Thread: Purgatory: Imperialism and Racism in Fantasy Novels? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000906
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Currently I'm rereading one of my favourite books, Prince Caspian, when a statement by Trufflehunter struck me: "[Narnia] isn't a country for humans, but it's a country that needs a man to rule it," (or words to that effect; my apologies, but I don't have the text in front of me). It seems to me that that is the sort of comment that could have been made by a Victorian Brit about India, or many other places: "It's not a white man's country (lots of us die over there) but it needs to be ruled by a white man".
In his defence it could be argued that Lewis was a deliberately old fashioned sort of chap, who had grown up in the days of Empire, and that this had formed his attitudes. However, what about a modern American? Mercedes Lackey, in her Valdemar novels, creates an entire race of intelligent lizards who live in harmony with humans. However, these lizards do all the cooking, cleaning, mending and making of clothes without ever getting a major part to play in a story - but this is fine because they LOVE all that sort of stuff. From my point of view, again, this sounds uncomfortably like the rationalisation slave owners used: "They're perfectly happy doing all the menial work; it's what they're suited for".
Am I right in my interpretation of these details (and are there any more examples out there)? If I am, does this say anything about the widespread human failing to diminish others and put them in boxes that suit us, rather then them?
[ 28. January 2013, 23:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
It's partly why I gave up on reading fantasy and decided virtually murdering people was more enjoyable.
It is part of the human brain though, isn't it? We classify - we have to - animal approaching over there, is it dangerous, edible or safe to ignore? We need to decide and respond fast enough to escape, catch dinner or continue what we were doing before spotting possible dinner. In more primitive times, are you looking at someone in your tribe or family, another friendly tribe or an enemy?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
And sexism.
I give you the Dragonriders of Pern; the original intention of the author was to explore what would happen if a group of settlers on an alien world had to form a symbiotic relationship with a local life form to survive. The idea is that the Dragonriders (people with telepathic ability) form bonds with their dragons and have to live apart from everyone else on the planet. Their society has changed radically, because the dragons have a different pecking order to the humans and the senior female gold dragon is the one all the other dragons in the group will obey, so her rider (the Weyrwoman) is the leader of the Weyr (=dragon city).
Except it doesn't work like that. It is clear from the events in 'Dragonquest', for example, that the Weyrleader (= rider of the senior male dragon) can impose his authority on the Weyrwoman and through her on the senior female dragon. The main difference (and it's a big one, considering the first books in the series were written in the 1960s) between the dragonriders and everyone else is that homosexual relationships are tolerated in the Weyrs and everyone pays lip service to the idea that the Weyrwoman outranks the Weyrleader.
To be fair, later books in the series tried to retro-fit a more egalitarian society onto the Pern we all know, but IMO they lost the plot when 'Masterharper' came out.
C J Cherryh takes the same basic idea (human-alien symbiosis) and shows what could be done with it in her Finisterre series.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
There's a blog called Ana Mardoll's Ramblings where she's been taking apart the Narnia novels from a feminist perspective, but also lingering over the imperialistic elements of the stories.
I'll never be able to read the Narnia books in the same way again (which is probably not altogether a bad thing). Also, if I do read them again, the writerly part of my brain will be spinning different plot lines out of the story so that it makes more sense!
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
Fantasy authors seem especially prone to stuffing their political views into their books. The "Sword of Truth" books by Terry Goodkind starts out good, but by the third book you realize that he keeps pushing this hamfisted libertarian "poor people are poor because they're lazy and helpless and useless, and therefore evil" narrative that is intensely off-putting.
Whatever, at least it reads better than Ayn Rand, I guess.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
McCaffrey tried again to look at cross species interactions in the Acorna series, but the same things get overlaid.
I did wonder about mentioning sexism, David Eddings and Raymond E Feist (The Magician) really do not write strong women.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Fantasy authors seem especially prone to stuffing their political views into their books.
Call me old fashioned, but I thought that's what fantasy and SF were for.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Fantasy authors seem especially prone to stuffing their political views into their books.
Call me old fashioned, but I thought that's what fantasy and SF were for.
Sci-fi certainly. I don't think that novels set in alternate universes with wizards and elves and things need to be advertisements for Ron Paul.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Fantasy authors seem especially prone to stuffing their political views into their books.
Call me old fashioned, but I thought that's what fantasy and SF were for.
You've not read any since the 70's have you.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Fantasy authors seem especially prone to stuffing their political views into their books.
Call me old fashioned, but I thought that's what fantasy and SF were for.
You've not read any since the 70's have you.
I must admit my own preference is for the period from the optimistic, imperialistic 1950s to the drug-fuelled ramblings of the early 70s. But I'd be surprised if contemporary writing didn't betray its writers' political views (assuming they have any). Scottish Nationalism in Iain M Banks, perhaps?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Currently I'm rereading one of my favourite books, Prince Caspian, when a statement by Trufflehunter struck me: "[Narnia] isn't a country for humans, but it's a country that needs a man to rule it," (or words to that effect; my apologies, but I don't have the text in front of me). It seems to me that that is the sort of comment that could have been made by a Victorian Brit about India, or many other places: "It's not a white man's country (lots of us die over there) but it needs to be ruled by a white man".
In his defence it could be argued that Lewis was a deliberately old fashioned sort of chap, who had grown up in the days of Empire, and that this had formed his attitudes. However, what about a modern American? Mercedes Lackey, in her Valdemar novels, creates an entire race of intelligent lizards who live in harmony with humans. However, these lizards do all the cooking, cleaning, mending and making of clothes without ever getting a major part to play in a story - but this is fine because they LOVE all that sort of stuff. From my point of view, again, this sounds uncomfortably like the rationalisation slave owners used: "They're perfectly happy doing all the menial work; it's what they're suited for".
Am I right in my interpretation of these details (and are there any more examples out there)? If I am, does this say anything about the widespread human failing to diminish others and put them in boxes that suit us, rather then them?
It would indeed be terribly wrong if the story had started with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the 'start' of the kings and queens of Narnia but in actual fact this is how Aslan created the world to be and placed King Frank and Queen Helen in charge of the entire created order.
It's not that man has colonised Narnia like the white man colonised Africa. He was the ordained and accepted regent-ruler (under Aslan) from day one.
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on
:
Isn't the truth that all literature, and perhaps all art, is problematic in some way?
I haven't read much SF or fantasy for years. But I demolish cheap detective, mystery, crime and adventure fiction. Many of the attitudes described are pretty horrible. And even reading some of those things can make you feel a bit grubby, like peering through a keyhole into someone else's private life or grief.
I've just been reading some stuff about the 18th century Quakers, and how many different things they disapproved of. Music, dance and drama were in the 'frowned upon' moral categories. Largely it seems because they were a waste of time that you could be using to apply yourself to something more uplifting or godly or useful. If you were found to be *shock, horror* learning music or dance you could be sanctioned by the Monthly Meeting.
I have to say that these things make me come over all Aristotelian. On the one hand I think it is possible to be adversely affected by things I read, so I can see an argument for rejecting specific things or a class of things on this basis. But then I can also see the massive benefits there are to life from music and art and literature. For me, virtue must lie somewhere in the middle.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
CK: quote:
I did wonder about mentioning sexism, David Eddings and Raymond E Feist (The Magician) really do not write strong women.
OTOH, Adrian Tchaikovsky (the Shadows of the Apt series) and - surprisingly - Simon R. Green do female characters fairly well. Tchaikovsky is also grappling with the question of Empire but doesn't seem to think empires are good. Most of his protagonists are people fighting for independence from the Evil Imperialists.
I rather like K.E. Mills' Rogue Agent series myself. Good female characters there, though it seems to lean towards the 'empires-are-good' school of thought. Of course that could simply be because it is mimicking a period of history when imperialism was not (yet) a dirty word.
And kings/queens may be good or bad, but most fantasy worlds have them. Bad kings may be overthrown but are usually replaced with Good Kings (or queens) rather than republics. Anti-monarchists had better choose a different genre.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Bad kings may be overthrown but are usually replaced with Good Kings (or queens) rather than republics. Anti-monarchists had better choose a different genre.
Hah! Guess what I've just written...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Lewis was pretty notoriously sexist, even by the standards of his own time. I have heard, however, that his marriage ended up moderating that impulse in him.
Fantasy isn't necessarily racist, but sloppy writing lends itself to such sentiments. The fantasy genre relies on certain motifs that make it a lightning rod for racism. Different races in these books not only look different, but actually are different. That right there is pretty ominous- why can't there be a crass elf or an urbane dwarf? Why not a gentle orc?
Also, the main character has to be normal, in the reader's terms, so that one has something to identify with in a fantastic setting. Then this normal is good, and he fights an evil Other that is different and ugly and usually sexually depraved.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It would indeed be terribly wrong if the story had started with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the 'start' of the kings and queens of Narnia but in actual fact this is how Aslan created the world to be and placed King Frank and Queen Helen in charge of the entire created order.
It's not that man has colonised Narnia like the white man colonised Africa. He was the ordained and accepted regent-ruler (under Aslan) from day one.
In short Narnia was objectively set up to be Jim-Crow style racist.
Aslan might not be a tame lion, but he isn't a useful one either. Or a nice one or a good one. He is perfectly content to have the Narnians butchered - and only bothers to stir himself for the Pevensies.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
I think a big part of it is the idea of "guilt-free killing". That if you make the enemy faceless bad guys you can have Your Big Hero killing them without second thoughts. And there are a lot of power fantasies mixed up with the Fantasy genre from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Iliad onwards. Power fantasies with faceless bad guys you can kill end up looking imperialistic and racist.
Oh, for anyone interested Ana Mardoll's deconstruction of Narnia
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And there are a lot of power fantasies mixed up with the Fantasy genre from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Iliad onwards. Power fantasies with faceless bad guys you can kill end up looking imperialistic and racist.
Saying that the ancient Assyrians and Greeks were racist imperialists (ditto probably everyone with a written history, including the Egyptians, Israelites, the Norse, Chinese, Japanese, and for all I know, the Mayans) isn't either telling us anything new or particularly nuanced.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Mudfrog: quote:
It would indeed be terribly wrong if the story had started with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the 'start' of the kings and queens of Narnia but in actual fact this is how Aslan created the world to be and placed King Frank and Queen Helen in charge of the entire created order.
It's not that man has colonised Narnia like the white man colonised Africa. He was the ordained and accepted regent-ruler (under Aslan) from day one.
But that sounds very like the justification for having an Empire. Remember "the white man's burden"? It was our responsibility to look after (ie rip off) the poor helpless black/brown/whatever races because God had placed us over them to guide and help (rip off). And what Justinian said.
Jane R - interested in your comments about Pern. I read a lot of the earlier novels, before finally abandoning them, and don't remember anything about homosexuality. Where it does it crop up?
More generally, we are all products of our time, so Lewis may well have been influenced by the imperialism around him. On the other hand, my guess is that McCaffrey would be horrified by the thought that she was promulgating sexism, or Lackey racism. Is there something about fantasy that encourages dark parts of ourselves to emerge, along with all the fun stuff?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
On Pern the Weyrs have a fair bit of homosexuality - amongst the green and blue dragon riders various. It's not spelled out that obviously because a lot of children read them, but it's definitely there.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It would indeed be terribly wrong if the story had started with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the 'start' of the kings and queens of Narnia but in actual fact this is how Aslan created the world to be and placed King Frank and Queen Helen in charge of the entire created order.
It's not that man has colonised Narnia like the white man colonised Africa. He was the ordained and accepted regent-ruler (under Aslan) from day one.
In short Narnia was objectively set up to be Jim-Crow style racist.
Kind of puts me in mind of a passage from Texas' Declaration of the Causes of Secession:
quote:
. . . the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
In short, your enslavement is for your own good and God put us in charge.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Fantasy isn't necessarily racist, but sloppy writing lends itself to such sentiments. The fantasy genre relies on certain motifs that make it a lightning rod for racism. Different races in these books not only look different, but actually are different. That right there is pretty ominous- why can't there be a crass elf or an urbane dwarf? Why not a gentle orc?
Also, the main character has to be normal, in the reader's terms, so that one has something to identify with in a fantastic setting. Then this normal is good, and he fights an evil Other that is different and ugly and usually sexually depraved.
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. One of the markers of fantasy writing is usually the quasi-mediæval setting, typically complete with noble bloodlines or extraordinary abilities. In short, the basic premise of most fantasy writing is that a certain subset of characters (usually the protagonists) actually are inherently superior to everyone else in some way or another (magical ability, bloodline, whatever). This is a bit different than most science fiction, where the big differences between our world and the world portrayed is usually some kind of technology that works just fine for everyone, regardless of their bloodline. There are, of course certain scifi novels that deal with superhuman characters, but they're usually treated in a much more morally ambiguous way than is typical in their fantasy counterparts.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But I'd be surprised if contemporary writing didn't betray its writers' political views (assuming they have any). Scottish Nationalism in Iain M Banks, perhaps?
More like left-wing libertarianism And the same goes for Ken MacLeod and China Mieville. All three of them a hell of a lot better writers than Ann McAffrey or Raymond E Fiest or Terry Carr. And all very well worth reading.
You want non-imperialist sf there is plenty out there! Ursula le Guin (one of the greatest writers in the language in my opinion) seems to be no fan of kings and has lots of strong women. I think Marge Piercy and Margaret Atwood (who sometimes pretends not to be an SF) writer weren't exactly writing patriarchal racist revenge fantasies either.
I have, I confess, got a big pile of so-far unopened books waiting to be read, including SF and fantasy novels by Liz Williams, Kari Sperring, and Jane, er, my memory is going, I can sort-of remember the cover.... And there is Roz Kaveney's book, and a couopel by Gwyneth Jones I haven't read yet. I have a vague idea of those writer's politics, and I somehow suspect that there won't be a lot of unexamined imperialism in the books when I get round to them, which I am looking forward to.
Fantasy isn't all about alternative histories with superhero aristocracies speaking in cod Elizabethan English. Not that there is anything wrong with those when they are good. As Tolkien is but most of his imitators are not.
[ 26. October 2012, 15:30: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the Earthsea trilogy of novels by LeGuin. (She has written more about that world since then.) In the first book, we find an archipelago world without an overall government. By the end of the third book, Earthsea has a king for the first time in many years.
Although LeGuin is often regarded as a feminist author, most of the characters are male and the magic in the stories is mostly in the hands of males. The school on Roke is all male.
I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from all this. (I do think it is interesting to see such books as influences on the Harry Potter books.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I think a big part of it is the idea of "guilt-free killing".
Tolkien's Orcs, certainly were that.
quote:
Oh, for anyone interested Ana Mardoll's deconstruction of Narnia
Is hilarious! Thanks for the link. I think I'm going to have to read it all. It took me a while to find the first post in the series but its here
But I have a single three-word answer to most of these criticisms of fantasy as a genre and of classic children's books, and particularly classic fantasy books for children.
Diana. Wynne. Jones.
I'll repeat them because they are worth remembering:
"Diana" "Wynne" "Jones".
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Edith Nesbit and Joan Aiken are pretty good too... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
You missed Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising series and Alan Garner.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Fantasy authors seem especially prone to stuffing their political views into their books.
Call me old fashioned, but I thought that's what fantasy and SF were for.
Sci-fi certainly. I don't think that novels set in alternate universes with wizards and elves and things need to be advertisements for Ron Paul.
Well, Tairy Goodkind is particularly graceless and awful. The books are stuffed full of gratuitous torture scenes, and the black-hat characters are EEEE-VILLL with no motivations that make any sense.
And my God, have you ever read an interview with the man? He must have been picked on continuously all the way through high school, because wish-fulfillment and overcompensation pour off everything he says like...I dunno, like an overworked fantasy metaphor.
Richard Morgan, in his grittier-than-thou The Steel Remains series, works against the racist/imperialist tendency in fantasy, as does Steven Erikson in his Malazan books. I have to admit that I don't find those tendencies to be deal-breakers, as long as the books are well-conceived and -written, but I certainly understand how others can feel like throwing books across the room.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
McCaffrey tried again to look at cross species interactions in the Acorna series, but the same things get overlaid.
I did wonder about mentioning sexism, David Eddings and Raymond E Feist (The Magician) really do not write strong women.
Ursula Le Guin wrote some exceptionally grateful fantasies with thought-provoking social commentary (The Dispossessed, The Left hand of Darkness) using the Science Fantasy genre. Mind you she was criticised in some quarters for using male pronouns in describing her ambisexual characters, which proves you can't please everyone, even when your stuff is very good. The critics seem to have missed the entire point of her creation of ambisexual characters - but that's another story.
George R R Martin (Game of Thrones) has plenty of very strong women characters (plus a very strong dwarf ...) Plus loads of sex and violence and political intrigue oozing out of every page. Plus the odd dragon and quite a lot of walking dead. I wonder how all that will look in a few years time? I suppose his use of "dwarf" will encourage some folks to criticise his vocabulary (rather as Ursula le Guin was criticised).
I don't think the fantasy genre per se is particularly prone to authors with imperialist or racist attitudes. It's true that lots of earlier imaginative and creative writers were people of their times. If those times gave a certain respectability to attitudes we now criticise, justifiably, that's not unexpected is it?
It's impossible to read literature from an earlier age without bumping up against this sort of issue. Attitudes change. I hope nobody is implying that there is mileage in producing some kind of Index Expurgatorious for fantasy novels. If you do find some mileage in that kind of thinking, I recommend Fahrenheit 451.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Bad kings may be overthrown but are usually replaced with Good Kings (or queens) rather than republics. Anti-monarchists had better choose a different genre.
In Court of the Air, after their version of the civil war, the monarchy is restored but at the accession of every new monarch they remove his arms (literally) so that he can never raise a hand against his people again. It's not a full republic but a pretty extreme check and balance of a constitutional monarchy, with the king surgically turned into an impotent figurehead. This sounds a bit like wish-fulfilment for anti-monarchists!
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
AIUI - based on the Space Trilogy and one of his articles that I've forgotten the name of - CS Lewis thought the world was naturally intended to be hierarchical, in a Platonic 'chain of being' kind of way.
He thought that the Fall had messed this up, so that in actual fact you couldn't put someone at the top of a hierarchy without the risk of them abusing it. Consequently he saw equal rights and democracy as necessary to protect people from the ravages of sin.
Out of the Silent Planet, for example, is very anti-imperialist (the evil scientist Weston is roundly condemned for trying to colonise Mars), even though it also has one of the alien races defending the idea of a cosmic pyramid of authority.
Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on
:
On the Narnia books, I remember even as a (darked haired; half- Asian) child finding the Horse and His Boy quite disturbing. Almost all the 'good' characters were white and blond. All the baddies were dark haired, dark skinned and (even to my superficial reading) based on Arabs/Muslims. I stopped reading the Narnia books after that.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You missed Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising series and Alan Garner.
Well I could turn this thread into a list of sf and fantasy and children's books I like... but it would be very, very, long!
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It would indeed be terribly wrong if the story had started with The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and the 'start' of the kings and queens of Narnia but in actual fact this is how Aslan created the world to be and placed King Frank and Queen Helen in charge of the entire created order.
It's not that man has colonised Narnia like the white man colonised Africa. He was the ordained and accepted regent-ruler (under Aslan) from day one.
But of course Frank and Helen weren't part of the original plan from BEFORE day one... they only show up at the Creation thanks to Uncle Andrew's evil schemes. Adam's race is placed on the thrones of Narnia to undo the harm caused by this disruption. It's more of a curse than a reward. But a felix culpa, of course.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
Norman Spinrad wrote an essay, "The Emperor of Everything," deconstructing the quasi-Nietzschean, imperialist/fascist tendency in fantasy and SF (taking Star Wars as the archetype). Well worth reading.
As people have said, it's not universal. there's LeGuin, of course, and also most of the contemporary urban fantasy writers like Charles DeLint, Neil Gaiman, and Emma Bull. My favorite Bull novel (co-authored with Steven Brust, is Freedom and Necessity a fantasy about socialist revolutionaries in early 19th-century Europe.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mind you she was criticised in some quarters for using male pronouns in describing her ambisexual characters, which proves you can't please everyone, even when your stuff is very good. The critics seem to have missed the entire point of her creation of ambisexual characters - but that's another story.
Le Guin came to agree with the criticisms for what it's worth. The point being that while in theory they're asexual the story does very little to help you imaginatively take it in. Le Guin wrote a later short story in which she used 'she' for her ambiguous character, which makes the point - the reader doesn't react the same way.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That right there is pretty ominous- why can't there be a crass elf or an urbane dwarf? Why not a gentle orc?
My first D&D character was a pacifist half-orc. Pissed everyone off.
Adeodatus, funnily enough, I prefer just about exactly the eras of sci-fi and fantasy you do-- could it be because it was a time when writers were actively challenging tropes and ideas in society that hadn't really been challenged?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Its odd how it hides in plain sight, I specifically remember suddenly realising that the federation in Startrek is effectively a military dictatorship with an empire - prime directive or not they are forever radically changing other people's worlds.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
On the Narnia books, I remember even as a (darked haired; half- Asian) child finding the Horse and His Boy quite disturbing. Almost all the 'good' characters were white and blond. All the baddies were dark haired, dark skinned and (even to my superficial reading) based on Arabs/Muslims. I stopped reading the Narnia books after that.
Aravis, the heroine, is dark haired, dark skinned, etc. And Susan, who allowed herself to be flattered into a situation dangerous to her family and country, is white (not sure about blonde).
I agree in the main, though--and I'm afraid it's because he wanted an exotic setting and grabbed for one reminiscent of an Ottoman Empire that never was. Complete with hair, skin, etc. Which was perhaps a bit lazy of him, and should have been handled better.
Regarding Helen and Frank, as was pointed out upthread, the whole Narnian set up was intended from the beginning to be ruled by human beings, as the traditional head of the animal kingdom. In standard medieval/Ren thought, human beings were the link between the animal world and the spiritual world, being embodied (like animals) but rational (like angels, archangels, and whatever else might be in that realm). Therefore they were rightly regarded as the caretakers of the animal kingdom (and rightly condescended to by the angels, who are naturally above us in the scale of being, and to every one of whom we are by nature junior).
An analogy might be the highest grade of students in a particular school--senior to all the other students, but junior not only to the teachers but to every student in the next higher division of education (say, high school).
You'll notice, too, that Lewis does not regard just any human being as an appropriate ruler for Narnia. The Telmarines are usurpers, not proper rulers, even though they are human. Neither Jill nor Eustace (or even Polly or Digory) are given ruling authority. At most they are given honorary titles, and that in the afterlife!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Harry Potter is surely pretty commendable from the imperialism and racism perspective.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Its odd how it hides in plain sight, I specifically remember suddenly realising that the federation in Startrek is effectively a military dictatorship with an empire - prime directive or not they are forever radically changing other people's worlds.
Some of this is POV bias. We're only ever shown the Federation via the operation of its military (Starfleet).
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Harry Potter has a whole raft of its own issues.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
True, but it comes across that way whenever they link back to earth for any kind of direction too.
[ETA re Startrek]
[ 26. October 2012, 20:29: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
What annoys me is when places/races/species are quite clearly drawn from Earth. Eg Babylon 5 where you have the Japanesey type aliens, the Russian type aliens etc
And I really enjoyed Joe Abercrombie's first two books of the first law trilogy - but then magic effectively turned out to be the equivalent of nuclear technology, and the books since are just recreating bits of earth. Now the next one is called the Red Country - so he has found the USA then. Very disappointing.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What annoys me is when places/races/species are quite clearly drawn from Earth. Eg Babylon 5 where you have the Japanesey type aliens, the Russian type aliens etc
And the whole Star Trek franchise eas even worse. The aliens are just humans with makeup on.
Its not just the special effects budgets - books do it as well, far too many of them. Sometimes you get odd mixtures - CJ Cherryh has some brilliant aliens, but oithers that are obviously human. And as she is a much better writer than most I keep on making up backstories that woudl allow the human-like species to share a common ancestry somehow.
Another plus for le Guin. Her characters are pretty much all humans yet there is more diversity in them than in all of Star Trek's plastic aliens. But then she is a genius
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yes, it bugs the heck out of me when you get a good fantasy series going and suddenly it all turns into Earth Part II. If I wanted to read half-baked politics,...
I'd be certifiable. Never mind.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And the whole Star Trek franchise eas even worse. The aliens are just humans with makeup on.
Ah yes, Rubber Forehead Aliens!
quote:
Gene Roddenberry gave more reasons for this in an interview once. Budget constraints aside, if you try to make aliens look completely alien, you'll firstly make them look ridiculous (cf. Doctor Who), and secondly make it doubly hard for the actor playing the alien to do anything mildly resembling acting. This has actually been isolated to extremely specific requirements: if an audience can't see an actor's eyes or mouth, their ability to empathize with or emotionally invest in that character is significantly impaired. This is one reason why mooks, especially SF mooks like the Cylons or the Imperial Stormtroopers, are so often uniformed in face-obscuring helmets.
This is obvioulsly a constraint of working in a visual medium. The written word is not restricted in this way.
[ 26. October 2012, 21:17: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I specifically remember suddenly realising that the federation in Startrek is effectively a military dictatorship with an empire - prime directive or not they are forever radically changing other people's worlds.
Some of this is POV bias. We're only ever shown the Federation via the operation of its military (Starfleet).
The Federation is a fictional entity - there's nothing more to it than the point of view. Or to put it another way, Star Trek treats the military as by definition the most interesting point of view in the set up and the one with the most illuminating insight. You can have stories with unreliable narrators (in which the unreliability is meant to be interesting), but nothing in the original series suggests that Star Trek is that kind of series.
I'm not aware of any evidence in the original series of Starfleet reporting to any civilian body. (Or in any other series, but that's because I stopped watching after the first series of NG.)
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That right there is pretty ominous- why can't there be a crass elf or an urbane dwarf? Why not a gentle orc?
My first D&D character was a pacifist half-orc. Pissed everyone off.
D&D is a game about exploring, adventuring, and killing things and taking their stuff. Playing a pacifist anything in D&D is refusing to engage with the game in the same way refusing to build houses in Monopoly would be - but D&D is also cooperative, so you're letting the whole team down.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Oh my god, I am such an asshole. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Seriously, did you get that it was my "first" character"? I didn't know how the game worked!
Plus which, the DM was brilliant and figured out ways to allow me to contribute without killing anyone. (I got really good at disarming/ disabling folk.) Because he understood the game was about fantasy, and that meant he was in control of the boundaries.
I ended up making other characters, but by golly your comment makes me really glad I had a capable DM who was willing to guide me, rather than shame me.
[ETA: and flexible, fun-loving game mates as well.]
[And D&D is NOTHING like Monopoly.]
[ 26. October 2012, 22:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
This is one reason why mooks, especially SF mooks like the Cylons or the Imperial Stormtroopers, are so often uniformed in face-obscuring helmets.
This is obvioulsly a constraint of working in a visual medium. The written word is not restricted in this way.
I might just disagree with you there. If something which doesn't share human morphology or human emotions, how does the author show that it's happy, or sad, or angry?
Obviously, it can be described as "It flared its neck frills and attacked", so that the reader associates a flared neck frill with anger, but the further you go away from what we know, it becomes progressively more difficult. We communicate vast amounts of information using facial expressions, body posture, gestures, even where we're looking - but so does everything else.
Also, Judge Dredd.
Posted by Demas (# 24) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the Earthsea trilogy of novels by LeGuin.
Ged - the hero of Wizard of Earthsea - has red/brown skin; but the book I had as a child had a white guy on the cover.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
That right there is pretty ominous- why can't there be a crass elf or an urbane dwarf? Why not a gentle orc?
My first D&D character was a pacifist half-orc. Pissed everyone off.
D&D is a game about exploring, adventuring, and killing things and taking their stuff. Playing a pacifist anything in D&D is refusing to engage with the game in the same way refusing to build houses in Monopoly would be - but D&D is also cooperative, so you're letting the whole team down.
It's also about role-playing, storytelling, and breaking with conventions. Why wouldn't a pacifist character want to go on adventures and save the world? They might not want to grab the sword and butcher other creatures themselves, but that's true of many people; not everyone with a sense of adventure also condones violence.
You also forget that, in D&D, the real enemy is not the orcs, undead, or other characters, but the DM, the rules, and whatever plans your DM had for you. If they're not pulling out their hair and calling you awful names by the end of the night, you're not doing it right. I knew a few people in college who deliberately played broken characters, and, what they couldn't break through the rules, the destroyed in role playing. Everyone but their DM loved it.
As for SF being a deliberate attempt to espouse political values, I'd hate to beleive that C.J. Cherryh or any of the distopian authors popular in recent years are in favor of the bleak and broken systems they write about. Sure, there are the Ayn Rands of the world who did nothing else, but, let's be honest, they sucked. Well, okay. I'd like to think Terry Pratchet is probably in favor of Discworld's regimes, but . . .
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
As for SF being a deliberate attempt to espouse political values, I'd hate to beleive that C.J. Cherryh or any of the distopian authors popular in recent years are in favor of the bleak and broken systems they write about. Sure, there are the Ayn Rands of the world who did nothing else, but, let's be honest, they sucked. Well, okay. I'd like to think Terry Pratchet is probably in favor of Discworld's regimes, but . . .
To be honest, I believe that when you set out to write didactic fiction, you have a much greater tendency to suck than anything else - which is why I have such a downer on "Christian fiction". The same applies to deliberately espousing your own politics in fiction in order to teach others.
As a creator of the finest Marxist-Christian SF™ ( ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), I have to check myself constantly that my real thoughts don't creep onto the page. Yes, I'm making shit up, just like every other author.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Harry Potter is surely pretty commendable from the imperialism and racism perspective.
Unless you're a house elf.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the Earthsea trilogy of novels by LeGuin.
Ged - the hero of Wizard of Earthsea - has red/brown skin; but the book I had as a child had a white guy on the cover.
And that Jesus bloke doesn't look very Jewish either...
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned the Earthsea trilogy of novels by LeGuin. (She has written more about that world since then.) In the first book, we find an archipelago world without an overall government. By the end of the third book, Earthsea has a king for the first time in many years.
Although LeGuin is often regarded as a feminist author, most of the characters are male and the magic in the stories is mostly in the hands of males. The school on Roke is all male.
I see you haven't read the 4th Earthsea book, Tehanu. It completely turns the whole 'magic is for men' thing on its head. Fantastic book - I recommend it.
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Well, Tairy Goodkind is particularly graceless and awful. The books are stuffed full of gratuitous torture scenes, and the black-hat characters are EEEE-VILLL with no motivations that make any sense.
Yeah, the torture porn aspects made me feel icky to say the least. And you're right, I do wish the villains were a little less one-dimensional. Did you also notice that the heroes were only not villains because they weren't *pure* evil?
quote:
And my God, have you ever read an interview with the man? He must have been picked on continuously all the way through high school, because wish-fulfillment and overcompensation pour off everything he says like...I dunno, like an overworked fantasy metaphor.
I haven't read an interview with Goodkind, but judging by his writings I imagined him to be like many guys I knew in high school who were picked on as nerds and latch onto Ayn Rand as a fantasy that one day they'll be recognized as the creative producer ubermenschen that they are and all the people who torment them will be sorry when the nerds Go Galt. It looks like I was not far off.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
It's also about role-playing, storytelling, and breaking with conventions. Why wouldn't a pacifist character want to go on adventures and save the world? They might not want to grab the sword and butcher other creatures themselves, but that's true of many people; not everyone with a sense of adventure also condones violence.
Thank you.
Part of the point for me was challenging this Tolkieninan sense of race-based morality--exactly what we are discussing, in other words-- which started bugging me when I re-read the books for the fourth time or so in my teens. And I realize I am overstating my game mates response-- they were "pissed off" for maybe ten minutes, in a jovial sort of way, and then everyone figured out a way to work together. Because that was the priority. And they were very creative.
I made a new character pretty quickly because-- well I wanted to be kick-ass, but I still trotted my half orc out once in a while for old time's sake-- and because I figured out an effective way to play him.
[ 27. October 2012, 04:48: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Norman Spinrad wrote a book called "The Iron Dream" The meta story is a parallel world where an unemployed artist named Adolf Hitler emigrated to the United States and became a pulp fiction writer. His masterpiece which is the rest of the book is called Lord of the Swastika's. You'll never read Conan the same way again.
Ursula LeGuin wrote a number of additional books in the Earthsea world in which the question of why women weren't allowed to be wiards was addressed. She's also complained about the tendency of the film makers to give all the characters white skins.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To be honest, I believe that when you set out to write didactic fiction, you have a much greater tendency to suck than anything else - which is why I have such a downer on "Christian fiction". The same applies to deliberately espousing your own politics in fiction in order to teach others.
I'm not sure that's the right way to make the point. There are a lot of books that would be much better if they weren't didactic. But at the same time, a short list of the best novels ever written would probably be dominated by novels with explicit moral or religious or political commitments (Emma, Bleak House, War and Peace, Anna Karenina, Crime and Punishment, The Devils, The Karamazov Brothers - even In Search of Lost Time).
If we go to SF Le Guin's The Dispossessed is nothing if not a screed against capitalism and in favour of anarchism (with a side order of digs against younger anarchists). But it's a classic of sf. I suppose the reason it works is that Le Guin is using the medium to think things through, rather than merely to present her conclusions.(*)
What's wrong with a lot of didactic fiction isn't that you see too much of the author's real thoughts; it's that there weren't enough of the author's real thoughts to see.
(*) From our quarrel with the world we make rhetoric; from our quarrel with ourselves we make poetry - Yeats.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
D&D is a game about exploring, adventuring, and killing things and taking their stuff. Playing a pacifist anything in D&D is refusing to engage with the game in the same way refusing to build houses in Monopoly would be - but D&D is also cooperative, so you're letting the whole team down.
It's true that the D&D rule set is largely geared towards exploring and killing things and taking their stuff. But still it is an RPG and Monopoly isn't and that means that you don't have to solve all problems by fireballing them.(*) D&D had rules for trying to negotiate your way out of fights from the beginning. Old school D&D fights were basically attrition - you got little character reward for them and they used up resources. So you tried to avoid them if you could.
(*) In old school D&D, once you're past a certain level the fighters and thieves might as well be pacifists.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Well, okay. I'd like to think Terry Pratchet is probably in favor of Discworld's regimes, but . . .
I'm pretty sure Pratchett isn't actually in favour of one man one vote in the Ankh-Morpork sense.
(On the other hand, I would guess he is in favour of the anarchic cunning displayed by trickster figures, and The Patrician is basically a trickster figure who happens to be running a city.)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I agree in the main, though--and I'm afraid it's because he wanted an exotic setting and grabbed for one reminiscent of an Ottoman Empire that never was. Complete with hair, skin, etc. Which was perhaps a bit lazy of him, and should have been handled better.
It's worth considering that our archetypes are laid down in our psyche very early in life. When Lewis was a child, the Ottoman empire was still alive, sick, sinister and dangerous.
Something I found surprising, is that there's a point in one of the Star Wars films where an army comes to support the heroes, from a nation/species that are obviously a rap stereotype of black Americans. Although they are on the 'right' side, they are portrayed as exuberant, edgy and a bit simple. I don't know which film it was as I saw it some years ago, and have never been that excited about Star Wars. It felt like California's tribute to 'the brothers', but it left a nasty taste in my mouth. It stuck in my memory.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(*) From our quarrel with the world we make rhetoric; from our quarrel with ourselves we make poetry - Yeats.
That's spot on.
Dafyd, after you observation re "Left Hand" I checked and found that Ursula Le Guin had indeed had a bit of a quarrel with herself and in the end agreed with the critics about pronouns. Reading that quarrel with herself was illuminating. Thanks for the heads up.
I think she was a bit hard on herself. The book was written in 1969, lots of stuff re feminism was still being worked out. It's interesting that she doesn't want to edit the original, partly because the book has been continuously in print, partly because she'd prefer it to remain as an honest reflection of where she was at at the time.
The pronoun thing didn't spoil the book for me at all, still doesn't. From the text itself I got the point very early on that our normal pronouns were inadequate, whichever choice was made. Same thing applied to "Winter's King", the short story you mentioned, where Le Guin combined the use of the female pronoun with male titles (King, Lord) to "preserve the ambiguity" as she said herself. That also worked for me. I think Le Guin feels that her menwomen came across as more male than female, and that was a flaw. Possibly that's generally true, it just never worked that way for me. I think I just "got" her intentions, was captivated by the outworking in a truly memorable story.
So far as this thread is concerned, Le Guin stands out for me as an honest pioneer, in the world of fantasy writing, prepared to explore the nasty 'isms in strange new worlds. Quite right about "The Dispossessed" too. She has enriched the genre with her graceful fantasies.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To be honest, I believe that when you set out to write didactic fiction, you have a much greater tendency to suck than anything else - which is why I have such a downer on "Christian fiction". The same applies to deliberately espousing your own politics in fiction in order to teach others.
I'm not sure that's the right way to make the point. There are a lot of books that would be much better if they weren't didactic. But at the same time, a short list of the best novels ever written would probably be dominated by novels with explicit moral or religious or political commitments (Emma, Bleak House, War and Peace, Anna Karenina, Crime and Punishment, The Devils, The Karamazov Brothers - even In Search of Lost Time).
But this is the difference: it's not the author's opinions we read, it's the characters' opinions.
The moment when the author's voice is heard is the moment when they should have stopped writing a novel and started writing an essay. Or a sermon. I should, reasonably, be able to write a perfectly coherent defence of laissez-faire capitalism, racism, national socialism, imperialism, or whatever ism you care, if a particular character believes it. (And yes, I have more-or-less successfully done this in print.)
There is also no particular reason why that character is then painted as a one-dimensional strawman, deliberate set up for the hero to knock down. Bad fiction, no biscuit.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The aliens are just humans with makeup on.
Isn't this precisely the problem though? If you try to write genuine alien aliens you have to come up with some ways of making them different below skin level. Which means you'll end up highlighting general characteristics of them as a species. In other words you'll be stereotyping.
And inevitably a lot of people will read them as just characters in a story - which is what you want but then they'll look at them as essentially humans in makeup and read stereotyping as coded racism.
I guess in order to avoid this trap you need to show both the broad-strokes differences that make them alien AND show diversity within them[1] and some commonality with other beings[2]. It's not an intractable problem but it's not easy and it doesn't surprise me that those who succeed are being called geniuses.
It's also why, whilst we should be careful about what attitudes we're swallowing when we read, we should sometimes give the author the benefit of the doubt.
[1]Unless of course you want lack of diversity to be part of their alienness.
[2]Ditto.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
English has no pronoun for a living person who is neither male nor female because such people are not part of our normal experience.
Until about 1986, people would have used 'he' that way, and not really noticed it. It was normal to use 'he' as the default word for a person who had not yet been identified and could turn out to be either a man or a woman. Our ears have only become sensitised to this in the last 25 years.
Just try calling a person 'it'.
It is less of a problem in other languages like French, German, Welsh etc because they have grammatical gender which does not automatically coincide with biological fact.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The aliens are just humans with makeup on.
Isn't this precisely the problem though? If you try to write genuine alien aliens you have to come up with some ways of making them different below skin level. Which means you'll end up highlighting general characteristics of them as a species. In other words you'll be stereotyping. ...
Likewise, since the death of the last Neanderthal, none of us has ever encountered a sentient being who was different under skin level. So it's a bit difficult for any member of our species really to come to terms with what such a being might be like.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
quote:
Harry Potter is surely pretty commendable from the imperialism and racism perspective.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Harry Potter is Little England until you get to the Quidditch World Cup in Book 4.
Don't get me wrong, I like the books, but I don't think J K Rowling should get points for portraying a post-imperialist Britain when the first book in the series was written in the 1990s and the basic idea is that wizard society is hidden within the modern world. And all three of the main characters are white British.
I don't see much from Le Guin in them - the major influences I see are Jill Murphy's 'Worst Witch' series and Diana Wynne Jones' books ('Witch Week' is set in a boarding school, but quite a few have the theme of magic intruding into everyday life). Rowling might have been influenced by the boarding school story genre and Agatha Christie as well (the 'whodunit' aspects of her plots are always very convoluted).
Not like the School of Wizardry on Roke at all.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Oh, and Enoch: quote:
It is less of a problem in other languages like French, German, Welsh etc because they have grammatical gender which does not automatically coincide with biological fact.
Say that to a group of French feminists and watch them turn purple.
Actually there is debate on this, but a lot of them would contend that the problem is greater in a language with grammatical gender. You can't even forget about your sex when choosing an adjective to describe yourself, because it must agree with your gender.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
In German, it is thus,
male student: Student
female student: Studentin
male students: Studenten
female students: Studentinen
male and female students: Studenten
Spot the inherent sexism.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But this is the difference: it's not the author's opinions we read, it's the characters' opinions.
Le Guin does step in and moralise at us in The Dispossessed. Whereas in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress all the right-libertarian political opinions are expressed by characters. I don't think that makes The Moon is a Harsh Mistress any less didactic. The Dispossessed is a better book. I don't think it's just that I'm more biased in favour of left-anarchism than right-anarchism. I think it's that Le Guin is more interested in exploring the way in which her society fails.
When Neal Stephenson brings his story screeching to a halt to offload a lecture about cryptanalysis or information technology or banking or the best way to eat breakfast cereal it's equally entertaining whether he's doing it through his character's consciousness, free indirect style, or through the narrator.
On the whole, if an author can't write something in their own voice they're generally not going to do it better in a character's voice. The idea that one procedure is inherently better than the other seems to me an anti-nineteenth century prejudice. Generally speaking it is even worse to have a character who is clearly the author's spokesperson than for the author to be their spokesperson themselves. And as you say, if a character is set up as a strawman for characters the author favours to knock down that is bad all round. (At least, strawmen are bad if the author is writing in a realistic genre, for a value of realism that includes Tolkien and most sf.)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm not particularly convinced - in that, yes, there are times when an author can get away with it (Stephenson and Le Guin being two of the few), but generally the insertion of Author Avatars and Mary Sues end badly. I'd much rather read the characters' opinions rather than the authors, especially when I'm reading say, Larry Niven or Orson Scott Card. Or Lovecraft, for that matter.
Separating the two can be difficult, but let's try subtlety first.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Currently I'm rereading one of my favourite books, Prince Caspian, when a statement by Trufflehunter struck me: "[Narnia] isn't a country for humans, but it's a country that needs a man to rule it," (or words to that effect; my apologies, but I don't have the text in front of me). It seems to me that that is the sort of comment that could have been made by a Victorian Brit about India, or many other places: "It's not a white man's country (lots of us die over there) but it needs to be ruled by a white man".
If that statement has any extra-Narnian application intended at all, I'd bet a considerable sum that it is meant to imply a fairly typical Christian 'stewardship' view. Globally, the human species is dominant in that it has a fair degree of control over (and power to preserve or destroy parts of) the natural world, and this power was intended by God, but is to be exercised responsibly, because we do not own that which we control, we only manage it on behalf of the creator and master of everything, This is not man's planet, but man was created to run (bits of) it. And, more immediately, the same would apply to any part of creation in our personal sphere of influence, such as a parent's control over children – it is to be exercised responsibly and conditionally.
That would accord much more closely with the expressed views of Lewis in his other works than supposing any sort of pro-imperialist view.
quote:
However, what about a modern American? Mercedes Lackey, in her Valdemar novels, creates an entire race of intelligent lizards who live in harmony with humans. However, these lizards do all the cooking, cleaning, mending and making of clothes without ever getting a major part to play in a story - but this is fine because they LOVE all that sort of stuff. From my point of view, again, this sounds uncomfortably like the rationalisation slave owners used: "They're perfectly happy doing all the menial work; it's what they're suited for".
I've not read much Mercedes Lackey, and what I did read, I read a long time ago, but the one thing I do remember is an extremely strong and positive portrayal of homosexual characters in one of her trilogies. I would have thought her something of a liberal on that evidence, It would surprise me if she were an apologist for slavery.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
George R R Martin (Game of Thrones) has plenty of very strong women characters
I think so, although one of my (male) friends and my wife both found his work deeply sexist, because of the nasty things that happen to his female characters. I don't see it myself – horrible events seem pretty evenly distributed between the genders.
quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
On the Narnia books, I remember even as a (darked haired; half- Asian) child finding the Horse and His Boy quite disturbing. Almost all the 'good' characters were white and blond. All the baddies were dark haired, dark skinned and (even to my superficial reading) based on Arabs/Muslims.
Sure, H&HB is mostly set in a fantasy empire with an Arabian flavour, but it is simply not true that all or most of the Calormenes are evil, in contrast to the white humans being good. One of the protagonists is a Calormene (and she ends up marrying into a white royal line without anyone thinking that in the least odd) and everything we are told of her family, friends, servants and allies suggest that they are just ordinary folks. The final judgment on the principal villain (with which the reader is expected to concur) is pronounced by posterity in the form of Calormene schoolchildren. The Calormenes aren't 'other'. They are us. Dark-skinned humans in the Narnia books are just people, sons of Adam and daughters of Eve, with all the faults and virtues that that implies, just as they are in real life. The only relevance skin colour ever has in the whole book is to give a clue that Shasta is not Arsheesh's natural son (a fact which had not even been apparent to Shasta).
And, of course, Calormene religion has damn all to do with Islam. It's polytheistic, uses graven images, and practices human sacrifice. I can't think of a single incidental detail which could conceivably be intended to identify it with the faith of Muslims.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
It's also about role-playing, storytelling, and breaking with conventions. Why wouldn't a pacifist character want to go on adventures and save the world? They might not want to grab the sword and butcher other creatures themselves, but that's true of many people; not everyone with a sense of adventure also condones violence.
No. And there are plenty of RPGs out there that aren't literally hacked tabletop wargames. Also there's a world of difference between not wanting to grab a sword and butcher other characters and being an out and out pacifist going against the rest of your team mates.
quote:
You also forget that, in D&D, the real enemy is not the orcs, undead, or other characters, but the DM, the rules, and whatever plans your DM had for you. If they're not pulling out their hair and calling you awful names by the end of the night, you're not doing it right. I knew a few people in college who deliberately played broken characters, and, what they couldn't break through the rules, the destroyed in role playing. Everyone but their DM loved it.
Um... no. As a DM I enjoy it when I need to improvise as fast as the players do because someone's worked through the fence and drive cross country. On the other hand I don't play 3.X where you really could shatter the game. And when I play, the DM is one of the people there to have fun - and the one who puts the most time and effort in to it. The DM has at least as much right to have fun as anyone else at the table.
@Dafyd, that's wave 2 D&D you're talking about, not wave 1 I think. The endgame for D&D was meant to start at level 9-10 where the fighter got an army, the wizard got a tower, and you settled down to politics rather than classic adventuring. Also there's a huge difference between trying to avoid fights and being a pacifist; the way the Lake Geneva Tactical Studies Group would handle a dragon would be wait until it was asleep then gang-shank it. And the standard party involved at least nine characters, with a wall in front and one behind wearing as heavy armour as possible.
[/derail]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:
Harry Potter is surely pretty commendable from the imperialism and racism perspective.
Harry Potter is Little England until you get to the Quidditch World Cup in Book 4.
Don't get me wrong, I like the books, but I don't think J K Rowling should get points for portraying a post-imperialist Britain when the first book in the series was written in the 1990s and the basic idea is that wizard society is hidden within the modern world. And all three of the main characters are white British.
I don't see much from Le Guin in them - the major influences I see are Jill Murphy's 'Worst Witch' series and Diana Wynne Jones' books ('Witch Week' is set in a boarding school, but quite a few have the theme of magic intruding into everyday life). Rowling might have been influenced by the boarding school story genre and Agatha Christie as well (the 'whodunit' aspects of her plots are always very convoluted).
Not like the School of Wizardry on Roke at all.
It has many more non-white characters than most mainstream children's/YA fantasy and is anti-racism/anti-speciesist (if that's the right word to use about non-human creatures in the books).
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Harry Potter is surely pretty commendable from the imperialism and racism perspective.
Unless you're a house elf.
Mistreatment of house elves is criticised by 'good' characters though, even if Harry participates in it.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Mistreatment of house elves is criticised by 'good' characters though, even if Harry participates in it.
While the narrative clearly sees mistreatment of slaves as wrong, it doesn't seem to me that it considers the place of house elves in wizarding society itself as morally problematic. Slavery is all well and good, so long as the slaves like it and you're nice to them.
Indeed, it seems to me that Hermione's opposition to it is treated with outright contempt.
[ 27. October 2012, 21:48: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Also there's a world of difference between not wanting to grab a sword and butcher other characters and being an out and out pacifist going against the rest of your team mates.
i think it is entirely up to the team (including the DM)if the person is "going against" it. My team made excellent use of my mage holding spells, and a variety of other things that helped them gather information and enter places where they might otherwise be turned away. I had a lot of stealth, diplomacy, stuff like that.
And, as I understand it, (as my DM told me)later additions of D&D s included ways for people to enhance their team score by problem solving and negotiating. So, Gary Gygax obviously didn't think the game was all about killing.
And I'm going to say, I have never participated in a game where it wasn't pretty clear that things like creative problem solving, heading off conflict before it began, and generally being a kick-ass role player wasn't valued at least as much by the participants as hack-and slash, if not more, The people who really pissed everyone off, in a not jovial way, were those who went berserker-crashing into situations that compromised the team's ability to adequately defend themselves.
I do agree about the DM having fun, though. Why do it if it's not fun?
... and I don't think this is as tangential as it seems-- the D&D world is pretty much based on Tolkien. The dynamic-- on the most basic level-- is good against evil, and that is largely determined by the race a character is. Solving the problem is (largely) defined by purging the fantasy world of these intrinsically evil beings.
So I create a chaotic- good half orc character-- because they couldn't let me make a good orc character of any kind-- and I make him a pacifist because (hello!) there were actually suggestions in the player's manual as to how to do just that. (It wasn't encouraged, but it wasn't illegal either.)I'm challenging (as much as I could) the idea that evil is race-based, and I'm challenging --well, not really, because I got the idea from the players manual!-- the idea that killing was the only way to solve problems.
Look at the heat the mere suggestion generates. Why is it so challenging to suggest that things can be approached a different way?
And is this the kind of conversation fledgling sci-fi writers have with editors and producers?
(I remember reading a forward to a Poul Anderson story in which he talked about being directed by a publisher to "add more sex' to the story. Anderson saw no way to do that without things getting really contrived, so he threw in this ghastly scene involving a human breeding facility out of sheer disgust. The publisher loved it.)
Justinian, I spent 6 years living with a man who lived and breathed gaming. I went to many conventions and enjoyed a variety of DM styles, and I can say with conviction that there are many, many other ways to approach the game-- playing and dm'ing-- than yours. You do you ,and I'll do me.
[ 27. October 2012, 22:12: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Eliab: quote:
I've not read much Mercedes Lackey, and what I did read, I read a long time ago, but the one thing I do remember is an extremely strong and positive portrayal of homosexual characters in one of her trilogies. I would have thought her something of a liberal on that evidence, It would surprise me if she were an apologist for slavery.
While I know nothing about Lackey personally, I too would be surprised if she consciously advocates slavery. However, I am disturbed by an entire race of beings who are have no aspirations above serving others. When I started this thread I was hoping for a discussion of how fantasy seems to let the darker sides of our personalities out, as well as the fun/creative sides. So far the thread hasn't really discussed that side of things, but I've been around long enough to know that the OPer has no control over where things go after they have posted, and I'm fine with that.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
George R R Martin (Game of Thrones) has plenty of very strong women characters
I think so, although one of my (male) friends and my wife both found his work deeply sexist, because of the nasty things that happen to his female characters. I don't see it myself – horrible events seem pretty evenly distributed between the genders.
With you re horrible things. George R R seems to ensure that the distribution of murder, torture and mayhem is subject to a proper PC balance.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And is this the kind of conversation fledgling sci-fi writers have with editors and producers?
Inevitably, the answer is both yes and no.
It is easy to add more drama into your script by having a massive punch up/sword fight/exchange of shoulder-mounted rockets. Chandler wrote about any time he got stuck, he'd walk in a man holding a gun. And writers instinctively know this: they've been brought up on all the books and films they've read and seen, where the good guys get to kill the bad ones because it redeems the situation. I've done it myself.
The problem comes in making the left-field solution to the problem genuinely more exciting, more thrilling, more satisfying than putting a gun to the Big Boss's head and pulling the trigger. And if we're in the business of providing vicarious experiences (which we are) then writing the plot and characters in such a way as to make a pacifistic, negotiated or merciful denouement both believable and cathartic is exceptionally hard. I've also done this - but I will concede it's simply easier to have the good guys stab, shoot and bomb their way to victory.
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
While the narrative clearly sees mistreatment of slaves as wrong, it doesn't seem to me that it considers the place of house elves in wizarding society itself as morally problematic. Slavery is all well and good, so long as the slaves like it and you're nice to them.
Indeed, it seems to me that Hermione's opposition to it is treated with outright contempt.
I think Rowling believes that is how real kids would react to a campaign like that- not that that's how they should react. (Also because Hermione is the one running the campaign, and most of the other kids find her annoying; they're not going to sign onto an idea of hers.) Just like Harry getting all mopey in the fifth and sixth books. It is irritating, but fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds are really like that.
Plus, some of the Hogwarts kids (Draco and friends) already believe they're superior to other people of their own species. It's probably not a stretch for them to feel superior to weird little elves.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I do wonder about the house elves, though. I mean, we automatically find their situation abhorrent (and call it slavery and such), but is it possible that the author is actually intending to play with an even more "out there" scenario--the question of what you would do if you actually, really, goodness to Betsey discovered a species that WANTED that situation and nothing else?
I suspect that if we found a nearby planet of house-elves of the usual sort (not Dobby, then), we'd be horrified. Would probably do our best in fact to convince them that a life of service was NOT what they wanted, that they were mad-brained for thinking so, and generally done everything we could to change their psychology into a form we could tolerate. Which would be just as morally wrong as the reverse.
Maybe that's what Rowling was playing with.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Fantasy isn't necessarily racist, but sloppy writing lends itself to such sentiments. The fantasy genre relies on certain motifs that make it a lightning rod for racism. Different races in these books not only look different, but actually are different. That right there is pretty ominous- why can't there be a crass elf or an urbane dwarf? Why not a gentle orc?
This is the sort of thing that Terry Pratchett is good at. Yes, dwarfs are often short and live underground and vampires are suave and bitey, but he always subverts the stereotype. It turns out that trolls are portrayed as stupid because they are in too warm an environment. The minute they are cooled down they are superbrainy. Each individual character raises above the expectations of its race/species.
quote:
Also, the main character has to be normal, in the reader's terms, so that one has something to identify with in a fantastic setting. Then this normal is good, and he fights an evil Other that is different and ugly and usually sexually depraved.
I think that's very true in pre 1960s 'classic' stuff.
In alot of recent Dark Fantasy/horror-lite books(vampires & werewolves and things that go bump in the night) loads of the main characters are 'other' themselves, in a number of cases fighting or evading humans.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
[Mostly to Doc Tor-- man, crosspost slam!]
In the interest of discussing character and plot development, I'm going to discuss D&D again-- because hey, what is it but improv with rules?
I already conceded that I gave up on my pacifist character pretty quickly, because there was no way I could level up, so I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting any violence at all is unnecessary in a story. I just think there is room for one pacifist character. Gives things flavor, as a matter of fact. Creates tension.
And again my whole point of making him a pacifist was that he was a half-orc. Really. That was studied.
Yeah, maybe you need a guy with a gun to come in the room, but (let's use crime novel tropes) does he always need to be some swarthy guy with a Guido accent and a pin-striped suit?
[ 27. October 2012, 23:19: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
I think Rowling believes that is how real kids would react to a campaign like that- not that that's how they should react. (Also because Hermione is the one running the campaign, and most of the other kids find her annoying; they're not going to sign onto an idea of hers.) Just like Harry getting all mopey in the fifth and sixth books. It is irritating, but fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds are really like that.
Plus, some of the Hogwarts kids (Draco and friends) already believe they're superior to other people of their own species. It's probably not a stretch for them to feel superior to weird little elves.
Maybe. I'm not so sure. The adults around her seem to believe just as the children do- elves like it and so it's OK. The elves hate her for preaching the possibility of freedom to them. Dumbledore wears a pin, but he doesn't make any effort to change the situation in the school's servants' hall, so I suspect he's just humoring Hermione.
It's all portrayed as a spat of youthful, selfish idealism that is ultimately ignorant of the good of the house-elves themselves. Hermione gets over her principles as she becomes an adult, and I don't like that.
[ 27. October 2012, 23:42: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Imma also add another thing that troubled me as I read the Harry Potter Books: its treatment of muggles. Not a single muggle is treated with an ounce of sympathy in all its thousands of pages. Without exception they are petty, vicious, and utterly lacking any creativity. Perhaps this is because Harry has to be miserable, but even Hermione's parents come across as ignorant and small minded, devoted more to the principles of dentistry than the good of their daughter.
Squibs are usually bad people too, and are effectively the underclass of wizarding society. Even a good character like Mrs Weasely talks about her squib relation with unveiled contempt, and seems to think maintaining a relationship with him an absurdity. Harry's squib neighbor, who is at least good, clearly functions alone outside of the society that brought her up. And the narrative doesn't even vaguely imply this is an injustice.
Good characters are clearly against hurting or enslaving muggles, but none of them really seems to understand them as equals. They are portrayed as subhuman anyway, so maybe it's not surprising.
It's not just how the characters act in this case. The narrative itself simply never questions this order of affairs.
[ 27. October 2012, 23:54: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Also there's a world of difference between not wanting to grab a sword and butcher other characters and being an out and out pacifist going against the rest of your team mates.
i think it is entirely up to the team (including the DM)if the person is "going against" it. My team made excellent use of my mage holding spells, and a variety of other things that helped them gather information and enter places where they might otherwise be turned away. I had a lot of stealth, diplomacy, stuff like that.
And, as I understand it, (as my DM told me)later additions of D&D s included ways for people to enhance their team score by problem solving and negotiating. So, Gary Gygax obviously didn't think the game was all about killing.
And I'm going to say, I have never participated in a game where it wasn't pretty clear that things like creative problem solving, heading off conflict before it began, and generally being a kick-ass role player wasn't valued at least as much by the participants as hack-and slash, if not more, The people who really pissed everyone off, in a not jovial way, were those who went berserker-crashing into situations that compromised the team's ability to adequately defend themselves.
I do agree about the DM having fun, though. Why do it if it's not fun?
... and I don't think this is as tangential as it seems-- the D&D world is pretty much based on Tolkien. The dynamic-- on the most basic level-- is good against evil, and that is largely determined by the race a character is. Solving the problem is (largely) defined by purging the fantasy world of these intrinsically evil beings.
So I create a chaotic- good half orc character-- because they couldn't let me make a good orc character of any kind-- and I make him a pacifist because (hello!) there were actually suggestions in the player's manual as to how to do just that. (It wasn't encouraged, but it wasn't illegal either.)I'm challenging (as much as I could) the idea that evil is race-based, and I'm challenging --well, not really, because I got the idea from the players manual!-- the idea that killing was the only way to solve problems.
Look at the heat the mere suggestion generates. Why is it so challenging to suggest that things can be approached a different way?
And is this the kind of conversation fledgling sci-fi writers have with editors and producers?
(I remember reading a forward to a Poul Anderson story in which he talked about being directed by a publisher to "add more sex' to the story. Anderson saw no way to do that without things getting really contrived, so he threw in this ghastly scene involving a human breeding facility out of sheer disgust. The publisher loved it.)
Justinian, I spent 6 years living with a man who lived and breathed gaming. I went to many conventions and enjoyed a variety of DM styles, and I can say with conviction that there are many, many other ways to approach the game-- playing and dm'ing-- than yours. You do you ,and I'll do me.
I missed your comment before Dafyd's on this thread, sorry.
Ah. There are at least three distinct types of pacifists PCs and two of them cause me to twitch. You have the one that doesn't there- the the support/trickster character (my favoured archetype tbh) - but you specifically said that the other PCs disliked your character for being a pacifist; this isn't my experience with tricksters. And you've more or less described the 1e thief there - very weak in combat but tricks and skills, but pacifist means more than just poor or even non-combatant.
When I hear pacifist characters, I don't think tricksters, I think of an annoying archetype, and an archetype that's out-and-out griefing. And from your description about it pissing everyone off I assumed you meant the third. The annoying archetype is the healing-only cleric. Supported in some versions, and it has the massive downside of making everything (a) take longer and (b) be less tense. But the worst type are the genuine pacifists. Who will heal the monsters and genuinely behave like a liability. "But I'm just playing my character".
And definitely agreed on the beserker-fighters. Agghhh! Although there's normally a simple answer. Let them die.
As for Gygax and XP rewards, absolutely right. The rule from both Gygax and Arneson was 1XP for 1GP - which meant you gained many times more XP from the loot than from the kills - and in order to prevent you forting up, wandering monsters didn't carry treasure so you just gained the kill XP from them. This was always a controversial if not downright unpopular rule (mostly because Gygax didn't actually explain it anywhere in the DMG) and therefore 2e turned it into an optional rule that was and 3e removed it entirely. 4e didn't add it back but had its own alternatives. (For the record, Gygax gave you the XP when you gained the loot, Arneson when you spent it on something not directly for adventuring).
And Gygax would be rolling over in his grave or just throw up his hands in disgust at the claim D&D was based on Tolkein. He really wasn't a fan and was much keener on Vance and Liebner. The same did not go for his players, however.
And yes, I think D&D has fed into the fantasy market a lot and Lovecraft would be incredibly obscure without Call of Cthulu. And that's even without getting into blatant D&D spin-off series like the Deed of Paksenarrion or anything by Feist. Or Pratchett's affectionate mockery in the early Discworld books.
@Doc Tor, part of the point of Dredd is that he is near-inhuman. And there were reasons (bad ones) why his mask was off in the Stallone movie.
And regarding House Elves, I think part of the point is that Hermione went in guns blazing rather than talking to the House Elves themselves. SPEW was more than slightly paternalistic.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
When I hear pacifist characters, I don't think tricksters, I think of an annoying archetype, and an archetype that's out-and-out griefing. And from your description about it pissing everyone off I assumed you meant the third. The annoying archetype is the healing-only cleric. Supported in some versions, and it has the massive downside of making everything (a) take longer and (b) be less tense. But the worst type are the genuine pacifists. Who will heal the monsters and genuinely behave like a liability. "But I'm just playing my character".
And definitely agreed on the beserker-fighters. Agghhh! Although there's normally a simple answer. Let them die.
As for Gygax and XP rewards, absolutely right. The rule from both Gygax and Arneson was 1XP for 1GP - which meant you gained many times more XP from the loot than from the kills - and in order to prevent you forting up, wandering monsters didn't carry treasure so you just gained the kill XP from them. This was always a controversial if not downright unpopular rule (mostly because Gygax didn't actually explain it anywhere in the DMG) and therefore 2e turned it into an optional rule that was and 3e removed it entirely. 4e didn't add it back but had its own alternatives. (For the record, Gygax gave you the XP when you gained the loot, Arneson when you spent it on something not directly for adventuring).
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Ok, thanks for explaining, Maybe that's what the team was worried about, then. (although that character was probably much too prissy to describe himself as a trickster! ) If that's what you thought I mean, then I totally agree. Yeesh.
And apologies, Gary, for the Tolkien thing.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
Someone posted a while back about Cherryh and whether authors were advocating what existed in their worlds. In her case, I think (her treatment of cell phones, for instance) I would give the author a little more credit for accepting nuance and being creative enough not to generate simple uni-dimensional utopias and/or dystopias. Same with the house elves. I think in some sense it's just an accurate portrayal of how a slave society would respond to an abolitionist. If the whole culture had suddenly shifted merely because of one activist, would it really be that believable? In some ways I think the author nails the point home better by showing how people really do get comfortable in these arrangements, even the slaves themselves.
[ 28. October 2012, 01:53: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Maybe it's there, but I just can't see where Rowling makes the point "it's bad how comfortable everyone is with this house elf thing." Hermione casts off her idealism like so much childish nonsense and it's never heard from again. If the narrative wanted to question the "muggles are subhuman" thing, it seems to me that there would be some sympathetic muggles around. If it is unjust to banish squibs to the margins of wizarding society, then we should see how painful and lonely it is to never develop magical powers. But we see none of those things. The only details we get only confirm the validity of these aspects of wizarding society.
It's fine if Rowling just didn't want to tell those stories, but then, she didn't have to write the world that way either. She made a choice to portray muggles as universally vicious and house-elves as happy slaves. Why?
Or maybe I've been reading too much of the deconstruction of the Chronicles of Narnia.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
I entirely agree with Lamb Chopped about the hierarchy portrayed in the Narnia books as being established by Aslan and therefore valid. I must however challenge:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You'll notice, too, that Lewis does not regard just any human being as an appropriate ruler for Narnia. The Telmarines are usurpers, not proper rulers, even though they are human.
Disagree; Caspian is recognised as king by Aslan despite being of Telmarine stock. The whole plot of Prince Caspian is that he has been wrongly put off the throne.
quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
On the Narnia books, I remember even as a (darked haired; half- Asian) child finding the Horse and His Boy quite disturbing. Almost all the 'good' characters were white and blond. All the baddies were dark haired, dark skinned and (even to my superficial reading) based on Arabs/Muslims. I stopped reading the Narnia books after that.
The point about the Horse and His Boy baddies being Arab/Muslim type rulers is well made - but the fact that [spoiler alert] the Boy ends up marrying the girl he's helped escape seems to offer a radical challenge to seeing that as a negative stereotyping; how much more affirming of individuals can you get? Whereas the Calormen empire is an aggressively imperialist one - as the Ottomans were: their last siege of Vienna was in 1683.
Then it was us white guys turn to build empires... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
While I know nothing about Lackey personally, I too would be surprised if she consciously advocates slavery. However, I am disturbed by an entire race of beings who are have no aspirations above serving others.
If you accept that ML doesn't consciously approve of slavery, and also accept that her stories can be read without the reader thinking that she does, then what's the objection?
Attempting a speculative answer to my own question - perhaps its that the impulse that makes the existence of anintelligent race whose purpose is menial service attractive to the reader is the same impulse that once made slavery an attractive institution.
But if so, I don't see that as a close enough connection to be objectionable. It would be nice is there was an intelligent race which found fulfillment doing my laundry*. It would be extremely convenient. Just as it would be nice to have a shedload of cash, be incredibly desireable to the opposite sex, and be able to bounce bullets and punch bad guys through walls. It's OK for fantasy to be comfortable with that sort of desire.
Of course those desires, for comfort, adulation, power, whatever can be the impulses behind all sorts of crime, but fantasy does not have to pretend that the desires are bad in themselves. They aren't - they are quite natural and, as desires, morally neutral, starting data for moral choices, not faults. The problem is that they can be harmfully indulged - the point of fantasy is to allow them to be harmlessly imagined.
(*I suspect, through I don't know, that the fantasy in fact being spun is "wouldn't it be great if there were a country where no one had to do any menial work unless they enjoyed it?" rather than "wouldn't it be great if I had my own race of willing slaves?". But either is fine with me, considered purely as fantasy.)
quote:
When I started this thread I was hoping for a discussion of how fantasy seems to let the darker sides of our personalities out, as well as the fun/creative sides.
OK, but what's wrong with that? Horror fantasy can be as much fun as heroic fantasy.
I play the Call of Cthulhu and SLA Industries RPGs. A lot of the enjoyment is setting up and dealing with very dark stories. If I write a scenario involving pornography, blackmail, televised rape, slavery, drug abuse, torture and assassination, and run it straight, as if all those things were an accepted part of the campaign world, it doesn't mean that I approve of any of them in real life. It means that I like dark stories.
[ 28. October 2012, 09:34: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Isn't it that a lot of these fantasy themes are ways of experiencing vicariously ideas you'd / we'd like to explore without harming anyone or anything in the process? An effective way of sublimating those darker desires?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I've never been that keen on the divine right of kings.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Well, no, but when people talk of being reborn they were often Cleopatra or Mark Antony in a previous existence, rarely a servant when probability suggests they're far more likely to have been a servant or slave.
I was responding to Eliab's post and some of the ideas he was suggesting.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I do wonder about the house elves, though. I mean, we automatically find their situation abhorrent (and call it slavery and such), but is it possible that the author is actually intending to play with an even more "out there" scenario--the question of what you would do if you actually, really, goodness to Betsey discovered a species that WANTED that situation and nothing else?
I suspect that if we found a nearby planet of house-elves of the usual sort (not Dobby, then), we'd be horrified. Would probably do our best in fact to convince them that a life of service was NOT what they wanted, that they were mad-brained for thinking so, and generally done everything we could to change their psychology into a form we could tolerate. Which would be just as morally wrong as the reverse.
Maybe that's what Rowling was playing with.
That's my understanding.
AIUI servitude is supposed to be built into the elves' DNA - witness the fact that the master's command overrules any other magical law for an elf. So that (spoiler alert) an elf can escape from a cave full of protective spells because it's been commanded to do so, and that command is (for the elf) more powerful than the protective spells.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Please note this. The idea that the Calormenes are based on Muslims, is a clear projection of our bogey ideas onto C.S. Lewis. What he is doing is feeding a heavily fictionalised account of India under the Raj. That is as far as there are real life characters for C.S. Lewis Calormene they are Hindus not Muslims.
You have remember that Boxen (Wikipedia) is partly based on his reading of Beatrix Potter and his brothers Warnie readings about India. This is of course the repudiated writing of the Imperial British about India and suffers horribly from Orientalism (to Wikipedia). It does however seem to me far more likely than when wanting a culture for the Calormene he used this than went to stereotyping Muslims. Although as at least three if not four times removed from India and fictionalised I would not expect much connection with reality.
In other words the jump from dark skinned baddie to Muslim is a sign of our own racism not his. Not saying he isn't racist but his is of a different complexion.
Jengie
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
KA, I'm eternally grateful that you didn't want to be a pacifist in the days when I was a DM; all ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
to the DM who coped with you!
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Picking up Eliab's point (couldn't find a handy quote - sorry) and also Lamb Chopped and Ricardus', where I get uneasy with the servant race idea is precisely because it is so appealing, and so prevalent. The idea that there is a whole group of people who enjoy doing the boring menial stuff is exactly what men used to say (are still saying?) about women, slave owners about slaves, upper classes about lower classes. It is the same careless, unthinking attitude that most people with the money to employ servants show towards them. It's the attitude behind the "pleb" comment that cost the chief whip his job. It stinks.
ETA: And if it gets expressed, unchallenged, in fiction it is more likely to flourish in real life.
[ 28. October 2012, 12:12: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
KA, I'm eternally grateful that you didn't want to be a pacifist in the days when I was a DM; all to the DM who coped with you!
Ok... what do you think of a chaotic-good orc? Nobody's weighed in on that yet. And isn't that more the point of the thread than pacifism?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I always found the race alignment restrictions a bit odd - the racial antipathy tables in v2 made more sense.
Everybody hated orcs because they came from a society predicated on the teachings of Ayn Rand, and therefore couldn't be trusted to play nicely with other species. I'd have DMed (I have DMed, AD&D, Call of Cthulu and Runequest, mainly) your CG orc, because the backstory - the inevitable victimisation and expulsion from the tribe, the sheer amount of ongoing hate that they'd be subject to. Brilliant if you can pull it off. I used to give XP for roleplaying, so you'd have levelled.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Ok, thanks for explaining, Maybe that's what the team was worried about, then. (although that character was probably much too prissy to describe himself as a trickster! ) If that's what you thought I mean, then I totally agree. Yeesh.
And apologies, Gary, for the Tolkien thing.
D&D has a very much deserved reputation for encouraging players to play adversarial characters who get in everyone else's way, mostly because in the 1e days the rules actively encouraged this. Notably thieves stealing from the party (remember the XP for GP rules), Lawful Good Paladins and Evil Only Assassins. (Also throw in the Barbarian class from Unearthed Arcana who couldn't be near a wizard). And then there were Kender. All direct consequences of the rulebook (that last kender link is an annotated scan of a rulebook) and in many cases recommended by it - so D&D players twitch a lot harder than players of most RPGs about anti-social characters.
And don't worry about the Tolkein thing. Gary himself may have hated them, but in the really old versions halflings were actually called hobbits and the 1e ranger is Aragorn with the serial numbers filed off. He was heavily outvoted even by his own group - so most people understandably make that mistake.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
KA, I'm eternally grateful that you didn't want to be a pacifist in the days when I was a DM; all to the DM who coped with you!
Ok... what do you think of a chaotic-good orc? Nobody's weighed in on that yet. And isn't that more the point of the thread than pacifism?
Fairly normal - but then my chosen D&D worlds are Eberron, Sigil (Planescape), and the Nentir Vale. The Nentir Vale they need all the willing bodies they can get to hold things together - the setting is known as Points of Light for a reason. Sigil is the most cosmopolitan city in the history of D&D (and is one about "Philosophers with clubs") and Eberron is a shades-of-grey post-war magic and steam setting in which the orcs may be savage, but the orcish tribes are druidically inclined devoted to holding back the outer darkness.
I think the always-evil races with societies more or less went out in the 90s between Drizz't and his clones, Vampire the Masquerade, and people wanting to play dark angsty loners from evil races. More or less what's left in the always (rather than normally) evil camp are the devils, the demons, the Far Realm/Abominations/Mythos, most Undead (depending on interpretation), and certain really unpleasant predators like Mind Flayers. Also sometimes the Chromatic Dragons. And in the Nentir Vale cosmology IIRC the Devils helped the Good Gods against the Primordials and Demons.
Which possibly points to a huge evolution in the Fantasy genre...
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's fine if Rowling just didn't want to tell those stories, but then, she didn't have to write the world that way either. She made a choice to portray muggles as universally vicious and house-elves as happy slaves. Why?
IMO the Harry Potter books are NOT fantasy novels. Rowling's wizarding world is a fictionalised portrait of contemporary Western society, more particularly British society. It isn't meant to be a perfect and just society, any more than contemporary British society is perfect or just. One aspect of the Harry Potter books is a fictionalised treatment of social institutions that allows Rowling to poke fun at some of the bad features of society while at the same time expressing outrage. Charles Dickens used the same technique, to equally comic effect.
My favourite "social comment" moment is Dolores Umbridge's speech at the start of the Hogwarts Ofsted inspection - a brilliant take-off of the hundreds of inane policy documents issued by the British government under New Labour. Right down to the pointless alliteration! As someone who has to read government policy documents for work I laughed until I cried.
Harry and his friends go through all the customary rites of passage for teenagers growing up in our society. Hermione's campaign would be "Save the Whale" in the real world. How many teenagers who sincerely wanted to save the whale actually go on to do anything about it as adults? Precious few, I would suggest. So why would it be different in Rowling's parallel universe? British society accepts the oppression of certain groups - why would Rowling's parallel universe behave differently?
I disagree that all Muggles are presented as "bad" characters. The Prime Minister is presented sympathetically, for example. And I admire the way Rowling turns the whole story round in the final book and in providing us with an adult perspective on the narrative also provides realistic motivation for Harry's aunt Petunia. Not a good motive for her behaviour towards Harry, but a human and understandable motive which belongs to her character.
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity Killed ...:
On Pern the Weyrs have a fair bit of homosexuality - amongst the green and blue dragon riders various. It's not spelled out that obviously because a lot of children read them, but it's definitely there.
Male homosexuality becomes explicit in The White Dragon after Macaffrey decided that green dragons were female and could mate, although they are infertile. In the first book green dragons were male, the gold queen dragons being the only females. This change had the consequence that Lytol's deceased dragon Larth had its colour changed - in the first book it was a green but in subsequent books Larth is a brown.
I wonder whether this change was to ensure that an important character rode a high status dragon (greens, being female, are of course very low status) or whether it was because Macaffrey didn't want an important character to have engaged in sex with other men? Either way, I find the whole change highly questionable.
But then, Pern is a long way from an ideal society. It's run by a tight oligarchy who manipulate all the other characters to achieve their aims. And Macaffrey doesn't introduce any characters who question these people's right to behave in such a manipulative fashion. Nasty.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Picking up Eliab's point (couldn't find a handy quote - sorry) and also Lamb Chopped and Ricardus', where I get uneasy with the servant race idea is precisely because it is so appealing, and so prevalent. The idea that there is a whole group of people who enjoy doing the boring menial stuff is exactly what men used to say (are still saying?) about women, slave owners about slaves, upper classes about lower classes. It is the same careless, unthinking attitude that most people with the money to employ servants show towards them. It's the attitude behind the "pleb" comment that cost the chief whip his job. It stinks.
ETA: And if it gets expressed, unchallenged, in fiction it is more likely to flourish in real life.
This may be so; but are we then saying that there are some fictional situations that are too dangerous to allow novelists to explore?
I'm interested because in a couple real life scenarios I have had people go in, Hermione-like, to rescue me from my oppressor--and get all indignant with me when I indicated apologetically that I had no desire to be rescued, thank-you-very-much.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I've a number of points about comments from all through this thread.
In Narnia, Lewis drew on the Ottoman's language for the name of his principal character - Aslan, used as a boy's name, meaning lion. (Also the title Tarkan, same meaning, same source). I don't think this was really racist. I thought he was using the 1001 Nights as a style source for the H&HB.
The Magician's Nephew was written some time after LWW (I read them as they came out) so the foundation story of Narnia can't be used as a reason for the human rule being required.
I gave up on Goodkind because of the dark stuff, and McCaffrey because of the hierarchical stuff - wasn't there some droit de seigneur at one point? It did puzzle me that writers from a republic leaned so much to having a superior class and the rest being untermensch. (See Diana Wynne Jones "The Tough Guide to Fantasy Land" on the subject of the function of peasants.)
I think the later Earthsea books with female magic users resulted from feminist input after the first books with the traditional male bias had aroused discussion.
About the time the trilogy came out I read a book on the brain by a writer called Stan Gooch (psychologist rather than neuroscientist, I think) who held firmly that there could never be a woman wizard (and there can be male ones?). This could have been because the staff was an extension of anatomy not known in women (see Pratchett and Nanny Ogg's folk song). He contrasted it with fairies' pathetic little wands. (Hadn't come across the original version of those folk, had he?) Or it could have been because women magic wielders are ambiguous and can be both evil and good, unlike males who are either one or the other. He was very insistent on the nature of something non-existent. No surprise that even Le Guin could fall into the pattern then.
And returning kings give me ... a bad feeling. Kingship is only as good as the man in the job. Or the woman, if queenship is included. Up republics.
I share a lot of Zach's thinking about the Potter books. It seemed to me, as time went on, that the Ministry of Magic could have been doing a lot more to contribute to the common good by, for instance, working in hospitals. And I wondered what the source of all that food produced at Hogwarts, no matter who worked on it. No evidence of farming wizards. And what about the gold? How does that fit in with ownership of the world's riches? As far as I could see, the wizards lived as parasites on the Muggle community rather than helpful symbionts. They did help to get rid of an evil which they had generated themselves, but so what?
I would like there to have been a WSM. (See thread on CSM).
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Drat, new computer. new OS, couldn't tell what was going on - can someone delete one of those, please?
[No problem - doublepost deleted - B62]
[ 28. October 2012, 22:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Lamb Chopped: quote:
This may be so; but are we then saying that there are some fictional situations that are too dangerous to allow novelists to explore?
I'm interested because in a couple real life scenarios I have had people go in, Hermione-like, to rescue me from my oppressor--and get all indignant with me when I indicated apologetically that I had no desire to be rescued, thank-you-very-much.
I'm certainly not saying there are some situations that should not be explored, but presenting a happy race of slaves and leaving it there is not exploring the situation. Rowling does a little bit of exploring; Lackey none at all.
I'm not quite sure how that leads into your second point, but that is a situation I would imagine we have all been in. At times when we're stuck we appreciate help, at others we want to get out of the hole ourselves. I've got it wrong loads of times, and my friends have got it wrong about me too. It's a big theme in post-colonial literature; not so big in fantasy.
(And if you want really unpleasant themes in mainstream literature, look no further than Booker Prize winning Disgrace by Coetze. Rarely has a book been so aptly named.)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The idea that the Calormenes are based on Muslims, is a clear projection of our bogey ideas onto C.S. Lewis.
I would need more convincing that Narnia can be read back into Lewis' childhood. It seems to me, based upon Lewis' adult non-fictional writings, that the obvious source is medieval constructions of the Arabs and Turks with a bit of the Arabian Nights in there.
Lewis once wrote that, if you left out any serious interest in ethics or the human condition, the Italian Orlando epics - Boiardo and Ariosto - were contenders for the greatest books ever written, and certainly the books he found most entertaining. I would suppose the Calormenes are drawn from the depictions of the Saracens and Turks in those, with a side order of the Arabian Nights.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Ok... what do you think of a chaotic-good orc?
The problem with chaotic good orcs is that orcs aren't necessarily balanced to work as player characters. In at least some versions of D&D an orc would be a much better fighter than any other race could. (Although having said that in most versions of D&D fighters stop mattering after a few levels.) So it's simpler to just not let orcs be PCs.
But there's no reason why a DM couldn't include a chaotic good orc if the DM wanted to run a campaign where such things would work.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm not particularly convinced - in that, yes, there are times when an author can get away with it (Stephenson and Le Guin being two of the few), but generally the insertion of Author Avatars and Mary Sues end badly.
I'd estimate that 90% of such cases end badly, in accordance with Sturgeon's Law.
Well, Mary Sues are by definition bad. So I'll rephrase: 90% of author avatars end up as some form of Mary Sue. At the other end of the scale, we have Constantin Levin and Pierre Bezukhov and Marcel.
I think a book that doesn't deal with ethical or political or other questions about the human condition is going to be pure escapism. And that's alright - Wodehouse is brilliant. But fiction can do more. And if it does more, then the author's thinking is going to come into it. (*) The question isn't whether it comes in at all, but whether it is put in well or badly.
(*) To pick an example out of the air, it's obvious that the Petrovitch trilogy (**) was not written by someone who supported the War in Iraq or Bush's foreign policy at all.
(**) Winner of the Philip K. Dick award.
[ 28. October 2012, 20:01: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Lamb Chopped: quote:
This may be so; but are we then saying that there are some fictional situations that are too dangerous to allow novelists to explore?
I'm interested because in a couple real life scenarios I have had people go in, Hermione-like, to rescue me from my oppressor--and get all indignant with me when I indicated apologetically that I had no desire to be rescued, thank-you-very-much.
I'm certainly not saying there are some situations that should not be explored, but presenting a happy race of slaves and leaving it there is not exploring the situation. Rowling does a little bit of exploring; Lackey none at all.
I'm not quite sure how that leads into your second point, but that is a situation I would imagine we have all been in. At times when we're stuck we appreciate help, at others we want to get out of the hole ourselves. I've got it wrong loads of times, and my friends have got it wrong about me too. It's a big theme in post-colonial literature; not so big in fantasy.
(And if you want really unpleasant themes in mainstream literature, look no further than Booker Prize winning Disgrace by Coetze. Rarely has a book been so aptly named.)
I need to work harder on the clear writing thing. What i meant was, that my situation seemed to others a clear case of oppression, but i emphatically disagreed; and there was no way i could communicate my self-understanding to others so strongly embued with the "correct" understanding of how sentient human beings should relate to one another. At first they tried to argue me into seeing the "truth" of my oppression, and then they became angry with me for not accepting their viewpoint over my own. I found this well intended but very patronizing. As if i could not be trusted to know my own situation! I wonder if one of the Hogwarts house elves might not have felt the same. Do gooding can become a form of cultural imperialism if we refuse to accept what those most concerned tell us, unpalatable though it may be.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The idea that the Calormenes are based on Muslims, is a clear projection of our bogey ideas onto C.S. Lewis.
I would need more convincing that Narnia can be read back into Lewis' childhood. It seems to me, based upon Lewis' adult non-fictional writings, that the obvious source is medieval constructions of the Arabs and Turks with a bit of the Arabian Nights in there.
Lewis once wrote that, if you left out any serious interest in ethics or the human condition, the Italian Orlando epics - Boiardo and Ariosto - were contenders for the greatest books ever written, and certainly the books he found most entertaining. I would suppose the Calormenes are drawn from the depictions of the Saracens and Turks in those, with a side order of the Arabian Nights.
Yet you are quite happy for the talking animals of Narnia to have just such an origin.
Jengie
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(*) To pick an example out of the air, it's obvious that the Petrovitch trilogy (**) was not written by someone who supported the War in Iraq or Bush's foreign policy at all.
(**) Winner of the Philip K. Dick award.
Pfft. Good point, well made. Though I found myself having considerable sympathy with Oshicora Snr, despite pretty much everything.
A couple of other observations: I'd like to think my views are considerably more nuanced than Petrovitch's, and there is one character who I resemble more than others (and I discovered this in retrospect). It's not Petrovitch.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I need to work harder on the clear writing thing. What i meant was, that my situation seemed to others a clear case of oppression, but i emphatically disagreed; and there was no way i could communicate my self-understanding to others so strongly embued with the "correct" understanding of how sentient human beings should relate to one another. At first they tried to argue me into seeing the "truth" of my oppression, and then they became angry with me for not accepting their viewpoint over my own. I found this well intended but very patronizing. As if i could not be trusted to know my own situation! I wonder if one of the Hogwarts house elves might not have felt the same. Do gooding can become a form of cultural imperialism if we refuse to accept what those most concerned tell us, unpalatable though it may be.
It is an interesting point. Marxism always argued you needed to do 'conciseness raising' didn't it ? And I think that feminists and homosexuals might argue the same about their civil rights movements. For example, if someone thinks that it is reasonable for their husband to have sex with them whether they want to or not - and feel bad if they have protested - is it wrong to try to persuade them otherwise ?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Damn spellcheck- consciousness raising even ...
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think a book that doesn't deal with ethical or political or other questions about the human condition is going to be pure escapism. And that's alright - Wodehouse is brilliant.
Strangely enough, I tend to find some Wodehouse, especially The Coming of Bill, to be just a bit pointed politically and ethically. Sure, it's couched in humorous language, but how many doddering or just plain stupid rich men are there whose idle hands have become, if not necessarily the Devil's workshop, something less than entirely saintly? It generally seems as if the poor (or at least non-rich) characters fare better in his estimation than those empowered by an effectively dead political order whose time has long since passed.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
After reading some Stephen Deas lately, I can't think about McCafferey the same way. He also writes about a hierarchical society with "tamed" dragons, except that the nobility all act like entitled jerks, and the dragons are more or less gigantic fire breathing horses.*
Funny thing is that the author is brutal with his characters. The most sympathetic ones are a spoiled brat rich kid who occasionally shows a humane streak, or at least is cynical enough to realize that the nobility is a sham; and a sell-sword who goes joyriding with a rogue dragon. By the end he's almost a human being. And then he gets killed by a mob who confuse him with a dragon-rider.
He shows a horrible social system built on power and lust descending into a fiery self-made apocalypse. I see more of this lately in pop fantasy.
SPOILER: The only reason the dragons are tame is because they're very carefully medicated. And of course, one of the big themes of his trilogy is what happens when a dragon "goes off its meds" and realizes who and what it is: ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is an interesting point. Marxism always argued you needed to do 'conciseness raising' didn't it ? And I think that feminists and homosexuals might argue the same about their civil rights movements. For example, if someone thinks that it is reasonable for their husband to have sex with them whether they want to or not - and feel bad if they have protested - is it wrong to try to persuade them otherwise ?
But in this case the person has protested, which shows at least a divided mind. I'm wondering about the case of someone who shows no divided mind (case in point, all the house elves in HP bar Dobby and Kreacher, and even those gladly return to servitude or servitude-like actions as soon as they find a halfway decent master to serve). I think I'd be a lot happier with consciousness-raising if there is already evidence of a personal judgement in place (a divided mind). To try to introduce discontent and unhappiness from outside, into a situation where it appears not to exist at all already--meh.
Maybe a closer parallel would be domesticated dogs. They seem quite happy to live in subordinate relationships with human beings, and only object to abuse. If it were possible to somehow propagandize the dogs to rise up in the name of freedom and equality, would that be a good thing to do? or might they not tell us to bug off?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Should have added--Diane Duane has a Young Wizards novel where a very intelligent dog tells the origin myth of his species, which involves rescuing human beings, forming a pack relationship with them, and then voluntarily and unanimously giving up their proper species destiny to remain in that relationship. There's clearly a voice in the novel that suggests this was a mistake, but the dogs don't see it so--and in the end, they reach their proper destiny another way (and it's not clear if it's the same it would have been without the human adoption, but they are Just.Fine. with it).
Fun to think about.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Lamb Chopped - definitely agree that being patronising is a bad thing; it seems to me to be one of the evils inherent in an imperialistic system. Certainly one doesn't have to look far to see all sorts of things that "the white man" "fixed" which weren't broken in the first place, and the problems that ensued. It would be interesting to read a novel that struggles with the problem of whether to act or not, but I'm racking my brains for an example and can't think of one. Maybe Sparrow by Mary Russell (?), but it's a long time since I read it and can't be sure.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Haven't read it but sounds interesting!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I can heartily recommend The Sparrow. It won the Arthur C Clarke award, and rightly so: it's an astonishing book.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I sure want Rowling's writing to say these aspects of wizarding society are bad, because I like the series, but I can't see it. Maybe it's too subtle for me. So far as I can see, she made up a race of happy slaves, and it's all OK in that world. Wizards shouldn't mistreat muggles, but they really are superior beings. None of that is social commentary. She made her world like that on purpose.
And, by the by, the Prime Minister doesn't seem to be portrayed in a particularly sympathetic light to me. Perhaps he's not quite as vicious as all the other muggles in the series, but that's about it.
[ 29. October 2012, 01:42: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
I really think some people would be happier a slaves. Not that they'd be better off, but it's a stability. I suspect in all cultures there are folks who are either too scared to think otherwise, or living in their limited way, they decide that they'd rather be the favored slave than a freeperson.
ETA: She's also clever enough to know that her audience will be horrified by the situation, or at least uncomfortable, without having to make it so explicit. She uses that moral discomfort without having to overplay it for the gratification of the reader.
[ 29. October 2012, 02:00: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Occasionally there seems to be a view in this thread that depiction = approval unless an author goes out of their way to show their criticism. I'm not so sure about that.
Also, what Bullfrog said about happy slaves. It's entirely plausible to me. And when you head into territory that involves different species, it's terribly presumptuous to think that just because human beings in our place and time and country aspire to non-servanthood, other species must be depicted in this way.
Finally... doesn't anyone read Stephen Donaldson? I'm disappointed. Sniff.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
She isn't depicting anything but what was in her imagination. The question to ask is why she imagined a race of people (and house elves are people) that love to be enslaved, and furthermore treated the only person who felt the situation was wrong with such contempt.
Though if you live in a world where slavery is a pleasant possibility for anyone, I can see that Rowling's world presents no particular problems for you.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I suppose it oughtter add, in asking this question, the answer doesn't have to be "Because Rowling and everyone that likes her work is a terrible person." I still like Harry Potter, but there are aspects of it I find troubling.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I think the always-evil races with societies more or less went out in the 90s between Drizz't and his clones, Vampire the Masquerade, and people wanting to play dark angsty loners from evil races. More or less what's left in the always (rather than normally) evil camp are the devils, the demons, the Far Realm/Abominations/Mythos, most Undead (depending on interpretation), and certain really unpleasant predators like Mind Flayers. Also sometimes the Chromatic Dragons. And in the Nentir Vale cosmology IIRC the Devils helped the Good Gods against the Primordials and Demons.
Which possibly points to a huge evolution in the Fantasy genre...
Sure does to me!
Very good to know-- that stuff always bugged me. case in point, my DM allowed a pacifist character, but absolutely would not let me make any kind of good orc character-- my original desire-- unless he was a half-orc. This was, indeed, in the mid 90's.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Surely 'good' is a value judgement, importing a human assessment of what is 'good' onto an orc.
What if orc cultural values are entirely different, such that an orc is who is 'good' by human standards would be seen by other orcs as having entirely lost his/her/its way.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Semi-random semi-tangent: I know it's hardly D&D, but I do rather enjoy diving into (online versions of) Magic: the Gathering occasionally, because the interaction of the 5 different strategies is fascinating. Black creatures aren't "evil" especially, they just aim to beat you in a particular, life-force sucking kind of way...
Whereas I personally prefer green creatures that grow so big they can stomp on you.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I think it's perfectly valid to talk about RPGs in the context of the prevalence of imperialism and raacism in the fantasy genre (let us say.) Because in gaming, you aren't just reading about someone else's world you are becoming part of that world, accepting its rules toward your own behavior.
Check this out. (forgive the commercial.)
Also forgive the cliche of the batty gamer who takes the game too far, but, my gaming friends, tell me it isn't a cliche you've actually sat down and had Funyuns with at some Con. That said, listen to the guy's rap at about .43 "This is why I don't let you guys roll up Nubians!"
The idea that certain races have certain moral/ temperamental designations in novels is one thing-- you can decide you buy it or not, you can argue with it in your head while you enjoy other things about the book. (movie, show) In the gaming world, you have to use the rules of the game. You have to try on that value system.
The race based character rules are a trickle-down of the kind of traditional racial type casting that comes in a good deal of fantasy literature, IMO. One possible advantage of gaming is that it is a good place for crafty people to challenge those ideas.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Are we using 2 different definitions of the word "race", here?
Because to me the usual meaning of 'race' is about different groups of humans. When we get into the realm of fantasy and SF, we're sometimes talking about different species.
And the question of whether different 'races' are inherently different is completely separate from the question of whether different species are inherently different.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, what Bullfrog said about happy slaves. It's entirely plausible to me. And when you head into territory that involves different species, it's terribly presumptuous to think that just because human beings in our place and time and country aspire to non-servanthood, other species must be depicted in this way.
Whilst it's not fantasy, V S Naipaul's depicts 'slavery' in 'A bend in the river'. There the slaves are more like live in relatives you can't actually get rid of, AND DON'T WANT TO BE GOT RID OF. This points out that real life is complex enough to cause our simplistic thinking to fall apart, let alone in a fantasy world.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Isn't it that a lot of these fantasy themes are ways of experiencing vicariously ideas you'd / we'd like to explore without harming anyone or anything in the process? An effective way of sublimating those darker desires?
Sometimes, but sometimes the story just requires an element of horror/unpleasantness/evil, without there necessarily being any sublimated desire involved.
And reader/player reactions may vary. You can think Voldemort a decent villain whether you think it would be incredibly cool to be able to kill people just by waving a stick and saying a word, or whether you think that would just be appalling and scary.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I sure want Rowling's writing to say these aspects of wizarding society are bad, because I like the series, but I can't see it. Maybe it's too subtle for me.
No, I think you are seeing a subtlty that isn't there. The Harry Potter books are not, I think, thought through so as to make wizarding society realistic or workable in any way at all. The house-elf thing is initially set up to give Harry a powerful ally-adversary operating under plot-necessary constraints, and then used as a hook for Hermione's youthful and idealistic activism. It's background, meant to be understood at exactly the level presented in the text, and no deeper.
It's like the contrast in how Narnia is depicted between The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and The Horse and his Boy. The Narnia of LW&W is a fairy-tale place, and the book needs to be read in that way. "Always winter and never Christmas" is a truly inspired curse to place on such a land, but the reader isn't meant to ask how all those talking animals could find food over decade after decade without seed or harvest. On the other hand, the Narnia of H&HB is a going concern. The reader is meant to ask how the small countries of Archenland and Narnia stay free of Calormene expansionism, how an expeditionary force can make it across the desert when an army could not. Political and logistical questions matter to the plot - in LW&W such questions are strictly inapplicable. It's not the Lewis screwed up in writing LW&W that way, it's that such questions aren't part of the story he was telling.
All the Harry Potter books are much closer to LW&W than H&HB on that spectrum. Wizarding society is an exciting backdrop, not a going concern. There's loads of questions that a different sort of HP book might have explored deeper, but just aren't part of the story Rowling actually told. You just have to accept, for example, that Quidditch is a popular sport, even though the rules are so obviously shit*.
(*Aerial football? Yes, great idea. Aerial football in which 12 of the 14 players on the pitch fanny about almost never doing anything that affects the final result in any way? The result almost invariably decided on the mostly-random catching of an object the whole point of which is that it is all but invisible at the sight distance of the players, let alone the spectators hundreds of feet below? Shit. Completely unplayable. Completely unwatchable. But it works from the narrative point of view of giving Harry the chance to star in an exciting contest, and that's the only level which, in the story, it needs to work at).
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
case in point, my DM allowed a pacifist character, but absolutely would not let me make any kind of good orc character-- my original desire-- unless he was a half-orc. This was, indeed, in the mid 90's.
A pacifist character might break the unwritten contract between players and DM that "we are going to play this kind of game". If, for example, the PC group is the local warlord's plausibly-deniable black ops team, saying "my character's a pacifist" is saying "I'm not playing that - change the rules or I'm taking my ball home". But if that wasn't the case for your group, then fine. I'd have allowed it as a DM.
Good orcs? If you can justify it, I think. But the conception of 'good' should be an orcish one. Things like strength, tribal loyalty, resilience, cunning, and good luck should feature as virtues, even if your good orc has an idiosyncratic aversion to such ordinary diversions as bullying, cruelty and aggression. The only objection I would have to an orc PC is that the strength of D&D (and the thing that later editions, to their utter shame and perdition, have fucked up) is that it is a template system, where the essentials of what your character can do are basically summed up in 'class, race, level', so introducing non-standard races is a bit of a pain, and before long you're fielding requests for PC angels, dragons and demigods. But there's nothing to stop your half-orc thinking of him/herself as an orc. Plenty of people in the real world with mixed heritage strongly identify with one part of it.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Ged - the hero of Wizard of Earthsea - has red/brown skin; but the book I had as a child had a white guy on the cover.
So did Johnny Rico, the hero of the rather less wholemeal Starship Troopers. And look what they did to him in the film!
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So did Johnny Rico, the hero of the rather less wholemeal Starship Troopers. And look what they did to him in the film!
Yes, but the film is not so much an adaptation of the book, as a knee in the groin of literature.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
No, I think you are seeing a subtlty that isn't there. The Harry Potter books are not, I think, thought through so as to make wizarding society realistic or workable in any way at all.
I am not sure "Rowling is actually just a sloppy writer" is going to be a satisfactory explanation to our fellows here that see a very subtle social criticism in it all.
But even if Rowling just didn't think through this whole "happy slaves" thing, that doesn't mean that we can't, or shouldn't wonder about the whole Series' Übermensch mentality. We have a finished work- what does this finished work mean? Well, it seems to mean some rather negative things.
quote:
You just have to accept, for example, that Quidditch is a popular sport, even though the rules are so obviously shit*.
The rules of Quidditch are perfectly cogent if we remember that the whole universe revolves around Harry Potter, for they allow Harry Potter to single-handedly win every single game and be the hero every single time.
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The rules of Quidditch are perfectly cogent if we remember that the whole universe revolves around Harry Potter, for they allow Harry Potter to single-handedly win every single game and be the hero every single time.
YES. It drives me nuts that Harry can do no wrong. The wizarding world has a clear moral code (contra some American conservatives) and Harry is allowed to violate it over and over with no consequences. Hello, Unforgivable Curse?
That's what really troubles me from an ethical standpoint about the HP books- treatment of Muggles and house elves aside- that they seem to imply that if you're the Hero (which every child is, in h/h own mind) you can get away with anything.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
That's what really troubles me from an ethical standpoint about the HP books- treatment of Muggles and house elves aside- that they seem to imply that if you're the Hero (which every child is, in h/h own mind) you can get away with anything.
Because that's part of the deal with YA books. The protagonist is able to operate without the usual restrictions placed on people who are still essentially children.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Harry Potter is surely pretty commendable from the imperialism and racism perspective.
In some ways, yes. Gryffindor House is the anti-prejudice House. (Even though some legendary Gryffindors are bullies - I'm looking at you, James Potter!)
And in other ways, no. Because Rowling so blatantly favours Gryffindor and constantly sets up Slytherin House as the Fount of All Evil (despite 'good' Slytherins like Snape and Slughorn. Yes, I do see Snape as one of the good guys, despite his appalling attitude to Harry). Rowling's attitude to Slytherin House is problematic, from a literary POV. The Slytherin kids seem to be representative of everything the author hates: they're snobs, they like power, many of them are racists. What, ALL of them? At eleven years old?! This doesn't strike me as serious world-building.
I really enjoyed the HP books. They're great fun. But analyse the Potterverse on a deeper level and it has serious gaps in logic and consistency. Rowling is a great storyteller. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
She also has the gift of creating vivid and memorable characters. She is NOT, however, a great world-builder.
I tend to agree with Zach82 on the series' attitude to Muggles. If I took the Potterverse seriously (which I don't), then the persistent portrayal of Muggles as laughable nincompoops undercuts anything serious the author was trying to say about slavery and prejudice.
And as much as I like Harry, his success based on nothing more than good luck and Being the Hero can get irritating.
I sound harsh about the books, but I do like them a lot. And they do have a lot to commend them. It's certainly fun to point out to fellow Evangelicals who mistakenly believe that HP is 'occult' ( ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) that the books actually have a very conservative morality. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Maybe I'm just reacting to the popular notion that the HP books are among the greatest fantasy novels ever written, which they are not.
I don't read much fantasy, to be honest. I adore Tolkien (whom I regard as the granddaddy ) because his magnificent mythos reads like imaginary history rather than High Fantasy (which I'm not very interested in).
I did like Guy Gavriel Kay's Fionavar Trilogy, which is like The Lord of the Rings with sex and has many strong female characters.
I have a huge affection for Narnia, which is part of my childhood. I also have a huge affection for Lewis, many of whose books have given me a true glimpse of heaven. I'm not blind to his blind spots, however ... some of the politics in Narnia do make me go 'oy vey, Jack!'
[ 29. October 2012, 15:18: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
Yes, absolutely, stuff that normal kids couldn't get away with, like going out alone at night (why did Buffy's loving, attentive mom take so long to figure out that the Buff was out slaying vampires all the time?) or the Hardy Boys owning a jalopy, a roadster, a speedboat and an airplane.
But to me the Potter books are on a different level because Harry doesn't just have unrealistic privileges- he actually commits what the wizarding world regards as a crime, the Unforgivable Curse. He also does lower-level stuff like cheating on the Cup challenges in book 4. In the world of the books, not just in our world, any other wizard would have been punished and punished good for doing the things he does. Even an adult wizard.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Wizards shouldn't mistreat muggles, but they really are superior beings
I'm not that convinced that wizards are superior. Differently abled, maybe, as are Olympian athletes. I tend to think of superiority in terms of what a person is like rather than the skills they have. I can't quite see Tom Riddle as a superior being. Powerful and destructive doesn't say superior in my book.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
why did Buffy's loving, attentive mom take so long to figure out that the Buff was out slaying vampires all the time
Because if you think the words 'loving' and 'attentive' describe Joyce Summers, you must have been watching a different show to me.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not that convinced that wizards are superior. Differently abled, maybe, as are Olympian athletes. I tend to think of superiority in terms of what a person is like rather than the skills they have. I can't quite see Tom Riddle as a superior being. Powerful and destructive doesn't say superior in my book.
Well, neither am I. I am looking at what the text says.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Are we using 2 different definitions of the word "race", here?
Because to me the usual meaning of 'race' is about different groups of humans. When we get into the realm of fantasy and SF, we're sometimes talking about different species.
And the question of whether different 'races' are inherently different is completely separate from the question of whether different species are inherently different.
Probably am using a gaming -specific term-- D&D uses "races" to differentiate the character templates. That's kind of why it's problematic to me.
Same with the whole "good-evil-neutral" dynamic-- as you pointed out, it's a value judgement. A value judgement that leans the game a specific way. I have no problem with different cultural units (let's say) having different agendas, but the whole goodie/ baddie thing in a roleplaying setting can be problematic, IMO. As far as instilling unconscious attitudes.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not that convinced that wizards are superior. Differently abled, maybe, as are Olympian athletes. I tend to think of superiority in terms of what a person is like rather than the skills they have. I can't quite see Tom Riddle as a superior being. Powerful and destructive doesn't say superior in my book.
Well, neither am I. I am looking at what the text says.
I think that in HP, the idea that witches and wizards are truly superior to Muggles is an idea associated mainly with Voldemort and Death Eaters, and therefore is presented as an evil prejudice. That said, it is certainly the case that most wizards and witches in HP believe that the magical community should be separate from the Muggle community. There is at least some suggestion that this is based on past persecution of witches and wizards, though there is certainly also a "not like us" prejudice at work. And even when we see some sympathy toward Muggles, such as comments on wizards torturing "poor Muggles" or on Marvolo Gaunt's reaction to his daughter falling in love with a Muggle ('m working off memory so I hope I'm remembering right), there is often a hint of paternalism about it.
But what I think redeems it is that there is an exception -- Arthur Weasley. He seems not only fascinated by Muggles but admiring and non-patronizing as well. Sure, as with everything, it's expressed in humorous ways, but it's there, I think. And it's there, too, with Molly, who says "Muggles do know more than we give them credit for, don't they?" (Thanks google, and nevermind that Molly is really commenting on some of Arthur's enchantments, not on actual Muggle know-how.)
The point is that the wizarding world, like ours, is imperfect. Few things if any should be accepted purely at face value. There is a voice in the story to say that perhaps wizards and witches have it all wrong about Muggles.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Picking up on Laurelin's excellent points about the houses at Hogwarts. Suppose you have a way to identify all the kids who have major behavioural issues - are you really going to put them all in one house? And then, on the last day of term, let them think they've won the School Cup, only to snatch it from their grasp at the last minute? Is that going to help them?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not that convinced that wizards are superior. Differently abled, maybe, as are Olympian athletes. I tend to think of superiority in terms of what a person is like rather than the skills they have. I can't quite see Tom Riddle as a superior being. Powerful and destructive doesn't say superior in my book.
Well, neither am I. I am looking at what the text says.
OK, I actually agree with you on most points. (Can't think of any off hand I don't.)
I tend to read uncritically, getting immersed in story, and Rowling is pretty good at making a world it is possible to do that with. Only on coming out of the world do I start to notice things that grate. I've been reading Ana Mardoll and her commenters on Narnia, and although I recognise a lot of her points, they didn't bother me as a child - I don't know how often I read those books. I'm not sure that being picky with story is a good thing, unless it is with things which are glaring, as in Goodkind or Stephen Donaldson, and break the reading process. (I was recently made aware of a college secret record which said that I was widely read, but not deeply. No-one at the time did anything to direct me deeper, but I think it is a fair comment.)
Were I doing the writing, I would have the wizards deeply involved in elfin safety in the dangerous employments, like mining and oil rigs and other heavy engineering, as well as the health service, and developing techniques to disable illegally held guns and knives on the street... they have arisen from the generality, as Hermione shows, and should get involved in the general good. Diana Wynne Jones has greater involvement of magic workers in Chrestomanci's world, not simply controlling the wilder behaviours of dominant mages.
But I don't think like that while I'm reading and enjoying the books for the first time, I really prefer to just follow the story. And I don't remember the details of things as closely as some do. There are threads on the net about Dr Who where people know everything about all the series right back to the very first (and probably didn't see that off air as I did).
[ 29. October 2012, 19:29: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm not particularly convinced - in that, yes, there are times when an author can get away with it (Stephenson and Le Guin being two of the few), but generally the insertion of Author Avatars and Mary Sues end badly. I'd much rather read the characters' opinions rather than the authors, especially when I'm reading say, Larry Niven or Orson Scott Card. Or Lovecraft, for that matter..
Kim Stanley Robinson has a tendency to let you know his political views. There is a scene in his Antartica book where the protagonist has a sort of political epiphany on realising that he is in fact working class and is being exploited by the owners of property - almost out of Ragged Trousered Philanthropist! And in the Mars books there is an entire chapter at least of a constitutional convention for Mars - and its pretty obvious how the author feels about it. Yet its one of my favourite chapters
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yet you are quite happy for the talking animals of Narnia to have just such an origin.
Am I happy for the talking animals to have evolved directly from Boxen? Boxen animals are what Lewis called dressed animals, animals that wear clothes and behave like human beings, as in Beatrix Potter or Wind in the Willows. Narnian animals, even the beavers, feel different to me. They're closer to folklore and fable.
Again, I'd want an argument that Lewis' imagination had stayed where it was when he was a child.
Also, I don't think that identifying the Calormenes with Hindus rather than Muslims makes it any better. Rather the opposite.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm not particularly convinced - in that, yes, there are times when an author can get away with it (Stephenson and Le Guin being two of the few), but generally the insertion of Author Avatars and Mary Sues end badly. I'd much rather read the characters' opinions rather than the authors, especially when I'm reading say, Larry Niven or Orson Scott Card. Or Lovecraft, for that matter..
Kim Stanley Robinson has a tendency to let you know his political views. There is a scene in his Antartica book where the protagonist has a sort of political epiphany on realising that he is in fact working class and is being exploited by the owners of property - almost out of Ragged Trousered Philanthropist! And in the Mars books there is an entire chapter at least of a constitutional convention for Mars - and its pretty obvious how the author feels about it. Yet its one of my favourite chapters
It loses an author readers. Some of the reviews I've had (especially of Degrees of Freedom) have made it quite clear that they'll never touch one of my books again. And within the context of the book, nothing that happens is extraordinary.
I have no idea what they'll make of the next one. Or rather, I have a pretty good idea and am battening down the hatches.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
KA, I'm eternally grateful that you didn't want to be a pacifist in the days when I was a DM; all to the DM who coped with you!
Ok... what do you think of a chaotic-good orc? Nobody's weighed in on that yet. And isn't that more the point of the thread than pacifism?
I played a lawful-good Orc once, a long time ago, back in the 1970s. Out-of-play backstory was that he was a Southern Baptist, he'd been converted listening to a American radio evangelist (how we got the radio into D&D is another thing entirely, but basically we played a set of loosely-linked scenarios in which each player was also a GM of different bit of the world, and each had their own private rules, some of us mixing fantasy and SF elements - so a character might be in a world with time-travel and so on in it, then end up in someone else's purely mediaeval or straight D&D system). Anyway the character worked well. If he had heard the phrase "Kill them all, God will know his own" he'd have made it his motto.
And yes, entirely pacifist player characters can work, as can characters who choose not to fight for their own self-preservation. Even the healing-only cleric who wants to save the monsters.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
]You also forget that, in D&D, the real enemy is not the orcs, undead, or other characters, but the DM, the rules, and whatever plans your DM had for you. If they're not pulling out their hair and calling you awful names by the end of the night, you're not doing it right. I knew a few people in college who deliberately played broken characters, and, what they couldn't break through the rules, the destroyed in role playing. Everyone but their DM loved it.
Not always, not even mostly. The best RPG sessions are often when the GM and players are co-operating to make a good story.
And the GM often has most fun when winging it, making things up as they go along, reacting to what the players do.
If characters just start destroying everything (which can be fun in a sort of gory way) and the GM wants to mov e on to something different, they can always get the scenario back. They are in charge of the rules, and the interpretation of the rules, and the NPCs, and they know where the bodies are buried. Never mind the treasure.
And whatever the players try you can pull a rabbit out of a hat. "OK folks, can everyone tell me what their character is looking at right now?" "Thanks, OK, there is a blinding flash in the sky - I mean blinding... no-one can see... you are all blind..." That was part of a scenario, not improvised. The players had the sense to fall on the ground and cover their ears before the shockwave hit.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The rule from both Gygax and Arneson was 1XP for 1GP - which meant you gained many times more XP from the loot than from the kills - and in order to prevent you forting up, wandering monsters didn't carry treasure so you just gained the kill XP from them. This was always a controversial if not downright unpopular rule (mostly because Gygax didn't actually explain it anywhere in the DMG) and therefore 2e turned it into an optional rule that was and 3e removed it entirely. 4e didn't add it back but had its own alternatives. (For the record, Gygax gave you the XP when you gained the loot, Arneson when you spent it on something not directly for adventuring)..
But, seriously, whoever followed the rules to the letter? Part of the fun was making your own rules. Making up one-off rules for special circumstances is a vital part of the game, as well as great fun. But developing your own version or interpretation of published rules is important too - and inevitable. If you tried to follow what's printed in published rule-books to the letter there would be so many inconsistencies and absurdities you could hardly play. You have to modify the rules. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. That's not because the rule sets are broken, that's how RPG works. Its part of the game.
Sometimes people tried playing NPCs as clever, prepared, intelligent characters with their own agendas, who make plans, lay traps, run away when they think they can't win, and don't just sit in rooms off dungeon corridors waiting for the player's party to open the door. A friend of mine had NPC "commando orcs" in his scenarios. Level 1 fighters, but they caused no end of trouble to player parties simply by using their heads - and the same kind of tactics and equipment ordinary mediaeval or early modern soldiers might have used in a real siege or a battle in a mine. Very often the players never even saw them. And afterwards found it hard to believe that they had done nothing not available to low-level characters.
Also years ago - I guess in the first version of the Monster Manual - if you played straight from the book various demons and undead creatures had the ability to gate in other kinds of evil creatures from some unpleasant world somewhere. And so did the new arrivals, so you could get an exponentially increasing number of high-level evil characters arriving. So if a player character foolishly uttered the wrong name and then lost a dice roll - demon apocalypse! Unless the DM deliberately chose for the NPCs to choose not to exploit their end-of-the-world powers. Or was flexible with the rules. We did that once as well. Sort of just for the fun of it at the end of a campaign at the end of a university year, taking the piss almost, see what happens if we really play the rules as written? The only reason that the player characters (or the planet they were on ) survived is that some of the Monster Manual lawful good monsters had, on paper, access to spells that could be used the same way. I can't entirely remember but I think the Good cascade started with a Ki-Rin that "just happened" to be flying by when the demons turned up. So the next half hour was pretty spectacular - but the player characters were more or less spectators.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
the usual meaning of 'race' is about different groups of humans. When we get into the realm of fantasy and SF, we're sometimes talking about different species.
And the question of whether different 'races' are inherently different is completely separate from the question of whether different species are inherently different.
Whether it's sci-fi aliens or High Elves, the whole point is that they are non-human, different.
Whereas for those who are fixated on the issue of racism, it is an article of faith that all the different types of human are essentially the same underneath, and they can't help but see such fictional difference as a threat, unless the story ends in a way that affirms their underlying worldview.
Similarly, it seems to me entirely possible to disapprove of slavery and yet read a book set among the upper classes of ancient Rome in which slavery is unquestioned even by the sympathetic characters. The author is and should be free to tell the story they want to tell, without needing to defend themselves against accusations that anything in the story represents their personal view.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Whereas for those who are fixated on the issue of racism...
You know, I am fixated on the idea that there is an inherent dignity to being a person, and that slavery is an offense to that dignity. Call me narrow minded.
quote:
Similarly, it seems to me entirely possible to disapprove of slavery and yet read a book set among the upper classes of ancient Rome...
You know that Harry Potter and his world ain't real, right? The "impartial depiction" argument just doesn't hold if Rowling made her world that way on purpose to serve a plot point.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
KA, I'm eternally grateful that you didn't want to be a pacifist in the days when I was a DM; all to the DM who coped with you!
Ok... what do you think of a chaotic-good orc? Nobody's weighed in on that yet. And isn't that more the point of the thread than pacifism?
From the purely D&D perspective, I've long moved on to the later editions that relax the alignment rules for races. From the perspective of the thread, I agree that this can be an issue - but the reality is that some cultures (which approximate to races) do have moralities which we would describe as evil. One of my favourite stories is of the Marxists who turn up on Fiji to try to convince the residents that there is no good. They are told, somewhat unsubtly, that they should be grateful that the residents do believe in God, because otherwise they would currently be being cooked. For Fijians, conversion for Christianity was a major change in culture; their tradition of killing and eating their enemies was now no longer the case. Similarly we can offer Peter Tatchell's evidence about paedophilia being usual.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But, seriously, whoever followed the rules to the letter?
Someone who's used to a ruleset that works. I'll play a game like Marvel Heroic, Dread, or even Dogs in the Vineyard straight down the line, rules as written. For tht matter you can play 4e D&D straight down the line rules as written - and my houserules when I DM fit onto one side of a single index card in fairly large type. That said, the design is explicitely exception based in both 4e and MHRP, so giving NPCs or monsters the ability to do [whatever] is within the rules, and there's good guidance for evaluating stunts.
quote:
Making up one-off rules for special circumstances is a vital part of the game, as well as great fun.
It is - but those are rulings rather than rules. They fit within the framework of the existing rules and are entirely in line with them, and won't come up again under normal circumstances.
quote:
If you tried to follow what's printed in published rule-books to the letter there would be so many inconsistencies and absurdities you could hardly play. You have to modify the rules. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. That's not because the rule sets are broken, that's how RPG works. Its part of the game.
For almost any game published before about 2002, yes you are probably right. This is at least in part because most classical RPGs are hacked tabletop wargames or designed heavily in that mold, in the case of such games as the Vampire the Masquerade or Feng Shui. In the last decade we've had a lot more good narrative games (such as the list I mentioned and the brilliant Spirit of the Century. Of course these games are a lot more narrativist and less gamist; more about collaboratively creating a story and less about player skill to overcome impossible odds. (If you're interested in how this can work, my recommendation would be to look at Marvel Heroic).
quote:
Sometimes people tried playing NPCs as clever, prepared, intelligent characters with their own agendas, who make plans, lay traps, run away when they think they can't win, and don't just sit in rooms off dungeon corridors waiting for the player's party to open the door. A friend of mine had NPC "commando orcs" in his scenarios.
Kobolds are notorious for this. But this is more or less how the original players played anyway.
quote:
Also years ago - I guess in the first version of the Monster Manual - if you played straight from the book various demons and undead creatures had the ability to gate in other kinds of evil creatures from some unpleasant world somewhere. And so did the new arrivals,
3E had to have an explicit rule that summoned creatures can not summon more creatures. 4e just has very few creatures that summon creatures. And we don't know what 5e will do.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(Yeah, I supposed I need to mention that my gaming heyday was in the 2E era.)
My husband carried a beeper at the time, and I beat out the laundry on rocks at the creek.)
[ 29. October 2012, 23:36: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
No, I think you are seeing a subtlty that isn't there. The Harry Potter books are not, I think, thought through so as to make wizarding society realistic or workable in any way at all.
I am not sure "Rowling is actually just a sloppy writer" is going to be a satisfactory explanation to our fellows here that see a very subtle social criticism in it all.
See, I wouldn't regard this as sloppiness. I would regard this as an author having certain goals that aren't the goals you're asking the author to meet.
I've had similar conversations recently in the realms of music and film. I don't think it makes sense to critique a piece of art on the basis of things it wasn't actually trying to do in the first place. Because no piece of art can actually deal with every single possible topic/genre simultaneously.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I am not criticizing her for not writing a story about the indignities of slavery. I am looking at what she has put in her finished work. She has inserted a race of happy slaves into this work, and gone out of her way to treat the moral scruples of the only person that sees something amiss about it with contempt. If she didn't want people drawing the conclusion that, in the world of Harry Potter, slavery is AOK so long as the slaves like it, then she shouldn't have written it that way.
I imagine she probably didn't mean to say that. But if she didn't expect people to draw that conclusion, she is indeed a sloppy writer.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I forgot the other bit of evidence. The other house elf wastes away without servitude. Freedom, even freedom from a fairly abusive master, is literally the worst possible fate for her.
Really J.K.?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
For goodness'sake. Rowling has more subtlety than that, whatever you think f her politics. Wasn't that the family with the cruel father who turns out to have been right, the sacrificial mother whose death turns out to have set free Voldemort's greatest supporter--and led directly to his reembodiment--and the poo r abused young son who winds up unmasked as that supporter? Why should Winky be the only one-sided character in that family?
She was far from stable with the burden of the secrets she carried in the Crouch family. I'd be far more inclined to attribute her breakdown to having been placed in impossible position of responsibility for such a loyal creature, despite her limits--and then kicked away for what she couldn't help. She seems to me to be pining for the value her family never gave her, not for servitude itself. ( otherwise why not just re-enslave her and solve all her problems instantly? On your hypothesis this would have been the no brainer solution, with everybody too thick to think of it.)
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Picking up on Laurelin's excellent points about the houses at Hogwarts. Suppose you have a way to identify all the kids who have major behavioural issues - are you really going to put them all in one house? And then, on the last day of term, let them think they've won the School Cup, only to snatch it from their grasp at the last minute? Is that going to help them?
Quite. Dumbledore's blatant favouritism towards Harry and Gryffindor House honestly makes me squirm in that scene. (No so subtle subtext: The Slytherins deserve it! They're so meeeeaaaaaaaaaan!)
I dislike Dumbledore. I went more and more off him as the series progressed, and was not disappointed by the revelations in DH that he really WAS the manipulative git I had suspected him of being all along. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
She has inserted a race of happy slaves into this work, and gone out of her way to treat the moral scruples of the only person that sees something amiss about it with contempt.
Whoa, hang on! JKR totally vindicates Hermione's position in the final book, when Ron finally Sees the Light and Hermione's POV about the House-elves (and earns himself a victory snog. )
Arguably, Harry wanting Kreacher to fetch him a sandwich at the end of the book somewhat undermines the whole 'House elves are now free, yay' thing.
quote:
I imagine she probably didn't mean to say that. But if she didn't expect people to draw that conclusion, she is indeed a sloppy writer.
Rowling is neither as bad as her detractors make her out to be, nor as amazing as her most ardent fans make her out to be.
I think she is an EXCELLENT storyteller. I found all the HP books to be real page-turners, and I do adore many of her characters. I personally find the world-building lacking in some ways. The magic is very well written, of course but the Wizarding World is not a fully developed imaginary world in many ways. IMO.
P.S. I haven't yet read The Casual Vacancy because it sounds about as cheerful as Jude the Obscure ...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I suppose we could encourage the use of a general disclaimer? Such as
"The opinions, overt or implied, of the characters in this book should not be seen as a reflection of the opinions of the author".
Then I suppose we might be able to cut through to the more general questions of literary merit and social utility.
Any novel which reflects the times I have lived (from the 1940s to today) would not be accurate if it did not also reflect the prevalence of imperialist, racist, sexist and homophobic beliefs during that time. That may be embarrassing, but it is true.
It is also true, and may be embarrassingly inconvenient to simple views of the world, that folks with imperialist, racist, sexist and homophobic beliefs were also capable of great acts of personal kindness and courage in circumstances where those beliefs didn't get in the way. In this context, I'm not theorising. I know very well quite a few survivors from "the generation above" who are at best partly reformed, at worst stuck with the blindnesses which used to be "respectable" and, quite rightly, no longer are.
Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If she didn't want people drawing the conclusion that, in the world of Harry Potter, slavery is AOK so long as the slaves like it, then she shouldn't have written it that way.
Actually, if the slaves do like it, and would freely choose to be in servitude were they to be offered the choice - indeed, in the world of HP if it the whole purpose of their species' existence - then why not?
You talk of the dignity of personhood, but surely part of that dignity is the ability to decide one's own path in the world. Sounds to me like you'd try to deny the house elves that dignity by seeking to force them to be something they don't want to be. And isn't that just as bad when the thing they don't want to be is "free" as it is when that thing is "a slave"?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
If you tried to follow what's printed in published rule-books to the letter there would be so many inconsistencies and absurdities you could hardly play. You have to modify the rules. Sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. That's not because the rule sets are broken, that's how RPG works. Its part of the game.
For almost any game published before about 2002, yes you are probably right. This is at least in part because most classical RPGs are hacked tabletop wargames or designed heavily in that mold, in the case of such games as the Vampire the Masquerade or Feng Shui.
As I was playing tabletop wargames in the 1960s and RPGs in the very early 1970s I probably resemble that remark..
But like I said, making up rules is part of the fun, Why would I want someone else to do it all for me?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose we could encourage the use of a general disclaimer? Such as
"The opinions, overt or implied, of the characters in this book should not be seen as a reflection of the opinions of the author".
To be honest, it frightens me that we live in a world where such things are not understood without being written down.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Actually, if the slaves do like it...
Oh Lord.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Actually, if the slaves do like it...
Oh Lord.
What is more important - that someone (yes, even a fictional magical elf) should be allowed to do what they want or that our patronising western imperialist attitude that we know what's best for them even if they disagree should be indulged?
Slavery is bad because it does not allow people to be free to be whatever they want to be and do whatever they want to do. Your stated position on this thread is bad for exactly the same reason.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
quote:
I suspect that if we found a nearby planet of house-elves of the usual sort (not Dobby, then), we'd be horrified. Would probably do our best in fact to convince them that a life of service was NOT what they wanted, that they were mad-brained for thinking so, and generally done everything we could to change their psychology into a form we could tolerate. Which would be just as morally wrong as the reverse.
Maybe that's what Rowling was playing with.
Exactly. When 'Free' elves get their chance they are EXTREMELY powerful magical beings and easily a match for any Wizards they come across.
The servitude is seen as an ancient agreement rather than a forced subjugation (although almost all the Wizards see it practically as the latter).
JK is making a point out of the 'normality' of the house elves servitude in the wizarding world.
But its not 'strictly' slavery as the house elves choose to accept this as the status quo, despite being able, in terms of power, to emancipate themselves.
For the elves the way out is in terms of the agreement itself re: recieving clothing.
ie by Legal means not Revolution.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
"Oh Lord" because you actually see some credibility to the vicious, ridiculous "happy slave" myth.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Oh Lord" because you actually see some credibility to the vicious, ridiculous "happy slave" myth.
Because everything else in the HP universe is so believable.
And I'm not talking about the obvious things like dragons, wands and flying broomsticks.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Oh Lord" because you actually see some credibility to the vicious, ridiculous "happy slave" myth.
Zach, I can point you to a range of NSFW web sites that are filled with people whose sexual gratification derives from being someone else's "slave". It's what they want, at least in that part of their lives.
[ 30. October 2012, 13:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Oh Lord" because you actually see some credibility to the vicious, ridiculous "happy slave" myth.
Excuse me? I thought we were talking about a species of magical elves in a work of fiction.
Would you have the same objection if we were talking about the droids in Star Wars, which are also sentient and which are bought and sold purely in order to serve their organic masters?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Oh Lord" because you actually see some credibility to the vicious, ridiculous "happy slave" myth.
A while ago I saw a book of ethical dilemmas with the title: 'The pig that wants to be eaten'.
I'm pretty sure JK Rowling was experimenting with the same idea.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
A while ago I saw a book of ethical dilemmas with the title: 'The pig that wants to be eaten'.
I'm pretty sure JK Rowling was experimenting with the same idea.
Perhaps, but I don't see where she actually questions the idea. It looks like she threw in the idea for plot purposes and didn't expect people to think about it too much. Or, more likely, she just didn't think about it very much herself.
And really, asking me to not think about her work too much is pretty demanding of her, isn't it?
[ 30. October 2012, 13:14: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Excuse me? I thought we were talking about a species of magical elves in a work of fiction.
Would you have the same objection if we were talking about the droids in Star Wars, which are also sentient and which are bought and sold purely in order to serve their organic masters?
I don't like Star Wars, so I haven't really thought about the movies very much, but I would not be the first person to ask those same questions. The droids sure seem like thinking, feeling people from what I remember.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't like Star Wars, so I haven't really thought about the movies very much, but I would not be the first person to ask those same questions. The droids sure seem like thinking, feeling people from what I remember.
Yes, but the additional fun element with the Star Wars droids is that we know why they were created, which means we know what their purpose in life is. It takes all those "how can we say what the purpose of a life is?" questions out of the equation, and forces us to face up to the fact that, despite their sentience and independence of thought, they were created specifically in order to serve their organic masters.
Which makes the question "is it right to keep droid slaves" a whole lot easier to answer: viz. yes it is. That's why they exist in the first place. That's what they're for.
Now, let's go back to the HP world. JK Rowling has, basically, stated that slavery is why the house elves exist in the first place. It's what they're for, it's why they exist. And since JK Rowling created the whole universe in which they have their existence, we should probably take her word for it. It's not a moral problem, any more than the droids in Star Wars are.
None of which says anything about whether real-world humans should keep other real-world humans as slaves. But if we ever get to the stage of being able to build droids of our very own, it'll be a very different (and interesting) situation...
[ 30. October 2012, 13:31: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Which makes the question "is it right to keep droid slaves" a whole lot easier to answer: viz. yes it is. That's why they exist in the first place. That's what they're for.
Maybe it's easier for you, but it doesn't seem obviously easy to me. Once a machine becomes a thinking, feeling person, then all talk about what it is for are ceded to the machine itself.
And to say they would all happily choose to continue being slaves is to gloss over what the institution of slavery actually is.
quote:
Now, let's go back to the HP world. JK Rowling has, basically, stated that slavery is why the house elves exist in the first place. It's what they're for, it's why they exist. And since JK Rowling created the whole universe in which they have their existence, we should probably take her word for it. It's not a moral problem, any more than the droids in Star Wars are.
None of which says anything about whether real-world humans should keep other real-world humans as slaves....
Rowling has made a world where slavery is OK and the happy slave myth is true. If she didn't want people asking questions about that, she shouldn't have written it.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Zach - she might have been thinking about motherhood and the acceptability or not of being a full time stay at home mother when she was thinking about the house elves.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Zach - she might have been thinking about motherhood and the acceptability or not of being a full time stay at home mother when she was thinking about the house elves.
I am not sure what you expect me to make of this. That her travails as a single mother are reflected in her work? Single motherhood drove her to make a world where the happy slave myth was true? Because she was a single mother we can't ask questions of her work?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
I did a little googling and came across this essay on the subject of house elves and the Hogwarts houses: House-Elves, Hogwarts, and Friendship: Casting Away the Institutions which Made Voldemort’s Rise Possible. As indicated by the title, the essay suggests that both the "institution" of house elves and the House system at Hogwarts -- which perhaps influences what students will become and creates divisions among them as much as it sorts them based on pre-existing traits -- laid fertile ground for Voldemort's rise.
The essay also notes that while at the end of the last book we're told that Hermione "greatly improved life for house-elves after her graduation," and while it is clear from Harry's conversation with his son that house differences have been lessened, the institutions are still there. The essay ends this way:
quote:
Recall that prejudice against centaurs (Firenze) and werewolves (Remus Lupin) and giants (Hagrid) led parents of some students at Hogwarts to protest and seek any chance to get non-fully-human staff discharged from their posts. The purge that Dolores Umbridge and her ilk brought to bear against all non-pure-blood families had its seeds in these accepted hierarchies of power. Failure to recognize differences among magical folk and across sentient beings as valuable lay the groundwork for Voldemort’s vicious persecutions and purges of non-pure-bloods. If the world post-Voldemort is to be rebuilt in a way that prevents the return of another like him, equality and celebration of difference must be its new groundwork. A new fountain in the Ministry of Magic must show muggles, witches, wizards, giants, goblins, house-elves, centaurs, and all living beings as dignified each in her or his own right.
Instead, the Harry Potter series ends on an ambivalent note: while progress has been made, it’s not clear that either the institution of house-elf slavery or Hogwarts’ exclusionary house system has been fully dismantled. And so remains the possibility that a future tyrant will return to exploit those differences. Perhaps this is why, in the limbo of Harry’s King’s Cross experience, Voldemort continues to exist in the form of a small, flayed-looking child. Until the institutions which give rise to racism are abolished, Voldemort can never die.
It's an interesting read.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Which makes the question "is it right to keep droid slaves" a whole lot easier to answer: viz. yes it is. That's why they exist in the first place. That's what they're for.
Maybe it's easier for you, but it doesn't seem obviously easy to me. Once a machine becomes a thinking, feeling person, then all talk about what it is for are ceded to the machine itself.
Ah, but that's exactly what you're denying with regards to the house elves. You're saying they shouldn't serve others at all. You're saying the "happy slaves", as you call them, should be taught in no uncertain terms that they're not happy and that they ought to want to be free. Whether they like it or not.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
A while ago I saw a book of ethical dilemmas with the title: 'The pig that wants to be eaten'.
I'm pretty sure JK Rowling was experimenting with the same idea.
Perhaps, but I don't see where she actually questions the idea. It looks like she threw in the idea for plot purposes and didn't expect people to think about it too much. Or, more likely, she just didn't think about it very much herself.
And really, asking me to not think about her work too much is pretty demanding of her, isn't it?
Where did 'asking you not to think about her work' come from? I'm saying she's presenting it as an ethical dilemma - i.e., something you think about.
No, there isn't an authorial voice inserted into any scene saying: 'The position of the house-elves is morally questionable.' We see divided opinions among the characters who react to the house-elves. The fact that we are having this conversation would suggest there's enough ambivalence built into the text without the need for authorial asides.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Ah, but that's exactly what you're denying with regards to the house elves. You're saying they shouldn't serve others at all. You're saying the "happy slaves", as you call them, should be taught in no uncertain terms that they're not happy and that they ought to want to be free. Whether they like it or not.
I shouldn't need to say this so many times, but house elves aren't real. Rowling made them up, and only she can claim responsibility for making them as they are. Why did she make happy slaves? If, that is, we the readers are allowed to ask questions at all, and it seems not everyone here believes we have that right.
If she is saying "Well, let's just accept the credibility of happy slavery in this world," then she is asking me to forget how unambiguously terrible the institution of slavery really is. Expecting the reader to drop his or her history once he or she opens the book is also, I hate to say, bad writing.
I gotta another question. In a world where wizards can summon food or clean a whole room with a mere flick of a wand, why do they need slaves at all?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Zach - she might have been thinking about motherhood and the acceptability or not of being a full time stay at home mother when she was thinking about the house elves.
I am not sure what you expect me to make of this. That her travails as a single mother are reflected in her work? Single motherhood drove her to make a world where the happy slave myth was true? Because she was a single mother we can't ask questions of her work?
No. Mothering of children could be seen as a form of slavery. A mother is tied to the child, caring for them and looking after their every whim, trapped at home, not able to escape. And some people love it and choose to be full time parents.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
No. Mothering of children could be seen as a form of slavery....
This would be a profoundly cynical thing for Rowling to say, but given her love of torturing children in the series...
I didn't really get that impression though. Is there anything in particular that makes you think "Ah, she's talking about motherhood here?"
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm not very familiar with Harry Potter, but this discussion reminds me a lot of the Doozers in Jim Henson's series Fraggle Rock.
The Doozers always work, building elaborate constructions that the Fraggles eat. In one episode, a Fraggle tries to liberate the Doozers, causing much grief among them. It's brilliant!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I shouldn't need to say this so many times, but house elves aren't real.
Then why are you so worked up about their situation?
Seriously. Either you can take the line that they're not real, and therefore their status or nature has no implications in the real world about "happy slaves". Or you can take the line that people shouldn't introduce the notion that slaves are "happy" because of its real life connotations, in which case the fact that house elves aren't real is utterly irrelevant.
But you can't have both at once without making your argument look like something that August Moebius would be thrilled with.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not very familiar with Harry Potter, but this discussion reminds me a lot of the Doozers in Jim Henson's series Fraggle Rock.
The Doozers always work, building elaborate constructions that the Fraggles eat. In one episode, a Fraggle tries to liberate the Doozers, causing much grief among them. It's brilliant!
You're not the first to bring up examples like this. It seems the point is that abolition is a silly cause for people who don't really know what's good for the slaves.
Certainly that is what Rowling seems to imply when Hermione's activism. Is that your argument here?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then why are you so worked up about their situation?
Seriously. Either you can take the line that they're not real, and therefore their status or nature has no implications in the real world about "happy slaves". Or you can take the line that people shouldn't introduce the notion that slaves are "happy" because of its real life connotations, in which case the fact that house elves aren't real is utterly irrelevant.
But you can't have both at once without making your argument look like something that August Moebius would be thrilled with.
House elves aren't real, but the proposition "slavery is OK so long as the slaves like it" is a very real one, and has been used over and over again throughout history to justify unjust exploitation.
Are you saying real world issues are completely irrelevant in literature? I know it's a fantasy world, but it's still basically like ours. It doesn't seem SO different that our own moral scruples become basically irrelevant. Especially when the whole moral of the series seems to be the inherent dignity of our fellow humans. At least, I think that is the point, as much as Rowling undercuts it again and again.
I actually like asking questions of my literature, even literature I like. You don't have to participate, but please don't act like I don't have a right to ask. I don't owe Rowling that much.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
House elves aren't real, but the proposition "slavery is OK so long as the slaves like it" is a very real one, and has been used over and over again throughout history to justify unjust exploitation.
Generally by people who hadn't actually taken the time to ask the slaves themselves. Which is kinda the point, isn't it?
If you're going to say "people should decide what they want to do for themselves rather than us forcing them to do what we want them to do", then you have to allow for the possibility - even if only theoretical - that what they want is to serve us. Otherwise you're just heading right back into "forcing them to do what we want them to do" territory.
quote:
Especially when the whole moral of the series seems to be the inherent dignity of our fellow humans.
House elves aren't human.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I know I keep double posting, but I like literary criticism. I almost went to graduate school to study it.
Jane Austen is a genuinely good writer. Yet there is this brazen fact that the lifestyles of her protagonists rest of the exploitation of servants who are subjected to low pay and appalling workplace conditions. Austen can avoid awkward questions about this fact more easily because servants hardly appear at all in her series. Certainly the exploitation of servants isn't a major plot point like in Harry Potter. The exploitation is there, but Austen never holds it up and expects us to accept it.
This doesn't, however, mean we cannot ask these questions. The fact that the family of Mansfield Park is probably supported by slavery on its sugar plantations is indeed an issue of critical discussion. And I find it interesting, even if the story is really about a slightly-less-wealthy girl trying to find a place in a much wealthier family.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then why are you so worked up about their situation?
Seriously. Either you can take the line that they're not real, and therefore their status or nature has no implications in the real world about "happy slaves". Or you can take the line that people shouldn't introduce the notion that slaves are "happy" because of its real life connotations, in which case the fact that house elves aren't real is utterly irrelevant.
But you can't have both at once without making your argument look like something that August Moebius would be thrilled with.
House elves aren't real, but the proposition "slavery is OK so long as the slaves like it" is a very real one, and has been used over and over again throughout history to justify unjust exploitation.
Are you saying real world issues are completely irrelevant in literature? I know it's a fantasy world, but it's still basically like ours. It doesn't seem SO different that our own moral scruples become basically irrelevant. Especially when the whole moral of the series seems to be the inherent dignity of our fellow humans. At least, I think that is the point, as much as Rowling undercuts it again and again.
I actually like asking questions of my literature, even literature I like. You don't have to participate, but please don't act like I don't have a right to ask. I don't owe Rowling that much.
No, I'm not saying you don't have a right to ask. How you got that out of what I said is beyond me.
What I'm saying is that your questions have to make sense. And in fact you've clarified fairly well.
Am I saying real world issues are irrelevant in literature? Not quite. But I'm saying I find them a lot LESS relevant than you appear to, and indeed than many others appear to. I have to confess, some of the essays that 'scholarly' people manage to create out of works of art, in a variety of fields, completely bemuse me. I think people are capable of reading implications into literature, music, painting etc that the creator of the art didn't consciously put there.
Our own moral scruples are relevant insofar as they fuel our reaction to situations or characters in a novel, play or film. But some of the most interesting situations/characters are the ones where we don't all have the same reactions. And it's fairly difficult to assign a particular 'view' to an author in a case where we don't actually all react to what we're presented with in the same fashion.
Now let me emphasise that I actually don't have a terribly good knowledge of the specifics of the Harry Potter books. I've only ever read bits and pieces (something I keep meaning to rectify) and seen some of the films. So I don't know, for instance, whether the house elves are actually described as "slaves" at any point or whether that's a term that's being projected onto their situation. If the word 'slave' is actually used, I would agree that's designed to provoke a particular kind of reaction.
Whereas if the word 'slave' isn't actually ever used, a considerable amount of projection is required to identify the house elves as examples of 'happy slaves'.
[ 30. October 2012, 15:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
House elves aren't human.
But they are people, and that is what really matters. She depicts muggles as hardly human too, so there's that.
The happy slave myth is a vicious, self serving fantasy in our world. For it to be realistic, it requires the institution of slavery itself to be nice.
I can't see that Rowling has done the groundwork to make that credible, and once again, I would still ask WHY she is going through the effort necessary to make slavery OK.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
House elves aren't human.
But they are people, and that is what really matters
But it means that projecting our thoughts onto them is illogical. I scarcely want to live in the mountains the way the giants do, in that world. Are the giants being abused? Perhaps, if they have been chased into the mountains, I don't remember, but not by definition yes. If the giants want to live in the mountains, then they are not abused even if no human would ever find the mountains hospitable. Why can that kind of thinking not apply to other non-humans?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
House elves aren't human.
But they are people
Can you expand, please?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
...How you got that out of what I said is beyond me....
We've had enough arguments by now to convince me that this line ought be an instant end to the argument, for the sake of you, me, and everyone on this thread alike.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Rowling has made a world where slavery is OK and the happy slave myth is true. If she didn't want people asking questions about that, she shouldn't have written it.
But is that what she has done? Or has she created a world where slavery of house elves exists and where the status quo is, for the most part*, accepted, but where the reader can make judgments as to the morality of it all. Is JKR really saying that the house elves are happy slaves, or is she suggesting that they have been conditioned to think they are doiong what they are "supposed" to do, that they have effectively bought into what they have been told for so long?
It actually seems to me that there are many clues throughout the books that we as readers are supposed to question the status quo as it is presented.
* Only two characters never seem to accept the status quo -- Hermione and Dumbledore. But their approach is different. Hermione crusades for what she knows is right, but in doing so fails to identify with and understand the subjects of her crusade, and so fails not only to persuade fellow wizards and witches but also fails to persuade those whom she would help.
Dumbledore, on the other hand, seems to tolerate the institution but at the same treat the house elves as he believes they should be treated (if his treatment of Dobby and Winky is any indication), in the apparent hope that they will one day see in themselves the personal value he sees them and will realize that they do indeed have freedom and right to make choices for themselves. Both attitudes have some paternalism about them, but I think they also point to the reality (within the story) that the situation of house elves is a complicated problem that defied easy fixes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
...How you got that out of what I said is beyond me....
We've had enough arguments by now to convince me that this line ought be an instant end to the argument, for the sake of you, me, and everyone on this thread alike.
It was. Read the rest of the post where I acknowledged what you said!
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
But is that what she has done?
It sure looks that way to me. The house elves are depicted as loving it, and when Winky is freed she collapses into despair and alcoholism. Dobby is thought to be bizarre for liking to get paid for his labors.
And the fact that this slavery is so benign is what makes it so unbelievable.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
But is that what she has done?
It sure looks that way to me. The house elves are depicted as loving it, and when Winky is freed she collapses into despair and alcoholism. Dobby is thought to be bizarre for liking to get paid for his labors.
But Dobby is also presented as being right.
I'm not so sure the house elves are depicted as really loving it, as much as they are depicted as not knowing, Dobby excepted, that they have a choice not to love it.
[ 30. October 2012, 15:54: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
House elves aren't human.
But they are people, and that is what really matters
But it means that projecting our thoughts onto them is illogical. I scarcely want to live in the mountains the way the giants do, in that world. Are the giants being abused? Perhaps, if they have been chased into the mountains, I don't remember, but not by definition yes. If the giants want to live in the mountains, then they are not abused even if no human would ever find the mountains hospitable. Why can that kind of thinking not apply to other non-humans?
Yes, this is where the logic breaks down for me as well.
It seems to me that the entire purpose of populating a world with non-human sentient characters is to have them NOT share human values and aspirations. Otherwise there's little point.
The whole goal is to provide a contrast. A contrast we're meant to react to.
I've mentioned Stephen Donaldson before. In his one SF series, the alien race called the Amnion has an emphasis on uniformity and assimilation. Rather akin to the Borg in Star Trek I suspect, although without the same technological angles. In both of those cases, it seems to me, the entire purpose is to focus on the value we place on individuality - and the scariness of the prospect of losing that individuality.
It doesn't make any sense to ascribe human motivations and goals and values to those races, or to treat them as if they're meant to model human behaviour. They're actually designed to do the opposite: to be non-human.
(Indeed, in Donaldson's books, one of the critical plot points is that the Amnion are attempting to assimilate humans without losing some aspects of their humanity that would have strategic advantage, and are finding it a real struggle.)
If an author wants to model human behaviour, the best character for that is going to be human. Non-human characters exist as a contrast to human behaviour. If house elves are indeed happy slaves, then surely the whole point is that this in contrast to a human, who wouldn't be.
[ 30. October 2012, 15:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Zach82: You're not the first to bring up examples like this. It seems the point is that abolition is a silly cause for people who don't really know what's good for the slaves.
Certainly that is what Rowling seems to imply when Hermione's activism. Is that your argument here?
Like I said, I haven't read or watched the Harry Potter series, so I can't comment Hermione's activism. But in general, I'm with Marvin the Martin on this: I disagree with the idea that people who have taken a free decision to be enslaved (without being put under pressure to take this decision, and that's a big provision), must be liberated.
An example to me would be certain kinds of monks. They give up large freedoms and abide to strict rules (I think they don't even receive payment, but I'm not sure about that). If they freely choose this life, then I don't think they should be 'liberated'.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I disagree with the idea that people who have taken a free decision to be enslaved (without being put under pressure to take this decision, and that's a big provision), must be liberated.
An example to me would be certain kinds of monks.
The person I was mostly thinking of is a friend of my wife's who freely decided to surrender all autonomy to her husband when she married. He now controls her entire life, without exception.
Now, I think that's a horrible (and possibly even abusive) way to arrange a marriage - and it's certainly close enough to slavery to be relevant on this thread. But I have to face the fact that it's what she wants, it's what makes her happy, and no matter what my opinions on the matter are I would be wrong to try to "save" her from this relationship.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
House elves aren't real, but the proposition "slavery is OK so long as the slaves like it" is a very real one, and has been used over and over again throughout history to justify unjust exploitation.
Are you saying real world issues are completely irrelevant in literature? I know it's a fantasy world, but it's still basically like ours. It doesn't seem SO different that our own moral scruples become basically irrelevant. Especially when the whole moral of the series seems to be the inherent dignity of our fellow humans. At least, I think that is the point, as much as Rowling undercuts it again and again.
Most of us don't have the chance to own slave plantations, but we are likely to be in the situation of wanting to help people who don't themselves want to be helped. So if we are going to evaluate the morality of the treatment of elves as an exercise in real-world ethics, we should look at the second point at least as closely as the first.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Do the house elves freely choose their lot? Seeing as house elves are portrayed as thinking, feeling, free willed creatures, it doesn't seem to me that they HAVE to find all their fulfillment in servitude. The narrative doesn't give any credence to Hermione's objection that they have simply been raised to never consider any other good but servitude, but I do.
Just to make it clear, I am framing the issue as either "Rowling proposes the possibility of a world where slavery is a happy proposition," or "She didn't think through this happy slave thing very much." Pick your poison, I say.
From my end, slavery is an a cruel institution in every possible world, and thinking she is a bad writer is therefore a charity.
Posted by Inger (# 15285) on
:
A comparison might be made with the golems in Pratchett's books, especially Feet of Clay. They are created to work, they know that is their purpose in life and they have no problem with that. But they are also slaves, and when the opportunity offers, they buy themselves free, rejecting the option of fighting for freedom. And when they are free, they continue to want to work, but now for money (in order, one understands, to buy the freedom of other golems, initially at least).
To my mind a rather more acceptable situation than Rowling's.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose we could encourage the use of a general disclaimer? Such as
"The opinions, overt or implied, of the characters in this book should not be seen as a reflection of the opinions of the author".
To be honest, it frightens me that we live in a world where such things are not understood without being written down.
Agreed.
It's a shame, orfeo, but IME it's no longer safe to make too many assumptions about shared understandings, values, "common sense", etc. Spelling things out runs the risk of "well, everyone knows that". Actually, some folks don't. Or just haven't joined up the dots.
Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...despite their sentience and independence of thought, they [droids] were created specifically in order to serve their organic masters.
Which makes the question "is it right to keep droid slaves" a whole lot easier to answer: viz. yes it is. That's why they exist in the first place. That's what they're for.
Try that line on a Cylon and see what it gets you
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Do the house elves freely choose their lot? Seeing as house elves are portrayed as thinking, feeling, free willed creatures, it doesn't seem to me that they HAVE to find all their fulfillment in servitude. The narrative doesn't give any credence to Hermione's objection that they have simply been raised to never consider any other good but servitude, but I do.
Just to make it clear, I am framing the issue as either "Rowling proposes the possibility of a world where slavery is a happy proposition," or "She didn't think through this happy slave thing very much." Pick your poison, I say.
I think there is a third way to frame the issue: "Rowling proposes a world where injustices persist even after the defeat of the evil antagonist, and she leaves it to the reader to discern that the world she created is not a perfect world." But I think the issue can be framed this way because I think the narrative overall does give credence to Hermione's objections (though not necessarily her methods), even if most characters in the books do not give such credence.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Rowling didn't invent house elves and their condition of bondage. They come from European folk tales, with a particular form, the brownie, in Scotland. The release on the giving of clothes is in a tale found in school reading books, about a shoemaker who is helped by elves, and accidentally releases them (you should never thank one of Those People) by making them clothes. This is seen as wrong in the story. I'm not sure if it comes from Grimm, but is definitely authored by Trad or Anon.
(Incidentally, this isn't the only material from readers which can be found in Rowling. A series designed to encourage the poorer readers (Tim and the Hidden People) by a writer called Sheila McCullach (sp?) included a Night Bus with similar properties to Rowling's, among other things, and itself included material strongly reminiscent of Masefield's Kay Harker books, which did not noticeably arrive in Rowling. These books were so good I took the entire three series home one night and read through the lot. Then someone lost the last book, and I had to borrow it from another school and make an illegal copy so no-one would be left bereft of resolution.)
Not many miles from where I live is an old house with something not unrelated to house elf. People moved in. started renovations, found a skull - I think in a niche by the chimney. Had it taken to the church for burial, whereupon all sorts of bad stuff started to happen. (I read this in a book on myths and legends of Britain published by Readers Digest which I do not have easily to hand.) So they restored the skull and all was well. Apparently. A protector of the house was enslaved to the house. (Not the family.)
As, presumably, the ghosts of foundation burials were in pagan societies. Which were often infants. Who would have looked a bit like representations of house elves.
So, having decided to use these jolly little beings from folklore, Rowling had to work within the tradition of their being bound. Thus creating a problem for herself.
There is a Scottish or Irish tale of a family which found one of these beings a bit of a problem, and nothing they could do would get rid of it, so they went to the local cunning man for advice, and were told that they would have to leave, and do it secretly (there were conditions for this which I cannot remember). Off they set with all their possessions piled on the cart, and met a neighbour. "What are you doing?" says he, and the brounie pops his head out of the heap and shrieks "We're flitting!". Bound to the family, presumably.
Anyway. Rowling did not invent a world involving happy slaves, she absorbed it from folklore and was stuck with its problems. Which she did try to deal with.
[ 30. October 2012, 21:16: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Rowling proposes the possibility of a world where slavery is a happy
Haven't read much HP so I don't know whether house elves can be bought and sold like property, or whether they choose to adopt a particular wizard. Whether wizard society would return a tortured house elf to its owner or whether there are laws and customs about fair treatment.
You clearly don't believe that happy slavery is a possibility for humans. I'm not sure from what you've said whether you think imagining happy slavery for a non-human species is an immoral act, or just implausible, and whether it is only so if the author intends a message about humans thereby.
If instead of house elves they were talking dogs, would that make any difference ?
I suspect that you identified with Hermione's reaction, and were put out that the subsequent course of the book didn't validate that response...
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
I'm not sure "happy" is exactly the word, though it's been a while since I read the books.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I don't get it. Why must she be a rotten writer because a) she presents a complex moral situation that forces you to think, and b) she does not explicitly reward you with a big "YOU'RE RIGHT" on the final page?
A decent writer doesn't have to connect all the dots for you. Nor does she have to repeat "slavery is bad, slavery is always bad" every time a dramatic situation gets even close to the topic of slavery, even in a fictional world with magical nonhuman creatures.
You might as well chide her for not screaming about child abuse in the very first episode with the Dursleys (PAY ATTENTION READER, THIS IS BAD) or for failing to explicitly censure Horace Slughorn for greed.
Creating a provocative situation and then allowing multiple characters to each take slightly different viewpoints of it is generally considered the mark of a good writer, not a bad one. Leaving the reader to draw the proper conclusion in the end is a sign of faith in his/her intelligence.
Or do you really want your novel writers to lead you by the hand at all times, burbling morals at you at every step?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Lamb Chopped nails it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Lamb Chopped nails it.
Yes, that includes part of what I was trying to say in an earlier post, but says it a lot more clearly. Fiction that explicitly tells all its readers "you must all react in the following way" isn't terribly interesting fiction.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
A good story may indeed have a polemical point, but ISTM that it works best if it has raised questions, rather than provided answers.
It's a bit like the old truth about planning and projects. Good plans do not predict the future, simply open the mind to some of the possibilities inherent in it.
Some of this also reminds me of the power of parables to do something similar. Confrontation by raising questions is often much more effective than direct exhortation. I suppose most of us need both the provocation and the sense of "space to make up our own minds".
In J K Rowling's case, it's possible to read far too much into "rattling good yarns". The Harry Potter series was, at least on one level, her way out of poverty. I'm sure she has been amazed at the global success and the undreamed-of wealth which has resulted from her ability to tell truly engaging stories.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Once again, the moral complexity may all be there, but I can't find it. Maybe someone could point out some scene where it really is all so ambiguous instead of just throwing out some pathetic psychoanalysis of my motivations?
I am not criticizing Rowling for being morally ambiguous anyway, and if you haven't gotten that from my posts by now, how can I trust your reading of Rowling?
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
As regards Imperialism, the same point applies about the unreliability of inferring authorial approval, either from character approval or from authorial world-building decisions.
But it seems to me that taking fantasy novels in general, empires are just as likely to be portrayed as evil or corrupt as they are to be shown as glorious and benign.
Although, living as we do in polities governed by small-minded politicians who bankrupt the nation to get the money to bribe the electorate to keep them in power, the attraction of fantasising about other forms of government seems pretty obvious.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Anyway. Rowling did not invent a world involving happy slaves, she absorbed it from folklore and was stuck with its problems. Which she did try to deal with.
This.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Once again, the moral complexity may all be there, but I can't find it. Maybe someone could point out some scene where it really is all so ambiguous instead of just throwing out some pathetic psychoanalysis of my motivations?
Why? Why does there have to be one particular scene that has some property you desire? Why does she need to kiss your ass about slavery? She has slavery. She has characters who vocally oppose it. She has characters that don't see any problem with it. She has slaves that yearn for freedom. She has slaves that can't handle the freedom and become alcoholics.
What more do you want? Some big stamp on the cover that says, "The events and persons depicted herein are fictitious. I really don't like slavery myself and am only writing about it as an aspect of a certain culture which I have made up based partly on existing tropes from European folklore. Nothing in this book should be taken to imply that I think that slavery is in any way morally acceptable." ?
Just what do you want, and why?
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Zach nails it.
Rowling's world isn't complex, or even well thought out, but she has to take responsibility for what she decides to do with elements she's taken from elsewhere. Are kids from middle class / wealthy homes likely to treat cleaners / nurses / manual workers of any kind better because they've read about House Elves? Or are they likely to be reinforced in the lazily selfish attitude, "It's all right them doing those nasty shitty jobs - it's what they're meant for after all"?
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Zach nails it.
Rowling's world isn't complex, or even well thought out, but she has to take responsibility for what she decides to do with elements she's taken from elsewhere. Are kids from middle class / wealthy homes likely to treat cleaners / nurses / manual workers of any kind better because they've read about House Elves? Or are they likely to be reinforced in the lazily selfish attitude, "It's all right them doing those nasty shitty jobs - it's what they're meant for after all"?
But parallel with the theme that they don't want to be freed is the theme that you have to treat them well. e.g. Dumbledore links Sirius' death fairly clearly with the way he mistreated Kreacher.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Zach nails it.
Rowling's world isn't complex, or even well thought out, but she has to take responsibility for what she decides to do with elements she's taken from elsewhere. Are kids from middle class / wealthy homes likely to treat cleaners / nurses / manual workers of any kind better because they've read about House Elves? Or are they likely to be reinforced in the lazily selfish attitude, "It's all right them doing those nasty shitty jobs - it's what they're meant for after all"?
So you're saying that all literature is propaganda, and it has to propagandize in the exact right direction on every single point, to make sure our little urchins have all the correct feelings about things in their widdle heads?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
It always comes back to Showboat, doesn't it?
Look, the situation of the house elves is exactly the same as the situation of many oppressed peoples in the real world. Some are treated slightly bettter, others worse. Some accept their position, others resist, some can't imagine anything else. Some people recognize and speak out against oppression, others can't understand what all the fuss is about, a few try to be helpful and end up being patronizing.
JK Rowling isn't writing stories about house-elf liberation. She's writing about house elves to try to get readers to recognize that there is socially acceptable prejudice / racism / classism in the world the readers live in. There really are people who say, "Why would gay people want to get married anyway?", or, "Women cannot be priests". A few people object strenuously, others don't care, most people wish they'd just shut up.
Rowling is describing the world we live in. She's not going to make it easy for us and write Book 8: Harry Potter and the Battle for Elf Rights. She may be hoping that some readers will recognize the "house-elves" among us and change their attitudes and behaviours accordingly.
There are many, many authors who present uncritical visions of unjust fantasy societies. Rowling is not one of them.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So you're saying that all literature is propaganda, and it has to propagandize in the exact right direction on every single point, to make sure our little urchins have all the correct feelings about things in their widdle heads?
That's certainly what it sounds like. Apparently the only purpose storytelling has is to indoctrinate.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I am just saying that this particular aspect of Harry Potter seems troubling and poorly thought out. I still like the series over all, and would further add that we can think about our literature critically and still enjoy it.
What I don't understand is the position "Rowling is just telling a story- we can't and shouldn't look at these other aspects of the story!"
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am just saying that this particular aspect of Harry Potter seems troubling and poorly thought out. I still like the series over all, and would further add that we can think about our literature critically and still enjoy it.
What I don't understand is the position "Rowling is just telling a story- we can't and shouldn't look at these other aspects of the story!"
I don't understand how it could be better thought out without becoming propaganda. For crying out loud Hermione's crusade to free the house elves is a pretty major part of one of the novels. It's hard to see what it would take to please you. Especially since you won't answer when someone asks what it would take to please you, and fall back on vagaries like "it's not well thought out."
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I can hardly tell Rowling how to write her own world. I am just looking at what she wrote.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I can hardly tell Rowling how to write her own world. I am just looking at what she wrote.
Well, you're criticizing what she wrote in provocative terms as if she should have done something better, or so it seems to me...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I'm not exactly obliged to be impartial about the matter am I? I'll make this clear right here and now- Rowling doesn't owe me anything. She can write her book however she likes. But I hardly owe her polite silence about the themes operating in her books either.
The fact that y'all think this is a matter of liking or disliking the series shows that we are coming at the question from very different angles, though. Yes, I have these airy-headed ideas that slavery is always and everywhere wrong in every possible world, and that the happy slave myth is vicious and wrong-minded, but that has nothing to do with what is objectively in the books.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
JK Rowling isn't writing stories about house-elf liberation. She's writing about house elves to try to get readers to recognize that there is socially acceptable prejudice / racism / classism in the world the readers live in.
Personally, I can't relate RL atrocities to a bunch of mythical creatures whom Rowling borrowed from British folklore. The House-elf slavery issue in the HP books is not presented with a huge amount of seriousness, in my opinion, Hermione's political correctness notwithstanding.
quote:
There are many, many authors who present uncritical visions of unjust fantasy societies. Rowling is not one of them.
Well, OK, she tries. But it's a mixed bag, because she doesn't always seem to think through the implications of her imaginary world. Even if Hermione's attitude is 'right on' towards the House-elves, and the attitude of most Gryffindors is anti-blood-prejudice, the author's attitude towards Slytherin House (every single child sorted into Slytherin is tainted by association: this House is set up as the House of Racist, Snobbish, Self-Entitled Aristocrats from the get-go) and the general attitude of even her benign, non-prejudiced wizards towards Muggles, is somewhat troubling.
Not that I take any of this that seriously. And I enjoy Slytherins as villains, in the main. I do regard the HP books as generally moral ... there are simply gaps in Potterverse logic, IMO. If readers see the HP series as a serious comment on racism and prejudice, all I can say is: the attitude towards Slytherins and Muggles undermines that message to some degree. If that's the message that was intended, then the politics of the books is simplistic.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm not exactly obliged to be impartial about the matter am I? I'll make this clear right here and now- Rowling doesn't owe me anything. She can write her book however she likes. But I hardly owe her polite silence about the themes operating in her books either.
The fact that y'all think this is a matter of liking or disliking the series shows that we are coming at the question from very different angles, though. Yes, I have these airy-headed ideas that slavery is always and everywhere wrong in every possible world, and that the happy slave myth is vicious and wrong-minded, but that has nothing to do with what is objectively in the books.
You're imputing allegations I don't think I've made. I think the slavery in her world is ambiguous, to say the least, and hardly a happy situation.
Posted by Cthulhu (# 16186) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't understand how it could be better thought out without becoming propaganda. For crying out loud Hermione's crusade to free the house elves is a pretty major part of one of the novels. It's hard to see what it would take to please you. Especially since you won't answer when someone asks what it would take to please you, and fall back on vagaries like "it's not well thought out."
WHILE I AGREE, ONE SMALL NOTE.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I think the slavery in her world is ambiguous, to say the least, and hardly a happy situation.
Then for the love of Pete provide some evidence from the text.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I think the slavery in her world is ambiguous, to say the least, and hardly a happy situation.
Then for the love of Pete provide some evidence from the text.
Have you got any?
ETA: I don't think I have the entire series in the apartment right now, only Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. Not sure the house elf situation came up a lot in these books. I'm going currently on my impressionistic memory of the books, which I read a while ago. I do wonder if you could provide some citations for analysis.
[ 31. October 2012, 19:20: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
You mean the Harry Potter books? No. Just throw out some examples. I'll take your word for it.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
Exhibit A: The very picture of happiness.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
Also, I'll consider myself. I'm currently employed at one of those "nasty shitty jobs" that most people don't want to do. I've had one person who makes considerably more (I suspect by her dress and manner) tell me that she couldn't do it. I've had someone else call me a saint merely because of my employment.
Am I happy to work here? Most days, marginally, as it beats not working. Also because in my current state I kind of have to be happy as a matter of survival. You might say I'm underemployed and may wish for work with more dignity than taking care of people who are not in a position to take care of themselves. You would probably be right, but for my survival and mental health, it's necessary for me to learn happiness in an underemployed and somewhat marginal state.
Now, it's not slavery, exactly, but I completely understand the mental need to find satisfaction in unpleasing work. I think your attitude toward that sort of work seems...a little simplistic. As if you're offended that people who are left with few options try to find some comfort and satisfaction and even dignity where it's given to them in a reality that says that most revolutions are run by people who mean well but really don't know what they're doing (which I think Hermione is a relatively affectionate caricature of in this instance.)
Now, it's not perfect. No story that tries to realistically display a routinely disgusting institution is perfect, but I think it does a better job than you give it credit for doing.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
... The fact that y'all think this is a matter of liking or disliking the series shows that we are coming at the question from very different angles, though. Yes, I have these airy-headed ideas that slavery is always and everywhere wrong in every possible world, and that the happy slave myth is vicious and wrong-minded, but that has nothing to do with what is objectively in the books.
No, that's not why I disagree. I disagree that readers of any age are incapable of spotting the "happy slave myth", and questioning it themselves. I also disagree that everything wrong in a fictional world must be explicitly criticized and put right in 7 books or else the author is a fascist dirtbag and/or a sloppy thinker.
JRR Tolkien famously observed,
quote:
I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the reader. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
The "happy slave myth" is in the books because it exists in our world. And just like in our world, there are a range of responses to it and readers are entitled to their own opinions and judgments on what happens in the books as well as out in the real world.
I would also like to point out that the "happy slave myth" is presented both as a social norm and a spiritual metaphor in both the Old and New Testaments. Many Christians proudly and happily call themselves "slaves to Christ".
Slavery in the Bible
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Exhibit A: The very picture of happiness.
I am arguing that the narrative sees slavery as OK so long as the slaves are treated well. Please explain how Kreacher's case shows slavery itself to be bad, even if the slaves are treated well.
The fact that Kreacher is just over the moon to be a slave to nice masters at the end would support my case better, I should think.
quote:
Also, I'll consider myself.
Well, I'm looking at the text here.
[ 31. October 2012, 19:47: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Exhibit A: The very picture of happiness.
I am arguing that the narrative sees slavery as OK so long as the slaves are treated well. Please explain how Kreacher's case shows slavery itself to be bad, even if the slaves are treated well.
The fact that Kreacher is just over the moon to be a slave to nice masters at the end would support my case better, I should think.
Old habits are hard to break.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Exhibit A: The very picture of happiness.
I am arguing that the narrative sees slavery as OK so long as the slaves are treated well. Please explain how Kreacher's case shows slavery itself to be bad, even if the slaves are treated well.
The fact that Kreacher is just over the moon to be a slave to nice masters at the end would support my case better, I should think.
quote:
Also, I'll consider myself.
Well, I'm looking at the text here.
Without context, there is no text. ETA: Also, you brought up outside context as a basis for moral judgment.
[ 31. October 2012, 19:50: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Without context, there is no text. ETA: Also, you brought up outside context as a basis for moral judgment.
We're arguing about whether the happy slave myth is in the text, and for the aforementioned reason Kreacher isn't helping your case one bit.
If you want to use your life to show how the happy slave myth isn't all that bad, be my guest. I am sure my feelings on the idea, your life notwithstanding, are clear.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I cordially dislike allegory...
Jeeze louise, just not portraying slavery as a positive institution makes a work of literature an allegory for abolition?
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Without context, there is no text. ETA: Also, you brought up outside context as a basis for moral judgment.
We're arguing about whether the happy slave myth is in the text, and for the aforementioned reason Kreacher isn't helping your case one bit.
If you want to use your life to show how the happy slave myth isn't all that bad, be my guest. I am sure my feelings on the idea, your life notwithstanding, are clear.
Your feelings are quite clear. They just aren't mine.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I think a conversation should be started on "The Myth of the Happy Slave Myth" -- which is to say, the myth that all slaves are miserable all the time, and that any book, movie, etc., that portrays them otherwise is both (a) inaccurate, and (b) propaganda for the proposition that "Slavery ain't so bad."
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I think a conversation should be started on "The Myth of the Happy Slave Myth" -- which is to say, the myth that all slaves are miserable all the time, and that any book, movie, etc., that portrays them otherwise is both (a) inaccurate, and (b) propaganda for the proposition that "Slavery ain't so bad."
I think there is quite a bit of space between "This book has these themes" and "This book is propaganda for this view."
I'll also point out that this thread is about injustice in fantasy novels. So I am quite astonished that I am being taken to task here for talking about that thing that this thread is about.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Once again, the moral complexity may all be there, but I can't find it.
Hermione is pretty much always right in theory. It's one of her traits. She's not always as good at thinking on her feet or as practical as Harry. So if Hermione says house elf slavery is wrong, that's not just to be mocked or dismissed. She may be being more idealistic than is practical, but she's not being silly.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I think a conversation should be started on "The Myth of the Happy Slave Myth" -- which is to say, the myth that all slaves are miserable all the time, and that any book, movie, etc., that portrays them otherwise is both (a) inaccurate, and (b) propaganda for the proposition that "Slavery ain't so bad."
I think there is quite a bit of space between "This book has these themes" and "This book is propaganda for this view."
I'll also point out that this thread is about injustice in fantasy novels. So I am quite astonished that I am being taken to task here for talking about that thing that this thread is about.
I think you're being taken to task for doing so in a fashion that doesn't mesh with other people's experience of the portrayal of slavery in the HP series. I mean, we're all talking about it too, right?
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Once again, the moral complexity may all be there, but I can't find it.
Hermione is pretty much always right in theory. It's one of her traits. She's not always as good at thinking on her feet or as practical as Harry. So if Hermione says house elf slavery is wrong, that's not just to be mocked or dismissed. She may be being more idealistic than is practical, but she's not being silly.
Pretty much what I read. She's a good person with great intentions who hasn't actually had experience with the people she's trying to serve. It's a common enough reality in my experience. And it'd be a worse story if the author lionized her into some paragon of radical politics who did everything right and won every time.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The fact that Kreacher is just over the moon to be a slave to nice masters at the end would support my case better, I should think.
Is Kreacher over the moon to be a slave to nice masters, or is Kreacher showing true loyalty to one who has treated him with kindness and respect. There is a difference, I think, and I'm not sure the former can be drawn from the latter.
I'll give your request a shot, though I'm working from memory without the books handy. As best I can recall, these are four basic views expressed regarding house-elves and the institution of their servitude:
- 1. The house-elves' situation is as it should be, for they are inferior to wizards and witches;
- 2. The house-elves like their station in life and are happy serving wizards and witches;
- 3. The house-elves situation is what it is; and
- 4. The house-elves are slaves who should be freed and fairly compensated for their work.
The question then is, who expresses these attitudes, and what can we draw from that? Number 1 is pretty much exclusive to Voldemort, Death Eaters and others on the "bad" side. I think, then, we should not see their opinion as the "right" one.
Number 4, of course, is expressed by Hermione, and while her methods change, she never waivers from this view. Doesn't the narrative overall signal us to trust Hermione's view, even if we join in laughing at her earnestness?
This attitude is, of course, also expressed by Dobby, whose approach seems to be that if he just shows other house-elves what is possible, they will see it.
Number 2 is expressed primarily by Ron, Fred and George. Yes, they are surely "good guys," but especially at the time they make these statements, are good guys who often get things that matter wrong and who are set straight by the likes of Hermione. When they claim the house-elves are happy, Hermione insists that's because they have never known anything else, not because they are truly happy. And at least with Ron, we see a change in attitude by Book 7 -- a change that earns him his first real kiss from Hermione.
Note that when Harry asks whether they need to ask the house-elves to fight, Ron says no, they need to get the house-elves to safety because they can't order them to die. It is presumably after going to help the house-elves escape that the house-elves join the battle. So, we see Ron move towards Hermione's view.
Number 3 is mainly expressed through Harry, who doesn't seem to give much thought to weighty matters like Hermione does. But he, too, moves toward her viewpoint, both with Dobby (whose grave he insists on digging without magic) and Kreatcher.
So of these four attitudes, 2 remain constant -- that of the Death Eaters and that of Hermione -- and two move towards Hermione's position, even if we don't see them get all the way there.
I think the clear message of the narrative is that the Death Eaters are wrong and Hermione and Dobby are right, even if by the end of the books the wizarding world hasn't completely caught up with them.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We're arguing about whether the happy slave myth is in the text, and for the aforementioned reason Kreacher isn't helping your case one bit.
Not me. The happy slave myth is most definitely there. I`m arguing about whether, having depicted the myth in operation, the author has a duty to tell readers slavery is A Very Bad And Awful Thing, and that since she didn`t, her readers will believe slavery is An OK Thing, If It`s Done Properly.
The Zach82 school of literary criticism appears to require certain things of an author. For example, if a character drives a car, the author must make reference to anthropogenic climate change and the benefits of public transportation. If a character has lunch, the food should be at the very least local, organic and cruelty-free, but really, a vegan lunch would make it a much better book. And bad people get punished and good people rewarded. Always.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Not me. The happy slave myth is most definitely there. I`m arguing about whether, having depicted the myth in operation, the author has a duty to tell readers slavery is A Very Bad And Awful Thing, and that since she didn`t, her readers will believe slavery is An OK Thing, If It`s Done Properly.
The Zach82...
I've already admitted that disgust at the happy slave myth is something I bring to the text and that Rowling has no obligation to bow to that concern. Both of them. I said them both.
Seriously, I said them and I mean them. For real.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I do have to thank you for a real argument from the text, Nick, and a good one too. After Soror's post I just need to take a frakkin' break though.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Sorry. I'll take a break too.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I do have to thank you for a real argument from the text, Nick, and a good one too. After Soror's post I just need to take a frakkin' break though.
No problem. Happy Halloween!
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
Another active narrative here, given the obvious references to the holocaust and nazism, is the routinization of horror.
The situation of the slaves is, I think, unpleasant, and the unpleasantness is hinted at. They have shoddy clothes and live at the mercy of their masters. Now, I think the author is trying to work within the story, not from without. She's describing it through the experiences of her characters. As such, she can't engage in much meta-analysis and critique of her own world. She operates within the world.
In that situation, she cannot describe too much moral outrage, because it's already a nightmare situation to begin with, one that the characters are initially blissfully unaware of. They're ingrained into the system. As the story progresses (and becomes progressively grimmer) the ethical flaws and failings become more apparent and some characters (especially our sensitive Hermione...there could be a commentary on gender here somewhere)...are somewhat sensitized to it. One of them, though she doesn't know the first thing about political organizing or really understand the psychology of the people she's trying to save, even begins to agitate and, if Nick Tamen is right, persuade others that there's something wrong here.
That she's inept doesn't mean she's evil. I think it's obvious in the story that Hermione is one of the most sympathetic characters in the whole series. We're suppose to root for her here, even if she doesn't know what she's doing.
I think if the author was too openly critical, it would undo some of the reality of the narrative, make it less appealing to read, and less effective for its lack of subtlety and more overt dependence upon allegorical form. It gnaws at you and makes you ask questions because it's not a cut and dried tale with moral lessons that could be learned merely by reading the jacket cover.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
It's also a nice touch that it takes a very bright child to have the separation to begin to see the world for what it is, not as an adult whose mind is entrenched.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Exhibit A: The very picture of happiness.
I am arguing that the narrative sees slavery as OK so long as the slaves are treated well.
Many people would argue the exact same thing about the Bible, interestingly enough.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
If JK Rowling had devoted enough space to resolving ethical issues of slavery in her books, the focus of the narrative would have been very different indeed. I think she's attracting criticism here because slavery is too big an issue to be peripheral in any novel. Most children's authors include some nondescript characters whose purpose, within the story, is simply to sustain the major characters; the author doesn't draw attention to these and therefore we don't recognise it as a political issue. I haven't noticed anyone getting worked up about Roald Dahl's Oompa-Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Or the unnamed cooks in practically every single school story in existence, or the mothers providing food for most Enid Blyton characters, or the college servants in Philip Pullman's Dark Materials trilogy.
Personally, I'm happy that JKR drew attention to the issue of house elves' status as this will cause some readers to think, but I can quite understand why she didn't pursue the issue too strongly.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
The house elf example seems to be polarising opinion quite strongly. Even when people refer to textual detail they are coming to different conclusions, which makes me wonder if part of the problem is the presuppositions we all bring to this issue. Is it possible that the different views might be influenced by the following factors?
Rowling's portrayal of the house elves is complex and nuanced. Slavery is no longer a problem we face today. Therefore it can be mentioned in passing, especially in a lightweight series for children.
Rowling's portrayal of the house elves has not been thought through. When examined it raises disturbing moral issues. The attitude that divides society into the worthwhile and the worthless is still prevalent and poisonous. It needs to be challenged wherever it appears.
Another thought has struck me as I was typing this. The house elves are a fictional construct; Rowling could have made them any colour she liked, from bright red to purple with polka dots. Without any of the books to hand I think she made them a sort of greenish-grey. Suppose she had made them black. Would that affect the thinking of anyone in the this-isn't-an-issue camp?
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
Where does she imply in writing that they're not worthwhile? And I wouldn't say it was mentioned in passing. It was a major subplot. I don't feel comfortable with any of these categories.
I think making them black skinned would have made it into an allegory and completely destroyed the story by throwing in something that I don't think she intends to be there.
[ 01. November 2012, 01:36: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
As the story progresses (and becomes progressively grimmer) the ethical flaws and failings become more apparent and some characters (especially our sensitive Hermione...there could be a commentary on gender here somewhere)...are somewhat sensitized to it. One of them, though she doesn't know the first thing about political organizing or really understand the psychology of the people she's trying to save, even begins to agitate and, if Nick Tamen is right, persuade others that there's something wrong here.
That she's inept doesn't mean she's evil. I think it's obvious in the story that Hermione is one of the most sympathetic characters in the whole series. We're suppose to root for her here, even if she doesn't know what she's doing.
Per JKR: "I did not set out to make Hermione like me but she is...she is an exaggeration of how I was when I was younger."
FWIW.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The house elf example seems to be polarising opinion quite strongly. Even when people refer to textual detail they are coming to different conclusions, which makes me wonder if part of the problem is the presuppositions we all bring to this issue. Is it possible that the different views might be influenced by the following factors?
Rowling's portrayal of the house elves is complex and nuanced. Slavery is no longer a problem we face today. Therefore it can be mentioned in passing, especially in a lightweight series for children.
Rowling's portrayal of the house elves has not been thought through. When examined it raises disturbing moral issues. The attitude that divides society into the worthwhile and the worthless is still prevalent and poisonous. It needs to be challenged wherever it appears.
Can I answer "both", please?
As has, I think, been demonstrated on this thread, the attitudes of the characters to house-elves, and the effect of house-elf slavery on them is thought through and dealt with in the text.
What I think Rowling has not thought through (and this isn't a criticism - I don't think the books require it) is the moral implications of this for our own world. I think we can safely assume that Rowling is anti-slavery. I don't think we can or should assume that she is consciously intending either to promote or subtly undermine the ‘happy slave myth'.
Nor do I think she has thought through all the implications of how house-elf slavery would actually work. Given that house-elves are intelligent and powerful, resent ill-treatment, are capable of undermining their masters, even of actively working against their interests, sometimes desire freedom, know how freedom can be attained, can be freed by a moment's inadvertance, and have been around for a long time, I'd say that on analysis it is a completely unsustainable institution. It would never work. Dobby just needs to trick one member of the Malfoy family into passing him an item of clothing, and it's game over. He has phenomenal magical powers to employ to this end, and unlimited time to do it. In practical terms, he would have been able to free himself long before Harry was ever born. Again, that doesn't matter for these stories. They don't stand that level of analysis and weren't meant to. The exact constraints house-elves operate under are defined by plot-requirements, not logistics. That would suck in a 'realistic' fantasy novel, but the HP stories are not that sort of book.
quote:
Another thought has struck me as I was typing this. The house elves are a fictional construct; Rowling could have made them any colour she liked, from bright red to purple with polka dots. Without any of the books to hand I think she made them a sort of greenish-grey. Suppose she had made them black. Would that affect the thinking of anyone in the this-isn't-an-issue camp?
Not at all, as far as I'm concerned. No more than the blackness of Tolkein's orcs makes me think they are a reference to any human ethnic group.
I have used Chamber of Secrets (film) with my church children's group to introduce a discussion of racism. We discussed why it hurt Hermione so much to be called a mudblood. She is not portrayed as an oversensitive person, she is not in the least ashamed of her parents being Muggles, and she has no respect for Draco Malfoy's opinions, but rather a healthy contempt for him. Understanding why she can still be deeply upset by him using an abusive label is quite tricky, and I think a child who grasps that is better placed to see why racial sensitivity is important.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
I hadn't realised that Tolkien's orcs were black; I'd assumed they were sort of greyish, if anything. However, I do think there is a sort of racism at work there, in that you can get good or bad humans or hobbits, but every single orc is automatically evil. That is the sort of blanket thinking often associated with wartime; you can recognise that folk on your side vary in quality, but all the enemy are bad.
I do like your idea, Eliab, of using bits of HP to get youngsters to think about racism, and maybe name calling generally. I also agree with you that many parts of her world are not thought through, either in relation to itself or to our world. It is that sloppiness about her writing that made me realise I wouldn't be rereading any of the Potter books again, so I gave my collection away to the local charity shop. (Which is inconsistent of me; Lewis is also sloppy but I can't imagine ever getting rid of my Narnia books.)
What I was interested in, before this thread became focussed on house elves, was the way even authors we enjoy and respect can create details that can cause us to take a deep breath and shake our heads. Maybe the written equivalents of Freudian slips? My guess is that we all do it. Am I the only person who tries very hard to be open minded and non-judgemental, and yet sometimes has been told by black friends that I have been racist?
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
I remember reading that Tolkien was deeply influenced by his experiences of WWI (you can see it in his descriptions of Mordor) and not in a jingoist strain. I find it hard to believe, reading him, that he's such a simpleton.
IIRC, thinking in-universe, the orcs were corrupted via magic by outside forces, originally Morgoth and later Sauron and Saruman.
[ 03. November 2012, 15:02: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I think the orcs as Tolkien has created them are not capable of choosing good. Their original sin goes to the bone. One could argue then if it's really right to kill them if they can't help it. It's possibly his stickiest wicket.
The Southrons are also black, but I think Sam gives Tolkien's position on them:
"He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace...."
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
It's also a nice touch that it takes a very bright child to have the separation to begin to see the world for what it is, not as an adult whose mind is entrenched.
I'd say a bright, muggle-born child. She can see the wizarding world from the outside because she's from outside it.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've already admitted that disgust at the happy slave myth is something I bring to the text and that Rowling has no obligation to bow to that concern. Both of them. I said them both.
Seriously, I said them and I mean them. For real.
So what you're arguing so strenuously and at times it seems angrily for is for us to recognize that there are people in the story who believe the happy slave myth. Shocking revelation, that. Glad we have you to set us straight.
[ 03. November 2012, 15:50: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
The discussion about killing the bad guys suddenly reminded me of this. It's brilliant!
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I hadn't realised that Tolkien's orcs were black; I'd assumed they were sort of greyish, if anything.
In a 1958 letter, Tolkien said "The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes... ...degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." So, more yellow-skinned than black.
That said, I think in LotR, the Uruk-hai are described as darker skinned than other Orcs.
I think part of what we see at play here is the bias of the legendarium: West and North = Good, East and South = Bad.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
IIRC, thinking in-universe, the orcs were corrupted via magic by outside forces, originally Morgoth and later Sauron and Saruman.
In The Silmarillion, Orcs are said to be Elves enslaved, tortured and totally corrupted and twisted by Morgoth. In other places, Tolkien suggests they may have once been Men or a cross of Men and Elves, but still enslaved and corrupted by Morgoth.
In LotR, it is speculated that the Uruk-hai might have been a cross between Orcs and Men.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I hadn't realised that Tolkien's orcs were black; I'd assumed they were sort of greyish, if anything.
They aren't black, or not all of them. There are a variety of colours.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I think part of what we see at play here is the bias of the legendarium: West and North = Good, East and South = Bad.
Can we also recognise that the cultures Tolkien was drawing from have a symbolism white=good, black=evil which pre-dates any application of those words to the various colours observed in human skin ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I think part of what we see at play here is the bias of the legendarium: West and North = Good, East and South = Bad.
Why is that? After all, East = sunrise and life; West = sunset and death. No?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I think part of what we see at play here is the bias of the legendarium: West and North = Good, East and South = Bad.
Why is that? After all, East = sunrise and life; West = sunset and death. No?
Much simpler than that. North Western European mythology. I.e. the north-western end of the north-western subsection of the Eurasian landmass.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Much simpler than that. North Western European mythology. I.e. the north-western end of the north-western subsection of the Eurasian landmass.
You can, perhaps, make the point that Tolkien was drawing on "Germanic" myth and the losers amongst the "Germanic" peoples kept being driven North and West... So, from the point of view of the victims, evil remained to the South and East...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0