Hussar
Legend
.
Sorry, [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], but, I really have no idea what you just said. Could you please type a little more carefully.
Do orcs in gaming display parallels to colonialist propaganda?
- Status
Sorry, [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], but, I really have no idea what you just said. Could you please type a little more carefully.
Aldarc
Legend
I did not say that. But when you have certain *ahem* public personalities lambasting a fictive "Postmodern Cultural Marxism" (it doesn't exist), then regardless of whether I understand why people would confuse the two, I am compelled to acknowledge that people did and have intertwined the two.
I felt that way once before. I was exceptionally critical of the utterly incoherent nonsense that Foucault and Derrida espoused. Then I found myself engaged in deconstruction. Nowhere near to their extent, but deconstruction nonetheless. I realized that they had "won" - the paradigm shift had occurred! - and so I went back and revisited their work. But I found myself less predisposed against what they had to say at the outset this time. (Undoubtedly still a tough read though.)
That said, none of this really has much to do with orcs and the depiction thereof.
Bedrockgames
Legend
I had the opposite experience. I got very into the stuff and believed it for a time. But eventually I just saw it as a dead end philosophically (and came to see it as blowing a lot of smoke). But way off topic at this point.
Bedrockgames
Legend
If you direct back to the full quote so I can see what Celebrim is saying. My point wasn't about individual posters on this thread though. It was about the idea of authorial intent.
I would hope not! Enough of us know that white people were not solely to blame for enslaving Africans. A large percentage of African slaves were placed in European hands by fellow Africans who had defeated their people in battle.
Celebrim
Legend
I think you should read through that again, because you're misunderstanding.
The points go like this.
a) I declare someone else's interpretation is wrong.
b) That person responds by declaring my interpretation is wrong.
c) But that person who just asserted I was wrong cannot also and at the same time believe everyone's interpretation is right. Somehow they have to believe that both interpretations are right even when they are contradictory. So either they can believe I am wrong, or they can believe everyone is right, but they can't do both.
I then assert that in practice, no one acts as if they believed that the meaning of something was solely the province of the receiver of the communication, and that in practice everyone acts as if the reader ought to be able to develop an understanding that comes close to their own intent. Therefore, since no one really follows through on the implications of the argument that authorial intent doesn't matter, it's actually an argument that is only used uncharitably with respect to other people's works.
Celebrim
Legend
Regardless of whether they are mislabeling or demonizing, those personalities are referring to Postmodern critical social theory which does exist. We have even a few strident supporters of it on the boards.
Too much passion. And not enough cognizance that you are speaking to another human being. Keeping to highfalutin' language does not keep you from going over the line several times. Insulting their schooling as a cause for their disagreement with you, and referring to their writing as "literary masturbation" is pretty much tops for arrogance, making it personal, and being dismissive.
It is time for you to step away from the discussion. Do not post in the thread again.
Celebrim
Legend
Anyway, back on target, I think I've covered the points that I need to make in order to start going after the things that were axiomatically assumed earlier in the thread.
First, the author's intent does matter. It's irresponsible to go up to a work, merely react to it, and then assert that somehow your reaction to it was anything more than your reaction to it. Your reaction may be important, but it doesn't in and of itself say anything about the meaning of the work. The intent of the work does matter, and you still have a responsibility to explore it.
Secondly, even with respect to a very sympathetic portrayal of a minority that had a strong intent to be uplifting - such as 'Black Panther' - it's possible to dissect the work and look at parts of it in isolation and make criticisms of its method. Some of those criticisms might even be fair. But none of them are fair if at some point you don't draw back and look at the larger intent and impact of the work. It's not enough to just 'proof text' this one part of the work in isolation, show that you can react to that part of the work negatively, and then assert from that something like the author is racist or even that the work is racist.
Simplistic claims like, "The drow are an evil dark skinned matriarchy. That's so racist and sexist.", are almost always wrong. The drow are a matriarchy not because Gygax was terrified of women, but because female spiders are often several times the size of male spiders and are known for their habit of devouring males. The drow are led by a spider goddess not because the initial intent was to find some symbol for the evil of women, but to reach for some symbol of predatory cunning and artistry - such as a spider's web. Can I prove that? No, I'd have to go research Gygax's original intent and find evidence of it, but it is I think an entirely reasonable and charitable approach to the material.
Where I will assert that I could prove something to the contrary, was an earlier claim lumping Burroughs in with Lovecraft and Howard. Lovecraft and Howard are we can tell from their personal writings racist, and we can look at their body of works as a whole and show how they reflect these beliefs. But with Burroughs, investigation will show that the was a member of a leading progressive abolitionist family, and that a close reading of his works will find that Burroughs intent is often to subversively undermine the prevailing racism of his day. For example, in his Martian tales, one of the traits that is most useful to the protagonist John Carter is that he holds no racial prejudices toward the martians, nor is he subject to them himself. The Martians on the other hand have all sorts of racial animosities against each other and grievances, and John Carter spends much of the story healing these racial divisions. Indeed, pretty much everywhere John Carter goes he finds someone with a different shade of skin from himself who proves to be a noble and loyal friend. The only race of Martians in which he finds no one with honor, are the white skinned Martians that look most like him, and these White racist bigots prove to his longest running and most tenacious adversary. Most of the Barsoom stories are about the evils of racism, and at several points in the story he has characters like Dejah Thoris and John Carter give speeches that are aimed at the racist theories proposed by racists of Burroughs day. Burroughs isn't racist, nor are his stories intended as such. And to the extent that you could choose to react to them as racist, because the protagonist is white or because the people of Africa in the 1920's are frequently depicted as primitive or savage, see also the savage and primitive depictions of people in Africa in the Black Panther. You have to look at the work as a whole and the author's intent to really understand it.
First, the author's intent does matter. It's irresponsible to go up to a work, merely react to it, and then assert that somehow your reaction to it was anything more than your reaction to it. Your reaction may be important, but it doesn't in and of itself say anything about the meaning of the work. The intent of the work does matter, and you still have a responsibility to explore it.
Secondly, even with respect to a very sympathetic portrayal of a minority that had a strong intent to be uplifting - such as 'Black Panther' - it's possible to dissect the work and look at parts of it in isolation and make criticisms of its method. Some of those criticisms might even be fair. But none of them are fair if at some point you don't draw back and look at the larger intent and impact of the work. It's not enough to just 'proof text' this one part of the work in isolation, show that you can react to that part of the work negatively, and then assert from that something like the author is racist or even that the work is racist.
Simplistic claims like, "The drow are an evil dark skinned matriarchy. That's so racist and sexist.", are almost always wrong. The drow are a matriarchy not because Gygax was terrified of women, but because female spiders are often several times the size of male spiders and are known for their habit of devouring males. The drow are led by a spider goddess not because the initial intent was to find some symbol for the evil of women, but to reach for some symbol of predatory cunning and artistry - such as a spider's web. Can I prove that? No, I'd have to go research Gygax's original intent and find evidence of it, but it is I think an entirely reasonable and charitable approach to the material.
Where I will assert that I could prove something to the contrary, was an earlier claim lumping Burroughs in with Lovecraft and Howard. Lovecraft and Howard are we can tell from their personal writings racist, and we can look at their body of works as a whole and show how they reflect these beliefs. But with Burroughs, investigation will show that the was a member of a leading progressive abolitionist family, and that a close reading of his works will find that Burroughs intent is often to subversively undermine the prevailing racism of his day. For example, in his Martian tales, one of the traits that is most useful to the protagonist John Carter is that he holds no racial prejudices toward the martians, nor is he subject to them himself. The Martians on the other hand have all sorts of racial animosities against each other and grievances, and John Carter spends much of the story healing these racial divisions. Indeed, pretty much everywhere John Carter goes he finds someone with a different shade of skin from himself who proves to be a noble and loyal friend. The only race of Martians in which he finds no one with honor, are the white skinned Martians that look most like him, and these White racist bigots prove to his longest running and most tenacious adversary. Most of the Barsoom stories are about the evils of racism, and at several points in the story he has characters like Dejah Thoris and John Carter give speeches that are aimed at the racist theories proposed by racists of Burroughs day. Burroughs isn't racist, nor are his stories intended as such. And to the extent that you could choose to react to them as racist, because the protagonist is white or because the people of Africa in the 1920's are frequently depicted as primitive or savage, see also the savage and primitive depictions of people in Africa in the Black Panther. You have to look at the work as a whole and the author's intent to really understand it.
Bedrockgames
Legend
Celebrim, you might want to delete that post. I think you missed the warning from Umbran saying not to post in this thread again (just don't want you to get in trouble if you didn't catch it).
- Status
