RoR: Forum

Terry Goodkind is an Objectivist?

Post 1

Monday, May 31, 2004 - 7:58pm

He sure is. If you check out his website, he's quite explicit about it, and the later Sword of Truth novels become less implicit about Richard Rahl's role and ideals.

Post 2

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 6:58am

I think Goodkind became quite explicit in book six, Faith of the Fallen, with the message "Your life is your own. Rise up and live it."

Post 3

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - 11:56am

I've read the first two books in this series. Overall, I didn't think they were that great, especially compared to the Wheel of Time series, but the best thing about them is that they did raise interesting things to think about. They were more thought-provoking than most other fiction books that I've read. So while perhaps plot and character struck me as a little wanting, I would still recommend that someone who responds to this genre read the first book and see how they like it. I will probably read the third book eventually.

Post 4

Thursday, July 1, 2004 - 4:22pm

Well I've finished reading "Wizard's First Rule" and found it to be very good, thought provoking, and entertaining.

When I initially questioned Goodkind's philosophy, I had him confused with Christopher Satsheff who is definately not an objectivist, or anything remotly close. Satsheff's "The Wizard" series could best be described as political pornography for the left--the main character travels to different planets and societies and overthrows them towards his own ideals, which are muddled in the extreme.

Post 5

Friday, July 2, 2004 - 1:51am

Thanks for posting, Jason. Never heard of that Satsheff fellow, but I'll check up on-- and probably avoid--him thanks to your recommendation.

As a side-note, Matt G., I hadn't noticed before but I think you misread my "implicit" in Post 1, probably because I used "explicit" earlier in the sentence. (Bad form, I know. And I want to be a writer???)

Anyway, what I meant was Goodkind began using Richard's dialogue more heavily to express an Objectivist message and motive in the later books.

Okay, I have left-over pizza to eat.
Bye!

Post 6

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 10:17am

hey! i love TG's books. well, i loved 1-6 anyway. after that, they kind of go downhill.

but 1-6 are great. especially compared to that cruddy wheel of time series!

it was TG's books (and an transcript of an interview he gave) that lead me to Rand in the first place.

faith of the fallen is second only to atlas shrugged, from all the books i've read, anyway.

i used to be a member of the forum at terrygoodkind.com, but left about a year ago (well, i got the boot really, but not for being a jerk or anything).

see, TG gave an interview, in which he said that drug users are a party to the murders that the higher up dealers commit. He said that when he hears someone say that they experimented with drugs, he thinks of people getting murdered by drug dealers (or something like that).

here's the interview link:
http://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug03/terrygoodkind.htm

anyway, i had the chance to ask him about it in a Q&A, and he basically said i was evil, and some other stuff..

here's the q&a transcript. mine was the second question to be answered.
http://terrygoodkind.com/chats/PIchat5.php

also, for those who think that drug users are a party to murder, i ask what i asked TG (this part, he didn't answer):

do you consider people who buy gasoline from terrorist supporting countries to be a party to murder?

what mode of transport and electricity do you use?

i'm not advocating drug use. i hate drugs (well, drugs like pot, and such). i just don't consider it to be a party to murder.

aside from his drug views, the only non-objectivist view that TG has expressed is a possible opposition to abortion. i can't say for certain if he is opposed to it, but someone he calls a trustworthy friend said TG was pro-life, when asked if TG was for women's right to abortion.

but i really don't know his stance on it. i asked him for the Q&A, but it wasn't answered.

oh, also, i believe in that Q&A TG says he thinks there should be a limited tax, instead of none.

anyway, his books are among my favorites, and i highly reccomend them.

um, got to run, so i can't read over this post, to see if there are errors. bye all!

Post 7

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 10:41pm

Eli, thanks for the post. No drug users are not party to murder, the politicians who create the black market are the ones who are moral accomplices, because they create the motive. They are also morally guilty for the many drug overdose deaths that occur as a result of inconsistent supply due to the black market. I saw on interview on TV once, where a sheriff of a town in Texas was saying that he knew there were going to be a lot of deaths that coming weekend because the police department had just busted a big drug ring, meaning that users were going to have to go to different dealers than they're used to are many might accidentally get stronger drugs than they're used to. Drug prohibition is an outrageous evil that creates crime, gangs, urban decay, murder, lower quality drugs, inhibitions in medical research, and excess overdoses. People are going to want to escape and use drugs because they don't want to deal with reality. No legislation is going to change that.

Post 8

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 7:11am

yes, those are the consequences of the evil laws, but the primary evil, i would say, is that drug prohibition is slavery.

People own their lives. My body is my own property, and that gives me the right to dispose of it how i please. If i don't own my body, then I'm a slave. If the government prohibits me from damaging myself, then it is claiming my body as its property.

Post 9

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 10:58pm

I was a bit shocked when I read TG's views on drugs as well. (Maybe not shocked, but certainly befuddled. Whatever happened to personal choice?....anyways.....)

Along that line, I take issue with anyone besides the drug users themselves--the overdosers and the all-around unsavory characters that normally lurk in drug "circles"--being labelled as morally culpable in said drug-addict's demise. The prohibiters of drugs do not cause drug overdose; the person jamming the needle half-way up their arm and pushing the plunger causes drug overdose. True that an immoral law prohibits them from getting their fix, but there isn't any immoral law forcing them to take the drug in the first place. Minor point, I know, but drug users make themselves into trembling scumbags. No one does it for them.

Post 10

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 6:22am

ah, what TG meant by "drug users are a party to murder" is that they pay money to, and thus support, the drug lords, who murder people (with guns) to keep their business going.

but when you make a business a crime, what type of people do you expect to be in that business? these short range thugs have only one thing keeping them in power: the anti-drug laws. they could never compete with a ligitimate business. they aren't smart enough, and they think in the short term.

i am still undecided on wether trading with a known murderer is evil. if it is, then i am, since i buy gasoline (which is ultimately trading with the sponsors of terrorism).

Post 11

Friday, March 3, 2006 - 7:41pm

I didn't know he was Oist. Wizard's First Rule was my favorite fantasy book in high school, at 15. What made it so? At the beginning of the book, the protagonist was attracted to a woman's *intelligence*. Imagine high school boys attracted to a woman's intelligence. Yeah. After that sentence, I was *sold*, mind and heart.

Post 12

Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 9:56am