Darken Rahl: The Most Villainy Villain This Side of Snidely Whiplash

Admittedly, this makes him look very cool

Okay, so your best story is nothing without a compelling villain, right? And the best villains have names that strike terror into the hearts of readers. So you've got to give your villain a name that says right from the start that this is the bad guy, folks!

You know, like Doctor Doom or Doomsday or Snidely Whiplash. These names just scream "I am writing a deep work of philosophy with elements of history and romance that explores important themes like the nobility of the human spirit, and I am certainly not writing a fantasy novel".

With that in mind, rather than steer toward names someone writing "typical fantasy" might use, such as Sauron, Jadis, Morgan LeFay, Voldemort, Maugrim, Akar Kessel, Ba'alzamon or Pyrates, you want to go with something literate, sophisticated, something that says "This guy may be the villain, but unlike grandiose comic-book, typical-fantasy bad guys, he doesn't consider himself evil, and is trying to bring about a better world, as he sees it." With that in mind, you can't go wrong with a name like "Darken Rahl".

Seriously, "Darken"? You put the work "dark" right there in his first name, as if to signal loud and clear "this guy is capital-E eeeeeevil, boys and girls, boo hiss!", you give him a last name that sounds like a growl, and then you have the gall to try and present him as a well-intentioned extremist who thinks of himself as a liberator?

Let's back up a bit and talk about Goodkind's comments about how villains are usually handled in fantasy. According to him: "Fantasy usually takes conventional values as a given. For example, the evil being battled is commonly a dark force that wishes to do evil - without any reason beyond that it is evil." Okay. I mean, that's a pretty blanket statement that I doubt he's really prepared to back up, but I'll grant that there are quite a few "Dark Lords" out there that seem to be little more than evil made manifest. So what's Darken Rahl?

The thing is, I doubt that even Goodkind knows. There's no question that he meant to present him as an insidious villainous adversary, one that doesn't advertise himself as evil and doesn't believe that he is. Richard's struggle in the book is getting people to believe that Rahl is a threat. An aboriginal tribe analog thinks they'll be left alone as they're not involved in the politics of the Midlands. Rulers are making deals with him and see him as a benevolent liberator from the oppression of the Confessors and their council of wizards (and from what we see, life under Rahl almost can't be worse than life under the Confessors). From the perspective of the common folk of the Midlands, there's little reason to doubt Rahl's sincerity aside from the fact that his name is Darken Rahl.

At least, this is true for parts of the book. Depending on the chapter, Rahl is presented a number of different ways. There's no doubt his father was an evil tyrant whom the wizards were right to oppose, and Rahl himself has done some pretty awful things, including, naturally, rape, rape, rape. He also, of course, encourages his soldiers to do the same. He has also done some stuff that is just balls-out stupid, and it amazes me that people can take these books seriously when they read this part (and yet, I kept reading, so I guess I can give people some latitude).

The first thing he did is also one of his more infamous; he banned the use of fire.

Sigh.

I think, but I am not sure, that Goodkind, who is libertarian as most Objectivists are, was trying to create an analog for gun control, but rather than create a scenario that made sense, he decided that Rahl would be a strawman political and ban fire. Banning fire in a pre-industrial society would be as nuts as banning electricity would be today. Apparently Rahl has a phobia of fire because he was caught in Zedd's blast of "wizard's fire" that incinerated his father Penis Panis, and badly burned. He also knows that wizards use fire for some of their spells. Banning fire is quite frankly the stupidest thing any villain can do, because fire is more than just a way to hurt people or cast spells, it's pretty much what's allowed the human race to survive. Without fire in a pre-industrial society, you can't cook food, you can't heat your home, you can't see when it's dark, you can't do metalwork, meaning you can't make tools for the building of, well, anything, and you're robbed of nearly any sort of power source. No one in any society is going to allow their ruler to ban fire. They'd absolutely revolt, but apparently the citizens of D'Hara are just that stupid, and recently the Midlands started taking the idea seriously, and the first hint that we're given that Rahl might have a grip in Westland is that Richard's brother Michael, who's been elected "first counselor", whatever that means, gives a speech that sounds suspiciously like he might be considering banning fire. Only in Goodkind's world could such a thing happen.

Here's a question; if Goodkind really was trying to make a point about gun control, could he not have made the analogy more direct and have Rahl ban swords? Swords and guns are both weapons. Both have no other use than to be used to harm or kill someone, either in defense or offense. Regardless of what side you fall on, the subject is one that has good people with good intentions on both sides of it, and is an idea that sounds, on the surface, like a good one. Rahl would have almost no trouble at all making it a popular opinion to hold, and Goodkind could have used this as a parallel for real-life government corruption, because of course the powerful aren't going to give up their swords, just the commoners. And it's made even more poignant because Richard has just been given the sword of swords as his badge of office, meaning Rahl will have little trouble convincing people that Richard is the bad guy because he's sword-crazy.

But that would mean Goodkind would have to present a layered, nuanced argument. And he's thoroughly incapable of such an act.

The second thing Rahl does is even dumber, because from what I recall, he essentially does it fo dah evulz. He casts a spell that makes all red fruits poisonous.

This is first revealed in a scene where Richard offers Kahlan an apple as they walk through the woods. She reacts like any reasonable person would, attacking Richard and accusing him of trying to poison her. Because that's how poisoners get you; they walk up and say "hey, here's a nice warm cup of cyanide. Drink up!"

She then tells Richard that Rahl cast a spell to make all red fruits in D'Hara and the Midlands poisonous, and the reason is "because children like red fruit". Again, what? He poisons kids for the fun of it? I mean, I understand that it's a method of instilling fear in the populace, but wait, I thought Rahl was one of those rulers who did his best to lull the people into thinking him a kind and loving dictator while he slowly tightens his grip? Where does poisoning kids to instill fear fall in that plan? Is Rahl a villain who thinks he's a savior or is he a dark force that wishes to do evil - without any reason beyond that he is evil?

Actually, on that point, I must discuss the way Richard, Kahlan and Zedd talk about Rahl well before we meet him. In fact, let's start there; we don't actually meet Rahl until we're about a third of the way into the story, but before him, we hear a lot about him, and he seems like a mixture of Stalin, Idi Amin and Saruman the White. I can buy this. I mean, yeah, he seems cartoonishly evil with his banning of fire and spell on red fruit, but I can absolutely swallow an evil wizard taking control of a nation, setting himself up as a man of the people, pointing to some "other" as the cause of all the peoples' problems (in this case, the Confessors and wizards), outlawing magic (while practicing it himself, natch) and secretly removing freedoms and extending his reach all while presenting himself as a public benefactor. I'm right there with ya so far. Except the banning of fire and poison fruit spell. But then, as they travel along the boundary, which, I remind you, is the underworld, various spirits try to trap them, taking the shape of loved ones who have died. Zedd and Kahlan begin to speak of "Rahl's followers in the underworld". I feel like I'm saying this too often, but what?

Rahl has followers in the underworld? Is he just a despotic wizard or is he Satan himself? Is literally everything that happens to our heroes on their journey a direct result of Rahl's evil?

And did I mention that none of the heroes have met him yet? And in fact, we as readers have spent only a little time with him, and he spends most of that time being about as brazenly evil as a mad ruler can be. He gleefully talks about his plans to rape the Mother Confessor when he catches her, and he casually talks with his lieutenant, Demmin Nass (oh, lord, these names) about Nass's predilection for raping of preteen boys. Yep, Nass isn't just a rapist, he's also a pederast! I'd make a comment about homophobia, except the third book introduces a sympathetic lesbian couple. But then, now that I mention it, most homophobes are okay with lesbians because of the stereotype of the hot, sexy lesbian. And it need hardly be said that the lesbians are hot women who dress in dominatrix gear, plus he even kills one of them so we don't have to worry about too much icky gayness. Nass, as far as I recall, is the only gay man in the entire story and he's a monster who rapes little boys and then kills them after. Specifically after, not before, because he "like[s] it when they squirm". Okay, really, Goodkind, what is it with you and villains who revel in being sick, repugnant perverts? I mean, you've got Rahl who we're supposed to think of as a well-intentioned extremist, but this is the company he keeps? Not to mention that he's at least as rape-happy as all the other villains are. Worse, actually. I haven't told you about the Mord-Sith yet.

Mord-Sith are leather-clad dominatrices (the lesbian couple are two of them) who specifically exist because Rahl needs people who can trap and torture wizards. Once they complete their training, they have the power to trap wizards by stealing their power, and then they can torture them with a magical device called an Agiel, which is essentially a leather dildo that causes great pain. Mord-Sith are chosen from the sweetest, kindest young girls (why just girls? reasons) who, through torture and training and torture that is training, have the humanity stripped from them. Yeah, but Rahl doesn't think he's the villain.

So, that's a pretty big fail. Why not present us with a villain who has standards, and who is evil because he takes actions that have negative consequences, something he ignores because he truly feels his ends justify his means, and that if millions die as a result, well, at least their sacrifice won't be in vain and...and...crap, I'm describing our heroes. No wonder he had to make Rahl so boo-hiss evil.

With all that having been said, let's talk about Rahl's "master plan" that Richard must prevent. It involves some magical MacGuffins called the Boxes of Orden. There are three boxes, and one must gather them all and use a special Tome of Eldritch Lore called the "Book of Counted Shadows" in order to harness their power. Once you have all three, and the book, you can put the boxes into play. That's the term used throughout, "put into play". Exactly what that means is never explained. Once you've "put the boxes into play", which I'm guessing has something to do with balls and hoops, you have until the "first day of winter" to open a box. But if you don't have the book to guide you, you might open the wrong box.

I should clarify further. The boxes are in fact encased in jeweled cases that can't be removed unless you follow the book's instructions. Just trying to pull the lid off won't work. Inside each case is a dark box of nothing and it's this box you actually want to open. The problem is knowing which one is the right one.

One box will grant you unlimited power. You will literally become a god. The second box will destroy the world and everything in it, including you. The third box just strikes you dead on the spot.

So...who the hell created these things and why? Who had that kind of power and if they had it, what made them want to give it to someone else, assuming they passed the test? Who, or what, is Orden? Why do the wizards not want to destroy the book and the boxes, if they can? We're never told. There's no possible good reason to use the boxes. You can only kill yourself, destroy the world or be granted absolute power, something you only want if you're ready to be corrupted absolutely. Why preserve this magic? Why not do all you can to make sure no one, ever can use those boxes?

And does Goodkind not see that his villain making a try at becoming a god is what happens in countless other "typical fantasy" novels?

But the wizards of old just wanted to make sure the boxes didn't fall into the wrong hands. Whose hands would be the right ones!? As for the book, they hid it in the "Wizard's Keep" which is a fortress in the mountains above Aydindril, and Zedd's plan includes going to find it. Why? If it's hidden and safe from Rahl, why not keep it so?

Plot twist, though. It isn't hidden, as readers are told fairly early. Richard's father stole it. How, we're not told, but he apparently got through a number of magical defenses, despite not being magical himself, and took it, forced Richard to memorize it perfectly, then destroyed it. Richard is now the only copy of the Book of Counted Shadows, but neither Zedd nor Rahl know this, and Rahl assumes that Zedd is protecting the last copy. Which he kind of is, but doesn't know it.

So, let's talk about Richard's memory. Apparently he memorized the book so completely that you can ask him to recite a given paragraph of a given page and he can. Nope. Memory doesn't work that way, even if you're Special. And apparently it has nothing to do with his magic powers, either, although the fact that he has them meant that the book couldn't use its auto-memory-erase function we only learn it has in the second novel. Memory fades unless it's continually renewed. This is why people remember stuff from years ago very differently than it happened. This is why we can't remember what our infancy was like. Memory doesn't get stored in our subconscious as many believe, it literally fades and fades until it's gone. As for memorizing an entire book to the point where he can pull up any part of it in any order? There are some people with memories this good, but even they would have to spend at least a part of every day reciting the info again. Richard doesn't do this, or if he does, we never witness it. But Richard is a Sue, so I guess that's just part of the package.

Rahl, at the start of the story, has two of the boxes, but somehow he's already put them into play, and managed to get one of them out of its case, despite the book saying this isn't possible. Just another example of magic working however Goodkind wants it to. I'll have a good deal to say more on Goodkind's treatment of magic and view of how it should be used, but I have a special post in mind for it. The problem is Rahl needs that third box and the first day of winter is fast approaching. Why would he put the boxes into play before he had them all and before he had the book is beyond me. The mission for Richard, aside from killing Rahl, because murder solves everything, is to keep him from getting the last box.

I think you already can tell how Rahl is ultimately dispatched, but the stupid isn't over yet. As Rahl is about to be taken by the magics of Orden, he asks if Zedd is Richard's father. Zedd says no, Rahl himself is!

I mean...what the..lkgjgjlkfauj[q09jfalktujq0o9wiujfrlskjutr!!!!!!

Sorry, had to bang the head on the keyboard for a second.

This is just so...so...did Goodkind really believe this was some sort of crazy original twist??!! I won't go as far as to say it's a cliche but it's one of those tropes that once used, really should never be used again. Star Wars got away with it but every repetition since then is so clearly a riff on that plot twist that it should remain dead. But we're not done. Zedd, you see, is Richard's grandfather.

Yep. Rahl raped Zedd's daughter...at some point. The timeline is confusing. After or during the wizard's war, I guess. He raped her because that's what villains do, but Richard was the result. To protect him, Zedd gave him to George and his family to raise as their own. Now that...that is a cliche. Almost to the level of Disney.

The sheer number of orphan rustics whose mysterious parentage makes them heir to a great magical destiny is shockingly high. And Goodkind really went there and yet expects us to believe he's not writing typical fantasy?

As you've likely gathered by what I just said, the first book ends with Darken Rahl defeated and sent to the underworld, so, spoilers, he won't be our principle villain for the remainder of the series, even if his spirit does occasionally return. The Big Bad of the second book is the Keeper of the Underworld, who is a dark force that wishes to do evil - without any reason beyond that it is evil. It has mooks, mostly the Sisters of the Dark, and yes, I'll be getting to them in future posts, and that book also introduces the Imperial Order (the names...the names!!), which is a painfully obvious analog to the Communist regime, only more openly evil. In the third book we meet their Lenin, an evil emperor named Jagang. Yep. Jagang. The subtle naming continues.

I won't be doing character pages past this point, mainly because it's going to get repetitive. There's not an appreciable difference between Jagang and Darken Rahl, and most of the other characters are too minor to deserve full pages of their own.

Besides, up until now Goodkind has just been a mediocre writer with some crazy ideas that would only work in a world where he decides what happens. We have yet to get to what really makes him an offense to the genre of fantasy. In the next several posts we will discuss Goodkind's statements, his claims and his defenses.

Strap in. It's going to be ugly.