TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
You know that this is basically the definition of deconstruction, in this context.
I am all for applied literary theory.
But what that means in a game context may not be as obvious.
The problem with Evil races is not what you think
I am all for applied literary theory.
But what that means in a game context may not be as obvious.
For what?
Greene's The Quiet American was written by an Englishman, a little more than 10 years younger than JRRT, and published in 1955, 3 years before Letter 210. I've already linked to Zadie Smith's essay on Greene, upthread. The lens through which I'm criticising JRRT's racist ideas, and reliance upon racist tropes, is modern only in the sense that it is available to me as it undoubtedly was available to him.
There is no rebuttal. That's your fallacy.
shawnhcorey
wizard
The problem with always-evil species is that they'll never last 3 generations. All species must protect their young and evil ones do not. It would be better to have extreme xenophobia ones. They would treat those outside their tribe very harshly but still be benevolent to those inside.
Doug McCrae
Legend
I had a look at the section on deconstruction in Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory 2e (1996), and I don’t think it applies to anything I’ve written in this thread.
Certain meanings are elevated by social ideologies to a privileged position, or made the centres around which other meanings are forced to turn. Consider, in our own society, Freedom, the Family, Democracy, Independence, Authority, Order and so on…
If you examine such first principles closely, you can see that they may always be 'deconstructed': they can be shown to be products of a particular system of meaning, rather than what props it up from the outside. First principles of this kind are commonly defined by what they exclude: they are part of the sort of 'binary opposition' beloved of structuralism. Thus, for male-dominated society, man is the founding principle and woman the excluded opposite of this; and as long as such a distinction is tightly held in place the whole system can function effectively. 'Deconstruction' is the name given to the critical operation by which such oppositions can be partly undermined, or by which they can be shown partly to undermine each other in the process of textual meaning…
Deconstruction, that is to say, has grasped the point that the binary oppositions with which classical structuralism tends to work represent a way of seeing typical of ideologies. Ideologies like to draw rigid boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not, between self and non-self, truth and falsity, sense and nonsense, reason and madness, central and marginal, surface and depth. Such metaphysical thinking, as I have said, cannot be simply eluded: we cannot catapult ourselves beyond this binary habit of thought into an ultra-metaphysical realm. But by a certain way of operating upon texts - whether 'literary' or 'philosophical' - we may begin to unravel these oppositions a little, demonstrate how one term of an antithesis secretly inheres within the other…
Deconstruction tries to show how such oppositions, in order to hold themselves in place, are sometimes betrayed into inverting or collapsing themselves, or need to banish to the text's margins certain niggling details which can be made to return and plague them. Derrida's own typical habit of reading is to seize on some apparently peripheral fragment in the work — a footnote, a recurrent minor term or image, a casual allusion - and work it tenaciously through to the point where it threatens to dismantle the oppositions which govern the text as a whole.
If you examine such first principles closely, you can see that they may always be 'deconstructed': they can be shown to be products of a particular system of meaning, rather than what props it up from the outside. First principles of this kind are commonly defined by what they exclude: they are part of the sort of 'binary opposition' beloved of structuralism. Thus, for male-dominated society, man is the founding principle and woman the excluded opposite of this; and as long as such a distinction is tightly held in place the whole system can function effectively. 'Deconstruction' is the name given to the critical operation by which such oppositions can be partly undermined, or by which they can be shown partly to undermine each other in the process of textual meaning…
Deconstruction, that is to say, has grasped the point that the binary oppositions with which classical structuralism tends to work represent a way of seeing typical of ideologies. Ideologies like to draw rigid boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not, between self and non-self, truth and falsity, sense and nonsense, reason and madness, central and marginal, surface and depth. Such metaphysical thinking, as I have said, cannot be simply eluded: we cannot catapult ourselves beyond this binary habit of thought into an ultra-metaphysical realm. But by a certain way of operating upon texts - whether 'literary' or 'philosophical' - we may begin to unravel these oppositions a little, demonstrate how one term of an antithesis secretly inheres within the other…
Deconstruction tries to show how such oppositions, in order to hold themselves in place, are sometimes betrayed into inverting or collapsing themselves, or need to banish to the text's margins certain niggling details which can be made to return and plague them. Derrida's own typical habit of reading is to seize on some apparently peripheral fragment in the work — a footnote, a recurrent minor term or image, a casual allusion - and work it tenaciously through to the point where it threatens to dismantle the oppositions which govern the text as a whole.
D&D does prominently present "binary oppositions", such as Good and Evil, demihumans and humanoids, or civilisation and wilderness. But I haven’t been trying to "demonstrate how one term of an antithesis secretly inheres within the other", with the aim of denying the existence of a higher source of meaning. I haven't been looking at the "text's margins" or a "peripheral fragment" – evil humanoids, particularly orcs, are probably the most important monsters in D&D. Tolkien, Howard, Lovecraft, and Burroughs are influential Appendix N authors.
I think I’ve been doing exactly what @pemerton describes – demonstrating influences and parallels between texts.
Last edited:
transmission89
Hero
Point: Tolkien’s Orcs were a stand in for a real world ethnicity, specifically East Asian.
My claim: They were not.
That is what a rebuttal is. “To claim OR prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false. So clearly it stands as a rebuttal. Which still makes it not a fallacy.
Certainly, I am in agreement with you that the descriptive language a lot of the time evokes wider culture racially motivated fears of different physicality. As was rife in all manners of literature. But not utilising them as a stand in as claimed.
I don’t agree with any of the racial vocabulary used, I don’t endorse it, I stand against it when it is used or implied today. But I don’t seek to criticise unfairly from a modern perspective historical figures without application of context.
Tolkein’s Orcs were his fallen angels, inspired by his readings of myth and legends (despite the hurtful language used as an aid to describe their physicality).
D&D Orcs were obviously inspired by this, to be used as a monster in game, regardless of original literary inspiration, in such a way that, the origins have reached a point of irrelevance if their origins cause discomfort.
Last edited:
I don't know what you mean by "stand in". It's not a phrase I've used. It's not a phrase that @Doug McCrae has used.
When @aramis erak says that they are "stand ins", I take the meaning to be along the lines of they occupy the same place in JRRT's fantasy works as he conceives "Eastern" peoples (Huns, Mongols, Turks) to occupy in relation to European civilisation. It doesn't rebut this claim to show that JRRT also describes Orcs as fallen.
There are many ways to think about falling, about what it threatens in human life, about how one might represent it in a fantasy story. One way is to use a cursed ring as a motif, and to frame the threat as greed, expedience and betrayal. Another is to use the sorts of tropes JRRT draws upon in his account of Orcs, and to frame the threat as an army of relentless, innumerable soldiers bent upon the destruction of the peoples of the "West".
JRRT did both.
transmission89
Hero
That wasn’t the context of his quote.
And before we go further with his view of peoples of the east in terms of Mordor being of the east and such, again, it’s important to remember that’s a subjective interpretation not a literal statement from the author that is what it is.
If we are to engage in literary theory, critiquing work, it is imperative one must remember that it is fully subjective and we bring our own experiences and baggage within our reading and interpretation of it. As Tolkein didn’t explicitly label Mordor = culture x, it has to be subjective. It can’t be stated as an objective smoking gun.
The orcs werent falling, i said they were (from Tolkeins musings on them) inspired and more representative of the biblical fallen angels. Certainly, as you say, he expressed falling into evil in a number of ways, such as with the rings which you highlighted. And as an army of soldiers unrelenting bent on the destruction on the west, to me, I’d interpret that more of his visions of the German war machine advancing west wards from his ww1 days.
Tangentially, in Tolkien, isn't the idea of those who have never seen the light also a big deal? There are the elves that never journeyed towards Valinor, and then the ones who never made it there. There are the men that were never in the early few weren't in the early families that fought beside the elves, and then there are those that never got taken to Numenor. Are the men of the east those that fell, or those that neither the elves nor Valinor ever bothered to reached out to (besides sending the Blue Wizards)?
Last edited:
transmission89
Hero
I believe so. It’s certainly a motif that is worth exploring. It’s been a while since I’ve gone in-depth on it so I don’t feel qualified to give an accurate personal assessment on that aspect. If anything, this just means another dive into the silmarillion which is no bad thing!
