Wizard's First Rule - thumbs up! (no spoilers)

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
up there.

Here's a confession: I personally can't stand Tolkien. I think he was a
first-class worldbuilder, but a third-class writer, one with very
little sense of proper dramatic pacing. His story was great, he just
didn't know how to tell it properly.

And storytelling is where Goodkind shines. In the first 18 pages,
Wizard's First Rule already has a dramatic chase and combat scene, a
well-described setting, two interesting and fleshed-out characters. It
continues on at a breathtaking pace, with new and interesting things
happening all the time. And somehow, Goodkind still manages to squeeze
in proper scenery descriptions and characterization.

To be fair, there are definitely weaknesses. For instance, I think
Goodkind tried for a dramatic ending a bit too hard, and ended up with
a couple of fairly large plot holes. But still, an excellent, excellent
book. I'm definitely getting the sequels.

(If you include spoilers in your reply, please use spoiler space and/or
change the subject line).

Laszlo
32 answers Last reply
More about wizard rule thumbs spoilers
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Joseph wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    > news:1124265932.212901.221970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
    > > It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
    > > up there.
    > >
    > > Here's a confession: I personally can't stand Tolkien. I think he was
    > > a first-class worldbuilder, but a third-class writer, one with very
    > > little sense of proper dramatic pacing. His story was great, he just
    > > didn't know how to tell it properly.
    > >
    > > And storytelling is where Goodkind shines. In the first 18 pages,
    > > Wizard's First Rule already has a dramatic chase and combat scene, a
    > > well-described setting, two interesting and fleshed-out characters. It
    > > continues on at a breathtaking pace, with new and interesting things
    > > happening all the time. And somehow, Goodkind still manages to squeeze
    > > in proper scenery descriptions and characterization.
    > >
    > > To be fair, there are definitely weaknesses. For instance, I think
    > > Goodkind tried for a dramatic ending a bit too hard, and ended up with
    > > a couple of fairly large plot holes. But still, an excellent,
    > > excellent book. I'm definitely getting the sequels.
    > >
    > > (If you include spoilers in your reply, please use spoiler space
    > > and/or change the subject line).
    > >
    > > Laszlo
    >
    > A caution Laszlo, the later books start to veer into some rather overt
    > Objectivism. I stopped reading at book six of the Sword of Truth series:
    > _Faith of the Fallen_. I don't mind political philosophy in my fantasy,
    > but it just overwhelmed that book's story. Here's an interview with
    > Terry Goodkind for his perspective on this.
    >
    > http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug03/terrygoodkind.htm

    *gurgle*

    TG: "I consider Ayn Rand to be the greatest philosopher since
    Aristotle."

    Wow, thanks. I did actually detect faint echoes of Objectivism in
    Wizard's First Rule, but it was a minor annoyance. If it gets more
    overt later in the series, I may have to reconsider.

    I also enjoyed this quote from him:

    TG: "To this day, in any other country [than the US] around the world,
    you are not allowed to say things against the state, because the state
    is considered above individual lives."

    This level of ignorance about foreign countries is astounding.

    Laszlo
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 17 Aug 2005 01:44:37 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu dared speak
    in front of ME:

    >Joseph wrote:
    >> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    >> news:1124265932.212901.221970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
    >> > (If you include spoilers in your reply, please use spoiler space
    >> > and/or change the subject line).
    >> >
    >> > Laszlo
    >>
    >> A caution Laszlo, the later books start to veer into some rather overt
    >> Objectivism. I stopped reading at book six of the Sword of Truth series:
    >> _Faith of the Fallen_. I don't mind political philosophy in my fantasy,
    >> but it just overwhelmed that book's story. Here's an interview with
    >> Terry Goodkind for his perspective on this.
    >>
    >> http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug03/terrygoodkind.htm
    >
    >*gurgle*
    >
    >TG: "I consider Ayn Rand to be the greatest philosopher since
    >Aristotle."
    >
    >Wow, thanks. I did actually detect faint echoes of Objectivism in
    >Wizard's First Rule, but it was a minor annoyance. If it gets more
    >overt later in the series, I may have to reconsider.

    Most of it is ok up to _Faith of the Fallen_ though he *does* hammer
    it a bit in Blood of the Fold. _Pillars of Creation_ tones it down a
    fair bit again. Naked Empire... it's present throughout, but lightly.
    The "Wizard's Rules" themselves are pretty much "why non-objectivists
    are inferiour beings."

    >TG: "To this day, in any other country [than the US] around the world,
    >you are not allowed to say things against the state, because the state
    >is considered above individual lives."
    >
    >This level of ignorance about foreign countries is astounding.

    Indeed. Criticizing the state is one of the Canadian national
    pasttimes (right after hockey and beer.)

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 17 Aug 2005 01:05:32 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu dared speak
    in front of ME:

    >I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
    >It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
    >up there.

    He gets... preachy later in the series, and the sermon is Objectivism.
    I still enjoy reading the books, though.

    >To be fair, there are definitely weaknesses. For instance, I think
    >Goodkind tried for a dramatic ending a bit too hard, and ended up with
    >a couple of fairly large plot holes. But still, an excellent, excellent
    >book. I'm definitely getting the sequels.

    I'd be curious to hear about these plot holes. With proper spoiler
    space, of course.
    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos wrote:

    > >To be fair, there are definitely weaknesses. For instance, I think
    > >Goodkind tried for a dramatic ending a bit too hard, and ended up with
    > >a couple of fairly large plot holes. But still, an excellent, excellent
    > >book. I'm definitely getting the sequels.
    >
    > I'd be curious to hear about these plot holes. With proper spoiler
    > space, of course.

    Spoiler space
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..

    When Kahlan is under the belief that Richard is under her power, why
    doesn't she say anything that would foil Darken Rahl? She could have
    told Richard to die, for instance. She was in love with him, but she
    wasn't stupid, and she knew (erroneously, as it turned out) that
    killing Richard would not only be the only chance to save millions, it
    would be better for Richard than being Darken Rahl's puppet.

    Maybe she just couldn't bring herself to kill Richard? Okay, then she
    should have told Richard that she would rather die than have him tell
    Rahl what's in the book. My understanding of the way her power works is
    that her wishes would have precedence over anything else, including her
    own life.

    Another thing: since when does Kahlan's touch compel people to tell the
    truth? She didn't tell Richard that she wanted him to tell the truth.
    When Darken Rahl threatened to kill Kahlan if Richard didn't tell him
    more, the correct response for a truly Touched minion of Kahlan would
    have been to make something believable up, not blabber on about how it
    would not be the truth. And Darken Rahl would have _known_ this.

    Lastly: when Darken Rahl had conflicting information about which box
    would kill him, why didn't he use his special brain damaging
    mindreading powers on Richard _then_? He had no further use for
    Richard's perfect recall, the "disjointed information" he could have
    gotten out of Richard would have been plenty to help him in his
    decision, and he _knew_ that a Confessor's touch was not absolute (he
    was a better wizard than Zedd, and Zedd said that as a Wizard of the
    First Order, of course he knew about the loophole).

    You could say that Darken Rahl got overconfident at that point, but I
    simply can't buy it. He showed enough doubt that the mindreading would
    have been a perfectly obvious and logical move.

    Laszlo
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mad Hamish wrote:
    > On 17 Aug 2005 01:05:32 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > >I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
    > >It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
    > >up there.
    > >
    > >Here's a confession: I personally can't stand Tolkien. I think he was a
    > >first-class worldbuilder, but a third-class writer, one with very
    > >little sense of proper dramatic pacing. His story was great, he just
    > >didn't know how to tell it properly.
    > >
    > >And storytelling is where Goodkind shines. In the first 18 pages,
    > >Wizard's First Rule already has a dramatic chase and combat scene, a
    > >well-described setting, two interesting and fleshed-out characters. It
    > >continues on at a breathtaking pace, with new and interesting things
    > >happening all the time. And somehow, Goodkind still manages to squeeze
    > >in proper scenery descriptions and characterization.
    > >
    > >To be fair, there are definitely weaknesses. For instance, I think
    > >Goodkind tried for a dramatic ending a bit too hard, and ended up with
    > >a couple of fairly large plot holes. But still, an excellent, excellent
    > >book. I'm definitely getting the sequels.
    > >
    > >(If you include spoilers in your reply, please use spoiler space and/or
    > >change the subject line).
    > >
    > spoilers, can't recall if it's WFR or a later book

    It was in WFR.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > you've got to worry about a fantasy story where people are seriously
    > considering banning fire.

    Why? I had no problems with that part.

    > Goodkind's "see spot run" writing style get's rather annoying.

    I don't know what you mean... if you think his vocabulary was too
    simplistic, then I sure do envy you. The very first line of the book
    had a word I was unfamiliar with ("variegated").

    Laszlo
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote in
    news:1124265932.212901.221970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

    > I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
    > It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
    > up there.
    >
    > Here's a confession: I personally can't stand Tolkien. I think he was
    > a first-class worldbuilder, but a third-class writer, one with very
    > little sense of proper dramatic pacing. His story was great, he just
    > didn't know how to tell it properly.
    >
    > And storytelling is where Goodkind shines. In the first 18 pages,
    > Wizard's First Rule already has a dramatic chase and combat scene, a
    > well-described setting, two interesting and fleshed-out characters. It
    > continues on at a breathtaking pace, with new and interesting things
    > happening all the time. And somehow, Goodkind still manages to squeeze
    > in proper scenery descriptions and characterization.
    >
    > To be fair, there are definitely weaknesses. For instance, I think
    > Goodkind tried for a dramatic ending a bit too hard, and ended up with
    > a couple of fairly large plot holes. But still, an excellent,
    > excellent book. I'm definitely getting the sequels.
    >
    > (If you include spoilers in your reply, please use spoiler space
    > and/or change the subject line).
    >
    > Laszlo

    A caution Laszlo, the later books start to veer into some rather overt
    Objectivism. I stopped reading at book six of the Sword of Truth series:
    _Faith of the Fallen_. I don't mind political philosophy in my fantasy,
    but it just overwhelmed that book's story. Here's an interview with
    Terry Goodkind for his perspective on this.

    http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug03/terrygoodkind.htm
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Just thought I'd put my 2p in, and to agree with Joseph. Things get rather
    bogged down in trying to make a point in/after Faith of the Fallen. Up
    until that point though I could hardly put the series down. I also get the
    impression though that there might be no end to the saga - there's a
    newish one out IIRC and the last few have shown no signs of bringing the
    story to any sort of conclusion!

    Chris
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu kirjoitti:

    > Mad Hamish wrote:
    > > On 17 Aug 2005 01:05:32 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > >
    [snip]
    > It was in WFR.
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > you've got to worry about a fantasy story where people are seriously
    > > considering banning fire.
    >
    > Why? I had no problems with that part.

    Banning fire.

    In a pre-modern society.

    Where, if they ban fire, they will never eat cooked food again, or
    forge iron, or bake pots, or have light or warmth in the dark and cold.

    It's a colossally stupid idea, only exceeded by the stupidity of the
    author making the people actually consider it.

    -- Wakboth
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Wakboth wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu kirjoitti:
    >
    > > Mad Hamish wrote:
    > > > On 17 Aug 2005 01:05:32 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > > >
    > [snip]
    > > It was in WFR.
    > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > you've got to worry about a fantasy story where people are seriously
    > > > considering banning fire.
    > >
    > > Why? I had no problems with that part.
    >
    > Banning fire.
    >
    > In a pre-modern society.
    >
    > Where, if they ban fire, they will never eat cooked food again, or
    > forge iron, or bake pots, or have light or warmth in the dark and cold.

    I have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that without fire,
    people would live in misery and poverty, and many of them would die?

    I don't think anyone was arguing against this. I certainly wasn't.

    > It's a colossally stupid idea, only exceeded by the stupidity of the
    > author making the people actually consider it.

    Let's try this again. Why do you feel it is ridiculous to even imagine
    a powerful despot passing a decree to ban fire?

    Laszlo
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In news:0l46g193gov3p43an41poj3mtacqu7qpok@4ax.com,
    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> typed:
    > I'd be curious to hear about these plot holes. With proper spoiler
    > space, of course.

    Perhaps he refers to the rather direct "to be continued" implication present
    in the final parts?

    --
    T. Koivula
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In news:1124268277.544246.181670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> typed:
    > Wow, thanks. I did actually detect faint echoes of Objectivism in
    > Wizard's First Rule, but it was a minor annoyance. If it gets more
    > overt later in the series, I may have to reconsider.

    Read and decide. IMO Goodkind concentrates mainly on critiquing people who
    want to live in comfortable lies and allow charlatans to lead them by those
    lies. Especially in the world Bush is trying to make, I find the Sword of
    Truth series invigorating (even if TG himself apparently views US through
    rosecolored glasses, judging from your quote. Liking the author isn't
    required for liking his books).

    But yes, a strong philosophical/moral stance is evident and might put you
    off the series later on. If you find you dislike fe. book #8 you've still
    read 7 enjoyable books. :)

    --
    T. Koivula
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:47:01 -0600, Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com>
    carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Indeed. Criticizing the state is one of the Canadian national
    > pasttimes (right after hockey and beer.)

    New Zeland's in the midst of an election campaign right now, so it's
    third after the rugby and watching politicians lie about each other.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 17 Aug 2005 01:05:32 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

    >I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
    >It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
    >up there.
    >
    >Here's a confession: I personally can't stand Tolkien. I think he was a
    >first-class worldbuilder, but a third-class writer, one with very
    >little sense of proper dramatic pacing. His story was great, he just
    >didn't know how to tell it properly.
    >
    >And storytelling is where Goodkind shines. In the first 18 pages,
    >Wizard's First Rule already has a dramatic chase and combat scene, a
    >well-described setting, two interesting and fleshed-out characters. It
    >continues on at a breathtaking pace, with new and interesting things
    >happening all the time. And somehow, Goodkind still manages to squeeze
    >in proper scenery descriptions and characterization.
    >
    >To be fair, there are definitely weaknesses. For instance, I think
    >Goodkind tried for a dramatic ending a bit too hard, and ended up with
    >a couple of fairly large plot holes. But still, an excellent, excellent
    >book. I'm definitely getting the sequels.
    >
    >(If you include spoilers in your reply, please use spoiler space and/or
    >change the subject line).
    >
    spoilers, can't recall if it's WFR or a later book


    you've got to worry about a fantasy story where people are seriously
    considering banning fire.

    Goodkind's "see spot run" writing style get's rather annoying.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mad Hamish" <hnewsunspammie@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
    news:5dh6g15j59gphn4kk9p0h9pk8n40b0tq3o@4ax.com...
    > On 17 Aug 2005 01:05:32 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > Goodkind's "see spot run" writing style get's rather annoying.

    Yeah, I quit reading on a junior high level a long time ago.

    Glenn D.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <1124265932.212901.221970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
    >I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
    >It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
    >up there.

    I liked most of WFR. But... [not sure if this is spoiler, so adding space
    anyway].


    I couldn't cope with the torture scenes; I got rid of the book and never
    bought any sequels. Obviously they weren't a problem for most posters, so
    I'll put this one down to a personal quirk.
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos wrote:
    > On 18 Aug 2005 01:41:35 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
    > dared speak in front of ME:
    >
    > >In article <1124265932.212901.221970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    > > <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
    > >>I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
    > >>It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
    > >>up there.
    > >
    > >I liked most of WFR. But... [not sure if this is spoiler, so adding space
    > >anyway].
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >I couldn't cope with the torture scenes; I got rid of the book and never
    > >bought any sequels. Obviously they weren't a problem for most posters, so
    > >I'll put this one down to a personal quirk.
    >
    > That was actually the point of them, according to Goodkind: they were
    > meant to be horrible.
    >
    > Personally, I found them somewhat erotic, but I'm sick.

    *shrug* They were very obviously _meant_ to be erotic, catering to a
    bunch of very common and quite normal fantasies.

    If you found a real-life documentary of similar activities erotic, that
    would be sick. You probably wouldn't, though. Quite apart from moral
    objections, most people just don't find the torture of the Iraqi
    prisoners (which had similar themes) erotic. We're not wired that way,
    and the book's descriptions of torture deliberately omitted the details
    that make real-life torture decidedly non-erotic.

    Laszlo
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos wrote:
    > On 17 Aug 2005 11:18:04 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu dared speak
    > in front of ME:
    >
    > >
    > >Wakboth wrote:
    > >> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu kirjoitti:
    > >>
    > >> > Mad Hamish wrote:
    > >> > > On 17 Aug 2005 01:05:32 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > >> > >
    > >> [snip]
    > >> > It was in WFR.
    > >> >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > > you've got to worry about a fantasy story where people are seriously
    > >> > > considering banning fire.
    > >> >
    > >> > Why? I had no problems with that part.
    > >>
    > >> Banning fire.
    > >>
    > >> In a pre-modern society.
    > >>
    > >> Where, if they ban fire, they will never eat cooked food again, or
    > >> forge iron, or bake pots, or have light or warmth in the dark and cold.
    > >
    > >I have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that without fire,
    > >people would live in misery and poverty, and many of them would die?
    > >
    > >I don't think anyone was arguing against this. I certainly wasn't.
    > >
    > >> It's a colossally stupid idea, only exceeded by the stupidity of the
    > >> author making the people actually consider it.
    > >
    > >Let's try this again. Why do you feel it is ridiculous to even imagine
    > >a powerful despot passing a decree to ban fire?
    >
    > It's ridiculous for the peoples of the lands he's trying to infiltrate
    > to consider it as a sign of the great wisdom of 'Father Rahl.'

    Did the book have people (common people, that is) supporting the fire
    ban? If so, then I missed it (and withdraw my argument).

    Laszlo
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 18 Aug 2005 01:41:35 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
    dared speak in front of ME:

    >In article <1124265932.212901.221970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    > <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
    >>I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
    >>It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
    >>up there.
    >
    >I liked most of WFR. But... [not sure if this is spoiler, so adding space
    >anyway].
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >I couldn't cope with the torture scenes; I got rid of the book and never
    >bought any sequels. Obviously they weren't a problem for most posters, so
    >I'll put this one down to a personal quirk.

    That was actually the point of them, according to Goodkind: they were
    meant to be horrible.

    Personally, I found them somewhat erotic, but I'm sick.
    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 17 Aug 2005 11:18:04 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu dared speak
    in front of ME:

    >
    >Wakboth wrote:
    >> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu kirjoitti:
    >>
    >> > Mad Hamish wrote:
    >> > > On 17 Aug 2005 01:05:32 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >> > >
    >> [snip]
    >> > It was in WFR.
    >> >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > > you've got to worry about a fantasy story where people are seriously
    >> > > considering banning fire.
    >> >
    >> > Why? I had no problems with that part.
    >>
    >> Banning fire.
    >>
    >> In a pre-modern society.
    >>
    >> Where, if they ban fire, they will never eat cooked food again, or
    >> forge iron, or bake pots, or have light or warmth in the dark and cold.
    >
    >I have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that without fire,
    >people would live in misery and poverty, and many of them would die?
    >
    >I don't think anyone was arguing against this. I certainly wasn't.
    >
    >> It's a colossally stupid idea, only exceeded by the stupidity of the
    >> author making the people actually consider it.
    >
    >Let's try this again. Why do you feel it is ridiculous to even imagine
    >a powerful despot passing a decree to ban fire?

    It's ridiculous for the peoples of the lands he's trying to infiltrate
    to consider it as a sign of the great wisdom of 'Father Rahl.'

    I think it's really a subtle attempt by Goodkind to make a point about
    nuclear disarmament...
    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 18 Aug 2005 03:01:23 -0700, chaoslight@gmail.com dared speak in
    front of ME:

    >
    >Kaos wrote:
    >> On 17 Aug 2005 11:18:04 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu dared speak
    >> in front of ME:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >Wakboth wrote:
    >> >> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu kirjoitti:
    >> >>
    >> >> > Mad Hamish wrote:
    >> >> > > On 17 Aug 2005 01:05:32 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >> >> > >
    >> >> [snip]
    >> >> > It was in WFR.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > >
    >> >> > > you've got to worry about a fantasy story where people are seriously
    >> >> > > considering banning fire.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Why? I had no problems with that part.
    >> >>
    >> >> Banning fire.
    >> >>
    >> >> In a pre-modern society.
    >> >>
    >> >> Where, if they ban fire, they will never eat cooked food again, or
    >> >> forge iron, or bake pots, or have light or warmth in the dark and cold.
    >> >
    >> >I have no idea what your point is. Are you saying that without fire,
    >> >people would live in misery and poverty, and many of them would die?
    >> >
    >> >I don't think anyone was arguing against this. I certainly wasn't.
    >> >
    >> >> It's a colossally stupid idea, only exceeded by the stupidity of the
    >> >> author making the people actually consider it.
    >> >
    >> >Let's try this again. Why do you feel it is ridiculous to even imagine
    >> >a powerful despot passing a decree to ban fire?
    >>
    >> It's ridiculous for the peoples of the lands he's trying to infiltrate
    >> to consider it as a sign of the great wisdom of 'Father Rahl.'
    >
    >Did the book have people (common people, that is) supporting the fire
    >ban? If so, then I missed it (and withdraw my argument).

    I can't actually remember many 'common' people voicing opinions one
    way or the other about it. I'm more concerned with the way the
    non-despotic 'community leaders' just sort of went along with it.

    Maybe it was just Rahl using that First Rule bit on them, though; the
    only ones who seemed to really think it was bunk were wizards or sworn
    enemies.
    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 18 Aug 2005 02:59:03 -0700, chaoslight@gmail.com dared speak in
    front of ME:

    >
    >Kaos wrote:
    >> On 18 Aug 2005 01:41:35 GMT, dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb)
    >> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>
    >> >In article <1124265932.212901.221970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
    >> > <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
    >> >>I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
    >> >>It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
    >> >>up there.
    >> >
    >> >I liked most of WFR. But... [not sure if this is spoiler, so adding space
    >> >anyway].
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >I couldn't cope with the torture scenes; I got rid of the book and never
    >> >bought any sequels. Obviously they weren't a problem for most posters, so
    >> >I'll put this one down to a personal quirk.
    >>
    >> That was actually the point of them, according to Goodkind: they were
    >> meant to be horrible.
    >>
    >> Personally, I found them somewhat erotic, but I'm sick.
    >
    >*shrug* They were very obviously _meant_ to be erotic, catering to a
    >bunch of very common and quite normal fantasies.

    Not according to the author; they were supposed to be horrifying.

    >If you found a real-life documentary of similar activities erotic, that
    >would be sick.

    Take out the nonconsensual nature of it, and you'll find such a
    documentary plays weekly on Showcase (if you get Canadian tv where you
    are.)

    OTOH, put the lack of consent back in and I agree with your next
    statement: I probably wouldn't find it all that appealing.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In news:v198g1leeiab9i7fjolblagqk1pq08c8kh@4ax.com,
    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> typed:
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >>
    > Actually, he wasn't. He had more *power* but he didn't have Zedd's
    > greater knowledge. Zedd came from the land that made the confessors;
    > Zedd was also the one who torched Darken's papa.

    Zedd says (thinks?) that Darken Rahl is more skilled than Zedd believed
    possible. Still leaves knowledge open but Darken Rahl wasn't just powerful,
    he knew how to use the power better than anyone.

    --
    T. Koivula
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:46:59 GMT, Keith Davies
    ><keith.davies@kjdavies.org> dared speak in front of ME:
    >
    >>I guess. I don't watch hockey -- didn't even when the NHL was going.
    >
    > Heh. I don't watch hockey, drink beer or like cold.
    > I do bitch about teh government, though.

    I don't watch hockey, I don't drink beer often -- never did, though I
    appreciate a good beer from time to time -- and I prefer cold to hot.
    With the exception of *immensely* enjoying how women dress in summer.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Kaos said

    > Not according to the author; they were supposed to be horrifying.
    >
    >>If you found a real-life documentary of similar activities erotic, that
    >>would be sick.
    >
    > Take out the nonconsensual nature of it, and you'll find such a
    > documentary plays weekly on Showcase (if you get Canadian tv where you
    > are.)

    Isn't Canadian TV considered in most humane countries to be torture?
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 20 Aug 2005 10:10:53 +1200, Robert Singers
    <rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Kaos said
    >
    >> Not according to the author; they were supposed to be horrifying.
    >>
    >>>If you found a real-life documentary of similar activities erotic, that
    >>>would be sick.
    >>
    >> Take out the nonconsensual nature of it, and you'll find such a
    >> documentary plays weekly on Showcase (if you get Canadian tv where you
    >> are.)
    >
    >Isn't Canadian TV considered in most humane countries to be torture?

    Dunno about torture, but it does tend to feature more T&A, and less
    violence than American TV so it's definately immoral.
    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Dear Keith,

    "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
    news:slrndgc3td.2h2.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
    >> Heh. I don't watch hockey, drink beer or like cold.
    >> I do bitch about teh government, though.
    >
    > I don't watch hockey, I don't drink beer often -- never did, though I
    > appreciate a good beer from time to time -- and I prefer cold to hot.
    > With the exception of *immensely* enjoying how women dress in summer.

    That's not very nice. Women have to dress in certain ways due to the
    temperature.

    Kevin
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    > On 20 Aug 2005 10:10:53 +1200, Robert Singers
    ><rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >
    >>Isn't Canadian TV considered in most humane countries to be torture?
    >
    > Dunno about torture, but it does tend to feature more T&A, and less
    > violence than American TV so it's definately immoral.

    But fun!


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:04:02 GMT, Keith Davies
    <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    >> On 20 Aug 2005 10:10:53 +1200, Robert Singers
    >><rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>
    >>>Isn't Canadian TV considered in most humane countries to be torture?
    >>
    >> Dunno about torture, but it does tend to feature more T&A, and less
    >> violence than American TV so it's definately immoral.
    >
    >But fun!

    Isn't that redundant with 'immoral'?
    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kevin Venzke <stepjakk@yahooo.frr> wrote:
    > Dear Keith,
    >
    > "Keith Davies" <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> wrote in message
    > news:slrndgc3td.2h2.keith.davies@kjdavies.org...
    >>> Heh. I don't watch hockey, drink beer or like cold.
    >>> I do bitch about teh government, though.
    >>
    >> I don't watch hockey, I don't drink beer often -- never did, though I
    >> appreciate a good beer from time to time -- and I prefer cold to hot.
    >> With the exception of *immensely* enjoying how women dress in summer.
    >
    > That's not very nice. Women have to dress in certain ways due to the
    > temperature.

    Actually, some of what I've seen lately was *very* nice.

    Or are you talking about taking advantage of how they 'have to dress' by
    looking and appreciating?

    .... no, from the reactions I was getting from them, they appeared to
    think that was nice too.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:04:02 GMT, Keith Davies
    ><keith.davies@kjdavies.org> dared speak in front of ME:
    >
    >>Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    >>> On 20 Aug 2005 10:10:53 +1200, Robert Singers
    >>><rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>>
    >>>>Isn't Canadian TV considered in most humane countries to be torture?
    >>>
    >>> Dunno about torture, but it does tend to feature more T&A, and less
    >>> violence than American TV so it's definately immoral.
    >>
    >>But fun!
    >
    > Isn't that redundant with 'immoral'?

    Only for some poor misguided souls.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:44:47 GMT, Keith Davies
    <keith.davies@kjdavies.org> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:04:02 GMT, Keith Davies
    >><keith.davies@kjdavies.org> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>
    >>>Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote:
    >>>> On 20 Aug 2005 10:10:53 +1200, Robert Singers
    >>>><rsingers@finger.hotmail.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>>>
    >>>>>Isn't Canadian TV considered in most humane countries to be torture?
    >>>>
    >>>> Dunno about torture, but it does tend to feature more T&A, and less
    >>>> violence than American TV so it's definately immoral.
    >>>
    >>>But fun!
    >>
    >> Isn't that redundant with 'immoral'?
    >
    >Only for some poor misguided souls.

    Isn't that redundant with "American"?
    </flamebait>

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 17 Aug 2005 07:24:24 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

    >
    >Mad Hamish wrote:
    >> On 17 Aug 2005 01:05:32 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >>
    >> >I just finished reading Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind. Wow!
    >> >It's not the _best_ fantasy novel I've ever read, but it's definitely
    >> >up there.
    >> >
    >> >Here's a confession: I personally can't stand Tolkien. I think he was a
    >> >first-class worldbuilder, but a third-class writer, one with very
    >> >little sense of proper dramatic pacing. His story was great, he just
    >> >didn't know how to tell it properly.
    >> >
    >> >And storytelling is where Goodkind shines. In the first 18 pages,
    >> >Wizard's First Rule already has a dramatic chase and combat scene, a
    >> >well-described setting, two interesting and fleshed-out characters. It
    >> >continues on at a breathtaking pace, with new and interesting things
    >> >happening all the time. And somehow, Goodkind still manages to squeeze
    >> >in proper scenery descriptions and characterization.
    >> >
    >> >To be fair, there are definitely weaknesses. For instance, I think
    >> >Goodkind tried for a dramatic ending a bit too hard, and ended up with
    >> >a couple of fairly large plot holes. But still, an excellent, excellent
    >> >book. I'm definitely getting the sequels.
    >> >
    >> >(If you include spoilers in your reply, please use spoiler space and/or
    >> >change the subject line).
    >> >
    >> spoilers, can't recall if it's WFR or a later book
    >
    >It was in WFR.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> you've got to worry about a fantasy story where people are seriously
    >> considering banning fire.
    >
    >Why? I had no problems with that part.

    As I recall it Richard's brother was trying to convince people to ban
    fire...
    >
    >> Goodkind's "see spot run" writing style get's rather annoying.
    >
    >I don't know what you mean... if you think his vocabulary was too
    >simplistic, then I sure do envy you. The very first line of the book
    >had a word I was unfamiliar with ("variegated").
    >
    Not hsi vocab, his writing style.
    Very, very simplistic.
    The level of a reading primer in places.
Ask a new question

Read More

World Of Warcraft Video Games