Terry Goodkind Wizard Rules

MR BLUE

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
8
jenna i must be confused about the difference between whats being funny and what is writing wrong information to suit your argument

ouch! wertland and others i seemed to have struck a nerve, anyway it's pretty unfair to say ' The books are deeply stupid, utterly soulless, morally reprehensible and intellectually repugnant'. 'These books are truly a crime against the reader's intelligence' just because i like something that you don't does'nt make me unintelligent

what race did they completly wipe out? (mass slaughter and genocide) or even attempt too?:rolleyes:

i'm sorry for saying i liked goodkinds work, this must be the 'i hate terry goodkind book club and anyone that does'nt agree with us'
 

MR BLUE

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
8
jenna i must be confused about the difference between whats being funny and what is writing wrong information to suit your argument. lol

ouch! wertland and others i seemed to have struck a nerve, anyway it's pretty unfair to say ' The books are deeply stupid, utterly soulless, morally reprehensible and intellectually repugnant'. 'These books are truly a crime against the reader's intelligence' just because i like something that you don't does'nt make me unintelligent

what race did they completly wipe out? (mass slaughter and genocide) or even attempt too?:rolleyes:

i'm sorry for saying i liked goodkinds work, this must be the 'i hate terry goodkind book club and anyone that does'nt agree with us'
 

Max the Mediocre

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
27
No, it's not at all unfair to say those things about Goodkind's books. They are (and I'm fairly certainly he's explicitly acknowledged this) vehicles for his philosophy, and his philosophy is reprehensible.

The man thinks the highest moral purpose in life is self-gratification. What else needs to be said?
 

jenna

smiling politely
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
584
jenna i must be confused about the difference between whats being funny and what is writing wrong information to suit your argument

Meh, of course if you're a fan you wouldn't find it funny...
 

SilverStar

of the Council of Truth
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
12
May I ask a very simple question? If you guys hate Mr. Goodkind so much, why is it that you spend so much time talking about him? I mean don't you have something better to do with your time than sit around getting kudos from each other on your mutual self hate of an author you've never met?

I understand each person is entitled to their opinion, and I understand you've got every right to hate everything about the books. But, you say Mr. Goodkind is repetitive? You're throwing out the same argument over and over again in hopes of hearing once more how "You're so right Goodkind is horrible"

Yes, I'm a Terry Goodkind fan. Yes, I've personally met him. Yes, I've written him letters, of which he's taken the time to write me back every single time. Yes I cant wait for the last book to come out in November. Yes I post every single day on TG.net. That doesnt make me stupid, and I think that you referring to anyone that reads Goodkind to being stupid is beyond one sided and beyond wrong.

I don't care that you're not a fan. I don't care that you dislike Terry Goodkind's work. But, I dont go to sleep at night wondering what I can post to try and "change" your minds, or "make you see the light."

Yes Mr. Goodkind writes about evil. That evil involves rape, murder, torture and the like. I think his discription of evil is extremely accurate.

I served in Iraq. I lost several people to some of these evils. When Mr. Goodkind talks about evil, he is showing the lowest forms of human existance. People that are so vile they care nothing about violating the rights of everyone around them. Rape is a tool to that violation. Rape exists in the every day world so why can Mr. Goodkind not use it to illustrate the point and problem with evil?

Men in Black had the same quote about people being stuid by the way, and I think its as true there as it is in the book. A person is smart, people are dumb and filled with panic. I think that mob mentality is as much true in this forum as it is in the every day life.

The Second Rule. The greatest harm can come from the best of intentions. How is that not true? How is this a bad rule? We should all take some time to think about what our actions will wrought. We should htink about the consequences.

Passion rules Reason. The thrid rule. Ok, again how is this a bad thing to think about. How many of us, when we were angry did or said things we later regretted because we spoke in the "heat of the moment." This rule merely says watch out for it.

The Fourth. There is magic in forgiveness; in the forgiveness you give, but more so in the forgiveness you receive. How many of us felt the loads off our back when we were forgiven for a miss step, or a mistake. How many of us felt the load off our back when we forgave another. The Bible says "Forgive least ye not be forgiven." (And no I'm not comparring SoT to the Bible) so the concept of forgiveness stretches beyond the Fourth book int he series.

The fifth. Mind what people do, not only what they say for deeds will betray a lie. Meaning practice what you preach. If you say you're going to do something do it. You can lie in more ways than just talking. Again where is the problem?

The sixth. The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason. Never follow blindly because somebody says they're more powerful than you are. Always reason your actions and and make sure all of your actions are the actions you're really choosing to take. Never submit to something for the sake of submission, rather follow because it is the right thing, for you, to do.

The seventh. Life is the future, not the past. The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. Again what is wrong with this. Do not dwell on what has been, but rather look for what will be.


Number eight. Deserve Victory. Embrace when you win. Never feel ashamed for embracing life. Never feel ashamed for who you are. Embrace everything and live holding your head up high.

Nine. A contradiction can not exist in reality. Reality is based on what is real and before us, and what can be proven. There can be no contradictions in that reality because reality is the same for us all.

Tenth, Willfully turning aside from the truth, is treason to oneself. Never live a lie. Again... why is this hard to accept?

None of these rules, (only discussing the rules because thats what this thread is titled as) are beyond our comprehension. Everyone can understand them, and even if you do not agree with them, I'm sure you can see how others can and will.

I dont think that anyone that dislikes Mr. Goodkind, just doesnt understand. I dont think that anyone who hates the books hates life. I dont think that you're deludded or wrong because you have this opinion or that. I just think you're being a little too hard on his fans and on him in general. If you dont like him, don't buy his books. If you dont like him, there are thousands of other authors out there to choose from. If you dont like him thats fine. But dont treat me or anyone else as less of a person becuase we do enjoy him.

I understand everyone has an opinion. Good great, talk about your opinion. But to belittle somebody for that opinion is wrong. To poke fun at fans because you dont like the author is wrong.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Julia
 

Werthead

Lemming of Discord
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
2,176
what race did they completly wipe out? (mass slaughter and genocide) or even attempt too?:rolleyes:

In the previous book Dick Rahl sends his armies into the Imperial Order to massacre the civilian population because they were living under the rule of Emperor Jagang and because he doesn't think he can win in a straight-up fight with the Order's armies. Ignoring the fact that this is total nonsense (fighting a guerrilla war in enemy territory when you are burning and salting the food supplies is not possible, as you'd starve yourself along with the enemy), it clearly shows that the book's heroes' endorse the massacre of civilians if they happen to be living under a tyrannical, dictatorial government.

In other words, Richard Rahl's view in the real world would be that every civilian living in Iraq should have been brutally murdered in the war just because their government was corrupt and they were unable to do anything about it. Goodkind indeed shows the face of evil, and it is his protagonist and alleged 'hero' who is the greatest embodiment of that evil. That is morally reprehensible.
 

TK-421

I Do Not Sow
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
2,481
Location
Ottawa, ON, Canada
I don't care that you're not a fan. I don't care that you dislike Terry Goodkind's work. But, I dont go to sleep at night wondering what I can post to try and "change" your minds, or "make you see the light."

I'm sorry Julia, but I am not going to refute anything you say because as you say, we are all entitled to our opinions. If I had my way, the Chronicles would be completely Goodkind-free.

But I just wanted to refute something in particular from your post. I don't care you're a fan. I don't care you like Goodkind's work. But, for someone who does not go to sleep at night wondering how to make us "see the light" it is self-evident by your post which you obivously wish we would see the error of our ways.

To me, this is end-of-story and the last post I will make on this ridiculous author. But, as I've said before, at least his books are good for starting campfires.
 

SilverStar

of the Council of Truth
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
12
Talk about taking what I said out of context. I said I dont go to sleep thinking about "making you see the light" meaning that thought doesnt even cross my mind. But since all you took from the entire length of my post was that you think I believe there is some kind of light you need to say, more power to you.

I thought my post was fairly straight forward, honest, and as uncondicending as possible. But if you wish to nit pick it by all means.

You cant sit here and say you wish the site to be Goodkind Free, when you sit here and post almost everyday how much YOU hate Terry Goodkind. If you truely wished the site to be Goodkind free you should have posted that from the begining. Instead you went on to bash him.

Go start your camp fires with his books, you have to buy them first which means he's getting money for your purchase, so on behalf of Terry Goodkind thank you for your patronship. :) As well as contributing to his stature as a New York Times Number One Best Selling Author.

My only point with my previous post was this, if you hate Goodkind so much, why do you sit here and waste your time discussing how much you hate him? Why not go out and read something you don't hate? Or post on an author's board you love? I wont belittle you because you loved reading Marx. I might disagree compeltely with his philosophy and think that his views are horrible,but I'm not going to belittle you as a person for believing they're good. Nor am I going to say how wonderful firewood they would be.

The original topic of this forum was the Wizard Rules by which Terry Goodkind writes through his books. How come the discussion has shifted onto Terry Goodkind as a person? As a humanitarian?

Some of you are making it seem that simply for the fact I associate myself with other Terry Goodkind fans that makes me stupid. That argument is all together a fallacy and has no merrit being in a public forum. Debate is one thing, name calling and resorting to emotional appeal through mob mentalities is a whole nother thing.
 

SilverStar

of the Council of Truth
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
12
And actually Wert, "Dick" Rahl specifically said try not to masacre the civilians but dont let your lives be placed in danger for their sake. So its not the same as saying that we should kill everyone in Iraq. Its the same as saying that if its between your life and the life of somebody supporting the enemy, you choose your life. And actually.. the United States Military says the same thing. If its between killing a civilian and allowing yourself or a comrad to be killed, you kill the civilian. Its a war. War is meant to be horrible. War is meant to be unbelievably evil. If it wasnt horrible what would keep people from going to war?
 

Max the Mediocre

Active Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
27
Rahl said nothing of the sort. He said it was inevitable that many kids and the like were going to die in his campaign, and, well, so what?

Sherman's March to the Sea, this wasn't.
 

Werthead

Lemming of Discord
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
2,176
Its the same as saying that if its between your life and the life of somebody supporting the enemy, you choose your life.

Which wasn't what was presented in the book. In the book the civilians living in oppression under the jack-booted heel of the evil Imperial Order are liberated by the truth-loving soldiers of Richard's forces, who burn their crops, salt their fields and tell them to walk several hundred miles to the next city.

I once had exactly this discussion with another Goodkind fan and in the end he had to concede that simply being a citizen of the Imperial Order makes you unredeemably Evil and that you deserve to die. Which is fair enough in a fictional fantasy world. However, it has no impact on and nothing to teach us about real life, as the world does not operate in the ludicrously simplified manner presented in the books.

Nine. A contradiction can not exist in reality. Reality is based on what is real and before us, and what can be proven. There can be no contradictions in that reality because reality is the same for us all.

As one of my colleagues pointed out, this is actually a pointless statement. Contradictions cannot exist in nature as nature simpy is. However, human understanding of nature/reality is intrinsically flawed and varies from human to human. Thus whilst contradictions do not exist in reality contradictions do exist in human understanding of reality.

Tenth, Willfully turning aside from the truth, is treason to oneself. Never live a lie. Again... why is this hard to accept?

In a similar vein whilst there is one 'truth' humans are incapable of understanding that truth, only their own perception and view of the truth. Hence the two famous quotes, "Truth is a three-edged sword" (your truth, my truth, and the actual truth that is not knowable) and "This is my truth, now tell me yours." Truth, or to be more accurate, the perception of it, is subjective, not objective. The idea that Goodkind has somehow discerned in eleven cheesy hack 'n' slash fantasy books what philosophers have been struggling with for 2,000 years (epistemology) is frankly hilarious.
 

jenna

smiling politely
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
584
May I ask a very simple question? If you guys hate Mr. Goodkind so much, why is it that you spend so much time talking about him? I mean don't you have something better to do with your time than sit around getting kudos from each other on your mutual self hate of an author you've never met?

Actually I have met him. It was..... interesting.

And I think people have every right to talk about the books and authors they don't like on the boards, just as much as the things they do like. In my mind that's what forums are all about. This isn't a Goodkind fan board, after all.
 

the_faery_queen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
1,096
i have to say, silverstar, i think his potrayal of evil is ridiculous. you said it was really accurate, i think it's overblown and silly. sorry. that's part of why i hated his stuff. his potrayal of rapists as these shallow, one demensial evil people who run around raping everything that moves, that want nothing more out of life than to rape and hurt people. it's not realistic in the slightest. no one really behaves like that. even uin war, when peole are killing other people, not everuone is a rapist of the enemy, not everyone does what they can to hurt the otherside. they fight because they think it's right, and even if they rape because they think that's what they have to do (for some warped reason) there would still be people who didn't get any fun out of it. but goodkind seems to say that all people who do bad thigns are evil, and that's all they are.

and it's not true. ANYONE can do an evil act. but peole themselves are rarely evil (i say rarely but you occassionally come across someone in the news who you really have to wonder about) and that's the problem. you have richard doing evil acts, killign innocent bystanders, just because they don't agree with him. and you have the enemy doing similiar (raping and enslaving a bunch of school girls) but we're meant to believe that richard is good because he's fighting for good, and the enemy is bad and they're evil? they both did evil acts. that makes them both as bad as each other. but the problem is goodkind hasn't bothered to make them PEOPLE. make them actual human beings with real motives. so what we get left with is two lots of people, both doing nasty things to other people, for no valid reason, and we're told one side did it for good, and one for evil

and that's ridiculous. you're not a hero when you kill innocent bystanders.
and if you're a rapist, to the level of goodkind's evil characters (who all seem to be rapists) then you're not a person at all, because no humanbeing is ever that shallow and twisted that they just live for that sort of thing.

and it maybe shallow and petty of us to talk about a writer that we hate, but it's also kinda fun. unfortunatly that's life. people enjoy putting down and bitching about things that they really dislike. and i really dislike goodkind. that and i think that putting him down, tearing apart his work, can help us all become better writers. the man is So controversial. so many people either love or hate him. i don't want to be a writer like that. i want to be a robin hobb or a george rr martin, or someone else where people may hate my work, but they don't HATE it to this level, and learning and discussing what people hate about goodkind can help all of us avoid being so disliked ourselves.

or something.
 

Tilion

the wayward
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
28
I picked Wizard's First Rule up when I was looking for a good fantasy series. I managed to read less than half before putting it back on the shelf, and man was I glad I had resisted the urge to purchase the whole series! It just felt so mediocre and did not manage to keep me turning the pages.
 

Hu Barran

Stable Mucker
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
9
First, let me preface this by saying I don't want to be characterized a Goodkind apologist, because I couldn't disagree more with his or Rand's philosophy.

However, I wanted to try to express something about the "kicking the 8-year-old girl in the teeth" section of the SoT series. TG went to great lengths to characterize the girl (princess? I don't recall exactly) as "evil incarnate," somewhat like the evil chicken. I believe that he felt that by the aforementioned act, Richard was, in fact, striking out against evil and fighting for "goodness" (i.e. his own survival...or at least his self-esteem.) It came off very badly, just as did the evil chicken and many other metaphors in his writing.

It appears to me that many readers/posters only see the act of physical violence against a young girl (which is reprehensible, imo) and react to that...rather than just seeing that poor Terry has chosen yet another very repugnant way of expressing Objectivist philosophy.

Even though this series is probably at the bottom of the heap as far as my personal preference goes, I found it somewhat interesting to read it from the point of view that might be held by Ayn Rand...whose views seem to have developed as a Jewish girl who was affected by both the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of National Socialism in Germany. I'm not implying that Brother Terry underwent anything of that sort, but when viewed from the Objectivist POV, there's certainly a comprehensible agenda in his writings. That's not to say that it's well-written, nor that I agree with it (very much the opposite) but it gave me a different way of looking at the "books." Now I see them as a philosophically deeper source of kindling for the fireplace. However, the child-kicking incident has. I believe, been taken out of context...even if it was a poor vehicle for yet another of his philosophical rantings.

Hu
 

JagLover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
165
Terry Goodkind does seem to be one of those writers that people either really love or really hate.

I'm in between myself. His early books were quite good. They were not nearly as well written as the best in the fantasy genre but they were exciting and fairly inventive.

Some of his later books have been dire rubbish and he has been trying to force feed his philosphy to his readers.

As to why he has such popularity in preference to better authors in the genre. There is a ruthlessness about his heros that is fairly unique in the fantasy genre.
 

JagLover

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
165
In the previous book Dick Rahl sends his armies into the Imperial Order to massacre the civilian population because they were living under the rule of Emperor Jagang and because he doesn't think he can win in a straight-up fight with the Order's armies. Ignoring the fact that this is total nonsense (fighting a guerrilla war in enemy territory when you are burning and salting the food supplies is not possible, as you'd starve yourself along with the enemy), it clearly shows that the book's heroes' endorse the massacre of civilians if they happen to be living under a tyrannical, dictatorial government.

In other words, Richard Rahl's view in the real world would be that every civilian living in Iraq should have been brutally murdered in the war just because their government was corrupt and they were unable to do anything about it. Goodkind indeed shows the face of evil, and it is his protagonist and alleged 'hero' who is the greatest embodiment of that evil. That is morally reprehensible.

The nonsensical part of the book is actually the size of the Order's army in a pre-industrial society.

As for the tactics used by Richard it is actually very rational. The Order is at the end of supply lines hundreds if not thousands of miles long. Sending his men to cut those supply lines means the Order either has to retreat or starve to death.

As for morality how is Iraq a valid comparison. That would only be the case if an Iraqi army was sweeping across America and the Americans had a chance to strike back at Iraq.

The instructions he gave his army was to support uprisings and destroy those cities loyal to the Order. Morally questionable, but no more so than the Allied bombing campaign in the second world war against an enemy equally as evil.
 

Similar threads


Top