transmission89
Hero
Indeed, many authors have, as another Redditor pointed out much like you have, for example, citing the fantastic works of authors such as Ursula LeGuin. The poster responded thusly (which, I agree with the general sentiments if not every specific, or the tone necessarily,but I shall quote it in full here for integrity of the post)
“To answer each of the questions, the first is, it says that we're playing with fire. That it has found something that is consist with very intimate parts of the human psyche, independent of it's capacity or proclivity to good or evil.
That's not how stories work and you know it, the characters involved are intentionally representative of a particular idea. That's just how it works, they convey ideas in form of social interactions between people. To elaborate further though, people do act in particular ways, cultural groups share many things, including- and most importantly- the manner in which they design and pursue (and therefore enforce) a hierarchy of value. There is something to be said for the analysis of how honor as a central value plays out on a societal scale, as contrasted to merchantile acquisition. Hence, why Klingons and Ferengai at large, are just as interesting as Hideyoshi and Carnegie are in particular.
I'll ignore the racial subtext of what I will assume is a botched attempt at making cultural distinctions, after all part of this discussion is about the degree to which race and culture overlap, and answer the challenge it offers. The simple answer, is you didn't read. I specifically said the value of making an entire people into a character, is so that the individuals which compose it, may be contrasted. Though, regarding your claims of undermine the concept of the "other" I regret to inform you, that it is both a fact of nature, and art. Thus is nature of contrast and symmetry.
And finally, this is where you really pull the ideological rabbit out of your analytical hat. "why would WotC choose a framework with a message with similar themes to racial supremecy?" Well I'm glad you asked.
The simplest answer is cause it works. It's an effective structure to communicate to people the details of a character which will be relevant to the drama by establishing the backdrop of a society against which they stand, or into which they blend. Both are novel.
A more nuanced answer, would also go through the trouble of axplaining that a story which does not have the benefit of defining the social game which it's characters will play, must rely strictly on their interactions as they appear in the social games we play. The unavailability of particular nuance in the practical reality of our lives make certain point unaproachable or uncommunicatable between peoples. Defining your own simplified world is convenient and occasionally mandatory for this purpose, when exploring niche or hypothetical questions.
But the actual language of your statement gives away just what's rotten in the state of Denmark, a framework doesn't have a message, actually. It's a toolkit for conveying, generalizing, specifying, adjusting, or comparing messages. What you meant, is why would they use a framework which was used by racial supremacists to convey their own vile message. That argument gets dangerously close to the Hitler owned a dog side of things, though more specifically you might say "Bricks were used to build the ovens in Auschwitz" and then declaring bricks a stepping stone to the fourth Reich. And you know fair point, but you're really doing a disservice to intellectual discourse if that's where you stop your analysis.
Continuing the analogy, you might object to something as bland and flexible in utility as a brick; I wouldn't object, because it's precisely my claim that that's how general and of utility this form of storytelling is, but I digress. Perhaps you could claim that guns were used to order people into trains and intimidate and control them, and fair point. If you wanted to claim that stories were something akin to ideological weapons, you might be really onto something rather articulate there. However, guns were also used to fight the Nazis, and step one of Hitler taking control was to strip weapons from the hands of anyone he didn't control.
So, if you really do insist on bemoaning the ideological dangers of potentially abusing powerful techniques for crafting grand narratives, I suggest you take a good hard look as precisely the pros and cons of solving that problem by any means other than leaving it alone, and allowing everyone go arm themselves adequately so as to be defended against the encroachments of bad actors and tyrants.
If you wish to lambast the WotC as being wittingly or unwittingly participatory in the cultural equivalent of nuclear proliferation, then so be it. But first, if ask you count just how many wars nuclear arms have stopped, and just how many they've started. You'll find the score heavily on one side.
And then from there, I would like you to speculate on the value of letting these things play out organically, and to grow detached and independent from their unpleasant roots, grow richer deeper ones, and become a pillar of our culture which holds it up against the rattlings of the world. Just how much good do you really expect to accomplish ripping these things up by their roots, and just how wide are you leaving the door open to unforseen and readily foreseen consequences alike”
. Apologies for any confusion caused by not adhering to forum convention. A lot of what I write is in snatches of free time on mobile.
