case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2016-09-14 06:34 pm

[ SECRET POST #3542 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3542 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 19 secrets from Secret Submission Post #506.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2016-09-14 10:48 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm sorry. I know, you know, don't harsh the squee, or whatever, but they are fucking terrible books even if you set aside the didacticism and the terrible ideology. Just a morass of poor writing and completely clumsy, terrible edginess. I mean, if any fantasy books whatsoever are bad, these are bad.
ketita: (Default)

[personal profile] ketita 2016-09-14 10:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Do you remember the chicken that was not a chicken.

(Anonymous) 2016-09-15 12:51 am (UTC)(link)
nayrt - "the chicken that was not a chicken" - What was it?
ketita: (Default)

beauty and majesty

[personal profile] ketita 2016-09-15 01:06 am (UTC)(link)
Hissing, hackles lifting, the chicken's head rose.

Kahlan pulled back.

Its claws digging into stiff dead flesh, the chicken slowly turned to face her. It cocked its head, making its comb flop, its wattles sway.

"Shoo," Kahlan heard herself whisper.

There wasn't enough light, and besides, the side of its beak was covered with gore, so she couldn't tell if it had the dark spot. But she didn't need to see it.

"Dear spirits, help me," she prayed under her breath.

The bird let out a slow chicken cackle. It sounded like a chicken, but in her heart she knew it wasn't. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken. This looked like a chicken, like most of the Mud People's chickens. But this was no chicken.

This was evil manifest.
sarillia: (Default)

Re: beauty and majesty

[personal profile] sarillia 2016-09-15 01:30 am (UTC)(link)
This never gets old. :D

Re: beauty and majesty

(Anonymous) 2016-09-15 02:37 am (UTC)(link)
LOL, thank you! :D

(Anonymous) 2016-09-14 10:59 pm (UTC)(link)
The first three are okay, fairly standard fantasy runarounds with the politics more the standard brave rebel vs evil emperor. It is after that it takes a right swerve into Rand-Thiel land and it goes deeply wrong in virtually every single way.

(Anonymous) 2016-09-14 11:01 pm (UTC)(link)
It swerves deep into Randian politics, and also into really bad writing.

And the first three aren't, like, good. They're mediocre and rather formulaic, with some striking ideas and characters.

(Anonymous) 2016-09-14 11:04 pm (UTC)(link)
randian politics/bad writing same-same

(Anonymous) 2016-09-14 11:06 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think it is quite the same. And equating the two leaves the door open for people to say they're actually wonderful books and we're just too PC or something. They would be bad even if I agrees with the ideology.

(Anonymous) 2016-09-15 03:21 am (UTC)(link)
The first one wasn't bad, but overall I agree. Even if I were completely sympathetic to the philosophy, Goodkind is so heavy handed about it that it drags down the plot. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the plot actually is, because the writing is so clumsy and sophomoric. The only parts that don't completely suck are the basic fantasy tropes, and many authors use them to better effect, so...
philstar22: (Default)

[personal profile] philstar22 2016-09-14 10:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Uh, well, I enjoyed the first four books, but the rest of them are crap. And even in the first four, there are a lot of problems with the writing. I just enjoyed the worldbuilding enough to look past it.

[personal profile] thelesbianfuturist 2016-09-14 11:41 pm (UTC)(link)
I have to say, I don't get why objectivism is bad. I get why it's bad when taken to the extremes, but that's the case with everything.
philstar22: (Default)

[personal profile] philstar22 2016-09-14 11:48 pm (UTC)(link)
The idea that there is nothing morally wrong with not helping another person if there is no risk of hurting you and they'll be hurt or even die if you don't? That's pretty offensive to me. Also, "enlightened selfishness" isn't a thing. It is just selfishness. And it doesn't work economically. When companies aren't regulated, they do whatever they can to get the most profit for themselves and screw over everyone else in the process. Objectivism, IMHO, is bad both in theory and in practice.

(Anonymous) 2016-09-14 11:53 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think there really is a moderate version of objectivism? It's a pretty extreme ideology.

Also, I think its account of moral clarity and ethics and capitalism and the individuals' relationship to society and all that stuff is just wrong. At the end of the day, when you're implacably opposed to the idea of community or communalism or society, that's not an ideology that I think is either correct or productive.
feotakahari: (Default)

[personal profile] feotakahari 2016-09-14 11:59 pm (UTC)(link)
I've heard it said that the band Rush has a moderate Objectivist message. I haven't listened to enough of them to really evaluate them, though.
diet_poison: (Default)

[personal profile] diet_poison 2016-09-15 12:50 am (UTC)(link)
haha, that would be pretty funny to me, since the one person I know who really likes Rush is pretty liberal (he calls himself moderate/centrist but most of what he says wrt politics is left-leaning)
feotakahari: (Default)

[personal profile] feotakahari 2016-09-15 02:02 am (UTC)(link)
By way of example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74 I could argue with it, but it's broad enough that there's only so much arguing you could reasonably do.
diet_poison: (Default)

[personal profile] diet_poison 2016-09-16 04:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Eh, that seems pretty vague to me. But idk.

(Anonymous) 2016-09-15 12:59 am (UTC)(link)
I don't follow their music, but they're very active in charities and are interested in practising compassion towards the suffering and unfortunate. Hardly an objectivist attitude.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/members-of-rush-discuss-band-s-long-history-with-charity-junos-1.2274006

(Anonymous) 2016-09-16 01:25 am (UTC)(link)
I think the drummer is the only one who liked her epistemology once upon a time?...

(Anonymous) 2016-09-15 02:21 am (UTC)(link)
I couldn't get past the first book. It seemed to be a fairy entertaining fantasy story until whatsisname got caught by the BDSM sisterhood, which stopped the story cold so the protagonist could be tortured by hot women. I managed to get through the book, but I couldn't escape the awkward feeling like I'd accidentally read the author's fap material.

(Anonymous) 2016-09-15 03:22 am (UTC)(link)
Tortured by hot women wielding magical dong sticks, no less. The symbolism is so unsubtle it's like being hit upside the head with a sledgehammer.
caerbannog: (Default)

[personal profile] caerbannog 2016-09-15 11:49 am (UTC)(link)
I liked them. I don't know if I'd like them now, but I enjoyed them originally