Goodkind is an original. - Edit 1
Before modification by Ouranid at 12/10/2009 01:40:34 PM
Not for plot, prose or characterization, but for so thoroughly marrying a subjective interpretation of Objectivism with the tropes of Epic Fantasy, and thus shows the logical conclusion of this story line.
Where Rand, Drizzt and aragorn have not just a carte blanche but a moral imperative to kill orcs, trolls and trollocs, Goodkind inadvertently inadvertently shows this for the reactionary bullshit it is by pitting his merciless protagonist mainly against humans. But Richard Rahl still has a moral imperative of slaughtering these people, because they are the servants, however deluded, of autocratic communism, Goodkind's greatest real world antagonist. And he does slaughter them, torture them, be they witless footsoldiers or their warlords, kings and queens bowing before the invaders or idiotic pacifists standing in his way. He knows he's doing the right thing because his magic is fueled by TRUTH itself, righteous and rational rage. It's hilarious.
Righteous fury is of course the siren call of this sort of wish fulfilment, and something that's haunted western warfare since WWII. The Nazis is the last great enemy the collective unconcious can remember, the one foe we could kill indiscriminantly, one we fai to find in modern warfare, for a variety of reasons. But most imprtantly, the idea of a totally evil enemy has never been true.
But what difference is there really between the orcs and the soldiers of Goodkind's Order? None, of course, and while Goodkind's books might seem more revolting than other examples of
nuance-less fantasy, that only lies in his macabre and fetishistic focus on the details, because all such fantasy paint a hopelessly outdated picture of a world where the good guys can kill the sub-human bad guys without regret.
300 was criticised for being a fascist's wet dream, but did it really contain any rhetoric that isn't at least slumbering just beneatht he surface in any action movie where the few and strong stand against the many and disposable?
Where Rand, Drizzt and aragorn have not just a carte blanche but a moral imperative to kill orcs, trolls and trollocs, Goodkind inadvertently inadvertently shows this for the reactionary bullshit it is by pitting his merciless protagonist mainly against humans. But Richard Rahl still has a moral imperative of slaughtering these people, because they are the servants, however deluded, of autocratic communism, Goodkind's greatest real world antagonist. And he does slaughter them, torture them, be they witless footsoldiers or their warlords, kings and queens bowing before the invaders or idiotic pacifists standing in his way. He knows he's doing the right thing because his magic is fueled by TRUTH itself, righteous and rational rage. It's hilarious.
Righteous fury is of course the siren call of this sort of wish fulfilment, and something that's haunted western warfare since WWII. The Nazis is the last great enemy the collective unconcious can remember, the one foe we could kill indiscriminantly, one we fai to find in modern warfare, for a variety of reasons. But most imprtantly, the idea of a totally evil enemy has never been true.
But what difference is there really between the orcs and the soldiers of Goodkind's Order? None, of course, and while Goodkind's books might seem more revolting than other examples of
nuance-less fantasy, that only lies in his macabre and fetishistic focus on the details, because all such fantasy paint a hopelessly outdated picture of a world where the good guys can kill the sub-human bad guys without regret.
300 was criticised for being a fascist's wet dream, but did it really contain any rhetoric that isn't at least slumbering just beneatht he surface in any action movie where the few and strong stand against the many and disposable?