[D'iversify]

Ulrik, on 07 April 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Well, I think that choosing AGOT isnt best. Its IMO really depicting stereotypes with wink of eye and equally in both ways - so its spreading prejudice about westerosi in "Middle East" and vice versa. And Martin is combining it well with showing real persons opposing those stereotypes. But yeah, I think that fantasy is full of simple views ans schematism.

But I dont think racism is right term. I would rather go for Orientalism. Its not really about race, its about culture.

I think this is spot on. Martin's 'East' is consciously Orientalised, it is a mythic East made flesh. I'd say it has a lot in common with the world of Umberto Eco's Baudolino.


Fantasy, it must be recalled, has roots in folklore and myth-making, many of wjhich have a skewed and parochial perspective. Remember that Tolkein wanted to write a mythology for the English people.


I've not read this book, but this was apparently a watershed in the development of an internal critique of fantasy and science fiction racial stereotyping: http://en.wikipedia..../The_Iron_Dream

This post has been edited by D'iversify: 08 April 2012 - 10:39 PM

[Starvarld Demelain]

This reminds me of the twitter storm about the hunger games, where some of the die-hard readers were complaing that that one of the characters (the name of which i've forgot) was black. Poeple do have these preconceptions of who is bad and who is good, typically authors portray the bad characters as dark/black. Just because you have these preconceptions doesn't mean they're correct. GRRM though a wonderful writer is lacking in that district. For an author who's books are considered realisitc, the lack of other races in a world that technically is supposed to reflect a 'real world' is a little wierd.

The arguement someone above me said about, when an author tries to portray a different raced chracter sterotypes come up. Hoever if they did the proper reseach that they would have done for the book in general this wouldn't occur, for me the main problem is that without other races in a book the whole story just ends up being highly unrealistc, and a bore to read., hence why i love The malazan empire.

[Macros]

i assumed it was becasue most major published fantasy authors were from english speaking nations, hences in their head the "normal" people in their books would be the white like themselves (i know there are many non white english speakers, im making sweeping generalisations here) and there simply arent that many published authors from, say, the middle east, published in english I mean

[worry]

One of the more disturbing aspects of the Hunger Games debacle was not simply the racism regarding Rue, and not simply that so many of these readers didn't pick it up when it's so overtly described...but that these readers cared about the character and felt some sort of emotional connection to her, and then felt betrayed/angry/disgusted/etc. upon learning that Rue was a black person all along. That's how ingrained this stuff is. So in that light, I kinda agree (in my heart if not always in my head) with amphibian's hardline stance on this issue. Authors write about what they know and what they're passionate about, there's certainly truth in that...but why is that all they know? why is that all they're passionate about? and why shouldn't they, and even moreso the industry, be held accountable for catering to such a narrow set of interests and passions? That doesn't mean condemnation or hostility, necessarily -- though they remain valid options -- but it does entail calling these things out in the industry, and simply just speaking up as a fan and a consumer.

[Shinrei]

I wonder if I live in Japan long enough, I'll start seeing all characters in my head as Asian unless described otherwise.... lord knows whenever I see white people, I think "Do I really look that weird?"

Hunger Games... a perfect example of popular culture passing by my Japan bubble completely. I have no idea what you're talking about! Off to wikipedia...

[Tsundoku]

Please stop retrospectively applying modern morals to past generations. They didn't have our advantages for a start, nor our capacity for navel-gazing and overanalysis.

It reeks of revisionism, and frankly it's just as bad as that which you seek to correct. (EDIT: to clarify, this remark is directed at some of the comments above, not the thread as a whole.)

I've seen enough of it in academia and the media in the last 20 years and I'm totally sick of it.

Note the past, learn from it. Just stop judging otherwise-decent people because they didn't hold the exact same viewpoint as you. Don't forget that a lot of authors use earth-analogue cultures simply for an easy frame of reference. Yeah, it's lazy, but then again so are we who read and enjoy them, by extension.

Oh, and Amph - the men of Telmar were descended from pirates, and not necessarily the good guys all the time. Plus if you've read "The Horse and his boy", you'll find there are mentions of Calormenes as pretty much the same as people you find anywhere else - some arseholes, some saints and the vast multitudes of "normal".

EDIT: that whole "Rue" thing reminded me of the "Heimdall controversy" when Idris Elba (sp?) was cast in Thor. I disagreed at the time but thought he did a good job in the flick and the way it was presented, because they made you think that these aliens worshipped by gods may have had contact with all sorts of humans, not just the Norse.

@Starvald Demelain
"Poeple do have these preconceptions of who is bad and who is good, typically authors portray the bad characters as dark/black. Just because you have these preconceptions doesn't mean they're correct. GRRM though a wonderful writer is lacking in that district. For an author who's books are considered realisitc, the lack of other races in a world that technically is supposed to reflect a 'real world' is a little wierd."

Really? Have you READ the books? Noone has a monopoly on good OR evil as a race. GRRMs "easterners" vary from savages to people who view the Westerosi as backward savages. And there are a whole lot of other races.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 09 April 2012 - 11:05 AM

[Terez]

worrywort, on 09 April 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

One of the more disturbing aspects of the Hunger Games debacle was not simply the racism regarding Rue, and not simply that so many of these readers didn't pick it up when it's so overtly described...but that these readers cared about the character and felt some sort of emotional connection to her, and then felt betrayed/angry/disgusted/etc. upon learning that Rue was a black person all along. That's how ingrained this stuff is.

I've seen the same thing happen with WoT and Tuon (one of the more important characters for those who don't know, and a love interest for one of the white male leads). Anyway, people never seem to pick up on the fact that she's black, and while they usually just show surprise when you tell them, there was one guy that threw a fit when he found out, and was all "Nooooooooo, please tell me it isn't true!" That was several years ago, but I remember thinking, doesn't this guy have any self-respect? What kind of person would openly display racism like that? He was another white guy living in Japan (military) so maybe that has something to do with it...

This post has been edited by Terez: 09 April 2012 - 02:32 PM

[worry]

I do think GRRM just has a different motivation than, say, SE's post-modernist deconstructionist take on fantasy. GRRM is all about de-romanticizing tropes, not exploding them outright. In other words, I think he's a different stepping stone in the right direction. And he goes about it by taking these mythical and cultural origins and taking them to their ugly logical conclusions, instead of confirming the farmboy's dream of glory or whatever. And while the racial question isn't totally absent from his work, it's not necessarily the primary modern lens he's using; by and large I think ASOIAF is a feminist work, more than anything.

[Kanese S's]

Terez, on 09 April 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

worrywort, on 09 April 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

One of the more disturbing aspects of the Hunger Games debacle was not simply the racism regarding Rue, and not simply that so many of these readers didn't pick it up when it's so overtly described...but that these readers cared about the character and felt some sort of emotional connection to her, and then felt betrayed/angry/disgusted/etc. upon learning that Rue was a black person all along. That's how ingrained this stuff is.

I've seen the same thing happen with WoT and Tuon (one of the more important characters for those who don't know, and a love interest for one of the white male leads). Anyway, people never seem to pick up on the fact that she's black, and while they usually just show surprise when you tell them, there was one guy that threw a fit when he found out, and was all "Nooooooooo, please tell me it isn't true!" That was several years ago, but I remember thinking, doesn't this guy have any self-respect? What kind of person would openly display racism like that? He was another white guy living in Japan (military) so maybe that has something to do with it...

But Tuon is constantly described in a way that makes it pretty obvious ("small and dark," more detail about her dark skin, etc.), as I recall. It amazes me how we humans can so easily skip over description that contradicts the mental images we form of characters.

[Kanese S's]

worrywort, on 09 April 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

I do think GRRM just has a different motivation than, say, SE's post-modernist deconstructionist take on fantasy. GRRM is all about de-romanticizing tropes, not exploding them outright. In other words, I think he's a different stepping stone in the right direction. And he goes about it by taking these mythical and cultural origins and taking them to their ugly logical conclusions, instead of confirming the farmboy's dream of glory or whatever. And while the racial question isn't totally absent from his work, it's not necessarily the primary modern lens he's using; by and large I think ASOIAF is a feminist work, more than anything.

I agree with this. While at once SE and GRRM are both doing gritty, occasionally unconventional fantasy, there's a lot of room within that to be doing very different things. As they've said themselves, if I recall correctly.

[amphibian]

Sombra, on 09 April 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

Please stop retrospectively applying modern morals to past generations. They didn't have our advantages for a start, nor our capacity for navel-gazing and overanalysis.

It reeks of revisionism, and frankly it's just as bad as that which you seek to correct.

[...]

Note the past, learn from it. Just stop judging otherwise-decent people because they didn't hold the exact same viewpoint as you. Don't forget that a lot of authors use earth-analogue cultures simply for an easy frame of reference. Yeah, it's lazy, but then again so are we who read and enjoy them, by extension.

Oh, and Amph - the men of Telmar were descended from pirates, and not necessarily the good guys all the time. Plus if you've read "The Horse and his boy", you'll find there are mentions of Calormenes as pretty much the same as people you find anywhere else - some arseholes, some saints and the vast multitudes of "normal".

I do back off some on the C.S. Lewis/racism standpoint. I read the books many times long ago and a quick run through the major points reminded me that the racism was not as overt and damaging as my memories told me.

However, there is still a great deal of "lighter skin = better" within the Narnia series. The eventual Queen of Archenland in The Horse and His Boy is almost alone in the books as a good Calormen/Telmarine. The renegade dwarfs and evil animals are almost all dark-skinned and dark-haired. It gets a bit suspicious after a while. The use of human sacrifice regarding Tash, the principal deity of the Calormen culture, and many of the other cultural/religious elements of the "Others" have at least a toe past the grey line between "story" and "racism".

The application of modern morals to the past is absolutely an okay thing to do. Erikson himself leads us to do so again and again within his books, with the Jaghut, T'lan, K'Chain and the Tiste. Erikson teaches us that it is not the application of the morals that is the problem - it's the incomplete information regarding the whole story. With Lewis and the racism, we know a ton more about the world than he did or experienced and we know about his life and other works. It is entirely possible for someone to say that Lewis was or was not racist and be right, without engaging in revisionist over-analysis or navel-gazing.

Nor is it true that those who read these books are necessarily lazy or guilty of the same sins. We readers are capable of enjoying bits and pieces or even reading books we dislike or hate without being in agreement with the author or perpetuating the same sins. It requires the use of critical faculties and retention of one's own identity and beliefs (while of course still being open to new things and ideas).

I have several travel diaries written in the mid-1800s and early 1900s by Western Europeans or Americans about their experiences in the Middle East or Indian sub-continent and they are racist as can be, while occasionally being funny, insightful and presenting a very unique glimpse into a bygone time and dramatically different place and culture. Using parts of them as pieces of my own worldview and work does not make me a racist - as long as I'm properly critical and can present enough context to get me and the reader much closer to the actual truth.

[Terez]

amphibian, on 09 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

I do back off some on the C.S. Lewis/racism standpoint. I read the books many times long ago and a quick run through the major points reminded me that the racism was not as overt and damaging as my memories told me.

However, there is still a great deal of "lighter skin = better" within the Narnia series. The eventual Queen of Archenland in The Horse and His Boy is almost alone in the books as a good Calormen/Telmarine. The renegade dwarfs and evil animals are almost all dark-skinned and dark-haired. It gets a bit suspicious after a while. The use of human sacrifice regarding Tash, the principal deity of the Calormen culture, and many of the other cultural/religious elements of the "Others" have at least a toe past the grey line between "story" and "racism".

I always found this to be more of a direct parallel to religious differences than an explicitly racial contrast, particularly as it relates to the Abrahamic religions, because that is, after all, what Lewis was on about most of the time. Sure, there's a racial element between the Western World and the darker-skinned Islamic cultures, and I think Lewis' depiction was, in either case, rather backwards and prejudiced by modern standards. But I think the religious element was his overarching theme. And of course, he tried to get all apologist in the end with the Judgment,

Spoiler

where anyone who worshiped Tash can get into heaven so long as they don't feel hatred when confronted with Aslan at the doorway.

amphibian, on 09 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

The application of modern morals to the past is absolutely an okay thing to do. Erikson himself leads us to do so again and again within his books, with the Jaghut, T'lan, K'Chain and the Tiste. Erikson teaches us that it is not the application of the morals that is the problem - it's the incomplete information regarding the whole story. With Lewis and the racism, we know a ton more about the world than he did or experienced and we know about his life and other works. It is entirely possible for someone to say that Lewis was or was not racist and be right, without engaging in revisionist over-analysis or navel-gazing.

Nor is it true that those who read these books are necessarily lazy or guilty of the same sins. We readers are capable of enjoying bits and pieces or even reading books we dislike or hate without being in agreement with the author or perpetuating the same sins. It requires the use of critical faculties and retention of one's own identity and beliefs (while of course still being open to new things and ideas).

Branderson was kind enough to engage me and some other folks in a debate about gender and sexuality in WoT, which I posted about here when the debate started (I updated the post as the conversation grew). It was interesting because he started out defending RJ's little biases, and I felt obliged to defend everyone including myself who has used the word 'sexist' in the same sentence as 'RJ' before.

amphibian, on 09 April 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

I have several travel diaries written in the mid-1800s and early 1900s by Western Europeans or Americans about their experiences in the Middle East or Indian sub-continent and they are racist as can be, while occasionally being funny, insightful and presenting a very unique glimpse into a bygone time and dramatically different place and culture. Using parts of them as pieces of my own worldview and work does not make me a racist - as long as I'm properly critical and can present enough context to get me and the reader much closer to the actual truth.

I have read several similar things myself, and I've spent a fair amount of time up in Chopin's letters in particular. He was casually racist toward Jews in his letters, which was fairly standard at the time, especially in Poland. The most interesting thing about it to me is the contrast between his Polish-raised mindset and the general Parisian mindset of his friends (he left Poland when he was 20, and lived in Paris for the rest of his life, i.e. 19 more years). It seems from what I've read that Paris was sort of the liberal hub of Europe at the time. Chopin himself suffered from anti-Polish prejudice, but that didn't make him much more sympathetic to the Jews (though he had Jewish 'friends' and was always proper in public). He also suffered from anti-'pederast' prejudices, not overtly really, but because he was forced to remain in the closet his entire life. (He was 'outed' by the only man he ever really loved, who published his letters more than 40 years after his death, though everyone of course pretended that no such thing had happened.)

But back to the travel diaries, etc., one of the amazing little bits of evidence about Chopin's sexuality outside those letters comes from the travel diaries of the 17th-19th centuries about the Turkish/Byzantine cultures. It's quite odd, because in order to make that particular argument (which I don't rely on; there are many easier and more convincing arguments to make), I have to rely on an assumption that Chopin associated the Byzantine culture with oiled-up boywhores. There's plenty of evidence for that particular cultural prejudice in the travel diaries, but it's still a difficult argument to make to modern audiences because they can't believe that anyone's appropriation of a culture could be so narrow (not that it necessarily was, but unfortunately that is beside the point).

[Gust Hubb]

Sombra, on 09 April 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

Please stop retrospectively applying modern morals to past generations. They didn't have our advantages for a start, nor our capacity for navel-gazing and overanalysis.

It reeks of revisionism, and frankly it's just as bad as that which you seek to correct. (EDIT: to clarify, this remark is directed at some of the comments above, not the thread as a whole.)

I've seen enough of it in academia and the media in the last 20 years and I'm totally sick of it.

Note the past, learn from it. Just stop judging otherwise-decent people because they didn't hold the exact same viewpoint as you. Don't forget that a lot of authors use earth-analogue cultures simply for an easy frame of reference. Yeah, it's lazy, but then again so are we who read and enjoy them, by extension.

Oh, and Amph - the men of Telmar were descended from pirates, and not necessarily the good guys all the time. Plus if you've read "The Horse and his boy", you'll find there are mentions of Calormenes as pretty much the same as people you find anywhere else - some arseholes, some saints and the vast multitudes of "normal".

EDIT: that whole "Rue" thing reminded me of the "Heimdall controversy" when Idris Elba (sp?) was cast in Thor. I disagreed at the time but thought he did a good job in the flick and the way it was presented, because they made you think that these aliens worshipped by gods may have had contact with all sorts of humans, not just the Norse.

@Starvald Demelain
"Poeple do have these preconceptions of who is bad and who is good, typically authors portray the bad characters as dark/black. Just because you have these preconceptions doesn't mean they're correct. GRRM though a wonderful writer is lacking in that district. For an author who's books are considered realisitc, the lack of other races in a world that technically is supposed to reflect a 'real world' is a little wierd."

Really? Have you READ the books? Noone has a monopoly on good OR evil as a race. GRRMs "easterners" vary from savages to people who view the Westerosi as backward savages. And there are a whole lot of other races.

I agree with your direction here Sombra. I think that part of the problem is that we are dragging entertainment into a larger social debate of racism. Authors use words and their own worldviews to shape a tale they wish to share with the world. Particularly in fantasy, the story is the key not necessarily the props and descriptions. Some authors are incredible at weaving stories and others are inadequate. But the point is the same: they are trying to tell a tale using the medium with which they have experience. If a SF author has to travel the world, meet people of all races and types, and think about the racial implications of all aspects of their books, I would assume SF authors would strictly be independently wealthy 1st world heirs and heiresses who would have the leisure time to embark on such an undertaking.

And iirc, isn't SE an archeologist? I would think that he is ideally placed to include racial variety and perspectives within his books...

As for the larger topic underpinning the thread, there is racism. Sorry, that's reality and unfortunately in my limited experience with this world for the past 29 years, there will always be racism. I am a dreamer as well and believe the world would be better off with more of us around, however I continue to be disappointed by humanity as a whole. Really, sociologically, one has to get at the reasons behind racism. Why are people racist?

I believe in part it is due to other ingrained traits such as insecurity, the need to feel important or "better-than," inexperience and lack of global socialization, and the ubiquitous requirement to break things down into simpler (if not inaccurate) bits of information.

As to simplifying information, think about it like this: we make a lot of assumptions about the dynamics and properties of our world. Physicists know better and can point out a myriad of misconceptions people live with daily. Are these peoples' misconceptions the result of intrinsic laziness? Do we need to correct everyone's view of velocity, speed, and momentum? I mean, wouldn't the world be better off without people mucking up their physics?

To preempt the comment inert, nonliving materials are not equal to people, I provide the metaphor to point back to my initial statement that people are flawed from the get-go. Inherent traits. Racism isn't just about skin color, ethnicity, religion, and language. It's also about a sense of belonging, simplifying the world to us versus them, breaking down information to manageable chunks, etc.

I'm prejudiced, not proud of it, but I would love to hear anyone say they aren't. I look down on the less educated, on people who can't speak properly, on the slovenly, etc. I'm working on crushing those prejudices, but frankly, it's a full time job that requires energy, time to think, and constant rewiring of my thought processes. And I frankly don't have the time to make that my life accomplishment.

Get off your high horse people (while I am riding mine so much better than yours, hehe). Reality, people, the world is imperfect. It's good to fight for change, but demanding objective, unbiased characters and societies seems a little overboard when we have so many more glaring RL problems with racism.

Done, sorry to be preachy

[King Lear]

I disagree completely. I see the racism in those books the same way I see my grandparents' racism (which is passive, but that doesn't make it any less detestable to me). I can't change it. All I can do is move past those moments and hope like hell they don't bring it up in public. They're old, and trying get them to change the way they've thought for a lifetime is impossible. That said, other people of their generation managed... All I can do is make it clear that it's not something I want to hear; arguing hurts and confuses them, and won't get them to change their minds. I love my grandparents, I love those books, and I can't do anything to change the bits that bother me, that are injurious to other people and to themselves.

But I don't have to accept that shit from anyone else, and I won't pretend I think it's okay to anyone. Just because bigotry exists and probably always will in various forms doesn't mean that I have to accept it or make peace with it's existence. I can fight its existence in myself and I can challenge it when I see it in other people. And I can support people who also think that.

[amphibian]

Gust Hubb, on 10 April 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

It's good to fight for change, but demanding objective, unbiased characters and societies seems a little overboard when we have so many more glaring RL problems with racism.

I think you are talking a bit past the point here with this line. The point of Saladin Ahmed, stone monkey and the others on this thread is not one of demanding objective, unbiased characters and societies.

It is perfectly okay to skew characters and groups this way or that way to make a point or to set up this or that situation. However, quite a few of the big sellers throughout fantasy history have essentially no counter-skew to offset the embedded stuff that can and does tips over into racism now and then.

This is particularly odd because [quoting a stone monkey post]

stone monkey, on 08 April 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

I think medieval Europe has been whitewashed in the collective imagination. So fantasy writers, when using a pseudo-medieval setting, are perhaps unconsciously making it match their preconceptions.

One might point out that the earlier Roman society was way more ethnically diverse than is commonly held (they had at least one black Emperor ffs) and they had the eminently sensible habit of stationing their legions a long way away from where they were raised. And also that, via the crusades, the elites of Europe (and fantasy fiction is most often written about their analogues) had plenty of contact with the Arab and Persian civilisations and that this continued through the Ottoman Empire period.

As has been mentioned trade is a huge issue too, think about the silk road and, if you must, the slave trade (which went both ways). Arguably the perceived lack of racial diversity in Europe is a factor of the post-medieval colonial period - but even then you have say Tiger Bay in Wales, which has a black community going back four or five centuries. And I suspect most other ports would have seen black sailors.

The argument from history is probably weaker than most would give it credit, as the world has been globalised for longer than you'd think.

Overt racism is really bad. Subtle racism born of laziness and misconceptions is also bad in its own way. I'm not calling Martin racist, for I do not believe he is so. As Ahmed points out, the brutality, violence, idiocy, spotty veneers of civilization and gaps in unusual knowledge bases are endemic to all cultures of the Game of Thrones books. Martin skews all the groups and characters and the result is much more even-handed than some of the commentators are giving him credit for. However, there are others out there who attempt similar counter-skews in their stories and fail disastrously - or do not attempt at all to counter-skew.

That is something worth paying attention to and to encourage the end of "tokenism" and subtle racism is a good thing, in my eyes.

[the broken]

The most common reason for race in fantasy is that authors seem to think they are writing about england.

Why is it always cold to the north? Cold and mountainous. More primitive tribal people attack from beyond some kind of barrier, vaguely reminiscent of Hadrian's Wall or the Scottish border posts. While suave southerners scheme in the court of the ruler. Meanwhile, a large sea exists to the west, where there's a massive continent no one has ever heard of that could well influence the story somehow
. Where the story takes place is on the west side of a landmass, and the main characters all have customs vaguely english. If somewhere sounds like medieval england, readers assume that the characters are english... ie white. That isn't necessarily true.

Race is just another aspect of that. The natives of england are largely white. Other world's don't have to be like that, but they usually are written like that. If you'd like to change it, write and publish something that addresses it. Like the way Erikson's world doesn't have a gender bias.

And, if the people aren't explicitly described as white, they may not be. It's the readers preconceptions that makes it so. If an author is black, or middle eastern, or Maori, do you automatically assume that all the characters they write share that ethnicity? Why?

This post has been edited by the broken: 10 April 2012 - 08:45 PM

[amphibian]

A rather good example of the subtle racism I'm talking about pops up in the blog The Last Psychiatrist when talking about the Hunger Games books/movies:

Quote

The feminists missed this, all of this, and it is their job not to miss this. What they yelled about is the racism of a small audience, to avoid facing the sexism in themselves. And, by the way, the racism in themselves: Jezebel jumped on the racism against black actors because they are stupid. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. Do you know why Thresh doesn't kill Katniss but instead lets her go? Because Thresh is black.

The boy tribute from District 11, Thresh, has the same dark skin as Rue, but the resemblance stops there. He's one of the giants, probably six and half feet tall and built like an ox.

Black guy = strength, so his letting her go is a signal of her value as a temporary equal. This is a repeat of the 1980s trope that a (white) weakling being bullied winds up being saved by black gang members: "Eugene is a friend o' ours, so we best not hear no mo' trouble." Thresh doesn't happen to be black, Thresh is intentionally black, a stereotype, for that scene to occur, because to a white woman, no one knows the value of person's life better than a slightly retarded giant homicidal black guy. "He's bad, but he has a internal code of honor." Oh. You know you're stupid, right? In other words, the racists in Central Time are less racist than Suzanne Collins. Bet you didn't see that coming. Which is my whole point: no one saw any of this coming, they saw a woman with a bow and flipped the hell out. Katniss is a role model for girls like Thresh is a role model for blacks. I look forward to your deranged responses. (2)

2. Oh boy. Yes, Thresh is retarded. In the movie this is not revealed at all-- probably because the poor director couldn't take it anymore, but in the book he has stilted speech, limited vocabulary, one word answers. The alternative interpretation is that English isn't his native tongue-- i.e., he is a giant, black, cotton picking, immigrant. I'll let you decide which interpretation is worse. None of this occurred to anyone? Outstanding.

The rest of the post is talking about how the story of the Hunger Games is actually a sexist one because the heroine, Katniss, does little to nothing herself to save herself or others. She survives upon the sacrifices of others rather than upon her own agency. To the guy writing the post, this is perpetuating the sexist system by creating a hero that women think is feminist, but is actually not.

[D'iversify]

amphibian, on 10 April 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 10 April 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

It's good to fight for change, but demanding objective, unbiased characters and societies seems a little overboard when we have so many more glaring RL problems with racism.

I think you are talking a bit past the point here with this line. The point of Saladin Ahmed, stone monkey and the others on this thread is not one of demanding objective, unbiased characters and societies.

It is perfectly okay to skew characters and groups this way or that way to make a point or to set up this or that situation. However, quite a few of the big sellers throughout fantasy history have essentially no counter-skew to offset the embedded stuff that can and does tips over into racism now and then.

I agree. Interspecific variation and prejudice based on this are very much real, and fantasy should not avoid this. To be honest its racialism as much as racism that I find annoying, i.e. the complete biologicisation of culture in some fantasy worlds, e.g. Eddings and his Drasnians=verbose merchants, Arends=hotheaded romantics, etc (though I realise much of this is mildly satirical, some of its just lazy and frankly stupid). By contrast, for example, Bakker's Earwa has races and racism, and some biologicisation of culture, but I think much of that's part of his challenging tropes by showing that if you take them to their extreme, the resulting world is extremely unpleasant.

[Gust Hubb]

The real world isn't pleasant at all. That's one of the major reasons fantasy/SF does so well.

[amphibian]

Gust Hubb, on 11 April 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

The real world isn't pleasant at all. That's one of the major reasons fantasy/SF does so well.

I don't understand your quasi-objection here. Would you mind explaining it further?

I'll also say that what we write and read shapes us to different degrees and by extension, shapes the world as well. The effects can be negligible or significant, depending on the book and the socio-cultural circumstances surrounding the book and reader. For example, To Kill A Mockingbird has fostered long-lasting changes in the American educational system, although those changes are neither done nor panacea.

In Harry Potter, despite Rowling painting herself in an authorial corner by putting everybody awesome in Griffyndor, she had a non-token set of multi-cultural of characters (although somewhat whitewashed, due to the whole England/Europe setting). Those books sold truckloads after truckloads and may have eased not only the stigma against reading, but perhaps accepting difference in others in a small way.