SPOILERS!
I did - mostly - enjoy the book Wizard's First Rule. I thought for the most part the storytelling was very effective.
However, it's left a really bad after taste with regards to the morality of the characters.
Now, I don't mind being challenged on issues of morality - heck, I read a lot of mediaeval history and would personally like to see more of the mentality of that age represented in fiction - even though that would mean following characters who do things morally reprehensible by our own standard, but who believe they are doing the right thing.
The reader, of course, would see this conflict of morality and would not be expected to adhere or support the character's actions.
The problem I have with Goodkind's major characters in Wizard's First Rule is that they - specifically Kahlan and Zedd - appear innately evil by modern standards of morality, but we are given no counterfoil to put this into perspective.
In short, we must accept their "evil" and support it, else abandon the story, and I don't think that's a fair challenge.
Hence I'll get this off my chest to stop thinking about it:
1. Kahlan
We learn with suitable shock and horror what a Mother Confessor actually does.
When someone is accused of a crime, her job is to destroy the individual's sense of person in order to extract a willing confession.
She is essentially a cross between a Witchfinder General and Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.
She destroys people for no other reason than she is asked to.
Goodkind tries to reduce the impact of this by her stating that she has only ever done this to 3 innocent people - and one of them, Brophy, is happy with the outcome, having been turned into a wolf.
Which still means that she conducted what is, in effect, full frontal lobotomies on at least 2 completely innocent people.
And those are just the ones she's conducted personally. As the head of the Confessors, her job is mostly to oversee that her employees continue to practice this.
The internal logic of the story here becomes flawed.
The numbers seem too low. It is made clear from the backstory provided of the Midlands that corruption among the nobility has always been a problem, and we see how this occurs through the example of Queen Milena.
Yet when Kahlan visits Queen Milena's prisons she never uses her power to judge the prisoners as would be expected - she simply looks at them and pronounces everyone innocent, out of convenience. Apparently, murder, rape, and theft, no longer occurs in this kingdom.
The expectation is that normally Kahlan would have had to destroy every single one of these accused to ascertain their guilt.
This all - IMO - makes Kahlan the moral equivalent of a death camp commandant. Her job is to oversee the destruction of people, for no other reason than it is her job to.
Numbers don't count here - someone who commits First Degree Murder against 2 people is not morally superior to someone who commits the same against 3. The law is clear that they are both morally reprehensible and must be subject to punishment by society.
Yet Goodkind never follows this logic, and presumes the reader will excuse her. I cannot.
It's interesting to see the Mord-Sith later on, as they attempt to achieve more or less the same result as a Confessor, simply through use of torture instead of instantaneous magic.
IMO this makes Kahlan little different from Mistress Denna. It is telling that Richard feels devoted to both, and pities each for the way they have their original innocence taken away to perform terrible duties. Though their methods are different, they are morally indistinguishable.
2. Zedd
The original, powerful, wizard of the First Order. An order that - when faced with the problem of male Confessors, solves it by killing every single child. And it's clear there are many.
It isn't simply genocide, it's eugenics on a massive scale. When faced with a problem, Zedd's order uses magic to implement a Final Solution.
We repeatedly see from Zedd's character that he's long-lived and seen many terrible things. Because of the backstory provided, my reading is that it implies that Zedd has directly had a hand in much of this, and justifies it all as serving a "greater good".
And yet - when faced with the original threat of the Rahl's, his solution is to shut a door on it and walk away, disgusted with rule in the Midlands. He abrogates his existing responsibility to protect people - even for the "greater good" until Darken Rahl rises and kills people left and right.
Because of this, he is left to force his own grandson to finish the responsibilities he himself abandoned, even though it threatens certain death and definite suffering.
IMO this makes Zedd look little better than a Joseph Goebbels.
He actively supports a social system that excuses the use of genocide and controlled extermination of his own people. And he takes no personal responsibility for any of it.
When he fails to keep to his original program, his forces his only grandchild to complete this for him, even though it means, at best, terrible suffering, and at worse, terrible suffering followed by death.
Of course, there's also the point that Zedd is absolutely happy to work alongside a Mother Confessor, and experiences no moral conflict in doing so. In fact, he seems to support the role of Confessors in this world, further condemning him.
As above, I don't mind morally challenging characters. But Goodkind - IMO - makes every effort to make it clear that Kahlan and Zedd are equivalent to Nazi's. As a modern reader, I would find that acceptable if there was a counterfoil that provided a separate moral perspective on this. But Goodkind never provides it.
The reader is left having to empathise and sympathise with the Nazi leadership, and worse - excuse them - without ever calling them to account for it.
It's that which really makes me uncomfortable.
Of course - I may have completely misunderstood the morality inherent in the story. These are my presumptions after reading it. I'm happy to read counter suggestions that I'm wrong.
I did - mostly - enjoy the book Wizard's First Rule. I thought for the most part the storytelling was very effective.
However, it's left a really bad after taste with regards to the morality of the characters.
Now, I don't mind being challenged on issues of morality - heck, I read a lot of mediaeval history and would personally like to see more of the mentality of that age represented in fiction - even though that would mean following characters who do things morally reprehensible by our own standard, but who believe they are doing the right thing.
The reader, of course, would see this conflict of morality and would not be expected to adhere or support the character's actions.
The problem I have with Goodkind's major characters in Wizard's First Rule is that they - specifically Kahlan and Zedd - appear innately evil by modern standards of morality, but we are given no counterfoil to put this into perspective.
In short, we must accept their "evil" and support it, else abandon the story, and I don't think that's a fair challenge.
Hence I'll get this off my chest to stop thinking about it:
1. Kahlan
We learn with suitable shock and horror what a Mother Confessor actually does.
When someone is accused of a crime, her job is to destroy the individual's sense of person in order to extract a willing confession.
She is essentially a cross between a Witchfinder General and Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.
She destroys people for no other reason than she is asked to.
Goodkind tries to reduce the impact of this by her stating that she has only ever done this to 3 innocent people - and one of them, Brophy, is happy with the outcome, having been turned into a wolf.
Which still means that she conducted what is, in effect, full frontal lobotomies on at least 2 completely innocent people.
And those are just the ones she's conducted personally. As the head of the Confessors, her job is mostly to oversee that her employees continue to practice this.
The internal logic of the story here becomes flawed.
The numbers seem too low. It is made clear from the backstory provided of the Midlands that corruption among the nobility has always been a problem, and we see how this occurs through the example of Queen Milena.
Yet when Kahlan visits Queen Milena's prisons she never uses her power to judge the prisoners as would be expected - she simply looks at them and pronounces everyone innocent, out of convenience. Apparently, murder, rape, and theft, no longer occurs in this kingdom.
The expectation is that normally Kahlan would have had to destroy every single one of these accused to ascertain their guilt.
This all - IMO - makes Kahlan the moral equivalent of a death camp commandant. Her job is to oversee the destruction of people, for no other reason than it is her job to.
Numbers don't count here - someone who commits First Degree Murder against 2 people is not morally superior to someone who commits the same against 3. The law is clear that they are both morally reprehensible and must be subject to punishment by society.
Yet Goodkind never follows this logic, and presumes the reader will excuse her. I cannot.
It's interesting to see the Mord-Sith later on, as they attempt to achieve more or less the same result as a Confessor, simply through use of torture instead of instantaneous magic.
IMO this makes Kahlan little different from Mistress Denna. It is telling that Richard feels devoted to both, and pities each for the way they have their original innocence taken away to perform terrible duties. Though their methods are different, they are morally indistinguishable.
2. Zedd
The original, powerful, wizard of the First Order. An order that - when faced with the problem of male Confessors, solves it by killing every single child. And it's clear there are many.
It isn't simply genocide, it's eugenics on a massive scale. When faced with a problem, Zedd's order uses magic to implement a Final Solution.
We repeatedly see from Zedd's character that he's long-lived and seen many terrible things. Because of the backstory provided, my reading is that it implies that Zedd has directly had a hand in much of this, and justifies it all as serving a "greater good".
And yet - when faced with the original threat of the Rahl's, his solution is to shut a door on it and walk away, disgusted with rule in the Midlands. He abrogates his existing responsibility to protect people - even for the "greater good" until Darken Rahl rises and kills people left and right.
Because of this, he is left to force his own grandson to finish the responsibilities he himself abandoned, even though it threatens certain death and definite suffering.
IMO this makes Zedd look little better than a Joseph Goebbels.
He actively supports a social system that excuses the use of genocide and controlled extermination of his own people. And he takes no personal responsibility for any of it.
When he fails to keep to his original program, his forces his only grandchild to complete this for him, even though it means, at best, terrible suffering, and at worse, terrible suffering followed by death.
Of course, there's also the point that Zedd is absolutely happy to work alongside a Mother Confessor, and experiences no moral conflict in doing so. In fact, he seems to support the role of Confessors in this world, further condemning him.
As above, I don't mind morally challenging characters. But Goodkind - IMO - makes every effort to make it clear that Kahlan and Zedd are equivalent to Nazi's. As a modern reader, I would find that acceptable if there was a counterfoil that provided a separate moral perspective on this. But Goodkind never provides it.
The reader is left having to empathise and sympathise with the Nazi leadership, and worse - excuse them - without ever calling them to account for it.
It's that which really makes me uncomfortable.
Of course - I may have completely misunderstood the morality inherent in the story. These are my presumptions after reading it. I'm happy to read counter suggestions that I'm wrong.
