disgustingly terrible but he is not. I never said it was just fantasy and your debating pattern is awful. Don't put words in my mouth. His goal wasn't just to implement fantasy. He wanted to get a broader message across to his readers.
And? When the message is such an atrocious one, involving one of the most vile philosophies in such a heavy handed way?

All great authors, writers and creators do this. Lucas did this. The SW series is clearly majorly influenced by the second world war and the Nazi regime.
Yes. Luke does not stand up and spend ten minutes lecturing us on everything and nothing is set up as a political strawman like having Luke slaughter Mon Calimari protesting the war against the Empire.
There's a difference between doing it and doing it will. Book 5 is a perfect example.

THAT was easy to stop amongst a heavy and engaging storyline. Why is it so difficult to do so with the SOT series?
Lucas is just 'influenced' by it in the original trilogy, the story proceeds as normal with outside influences apparent. It is not written with an utter preachy message that forces thinly disguised strawman down our throats, with the hero lecturing on his philosophy with villains who are the fantasy version of the Clintons.

I'm not saying the two are parallel. At all. Let me make that clear. SW is a much more organized and creative piece of work than the SOT series is.
You forgot that SW is good, too.

It's just not an awful series like you make it out to be. I'm not saying it's legendary or anything beyond that. It's a good series with some interesting and valuable points.
No, it isn't. It's a vile, horrid, poorly written piece of shit by a egomaniacal asshole who thinks critics of the right wing government are 'jackals of evil' and that people who criticize his novels 'want to destroy what's good in the world.'

The books start as cliche, with atrocious, ham-handed writing, filled to the brim with unbelievable situations by any standard, deus ex machina as a constant and devolves into ham handed, poor

What are these 'valuable points?' Be your own person, except when you go against the Randian superman? Question the RIGHT authority and you can get tortured to death?

Need I remind you the hero espouses how important free will is on a constant basis yet expects people to PRAY to him? That he honors someone's sacrifice on his behalf by having people pray to him? That he, whenever someone refuses to give up their sovereignty to him, enacts violent sanctions and military conquest, slaughters unarmed protestors and kicks children in the face? When all of this, as Richard explains is "The only moral thing he could do?"

There is so little depth of character. Good guys are good and handsome and are right in almost everything they do. Bad guys? Big ugly rapists with no redeeming features at all, who are communists, eat the testicles of their enemies and rape their women?

Read George RR Martin for a good fantasy series. Goodkind's trash deserves a spot in the bargain bin. Objectivism is one of the most vile philosophies and any series that so espouses it can place no limits on contempt.

[Lord Sorgo]

I'd rather have cliche Good triumphs over evil, sans the overuse of rape. It's an uncomfortable subject for many, and while it can easily make a bad guy look horrendous (Think Rob Roy for example), there's a point at which enough is enough.

I don't necessarily see this as a series of exploitation. It appears that this has almost been integrated as a theme with Kahlan as a Confessor. Jagang said it himself that his reasons behind this was to demean her power and also to make Richard infuriated. He succeeded.

Additionally, this is a good point that alluding to an act and describing it in detail are different levels of taste. However, repetition does more to dull the effects of something and undermine any potential point it has to make than reinforce anything good. If you're reading a book and you think "What, is this the fifth or sixth rape scene for her? I can't remember", that's a shitty book.

It depends on the level and description of the device being repeated, right? The books are not terrible because she was raped several times. Yes, it's a suggestive theme but I'm sure if there are reasonable adults reading this book and realize the intent behind Kahlan being raped so many times, they could understand. Maybe not. It's a preference issue too, right?

That's a foul analogy. Just because someone cannot remember the amount of rape scenes that occur inside a book doesn't make it terrible. I don't remember everything from Star Wars. Is it a shitty series now?





It is entirely possible that she's simply put on a show for everyone and shrugged off the horror in person and around friends. But you would at least expect her to think about it internally, or react more defensively against it each time, or even break down and cry having a nightmare. It's entirely possible she's hiding it very well, but that makes a wealth of assumptions about her motives which are clearly unstated and the author's intentions. I could assume that she's like the Queen of Sparta and she can just tough it out for the greater good and still retain some dignity. I could assume that Terry Goodkind is either too clever, or too deep to have her show a typical human emotion regarding this one recurring trauma.

I can agree with this. It seems Goodkind did fail to offer a decent explanation as to how she dealt with the abundant rape incidents. She did not mention it much and did not talk about it or start bawling over it so I assume that she has it bottled up or is toughing it out. I don't think it is due to Goodkind simply forgetting about it or leaving it. I think he wanted her to be the type of individual who put such actions behind her to either front a heroic persona as a leading individual or because, at most points within the novels, she had tremendous responsibilities and simply did not have reserved time to emotionally react to her savage incidents.

But I could also chalk it up to shitty characterization, too. And since Ockham's Razor points us more towards the simplest explanation which has the least assumptions, I'll go with this one personally.

Occam's razor has it's flaws and the simple answer is not always the correct one. I cannot find stable proof for my assumptions either so there is not much I can do.


When you have human-like characters in a fantasy novel, unless explicitly indicated in advance, you expect them to have what? Human-like emotions. You don't expect hobbits to take abuse as a natural turn of events, and you don't expect elves to be alien to any concept of love. You don't think of dragons as being above arrogance and jealousy, and you certainly don't think of goblins and orcs as being immune to fear.

Fine then. Still, if we play by that logic, then my case still stands. If she does have human-like emotions, what is one human-like emotion when dealing with something amazingly traumatic?

Hide it. Cover it. Bottle it away. We've seen this in many works of literature before. We have our classic hero who has something bad happen to him but cannot worry about it due to gross responsibility (Saving the world, killing the main villain, running a kingdom, etc.) or simply because they have to uphold themselves in a position of leadership and cannot show further weakness.



So why would you conclude that this woman necessarily doesn't feel residual trauma?



You're ignoring the point - a fantasy novel takes place in a setting where things exist which cannot necessarily exist in our world. But this is not a blank check to have things happen which do not make sense within the context of the very setting being described.

I agree with this but there has to be some explanation. I might look into this further. I'm sure he offered an explanation as to how Jagang held up his epic million man army. I cannot recall this though.

I still agree. I think that not explaining how such a massive army survives is ridiculous and the novel is not perfect and I don't think it's a vastly excellent novel but I don't see why it is being bashed into oblivion because it is not THAT terrible.

You couldn't say "Star Wars is a space fantasy and thus is immune from stupid oversights and mistakes in storytelling", could you? Don't you think three million Clone Troopers is insufficient to man an Inter-Galactic War in a Republic with millions of star systems? Don't you find it amusing that millions upon millions of battledroids lost huge battles against roughly the population of Maine and New Hampshire? Many people have pointed this out as not plausible, and many have cited it as an example of poor story telling, because it asks us to believe that the SW universe is real within its own setting, and then asking us to further believe in a war being fought among grossly uneven numbers on battlefields too numerous to count. In a realistic scenario, the battle droids outnumber the Clone Troopers 10 to 1 on any given battleground and annihilate them, while continuing to occupy planets which do not have standing armies as the Jedi and Senate have both acknowledged.

So the comparison puts it into light - stupid stuff is not excuseable, even in the context of a "fantasy setting".

This was a waste. I already agreed that I think he should have definitely elaborated as to how the army sustained itself.



Then you agree that Goodkind's unrealistic numbers of troops in an age which could, ideally, barely support ten million worldwide should reflect badly on his storytelling, since he's asking us to believe in something which clearly cannot exist within the context of the story.

Of course. I can't deny this. I think leaving something that important out is absurd. An excellent author could balance both philosophical and political outlooks while explaining how an army of that magnitude held it's own survival-wise.

[Lord Sorgo]

Stop telling me 'I made a mistake,' when you keep using this justification. By and large a good deal of them are mortal men and I don't care how 'not normal,' you are, if Alexander the Great decided his strategy on the fields of Gaugamela was 'strip down and charge naked into the Persians' we'd call him 'Alexander The Fucking Ddiot.'

No, I won't. You are making a mistake. We wouldn't call him that if his strategy was effective. Don't you understand? In this particular setting, the tactic worked effectively. That was seen. We cannot assume either outcome or conclusion because we have not seen something to this extent undergo actual performance.

To say it wouldn't work because it is ridiculous has the same merit as saying that it is SO ridiculous, that it would work.

Goodkind clearly thought that it could work and it doesn't seem unrealistic. Now, I admit it seems unrealistic that it would ever be utilized as a technique but that doesn't mean it would not be effective.




Dooku has the force empowering him. The Sword of Truth expects us to believe these are LEGITIMATE MILITARY TACTICS and that Richard just by STIFFENING HIS HAND with no magical empowerment, drives it through another human being Mortal Kombat style.

It is clearly explained that he develops a more strengthened supernatural magic power over the course of the series. Regardless of whether he wanted them or not, he apparently utilized this to perform the punch because no human could do this with incredible strength. It's obvious how he performs the punch if you fucking pay attention to the book.

As terrible as you might think it is, it is CLEAR why he can punch through another individual. Christ.

Magic? Sure. But it pushes the realms of credibility. Goodkind has no idea how battles or fights work. Richard can just kill 25 swordsmen at once because he's a great swordsman, no other justification. That is bad writing.
George RR Martin has an amazing swordsman, Sandor Clegane, nearly cut down because he's facing two inferior fighters, who are still great fighters, working in conjunction and hemming him from both sides. That is believable. A man butchering over two dozen master warriors with almost no training? It's stupid.


You make a good point here and I can agree with this. I think Goodkind clearly has outstanding unrealism in his novels and I can appreciate the level of power that his characters possess but he does fail to explain features that characters perform quite a few times.

Although this is arguable as well because, again, his supernatural and magical ability is attributed to his performance with a blade whether he uses it in battle or to create weapons, as it explains.


....Ok, please tell me this wasn't serious.
1. The 'shock value' dies quickly when you realize you're covered in armor and the enemy has no defense.
2. Charge a massive, well armed force superior to yours in every way. Head on. Seeing the flaw there?
3. Charge into battle with an erection. Not only can you not focus, but you have a niiiice little target standing at attention
It's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen done in fantasy. The only thing you can hope for is the enemy paralyzed with laughter

I know I would be largely in fear and scared if these many men had the courage and bravery to run at me with hardened dongs and blades. It would scare me. These men must have had such a powerful morale to perform something so damn crazy.

Although I cannot deny that it was fucking hilarious reading that part. I think it would throw off the enemies focus. Definitely.

Not every soldier in the other army is going to be thinking about how armed he is when he has a wall of penis heading his way.






Oh, should I have just said 'fucking blatant,' then?
Perhaps we should discuss book 5, when a society is a pink-commie liberal paradise, ruled by an evil minority who brands their lighter skinned majority from speaking out against them and are ruled by thinly disguised analogues of Bill and Hillary Clinton?

Was this a joke? I'm seriously asking you if this post was a joke. Did you think he tried to disguise his political outlook within the book?

He admits this in interviews and explains it precisely in the novels. Nothing is disguised. As much as you might disagree with these political views, they're not hidden. At all.


Further proof Goodkind is an idiot.

Yes, and that he devotes page upon page of massive speeches about Objectivism? Hello flaws.

You just reinforced my point. It doesn't matter what view he is presenting about the novels. The point I was making is that he makes these points clear and concise when you said they were "hidden."

I'm sorry but they were quite obvious. To me, at least.



Except mistakes cover the books. Paolini is more aware of how a battle works than Goodkind. Oh, and Goodkind is just as much a thief. Don't believe it? He stole several passages from Ayn Rand for book 6 and stole very liberally in Stone of Tears from the late Robert Jordan, who notoriously got very annoyed whenever someone asked him if he 'shared' anything with Terry.
Oh, and Goodkind and the late Mr. Jordan share the same publisher. Which might explain the lack of lawsuit

I did not know this. Can you provide solid evidence of this? This is quite an accusation, Lightsnake.

Neither did I. I just found them absolutely fucking vile.

Well, that's your opinion and I respect that but you've repeated twice that you felt these views were disguised. They weren't.


Yeah, you are. The 'it's fantasy' excuse is just absurd. It needs to remain within a logical parameter

It does? Every single time? Or else it's not fantasy?

Logic is realistic and solid. Some of the best artwork of our time has included stories that leave things GROSSLY unexplained or uncovered for the reader to interpret things for themselves. This is very important. I refer to the novella "Who goes there?" by John Campbell. A fine example of how something can be exciting simply because it was not logical or was not explained.





Yeah, because human beings are capable of flipping a goddamn switch in their heads for this.

Actually, some of them can. I'm serious. I've seen it in action too.

At NO POINT, even when she believes she is an ordinary human in the final three books and nearly raped at every turn, does she express anything resembling trauma.

And? Is she supposed to just break down and insanely bawl because of getting raped and tortured? She cannot have a different reaction? This is absurd. All humans have different and varying reactions to traumatic incidents. We would live in a very boring world if they didn't and I'm sure literature would be uninteresting if every character reacted the same. She could have even gotten tougher skin as the series progressed. She did become less and less emotional, you must recall.


One of eragon's criticisms was Arya's lack of reception at being imprisoned, abused and nearly raped. People of power will suffer even worse mental problems when they're degraded from a position of power.
Kahlan is a weepy wreck throughout a good portion of the first book, consistently emotional. She remains like this for a lot of the series at that and only tough when the plot demands.

I'm not explaining this twice so CTRL-C and CTRL-V:

And? Is she supposed to just break down and insanely bawl because of getting raped and tortured? She cannot have a different reaction? This is absurd. All humans have different and varying reactions to traumatic incidents. We would live in a very boring world if they didn't and I'm sure literature would be uninteresting if every character reacted the same. She could have even gotten tougher skin as the series progressed. She did become less and less emotional, you must recall.

Originally Posted by
Leaders always have to keep their cool and control their surroundings. If she was like "OMFG, I WAS RAPED AND STUFFZ. HELP! I SUFFR FROM CONDITIONS. I NEEDZ THERAPYTS!!1J1" then that would not help her situation much as a leader or a powerful figure, would it?

You know, I can't figure out if I'm saddened or disgusted by your characterization of a traumatized woman. I used to volunteer in a trauma clinic, Sorgo, and you know something?

Be careful where you tread, Lightsnake. I do not appreciate being insulted like this. That's unfair. I've known a plethora of women who have been through such acts and one of my best friends was and women react differently to traumatic situations.



WOMEN DON'T FUCKING CHOOSE TO ACT THAT WAY WHEN THEY'RE ABUSED
When a human being goes through something that horrible, degrading, experiencing pure helplessness and violation that comes from even being almost raped, especially multiple times over the period of a few months. It doesn't matter who depends on them, it doesn't matter if they don't want to. Unless Kahlan is trained to handle this sort of thing-and there is no evidence she is and plenty against it- then she is going to suffer the effects. She is never even remotely effected or traumatized, even when the issue is done and nobody counts on her. She just goes back to fawning over Richard, laughing it up with the main cast and displaying none of the emotion or trauma that would affect a high standing woman who was nearly subjected to utter helplessness and degradation.
Contrast and compare to her sister, who is also a leader who people depend on but acts like a damned human being when she's raped. Oh, and her trauma manifesting itself? Kahlan's response to the withdrawal of support? Threatens to send her troops to her homeland, burn it and send her sister back to the rapists.

This is proof that women act differently to these type of situations. Her and her sister are contrasting evidence of this. They both act differently to getting raped.




Throughout the entire books, Kahlan shares the characteristics as a human.

One whom responds to rape by covering her true emotions and she develops as a person later on in the series who becomes more and more immune to this specific action.

Several women who are raped throughout the books-Nathan's book 4 love interest, random war leader girl in Book 5 and some of the Sisters- display no trauma either. Kahlan is overemotional a good deal of the time and has no issues abandoning her responsibilities when Richard is involved.
She hurts the same, loves the same, is overly emotional at times and is extremely proud.
None of this equates to being totally different than other humans. In the first book? She bursts into tears when explaining to Richard why they can't together.
Her status 'above' normal people should make the trauma even worse

I never said she was totally different than other humans. It's not like I called her a damned alien or something so take it easy. She also shows herself to begin building an immunity against getting ravaged and being tormented. Some women do this. She could be learning to hide it better with time and might thing some actions or emotional traumas are more influential and damaging than others.


And? When the message is such an atrocious one, involving one of the most vile philosophies in such a heavy handed way?

Oh calm down. I've read worse novels than this that portray rape in an even sicker and more vivid manner. I've also read novels that have far more degrading political views than this. You seem to be "overdoing it" a little, LS.



Yes. Luke does not stand up and spend ten minutes lecturing us on everything and nothing is set up as a political strawman like having Luke slaughter Mon Calimari protesting the war against the Empire.
There's a difference between doing it and doing it will. Book 5 is a perfect example.

I can agree with this a little because I think as Goodkind began to write more novels, he did it out of monetary interest more than he did as an interest to write which degraded the novel quality but still didn't make them god awful or horrific.

Do you have something against this book because you worked in a volunteer center? You might have picked up a different perspective on rape being exposed to victims.

You think women haven't been raped several times before in the real world?


Lucas is just 'influenced' by it in the original trilogy, the story proceeds as normal with outside influences apparent. It is not written with an utter preachy message that forces thinly disguised strawman down our throats, with the hero lecturing on his philosophy with villains who are the fantasy version of the Clintons.

This is the third time you've used the phrase "thinly disguised" when nothing is thinly disguised about the authors political motive. Lightsnake, do I have to explain this one hundred times to you?

I don't think because a book is politically different or stronger in comparison to something else makes it bad. I'm just clearing that up about my perspective.


You forgot that SW is good, too.

Understatement. Star Wars is great.

(Sorry, I just love SW.)

No, it isn't. It's a vile, horrid, poorly written piece of shit by a egomaniacal asshole who thinks critics of the right wing government are 'jackals of evil' and that people who criticize his novels 'want to destroy what's good in the world.'

I don't agree with all of his political advances either. He definitely seems biased but you're saying this is ALL that the book is about when it isn't. It is a strong focus but It's not like that is what is engineering the book. The action was good as well and I enjoyed watching armies clash and the massive amounts of death and bloodshed. I had already heard about his novels before I read them I knew that it wouldn't be anything to think about for days or something that largely influenced or was even remotely wise for me but I knew it would provide some good entertainment without having the power to distort my views.


Need I remind you the hero espouses how important free will is on a constant basis yet expects people to PRAY to him? That he honors someone's sacrifice on his behalf by having people pray to him? That he, whenever someone refuses to give up their sovereignty to him, enacts violent sanctions and military conquest, slaughters unarmed protestors and kicks children in the face? When all of this, as Richard explains is "The only moral thing he could do?"

There is so little depth of character. Good guys are good and handsome and are right in almost everything they do. Bad guys? Big ugly rapists with no redeeming features at all, who are communists, eat the testicles of their enemies and rape their women?

No, this is ridiculous. As much as you hate the characters, they have depth.

And what the fuck? Kicking children in the face is awesome.



Read George RR Martin for a good fantasy series. Goodkind's trash deserves a spot in the bargain bin. Objectivism is one of the most vile philosophies and any series that so espouses it can place no limits on contempt.

Oh, I love Martin's work. I cannot await for "A Dance with Dragons."

I've been reading his ASOIAF series and I enjoy it. I also liked some of his earlier works. Have you read "Dying of the Light"?

[Lord Sorgo]

I'm no longer going to argue about this issue, mostly with Lightsnake. I fear that this debate will end in conflict between us due to some sensitive issues.