this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
111 points (94.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43855 readers
1686 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 9 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I read a bunch of those books because my roommate was in love with them. It established an idea of a writing flaw in my mind that I called "The Heirachy of Cool". Basically the guy practically has an established character list of who is the coolest. Whichever character in any given scene is at the top of the hierarchy is mythically awesome. They have their shit together, they are functionally correct in their reasoning, they lead armies, they pull off grand maneuvers, they escape danger whatever...

But anyone below them in the Heirachy turn into complete morons who serve as foils to make the people above them seem more awesome whenever they share page time together. These characters seem to have accute amnesia about stuff that canonically happened very recently (in previous books) so they can complicate things for the hierarchy above, they usually make poor decisions due to crisises of faith in people above them in the hierarchy... But because that hierarchy is infallible it's predictable. Less cool never is proven right over more cool.

... Until that same character is suddenly alone and they go from being mid of the hierarchy to the top and all of a sudden they have iron wills and super competence...

Once I caught onto that pattern it became intolerable to continue.

[–] caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Remember when Richard defeated the evils of socialism without his magic by pulling himself up by his bootstraps really really hard by (without practice or training) carving a really really good statue and all the lazy worthless slacker librulls were like dang, I love capitalism now, and then everyone looked directly into the metaphorical camera and said "Communism: Don't let it happen to you"?

[–] Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

To be honest no... Because I think I violently expunged it from my memory and mind as my brain probably interpreted it as some kind of threat to my cells.

[–] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

Funniest part of that was that Terry Goodkind clearly did not know anything about socialist realism

[–] Hasherm0n@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

That was the beginning of the end for me. I think by the time I got to that part the series had already been going downhill but I remember that being a really sharp turning point.

I tried to press on a little further. The introduction of the straw man nation with the innocent child king who's only existence was to be blown the fuck out by the brilliance of objectivism is when I finally decided I just couldn't go on.