Werthead said:
Iain Banks did a brilliant tribute to the bunny scene in his first novel, The Wasp Factory. Let's just say it involved an air rifle and a minefield.
Ah yes, Frank Cauldhame and bunnies - or animals of any sort for that matter. The Wasp Factory is a brilliant book, let alone debut. Goodkind should read it to see how you can use objectionable content very well.
I very seldom find any Mieville
I'm seeing a lot more of him now than before, and thankfully, Jordan and Goodkind at my local bookstores are starting to take up less space (to the extent that they only have 5-6 novels of each series there, while they have all of Erikson's published so far - a good sign). But then, I've never seen Goodkind's novels absent from the shelves, while its not rare to be unable to find Mieville or M John Harrison or any number of good authors. But the fact is Goodkind sells. I don't know how, but he does it. Hal Duncan wrote this about Brooks
http://www.nightshadebooks.com/discus/messages/53/5178.html#POST90542
But with Goodkind, you have to go a step further. Not just do they have to accept
sloppy writing which, on a pure craftsmanship level, doesn't hold together in terms of style and/or content, where dialogue is stilted, where pacing is erratic, where the prose is rhthymically clumsy and/or syntactically amibiguous, where -- from individual character actions right up to abstract plot structure -- motivations underlying interactions are shallow and/or implausible and/or incoherent... where, in short, a work can be evaluated according to some fairly objective criteria (as an act of communication and as an act of intrication -- i.e. complex pattern-making) and where, by those standards, it just doesn't cut it...
They have to accept having Goodkind's philosophy rammed down their throats and some truly sickening acts committed by a hero who has no regrets of maiming children and slaughtering innocent peace protesters. And he's not an anti-hero, either. That's what's most disturbing - people are reading Goodkind's novels in the millions and those millions of readers are, on the whole, failing to find such acts objectionable. There's been a lot of criticism about fantasy readers mindless escapism actually representing something much more disturbing (see again Hal Duncan:
http://notesfromthegeekshow.blogspot.com/2005/07/duh-tell-us-about-rabbits-george.html), with the basic criticisms of racism, discrimination and generally ultra-conservative politics that are rarely treated seriously in mainstream political discussion, but Goodkind takes it to a new level of warmongering neo-facism at times, and his fans just sit back, ignore it because it's a "good story". Some of them find it gets a bit preachy, but hey, it's just a fantasy, so don't read too much into it. Just because some of Goodkind's novels may be approaching a real version of the Iron Dream, doesn't mean you should take note according to the fans. They see a straightforward fantasy novel of good vs bad which provides them with the escapism they want. It's didactic fiction and at times almost pure propaganda - the good are invariably whose ideals are exactly Goodkind's own and the bad are inevitably his ideological opponents, whether they be communists, socialists, liberals, or irritating little children.
PS I have nothing against Goodkind fans on the whole, and there are some very intelligent fans who understand these issues but decide that ultimately if they enjoy the story enough they can overcome its dubious politics. Or they may agree with them, which is fair enough. The problem is that to me it seems a lot of fans believe this is mindless entertainment and if they actually paid attention they may be shocked by the content. A lot of you here (not exactly fans of Goodkind I know) and elsewhere have responded with shock from these quotes - it makes me think that the average Goodkind fan probably deliberately forget the distasteful bits, so it seems like a nice, straightforward epic fantasy.