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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8500212" data-attributes="member: 59082">To the first, I agree. To the second, I'm mixed. I mean, I hear what you or someone else said upthread, that we usually end up talking mostly about the work, not the author (someone used the example of the Wrath of Khan's writer, which I thought was apt). On the other hand, it also depends upon how deep we want to go, and also how clearly we want to understand the world and the author's intention. At the very least, it is interesting to understand the context of an author's life, and might shed light on their work.For example, when I read Tolkien's biography (or maybe Letters) a couple decades ago, I found it interesting to discover that his depiction of Mordor was inspired by his childhood in the Midlands of England, and the industrial landscape that he grew to detest and contrast to the woodlands that he loved. It deepens our understanding of who he was, and why he contrasted the beauty and light of Aman and elves vs. the dark ugliness of Mordor and orcs. Tolkien was deeply Romantic (in the capital R sense of the word), and yearned for a "golden age," which we see glimpses of in the LotR but is more fully expressed in The Silmarillion. To him, the "creatures and lands of evil" were at least partially expressions of industrialization and the perversion of nature (Jackson captured this with his depiction of Saruman's industry, and the consequent "revenge of the ents"). This also contextualizes any racial connotations as being more "burps" than defining statements. He was more interested in the use and misuse of power, and the degree to which mortals either aligned or distorted the "song of creation." Thus Melkor, the primordial adversary, singing in discord with the song of the Ainur (although Tolkien hinted that this discord may serve a greater purpose in Iluvatar's plan).I digress a bit, but I think it serves my point: that understanding the author deepens one's understanding of their work.On a related but slightly different note, I sometimes like to think of human culture as an "ongoing conversation," and an expression of the "one creative mind" of humanity as a whole, in its great diversity. So when I look at what was created in ages past, in a way--at least from this perspective--I see it as "our" creation, aspects of our inherited mind, that is an ongoing and changing stream.So in that sense, looking critically at the past is a good way to help us make choices in the present and future: see where we, as individuals within the greater whole, want to put our energy and contribute to the "Great Stream." I think every person--as a sub-creator (to use a Tolkienian term)--has a role to play, no matter how seemingly small (wait, does that sound like Gandalf?).I'm not suggesting yes or no, although such encounters are inevitable. That was my only point about an educational opportunity - that even if one decides to try to limit exposure to such things, which is certainly understandable--at least when the kids are young--when it does inevitably arise, it is "manure" that can be transformed into a "garden" of some kind.So, in a way, I'm agreeing with your second paragraph, and not suggesting that such things be intentionally introduced, but when such exposure occurs (as it inevitably will) it can be approached as a learning opportunity, which may even bring some kind of fruit.Or to use the example of Tolkien again (because he's on my mind, by virtue of my response to Hussar), he was deeply traumatized and injured by his experience in WWI, but it also helped inspire his creative work, which in turn was a major influence on D&D and RPGs as a whole.OK, that makes sense - I previously misunderstood what you were saying. I don't disagree with that, although I can't imagine Howard or especially Lovecraft being shelved in juvenile fiction. Have you had that experience? If so, it seems an error of categorization. Adult fantasy and horror, respectively, makes more sense to me.Well I think he thought about it a lot, but was more focused on bringing Middle-earth to life as authentically and respectfully as possible - in regards to Tolkien's vision. I have no idea if he considered racial aspects, however, although I imagine that if he were making those films today, it would have been more in his mind.OK, but that is a completely different situation. Orcs aren't humans, they aren't of any specific human ethnicity, and thus do not need to be represented by any specific ethnicity. And actually, Jackson did depict a variety of "orcish types" (not to mention, his Moria goblins being quite different, which I think is a topic of contention among Tolkien fans).Or as I said to Hussar above, while there are certain things that Tolkien said (mainly one sentence in one of his letters) that have racial/racist elements, that wasn't really what orcs were about or what Tolkien was focused on. At all, really. Tolkien's interest was more mythological and, increasingly as he grew older, towards the metaphysical, so orcs are more properly approached from a metaphysical and symbolic perspective, as "perversions of nature." I do not think it was his intention, even subconsciously, to equate them with Mongolians or some such and imply that they were also perversions of nature. Actually, I think he would be shocked and rather distraught by such an implication (and probably a tad grumpy).This is why reading everything through a specific contemporary lens can be very misleading, because it ends up missing where the author was coming from, and what "language" they were speaking. I mean, if a classical music critic analyzes funk music from their own critical lens, they're going to miss what the music is about. They're only going to hear "really bad classical."Yes, you can analyze work in that way, but I think it ends up in category error, to some degree, when flatly applying it to everything, especially fantasy. It is applying a single lens of perception, or a specific tool, to a "job" that may actually require a different tool - at least if you want actually understand the work.In a similar fashion, I think a lot of literary critics make the mistake of analyzing fantasy as if it is literary fiction. I was explaining this to my SO, who is not a fantasy reader, that it is really a different literary form and is best approached differently. Just as if you have Cormac McCarthy in mind of what good literature is and approach Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings will come across as juvenile and rather absurd. Again, that would be like analyzing punk rock to see how funky it was, or hip-hop from the perspective of classical music. Each genre, and really each author, has its own unique language, and to approach it from the perspective of any specific analytic lens often misses the work.Or we can see this in psychoanalysis, and why humanistic psychology was so important. It brought this new perspective, that a patient is better understood from within their own meaning-making paradigm, and not simply pushed through the sieve of one's own pet philosophy (e.g. Freudian depth psychology). That to really understand a person--be it a therapeutic client or an artist--you have to be able to see the world from their perspective, at least to some degree.I'm not saying that outside perspectives aren't useful or don't lead to insights, but to overly focus on them is, in a sense, akin to a colonialist act, and often leads to a myopic and limited understanding of the art (or person).Yes, of course. But the potential for others feeling mocked is always there, and I suggest that we can't put the entire responsibility on the artist, otherwise they're strait-jacketed from being able to create anything, or at least only within a very limited scope (basically, their own first-hand experience), which in turn will greatly reduce the diversity of creative offerings.And thus I'll return to my example of the "Aztec-inspired evil empire." In that regard, I don't think feeling mocked is justified, or at least is based on a misapprehension. Now if there was a pattern in that creator's work and world, say all non-white analogs were evil or brutish and the good guys were all white, then I think the data would start coalescing in a way that would be a bit disturbing. But we have to look at the work as a whole, at the least.My point being, whether or not a work or artist is assigned the label "racist" shouldn't be a frivolous assignation, and involves many elements.I didn't read the whole thing and skimmed a lot of it, but got the gist of what he's saying, I think. But I'll probably go back and give it a closer read, as it was very well written and, I think, a poignant perspective.One thing that stood out to me is that he grew to dislike fantasy as a teenager and adult, and didn't like Marvel films. I think, in a way, this points to the "wrong tool" I mentioned above, because he seems to be approaching Black Panther and Marvel--as variations on the fantastical--as if they are not fantastical.Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying his take isn't valid--not least of which because I'm a bit "Marveled-out"!--but also because I think overly glowing stereotypes can be as, or even more, harmful than negative ones because they imply that stereotyping is ok, because we're saying good things!But I also feel that a lot of these interpretations come about through applying one language to a creative form that speaks another. Fantasy and superheroes are myths, and the language draws upon dream, archetype, imaginal forms...and archetypes are often misinterpreted as stereotypes, symbols as allegories, and dream as metaphor.(I will protest his take on Rilke a bit, though--perhaps partially because I admire Rilke and am biased, but also because I think he's missing what Rilke is talking about, which isn't really about race but his own longing for something more primordial than his own decadent European civilization...but that's just my quick and sloppy take on it).OK, this is where I feel impelled to say: Go for it, my brother! This is where this fellow lover of imagination and creative play would encourage you to follow what inspires you. And I agree that it is a beautiful video and "world-building," but I can also see how its "European colonial framing" would give you pause. But that might be an interesting project for you to undertake: to create your own version of such a world, but do so as respectfully as you possibly can, which I'm certain you would. You don't need to be (cannot be) perfect, but if your love for the world and its inhabitants is there, it will shine through.This is why, I think, all but the most extreme Tolkienistas didn't mind, at least, Jackson's films (at least the first three). While there were elements that would make Tolkien roll over in his Beren-marked grave, it is clear that Jackson had a love of Middle-earth and Tolkien's vision, and did his best to honor that. It shows, even if there are numerous elements that we could, with the sharp lens of Tolkien purist on, criticize.I mean, to be honest, I find the idea of creating such a world as is depicted in that video--with the romance of a certain Eurocentric age, but de-Eurocentricized--quite intriguing. Not an easy task, but where I think it could be successful is if you explored different "worlds within the world." Meaning, if you didn't only explore the "European perspective," but also the Arabic, or whatever other cultures are depicted. And I think the key to that, if I may be so bold, is to acknowledge the humanity of each person and culture, first and foremost--beyond whatever cultural or ethnic "clothing" they might wear.I know I've gone for a bit, but one more anecdote to illustrate. My SO once said to me something that unraveled a touch of lingering sexism within me. She said something to the effect that she wanted to be seen as a person before a woman. It is not that she didn't want me, a man, to relate to her as a woman, but not only or primarily a woman. It sounds so obvious now, and in a way I'm struck by how I missed it (if only in a small, but palpable way). But I think this same approach applies to depicting different cultures: to always have in mind that, before anything else, they are people, first and foremost, who simply grew out of a different cultural, geographic, and perhaps historic context.Or another approach you could take would be an alternate historical one, where such an intermixing of cultures was not brought about through war and colonialism, but through cultural exchange - sort of like Andalusia for a short time in the early Middle Ages, which Guy Gavriel Kay's Lions of Al-Rassan idealized in a beautiful way. Meaning, take the same basic time-period, but imagine it having been done "better," without the dominance of Europeans over the "others," but in an intermixing of worlds and cultures.Just some ideas...</blockquote>

Verification