Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2274639" data-attributes="member: 2205">I agree that "racism" applied to authors at the turn of the century is a bit absurd, because no such concept even existed at the time.  I could pull out examples of Jane's black help from Tarzan, who was culturally American, or his characterization of the French, for example, from the same work.  Similarly, there's the concept, largely left by the wayside today, of "classism" which is pretty rampant in ERB's work.But doing so is most likely futile.  As is pointing to an "anti-racism" message in the text.  It's applying idealogy that post-dates the work in question by a long time, and therefore, as I said earlier, futile.Well, I guess you got me there.  YOU READ THE BOOK VERY YOUNG AND SWITCHED TO ALL CAPS, SO NATURALLY YOUR ARGUMENT IS FREE OF ANY FLAW.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />  I don't think anything you've stated is even relevent to how good your theories and interpretations are, frankly.  I'd prefer you stick to relevent statements.Huh?  If anything, that seems to be the thrust of your argument.  Fantasy must be a morality tale is certainly a case of misapplied logic; or maybe circular semantics.  You define fantasy as a morality tale (even though nobody else does) and then argue that anything not a morality tale is obviously not fantasy despite whatever other features it has.  Similarly, other works that are not generally accepted as fantasy, yet which do meet your defining criteria are excluded "just because."And yet...Its just you that sees any invented things as symbols of abstract principles whether or not the author intended them as such. Nobody's getting it.  Maybe you should take a hint and realize that it's not just that everyone else but you is incapable of getting it, but that your "theory" is incoherent and flat-out absurd.And here we see yet more of your semantic wrangling.  Apparently you now define "listening" as "accepting everything you say."  Of course I "listened", or more accurately read your post.  I think it's full of crap, though, and I agree with very little of it.You also have conflated the semantics of "my interpretation" with "the Truth[sup]TM[/sup] and apparently can no longer distinguish between the two of them.  Hey, you as a 10-year old came up with this interpretation of ERB and his writings, and by golly, if you figured it out as a 10-year old, it must be the "way things are."  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /></blockquote>

Verification