Really? I thought that only this next one was under contract with TOR. Well, he essentially indicated in that webchat that he had no intention of changing, so I guess that we'll just have to tolerate the books to see what ultimately happens with Richard and Kahlan (MUST know how it plays out with Shota when they finally have a child - he's been foreshadowing this since book II, and going into book IX we still don't know!)<BR><BR>Essentially, I haven't read Ayn Rand, so maybe I shouldn't be talking, but I'm concerned about this brand of "objectivism" that he describes. Please jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me to be a way in which you can give sanction to your beliefs by claiming that they are clearly the morally right once (i.e. those who disagree with you are taking an immoral position). If that's not the way that the philosophy itself plays out, I'm sorry, but that's the way that Goodkind was making it sound.<BR><BR>He also seems to LOVE annoying his fans by making provocative statements:<BR>- Drug users are accessories to murderers?!?! This is apparently because a daughter's friend was murdered by drug dealers who mistook her for someone else. I think we can all agree that those drug dealers are heinous murderers, but that does not make all drug users morally equivalent to murderers, or even their accessories (side note: I am very much against drug usage, but I do not like his system of moral equivalency)<BR><BR>- For those of us who thought that his latest four books were not as good as the previous four, he had this to say: <b>"Don't be fooled. The assertion made by these detractors is a note wrapped around a brick thrown through the window. These people are not fans. There are hundreds if not thousands of fantasy books that fulfill their professed taste in books. Why would they continue to read books they claim are bad? Because they hate that my novels exists. Values arouse hatred in these people. Their goal is not to enjoy life, but to destroy"</b><BR>So, just to let you guys know, we are not fans of his. We hate that his novels exist. Our goal in life is to destroy. And values arose our hatred. That was directed at all those who found his latest books "preachy" and/or found his latest four not as good as his earliest four. As someone who has bought seven of the eight books, this leaves me seriously questioning whether or not I should have done so, and definitely makes me want to sell them on eBay. Or even put them up as freewares - I mean, if values arose my hatred...lol<BR><BR><BR>To someone who asked whether he'd write a book, and get all his ideals and philosophy out of his system so he wouldn't be presenting them at the expense of the story (side note: I do understand why Goodkind was angered at the tone of this question, but his response was far more caustic in tone than it probably needed to be)<BR><BR>--- His answer turned out to be too long to be worth copying and posting. But go to the official site and read it - it just shows how egotistical he has become. He truly has a lot to learn from his own character - I cannot see Richard ever acting or talking in the way that Goodkind has started to do ---<BR><BR>He also went on to explain an absolute prohibition on fan fiction and such - for legal reasons, he said. He might want to take a look at Rowlings - her camp allows it, in fact, feels that it's a form of flattery - and her IP rights have not been prejudiced by it. Once again, I felt, a surefire way of driving away some of his fans.<BR><BR>Sorry for the long excerpts, but the last thing I needed to vent about: This was his answer on his opinion on taxes. I find this very troublesome. I am no socialist or even a Democrat, but he needs to rethink what he's saying...ALL citizens use the criminal courts, if you will - unless he'd rather have criminals running around on the street. And if he thinks the government can continue to run in the way he describes, he'd better think twice - it'll collapse for lack of funding. Finally, if he's not seeing the social benefit (forget about any sort of moral benefit) derived from not having people on the streets (or as few as possible) and not starving - I'm not sure if I wish to embrace his philosophy of the world, or run from it.<BR><BR><b>answer: citizens should all pay for the defense of their life from foreigh and domestic threats. Funds for goverment services, for example the courts, should be collected from those who use them. All welfare should come from those who volunteer their own money, not the money of others, not the victums of theft ( the tax payer). men should not be required, at gun point, to "sacrifice" for other men. If you are told, at gun point, to give a group some of you property so then can have it for their own use and you are required to work for them for no compensation, that is called slavey. The present system of taxation, forced work for no payment, is notyhing but dressed up slavery. Yet another example of sacrfice for the greater good - the greater good meani (missing)</b><BR><BR><BR>- TP