Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9787052" data-attributes="member: 177">If you are a canon literalist, it does not matter.If you are a critic, then why it was done matters a great deal.Do they?&nbsp; Have we established that the skin tone of all members of the Companions were canonically, explicitly white?&nbsp; Do we have passages mentioning all their skin tones?&nbsp; There is a very common tendency for authors to state hair and eye color, but skin tone is often assumed, not specifically mentioned in the work.Raistlin was explicitly gold-toned.&nbsp; In later works, IIRC, Crysania was extremely pale.&nbsp; But the rest?&nbsp; And if there are passages that establish that every member of the Companions was explicitly white, does that establish the entire human population was white?It is, except when it isn't.&nbsp; It isn't valuable, for example, if it makes the creators look kinda racist....As critics are we so assured that the whiteness of skin is terribly valuable to the work?&nbsp; It their skin tone an important statement?&nbsp; Is that a statement that the creators today want to make?Is, &quot;Because that's the way they did it in 1984,&quot; really a good reason to do it that way today?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9787052, member: 177"] If you are a canon literalist, it does not matter. If you are a [I]critic[/I], then why it was done matters a great deal. Do they? Have we established that the skin tone of all members of the Companions were canonically, explicitly white? Do we have passages mentioning all their skin tones? There is a very common tendency for authors to state hair and eye color, but skin tone is often [I]assumed[/I], not specifically mentioned in the work. Raistlin was explicitly gold-toned. In later works, IIRC, Crysania was extremely pale. But the rest? And if there are passages that establish that every member of the Companions was explicitly white, does that establish the entire human population was white? It is, except when it isn't. It isn't valuable, for example, if it makes the creators look kinda racist.... [I]As critics[/I] are we so assured that the whiteness of skin is terribly valuable to the work? It their skin tone an important statement? Is that a statement that the creators today [I]want to make[/I]? Is, "Because that's the way they did it in 1984," really a good reason to do it that way today? [/QUOTE]

Verification