SoT - Legend of the Seeker

[Gizmo]

Btw, just for the record - of course I have exceedingly low opinion of people who like Terry Goodkind, unless they're completely inexperienced in the genre. Why on Earth would I respect someone who could like such bad writing? It makes no sense whatsoever.

That is, if anybody was left who didn't think I'm pretentious ^_^

Oh yeah, forgot - THIS IS MY OPINION!!! (lalalala)

Yet I know Goodkind fans who like Hemingway, Dante, Proust, Homer, Tolkein, Martin, Vance, Pratchett, Bester, Lynch and other literary greats in and out of the genre. Yet if they just said they liked Vance or just said they liked Hemingway, the pigeonholing wouldn't happen.

But hey, gotta love those with that exceedingly high opinion of themselves and overly inflated ego. 'I like REAL fantasy, so my opinion means oh so much'. Always makes me laugh.

It's been my experience that those people who feel so strongly about Terry and appreciate his work so darn much are also Ayn Rand zombies... you're not one of those, are you?

Ahhhh, there's that pigeonholing again. I'm a Rand fan too, I'll happily admit (though I liked Goodkind long before I had heard of her) but there are a ton of diehard fans who have barely any idea who Rand is.

 

[Sparrow]

Ahhhh, there's that pigeonholing again. I'm a Rand fan too, I'll happily admit (though I liked Goodkind long before I had heard of her) but there are a ton of diehard fans who have barely any idea who Rand is.

Whether they're aware of it or not if they take to Goodkind they've unwittingly crawled up Ms.Rand's keister in the process. In fact you can't possibly understand why Terry writes what he writes unless you accept the unholy union of the two. It's that soulless approach to life that allows Terry to write soulless books full of soulless characters doing soulless things to further their own soulless objectives.

Terry isn't writing fantasy stories so much as he's indoctrinating people into his circle of beliefs. The reason some of us so detest his writing, and also other writers in the fantasy and science fiction genre who accept the teachings of that Russian witch, is because we find Objectivism to be a close kin to a cult... and even if we found Objectivism to be tolerable the guy still can't write.

 

[Gizmo]

Whether they're aware of it or not if they take to Goodkind they've unwittingly crawled up Ms.Rand's keister in the process. In fact you can't possibly understand why Terry writes what he writes unless you accept the unholy union of the two.

Better tell that to the left wingers I know who are fans of Goodkind.
Better tell that to the religious folk who are fans of Goodkind.
Better tell that to those apathetic to politics/philosophy that are fans of Goodkind. Nice try though.

 

[Roland 85]

Yet I know Goodkind fans who like Hemingway, Dante, Proust, Homer, Tolkein, Martin, Vance, Pratchett, Bester, Lynch and other literary greats in and out of the genre. Yet if they just said they liked Vance or just said they liked Hemingway, the pigeonholing wouldn't happen.

But hey, gotta love those with that exceedingly high opinion of themselves and overly inflated ego. 'I like REAL fantasy, so my opinion means oh so much'. Always makes me laugh.

Laugh then, by all means. I laugh at self-righteous indignation, so it's a veritable laugh-fest.

Meanwhile, I've seen more than one "Miss something" that REALLY loved Dostoevsky. Those zesty beauty queens just can't get enough of their 19th century Russian philosophers ^_^ I'm sure with time and patience you'll get what I'm implying here. As a general rule, I tend to judge people based on the least intelligent things they love. That is usually more accurate, as it's easy enough to "like" a good book for the wrong/superficial reasons. I mean, I like me some crap as well, but I'd be the first to tell you it's crap, and I wouldn't go all stick-in-the-butt enraged by someone stating that.

Oh, and btw, I've never read anything by Rand, and I do intend to. I could care less about Goodkind's reasons for writing s**t, and he sure ain't gonna make me hate one of the most influential writers of the 20th century just by virtue of being bad.

 

[mshnd06]

@ Gizmo - just because someone hasn't heard of Rand doesn't mean the objectivism of Goodkind isn't part of the appeal. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but in my experience there is a fairly strong correlation between Goodkind fans and objectivists. I would argue the books are so controversial on fan forums because they are so political. I don't think a mere matter of literary taste could bring the polemical vitriol that we find in Goodkind threads. This also serves to explain why some people enjoy Goodkind as well as more literary fare (although I've yet to meet anyone myself that enjoys Wolfe or Vance in addition to Goodkind). For many, there exists no more repugnant a philosophy than Objectivism, while for others that perspective lies at the heart of their most fundamental world-view and values. It is no wonder, then, when the debate gets heated over a book in which such an ideology is the explicit purpose of the writing. The fact that the writing is clumsy is secondary.

 

[Sparrow]

Better tell that to the left wingers I know who are fans of Goodkind.
Better tell that to the religious folk who are fans of Goodkind.
Better tell that to those apathetic to politics/philosophy that are fans of Goodkind. Nice try though.

Fake Liberals.
Fake Christians.
And who cares about intellectual slackers anyways.

 

[Gizmo]

Meanwhile, I've seen more than one "Miss something" that REALLY loved Dostoevsky. Those zesty beauty queens just can't get enough of their 19th century Russian philosophers ^_^ I'm sure with time and patience you'll get what I'm implying here. As a general rule, I tend to judge people based on the least intelligent things they love. That is usually more accurate, as it's easy enough to "like" a good book for the wrong/superficial reasons. I mean, I like me some crap as well, but I'd be the first to tell you it's crap, and I wouldn't go all stick-in-the-butt enraged by someone stating that.

Ah of course, the Goodkind fans who like the other literary greats like it because of superficial reasons.
If only they were the bastion of intellectualism and literary integrity such as yourself...

@ Gizmo - just because someone hasn't heard of Rand doesn't mean the objectivism of Goodkind isn't part of the appeal. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but in my experience there is a fairly strong correlation between Goodkind fans and objectivists. I would argue the books are so controversial on fan forums because they are so political. I don't think a mere matter of literary taste could bring the polemical vitriol that we find in Goodkind threads. This also serves to explain why some people enjoy Goodkind as well as more literary fare (although I've yet to meet anyone myself that enjoys Wolfe or Vance in addition to Goodkind). For many, there exists no more repugnant a philosophy than Objectivism, while for others that perspective lies at the heart of their most fundamental world-view and values. It is no wonder, then, when the debate gets heated over a book in which such an ideology is the explicit purpose of the writing. The fact that the writing is clumsy is secondary.

Don't get me wrong, there are many Objectivists that like Goodkind, and that appeal is no doubt there and I do not doubt that there are Goodkind fans that rile up criticism because of their world views. But the looking down upon Goodkind fans by some doesn't just happen to those types, it happens to many who just like the books for what they are.

And @bolded: you've just met one. I don't claim Goodkind is a great writer (but i already said earlier in the topic I won't get into a debate about the merits of his actual writing) and he's no Vance for sure. But I'm capable of enjoying both for different reasons.

 

[Roland 85]

Ah of course, the Goodkind fans who like the other literary greats like it because of superficial reasons.
If only they were the bastion of intellectualism and literary integrity such as yourself...

I am trying to understand why you're not aware of how juvenile these attempts at sarcasm are, but I simply can't. Yes, this is exactly right - people who could think that Goodkind's writing is anything but crap, do not have the necessary knowledge and literary awareness to appreciate better writers. It is as simple as that, and has nothing to do with me and what kind of "bastion" I am. Now, if they consider the poor guy just a form of guilty pleasure - then fine. But i don't call such people "fans", and they sure as hell wouldn't go into the self-righteous hilarity that you've been spewing so far.

 

[Andols]

In before the thread close.

You folks might want to look into how to discuss conflicting opinions without slandering each other or belittling other's opinions. It is a skill.

Funny stuff though.

 

[Gizmo]

I am trying to understand why you're not aware of how juvenile these attempts at sarcasm are, but I simply can't. Yes, this is exactly right - people who could think that Goodkind's writing is anything but crap, do not have the necessary knowledge and literary awareness to appreciate better writers. It is as simple as that, and has nothing to do with me and what kind of "bastion" I am. Now, if they consider the poor guy just a form of guilty pleasure - then fine. But i don't call such people "fans", and they sure as hell wouldn't go into the self-righteous hilarity that you've been spewing so far.

You make the assumption that Goodkind fans can't appreciate better writers or that they think that Goodkind is a literary great. I'm a Goodkind fan, do I think he is amazing? No. Do I think he is as good as a Vance or Bradbury? No. Can my appreciation differentiate between them all and still enjoy them all? Yes.

The bolded part is pure crap. I've already said there are fans that like Goodkind and think he's a decent enough writer, but who also love some literary giants. You can tell yourself they like those writers for 'superficial reasons' and some might, but plenty don't and considering you don't know most of these people, your wild assumptions are little more then pathetic. But keep on thinking your subjective opinion is law of the land, pal, I'm sure it massages your ego nicely.

 

[teahupoo]

. Yes, this is exactly right - people who could think that Goodkind's writing is anything but crap, do not have the necessary knowledge and literary awareness to appreciate better writers. It is as simple as that, and has nothing to do with me and what kind of "bastion" I am.

The ignorance of this statement brings ignorance to heights undreamed of. A benchmark has been set here today.

You have to be a troll. How could anyone really think like this. So, i can't in my right mind respond to any of your future comments. I took the bait this time, it won't happen again. Unless you were joking. If you were joking...ignore this comment.

And to be clear, I am not saying you are ignorant, I am saying that statement is ignorant.

 

[Pvt]

Whether they're aware of it or not if they take to Goodkind they've unwittingly crawled up Ms.Rand's keister in the process. In fact you can't possibly understand why Terry writes what he writes unless you accept the unholy union of the two. It's that soulless approach to life that allows Terry to write soulless books full of soulless characters doing soulless things to further their own soulless objectives.

Terry isn't writing fantasy stories so much as he's indoctrinating people into his circle of beliefs. The reason some of us so detest his writing, and also other writers in the fantasy and science fiction genre who accept the teachings of that Russian witch, is because we find Objectivism to be a close kin to a cult... and even if we found Objectivism to be tolerable the guy still can't write.

Right..... You realize your argument has really lost all credibility right? This is why I love the Goodkind threads, it brings out all the political wackos and conspiracy theorists. Goodkind and his books appear to be a lighting rod for you guys.

I am trying to understand why you're not aware of how juvenile these attempts at sarcasm are, but I simply can't. Yes, this is exactly right - people who could think that Goodkind's writing is anything but crap, do not have the necessary knowledge and literary awareness to appreciate better writers. It is as simple as that, and has nothing to do with me and what kind of "bastion" I am. Now, if they consider the poor guy just a form of guilty pleasure - then fine. But i don't call such people "fans", and they sure as hell wouldn't go into the self-righteous hilarity that you've been spewing so far.

I love it when the fanatics like yourself as well as others in here make complete asses of themselves. Your arguments are swallowed up by your own silly prejudices. I can't believe any fan of fantasy of all genres would attempt to elevate himself above other fantasy fans because he thinks he reads "superior" fantasy works and those that don't are beneath him. There are literally a world of ppl out there who feel the same way about people who read fantasy of any kind no matter who wrote it. See the irony? lol. Time to get off your soap box and get back to your shine box.

 

[kirk]

For some reason I'm getting this feeling that most of these people arguing about the ignorance and prejudices and all that nonsense and the sheer awesomeness that is Terry Goodkind have not really read any of his... "work". It's like you are defending something for the sake of defending it.
Maybe I just have a hard time coming up with a different reason as to why anyone would be doing it. /shrug
I may be wrong though and I'm sure one of the "fans" will conveniently point that out for me.

 

[Gizmo]

For some reason I'm getting this feeling that most of these people arguing about the ignorance and prejudices and all that nonsense and the sheer awesomeness that is Terry Goodkind have not really read any of his... "work". It's like you are defending something for the sake of defending it.
Maybe I just have a hard time coming up with a different reason as to why anyone would be doing it. /shrug
I may be wrong though and I'm sure one of the "fans" will conveniently point that out for me.

@bolded: yes, because we've all been spouting how amazing he is and how sunshine pops out of his bottom.

I've read all of SoT. There, answered that for you.

 

[mshnd06]

Actually, PvT, Goodkind has said that he isn't writing fantasy stories (not to mention implying that he is above the genre) and certainly implies that the books are allegory.

 

[nquixote]

Orson Scott Card = writer who is actually good, but whose beliefs are abhorrent

Stephen Donaldson = writer who is actually good, but whose books contain a bit of offensively disgusting ickiness

Terry Goodkind = writer who writes crappy throwaway crap peppered with offensively disgusting ickiness, and whose beliefs are also abhorrent, and who is an egomaniac to boot.

I will read Card and Donaldson (admittedly with a bit of trepidation), but not Goodkind. The difference is the quality of the writing.

 

[Andols]

I bet if Card wrote SoT this thread wouldnt even exist.

 

[Dyloot]

Orson Scott Card = writer who is actually good, but whose beliefs are abhorrent

Stephen Donaldson = writer who is actually good, but whose books contain a bit of offensively disgusting ickiness

Terry Goodkind = writer who writes crappy throwaway crap peppered with offensively disgusting ickiness, and whose beliefs are also abhorrent, and who is an egomaniac to boot.

I will read Card and Donaldson (admittedly with a bit of trepidation), but not Goodkind. The difference is the quality of the writing.

Have you read Card's recent Ender books? Your praise for his writing may need updating. I am simply too invested in his books to stop reading them, but there are no where near the quality of his earlier works.

 

[Andols]

Have you read Card's recent Ender books? Your praise for his writing may need updating. I am simply too invested in his books to stop reading them, but there are no where near the quality of his earlier works.

Really? I found the shadow series better than the original ender series. at least in terms of writing.

 

[Dyloot]

Really? I found the shadow series better than the original ender series. at least in terms of writing.

Ender's Game, Ender's Shadow, Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide are all well written in my opinion. Shadow of the Hegemon wasn't horrible, but Shadow Puppets and Shadow of the Giant soured my opinion of the series. Ender in Exile was, in my opinion, just a terrible book.

I don't know how many times I rolled my eyes when reading how influences from "Ender's jeesh" and battle school slang had spread through society, or when Card decided he needed to emphasize specific words in dialogue with italics every few paragraphs. Can you imagine conversing often with someone like that? It's beyond obnoxious. And Card does it with all of his characters.

It's like Card just totally gave up on substance and opted to go with basic plots executed by clever children who are wickedly good at debate--even though these debates aren't very convincing in the later books. I consider the second half of the Shadow series to be a half-assed effort by an author who's best days are long behind him.