Terry Goodkind

[Lunatic]

Yes, I was laughing hysterically when I read that part about "transcending" fantasy.

And yes, he does first state that he doesn't write fantasy, but then goes on to say that he injected life into it? Ok...

Goodkind makes me laugh.

 

[the_faery_queen]

me too its nice to have self belief but when you go that far . . . well, how can you ever grow as a person or a writer if you think you're that great from the start and that all critiscms are just people not liking or understanding you? ok sometimes people don't understand what you're trying to say, but when a lot of people say the same, you hve to ask if they have a reason to!

goodkind seems to have been quiet recently? i've yet to read any new sort of interview things where he shows himself up. maybe he's been told to behave himself that takes the fun out of it

ok, im bored, im feeling mean

 

[Lunatic]

Yes, Goodkind has been quiet recently, but I suspect there will be more interviews when his next book, Phantom, comes out soon.

ok sometimes people don't understand what you're trying to say, but when a lot of people say the same, you hve to ask if they have a reason to!

Why ask for a reason? They obviously just hate that which is good...

Poor Goodkind, I'd actually like to meet the man at least once, just to gauge him personally.

 

[Werthead]

Actually, Goodkind has been a) having open heart surgery and b) isn't online, so relies on his minions to do his web-baiting for him.

Yar is quite clearly the legendary Mystar, whose oratory skills on behalf of Goodkind are in themselves quite legendary. When dealing with posts YarStar, the following must be rememberd:

1) he has admitted that he himself often engaged in making 'provoking' comments which he does not necessarily believe himself. For example, by proclaiming that he was at the Goodkind book signing mentioned above when no time, date, or location was given. His misuse of the word 'bully' is also notable in this context.

2) counter-arguments tend to bounce off him. You say you dislike Goodkind, he says you lie. You say you haven't bought any of his books, he laughs at the amount of money you've given to Goodkind (the words 'borrow', 'second-hand' and 'library' apparently do not exist in his vocabulary).

I have been trying to cut down my Goodkind-mocking recently as, frankly, there is only so much humour that can be mined from the situation and after eight or nine months of it, the well has run truly dry.

 

[the_faery_queen]

hehe
actually i would too. in my very bored, petty hours, i would like to become rich and famous (well i would anyway) and meet him so i could tell him what i thought of him. but he'd just dismiss me and say i didn't understand his work because i was female (as he told one other reader, apparantly) or didn't like what was good. can't argue with a man like that, so i think its best i dont' meet him or i might explode with the stress

still, his series is nearly done now, right? thop he may churn out another one.

 

[Lunatic]

After Phantom there is only one more SOT book. I don't have any idea what his plans are after that, although I'm sure it won't have anything with elves and dwarves in it. Gotta watch for that "weirdo cultural diversity"

 

[the_faery_queen]

hehe well, at least that's one thing going fo rhim. he does end when he says he will. but i like a bit of weirdo cultural diversity myself.

 

[Brys]

I have been trying to cut down my Goodkind-mocking recently as, frankly, there is only so much humour that can be mined from the situation and after eight or nine months of it, the well has run truly dry.

It still hasn't run dry for me, but then I haven't been consistently doing it for so long - I mean, I pretty much didn't look at anything to do with Goodkind for about 3 months, but after that amount of time I'm always astonished at just how extreme his comments are. Pratchett may be acknowledged as the king of comedic fantasy, but I think Goodkind in his own way is a close contender for that position.

 

[the_faery_queen]

its not gone dry for me either, but then i haven't been doing it so long either he's a funny funny guy

 

[Yar]

I think it's fair to say that Terry Goodkind is one of those authors who tends to generate strong likes and dislikes within the fnatasy genre.

On the surface I would agree. However with these few people, points to a few posts below this one, it is more that "dislike". What we see here is a few people that have taken it more than a step further and shown the true callowness of their character. They show us the void of their existance that they are not simply "poking fun" but rather are unmasked by Goodkind so they have no choice but to run around attacking, doing their best to try and belittle anyone who reads Goodkind's work.

This kind of behaviour not only suggest that Goodkind has more than struck a nerve but that it has shown the fact that they are just a bunch of bulllys. These are the same kinds of antogonistic and belligerent children who find what they think is a target and attack.

Now these people show their true character not just by attacking the material, but also the people who offer up good words or simply they liked the series. Someone offers up "I liked the series" and off they go attacking this person, then puking forth some week point about "he's arrogant", or "His prose" is really bad" or even "how can anyone read him". Week indeed.

To go to the lengths to make sure they hit an many boards as possable Adam et al. show themselves to be devoid of character. SO someone likes Goodkind? So what?

Some have found that within Goodkind's novels, is something more than just a story. They see a deeper meaning. They see a story of strength and of courage. Most see a story about the struggle with life and from it they find hope!. They find strength! and they find courage! Many simply find a good story to entertain them. But the former...yes these are what scare people like Adam here...over zealous people who hate that anyone read Goodkind, then cannot let it go with out doing the best to drag down, mutilate and or simply pummel these people to death.

And for what? Simply this, they have shown why, they cannot stand that someone has found something they either could not, and/or that someone could rise above and be something better. They rail that Goodkind an unknown has violated their sacred world with things like, Truth, Integrity, Ethics and a hero who refuses to bow to the enemy even to save his own skin.

One may not like the way Goodkind writes. So what? that simply doesn't cause such shallow people to behave in a mannor like these zealouts do. One may not care for the characters in Goodkinds story. So what? then move along... Unless as I stated, Goodkind has exposed the true nature of these sour people casusing such a caustic behaviour. One may well feel Goodkind is an over paid nar-do-well. Again so what?

The truth is in the fact that Goodkind started with a story they read and liked (now a few will try and spew that they never liked them). Then as time and story progressed, they found themselves not liking they story line offering up such things as "too preachy", "to much philosophy", "he needs to kill of a main character" or such things. In short...they didn't like the track the story was taking. The story is Goodkinds to tell, not theirs, and that wrankles them to no end. They cannot get at Goodkind, so the next target is to try and ridicule and berate those whom they can get to...his fans. Shallow indeed.

No doubt now will ensue their rage and tirade of vitrolic denials, attempting to twist it around with all kinds of trenchant comments and rebuffs... But the cat is out of the bag, they have been exposed. The truth behind theis mordent refrains is all too clear.

 

[Yar]

Actually, Goodkind has been a) having open heart surgery and b) isn't online, so relies on his minions to do his web-baiting for him.

Yar is quite clearly the legendary Mystar, whose oratory skills on behalf of Goodkind are in themselves quite legendary. When dealing with posts YarStar, the following must be rememberd:

1) he has admitted that he himself often engaged in making 'provoking' comments which he does not necessarily believe himself. For example, by proclaiming that he was at the Goodkind book signing mentioned above when no time, date, or location was given. His misuse of the word 'bully' is also notable in this context.

2) counter-arguments tend to bounce off him. You say you dislike Goodkind, he says you lie. You say you haven't bought any of his books, he laughs at the amount of money you've given to Goodkind (the words 'borrow', 'second-hand' and 'library' apparently do not exist in his vocabulary).

I have been trying to cut down my Goodkind-mocking recently as, frankly, there is only so much humour that can be mined from the situation and after eight or nine months of it, the well has run truly dry.

Quite to my point above Adam!

Oh, and "yar" (as well as a few others) is my handle on many boards. If you had done any kind of search, you could know that.

As I have attended many many booksignings, and all the ones in Indiana and surrounding area, I do not have to add a date, time or location. SO again you seem to be incapable of understanding or making a point stick.

There we go again, can't find anything to really stick a knife into, os you fall into your attacking of a persons simple typing mistake. Your most likley the sad little fellow who ran around throwing rocks and verbal abuse at those who had a physical defect or were deemed by you to be of infearious standard... I believe Hitler di dthat to the Jews didn't he?

Cutting back perhaps because you have been exposed for the shallowbully you are? ahhh well... life goes on.

 

[Brys]

Yar (Mystar) - why do you persist in simple ad hominem attacks? You do not know a single one of us. Yet you pretend you do. You do not accept that a person cannot like Goodkind. We can accept that people like Goodkind. No one on these forums has attacked someone because they like Goodkind, yet you consistently do the opposite. You are simply trying to provoke an angry response.

Can we please have a civilised discussion? We have come up with reasons why we don't like it - poor prose, too preachy, poor characterisation, unrealistic plotting etc - yet you completely dismiss these and say that everyone must like it despite that. I am sure there are some authors you don't like. Why are you allowed to criticise them if we can't criticise Goodkind?

 

[Yar]

yar, i think you totally misunderstand my point of view on this. I am not saying this because i am a bully, or because i don't udnerstand his work, or can't stand other epople liking things that i hate, or anything else like that. i am saying it because i truly believe his work is disgusting and misgonistic. i take women's rights really seriously, being a woman and a feminist. i imagine people would get this passionate, and speak out against books that they felt were homophobic or racist. so why am i being a bully for speaking otu against books i feel are misognistic and offensive to women?

and yes, evil exists in the world, but not the way he shows it. that's also part of my problem with him. his 'good' girl characters are never raped, never 'soiled' by sexual violence. only the bad women characters are. the rapists themselves are potrayed as evil monsters, making them out to be so much more than they are. without getting into a huge ranty ramble, in my opinion, rapists are cowards. they're bullies and cowards. potraying them as some sort of nameless devil is a really bad thing to do, it is almost elevating them, and i dont' think they deserve it. he also showed no research, no understanding whatsoever, of the way that rape effects women. kalahan, for instance, was threatened with rape countless times. it never seems to bother her! yet her raped sister is so traumatised she gives up the throne. so that's also part of it. he fill shis books with violence against women, then seems to glorify those who commit those crimes by making them out to be MORE evil than pathetic. his good verses evil battles are completely over the top. they're nothing like the real world. rape rarely happens the way he has potrayed it. nothing about his world is realistic. it is a black and white, good verses evil, shallow definition. that's all well and good, but that doesn't mean it is honourable or noble or a good story. and to be honest, good ALWAYS wins in fantasy! the idea that that is a novel thing for goodkind is rather odd. i haven't read a fantasy yet where evil wins. i kinda wish it would, just for the novelty (and my gothic tendancies)

goodkind himself once said that people dislike his work because they don't like what is good. and to be honest, yar, your argument seems a total reflection of that. rather than say, ok yes, i can see why you might think that, and then offer a counter argument, you just decided that we had a slanted view and a weak argument. we don't. i could offer you a lot of examples from the first four books to back up my belief of his misogny. and i read these books years ago (that's how badly the taint of them has stuck with me. i can still remember them over 6 years or more) you don't have to agree with our argument, but you can't just dismiss it as being weak and invalid because you don't agree with it.

sorry, am getting preachy there. i tend to avoid these conversations because this is something i take personally. but i hve to add, as a final whatsit, that robin hobb signed the book i took to her. george r martin also signs, from what i understand, any book brought to him. and i know robert jordan does as well.

but yeah, brian is right. goodkind does seem to generate a love or hate feeling towards him. more so than any other writer. i hope that doesn't happen to me!

rant over

You say, "i take women's rights really seriously, being a woman and a feminist." Goodkind has offered up some of the strongest characters in a good long time. He has offerd up the fact that women are not seen as anything close to equales, BUT, has shown through his books that women/females are not only equale, but so much more. Goodkind has done a great deal for womans rights...perhaps you missed that in your ardent ferver to decry what you se an his arrogance?

Goodkind show that a woman can be strong, can allow herself to rise above the abuse and get beyond it....uhm...yeah.. you then think women should wollow in it...? My wife was not only raped as a child but brutilized by several men. She had no out..she coudl do nothing. For years, she was subject to being molested, raped and bullied... YET she choose to rise about it and knew that what was done to her was horrific yes, but that she could put it in its place and be all the stronger for it.

So you'll excuse me if I discount your view there as you are off the mark as to what Goodkind understands and doesn't understand. Yo've no idea the countless hours of reasearch he did, speakingto doctors, psychologists, and many who had been raped and brutilized.... No I think your point is off the mark here.

"homophobic"... Lets see here, Goodkind has clearly shown he is not homophobic , rather he has shown strong femail characters who are homosexual and that while it is not his choice to live that way, he has nonetheless offered up,"your life is yours alone, rise up and live it"... or perhaps you missed those points eh?

 

[Yar]

"and yes, evil exists in the world, but not the way he shows it".

Well I for one amd thrilled that you live in a world other than ours. One in which real evil doesn't exist. As for Goodkind, he is and does use real events, situation and evil that is at work in "this" world, and shows that we can indeed not only rise above it, but battle it. We can be who we are without allowing it to corupt our values... I'm just glad you live ina world where evil doesn't exist!

 

[the_faery_queen]

brys, he is, i have to say, a perfect example of what the others have said about a goodkind fan! i don't mean to offend, yar, but you are. you are defending goodkind, as brys said, by dismissing our opinions as not good enough. exactly the sort of thing i get from other goodkind fans and the odd jordan one.

i never said homophobic. tho i thik he has an issue with women that he creates lesbian, leather wearing bondage type control freak women.

oh no no. i was a rape councellor for a while, let me tell you that his potrayal of rape is DEEPLY incorrect and wrong. rape is for power. it is NOT carried out the way he has it. rape victims, or those threatened with it, do not dismiss it, the way that kahlan did. a\nd lets see, strong female characters, you mean kahlan? who spends her life whining for richard every time they are seperated? um no.

and what about the countless accounts of graphic violence and rape towards women that has no purpose? what about the kahlan tasting her own menstral blood, that also had no pupose, when she gave a man she hated (or thouoght she did) a blow job. that's a strong woman, right? one who thinks, oh well, im married, lets make the best of it and give a blow job to this guy that i hate. and taste my own blood at the same time. and i am talking about khalan;s sister. who had NO other point but to be raped and give up her throne to her sister. why was she raped? what was the point? most usurpers kill the monarch, they don't throw them into a pit to be raped. and then she was so upset she gave up the throne. and what was the point in that?

goodkind did no research. none. i councelled rape victims for a while. i can tell you that. im sorry for your wife, but seriously, he did no research. none of the accounts are realistic, the fact kahlan is threatened byt gets over it time and again is proof of that. the way that it continuly happens in every book, getting worse, is proof of his misogny, or at the very least, hsi rape fetish. women are gang raped in a school, they have sex with monsters with barbed phallus', the are thrown down a pit to be raped, they are threatened with it. it goes on and on. and that's in the first four books. goodkind wrote his world. he set it up to be any way that he wanted. and what he wanted was for the monster the women had sex with to have a barbed **** so it would hurt and they would bleed. what he wanted was a prophecy that meant kahlan would have her period and then taste her own blood. what he wanted was a whole school of girls to be raped before being sold into slavery, all except the 'good' girl of course. the good are never raped, only the bad are. (except for kahlan's sister) what does that tell you about goodkind? that he sees rape as punishment for bad women. and that is not what rape is.

im sorry, but i disbelieve the man did any research. the way he has such WEAK female characters (and they are weak. they're not strong women) and so much violence towards them, makes me think he is a misognist. especially when added to the way that he spoke to the female fan who wrote to him. telling her she couldn't undrstand his work because she's female.

there is no excuse for the level of violence towards the female character. none at all. it doesnt' show a violent world, for good to rise above. it shows a world of abuse towards women. martin has ONE rape in his first 3 books (or 4) and i still get the idea that his world is violence and misognistic. goodkind has countless rapes and scenes of violence, but as they are all (with one exception) towards women, i am left with the feeling that HE himself is the misognist. not his world.

to be truly honest, you're behaving like a bit of a fundie, only with goodkind as your god. it seems to be a total blind acceptance that goodkind has done no wrong and anyone who dislikes him is callous and a bully with an agenda. we dont have an agenda. we just don't like him!

 

[Brian G Turner]

On the surface I would agree. However with these few people, points to a few posts below this one, it is more that "dislike". What we see here is a few people that have taken it more than a step further and shown the true callowness of their character. They show us the void of their existance that they are not simply "poking fun" but rather are unmasked by Goodkind so they have no choice but to run around attacking, doing their best to try and belittle anyone who reads Goodkind's work.

Just a friendly pointer that the sort of above content is not acceptable here - people have different opinions on writings and authors, and that's to be expected - but we don't tolerate such personal attacks as you're making on the chronicles network.

This isn't a discussion point - it's a warning - please refrain from repeating such attacks on other members if you wish to continue posting here.

 

[Yar]

Yar (Mystar) - why do you persist in simple ad hominem attacks? You do not know a single one of us. Yet you pretend you do. You do not accept that a person cannot like Goodkind. We can accept that people like Goodkind. No one on these forums has attacked someone because they like Goodkind, yet you consistently do the opposite. You are simply trying to provoke an angry response.

Can we please have a civilised discussion? We have come up with reasons why we don't like it - poor prose, too preachy, poor characterisation, unrealistic plotting etc - yet you completely dismiss these and say that everyone must like it despite that. I am sure there are some authors you don't like. Why are you allowed to criticise them if we can't criticise Goodkind?

uhm, I am being "civlised". I'm simply responding to the points made earlyer. No "ad hominem attacks", I simply responded in kind with what was posted at me.

You seem to think that just because someone dislikes Goodkind it is "ok" for them to offer up as you put it "ad hominem attacks" yet when I offer up my rebuttle and supportive narritive, that is not allwed, it is not "civlised" as you put it.

Let me ask you this then... Why or how is it that you can say "we took to our favorite past time Goodkind bashing" and not call that UN-civlised?

You'll also note that I don't go about badgering people about their mis-spelling or punctuation, yet you seem to think admonshing me for supporting a postiive aspect is something honorable! Kudos!

 

[Silent Speaker]

This thread has prompted an interest in me to actually read some of this guy's work. Can his diction be compared to anybody else's?
The bookstore in where I live finally got the first volume of that (in)famous series, so I've become rather curious about it all.

Incidentally, from all that I have ever read about this individual and his work, which is not much, I have come to a conclusion that he appears to be somewhat... "cultleaderish"(?) wouldn't you say? I mean, gauging from the reaction of Yar (and other fans, if I recall, from my glances through other message boards) to criticism of Mr. Goodkind's work (and his person too, of course). I don't know, but it's kind of unusual:
"I never seen such devotion in a droid before" ;P , to quote the ole' SW.

 

[Lunatic]

"and yes, evil exists in the world, but not the way he shows it".

Well I for one amd thrilled that you live in a world other than ours. One in which real evil doesn't exist. As for Goodkind, he is and does use real events, situation and evil that is at work in "this" world, and shows that we can indeed not only rise above it, but battle it. We can be who we are without allowing it to corupt our values... I'm just glad you live ina world where evil doesn't exist!

This is not what she said. She clearly said that evil does exist, just not in the same way in his books. It seems to me that you are twisting people's words around.

 

[the_faery_queen]

"and yes, evil exists in the world, but not the way he shows it".

Well I for one amd thrilled that you live in a world other than ours. One in which real evil doesn't exist. As for Goodkind, he is and does use real events, situation and evil that is at work in "this" world, and shows that we can indeed not only rise above it, but battle it. We can be who we are without allowing it to corupt our values... I'm just glad you live ina world where evil doesn't exist!

no. he doesn't. martin crated a realistic world of violence. where a woman is raped by a bunch of men for not liking the way that they groped her. where people are killed by their own children, where they are asssassinated for no reason other than they're in the way.

goodkind has a world where women are corrupted, and turned into bondage maidens who torture and kill. where slavers rape and abuse their victims before selling them on. (really. that much rape stands a good chance of killing those girls, or at least getting them pregnant. who would buy a pregnant slave? perhaps it happens, but i see it as a chance for him to have more rape of 'bad' girls.) i have yet to come across ANY person who is totally evil, without any good in them at all. hitler, for instance, had a wife/lover, was loved by children. he killed millions of people, tortured them, but still, some people liked him, some people saw good in him. we don't get that from goodkind's shallow evil characters. just as we get nothing bad in his good. they're all one or the other. that's not realistic.

and again, other writers have good verses evil! jordan does, tolkein did, hobb did.

and i feel bad for you, living in a world where evil is everywhere, as you apparantly do if you think goodkind's world is realistic. there is no such thing a sevil. there are evil acts, carried out by cowards. but i do not believe in evil itself. goodkind does. you clearly do. and that's frighteneing. that you would elevate the work of cowards and losers to the point of it being something evil. that the world is a fight against it.

now, im sorry. but you're still dismissing any argument as being not good enough. you're refusing to even acknowledge anyone else has a point and still insisting goodkind's book is a battle of good verses evil. if it is, its on the level of being another bible. because it is, in my opinion (no offense to the religious people here) as shallow as that is, with its characters. the situation is either this is good, this is bad. that's not realistic. there are grey areas in life. there are grey areas in people. goodkind doesn't have that.

now, my points, my reasons for disliking goodkind are as follows:
his MISOGNY. like it or not, that is what i think it is. you ahve yet to offer any argument as to why the vuolence and abuse of women is ok, you have just dismissed mine as being wrong. that's not winning the argument.

his one dimensional characters. people are not just good or evil. they have grey areas. they also whine. a lot. yes yes kahlan is pretty. yes yes she loves richard. i know that. shut up already, goodkind!

his plots are tacked on. we never hear of the temple of winds until it becomes relevant. not even a little mention. that makes me feel as though he had no idea what was going on until he got to it, and is making it up without any plan

his style. its just boring. it was an effort to read his work. he is not a good writer. i only stuck with it out of total boredom.

so those are my points. my reasons for not liking him. not one is about me not liking his preachiness (i never noticed it) or disliking his good verses evil stuff, as most fantasy writers have that. its about his style and writing technique.

yar, unless you can actually defend those points. unless you can say, well i think this, instead of just dismissing everything i have to say as not being good enough, please don't bother to answer me. you are behaving the way that goodkind fans ALWYS seem to behave. dismissing any argument as not good enough, insisting that goodkind is perfect and noble. NO WRITE is perfect! until you can offer a counter argument, until you can accept we have a right to our view and argue why you think it is wrong, without insulting us, i really don't see the point in talking to you.