Critical Miss: Lord of the Wrongs
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
OK HANG ON!
All I'm getting from this story is that we're allowed to be *flexible* with fiction as long as we never ever get racist.
Here are some non-fiction facts.
'Lord Of The Rings' was written in the earlier part of the 20th century by an upper-middle class English professor who most probably had never known a black person in his entire life to that point. Ignorance is NOT stupidity and the absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Tolkein wrote a new Saxon mythos for a nation that had lived with a Norman one for a thousand years and yet in very many ways, still felt uncomfortable with that cultural mindset. The pagan revival, the revolts against the landowners, the Luddites*, the reverence for things like Stonehenge, genealogy, nature. Not very Norman. More like pre-Christian or Saxon/Celt.
So for someone to revise this mythos with multi-racial characters that had NO origin in the stories, is bad. It's wrong, it's a mistake.
For American readers, imagine this:
Little Women: A story of lesbian friendship in a family of Khazak-American immigrants.
Huckleberry Finn and his Iroquois friends.
The Crucible: A dramatic retelling of the infamous Salem Witchcraft/Buddhism/Sikhism trials.
None of these stories seem like they couldn't have been written that way, right?
But they fucking weren't!
Politically correct revisionism is never a valid reason to have black hobbits in 'The Hobbit'.
Stop applying your beliefs and preferences to something from a time before you. THAT is a critical miss.
*Luddites were an organisation that resisted technological changes in their economy. They were NOT against technological progress, they were against capitalist exploitation of that technology to disempower and empoverish the working classes. For example: mechanical harvesters making seasonal harvest workers redundant. Go read a real history book, America.
All I'm getting from this story is that we're allowed to be *flexible* with fiction as long as we never ever get racist.
Here are some non-fiction facts.
'Lord Of The Rings' was written in the earlier part of the 20th century by an upper-middle class English professor who most probably had never known a black person in his entire life to that point. Ignorance is NOT stupidity and the absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Tolkein wrote a new Saxon mythos for a nation that had lived with a Norman one for a thousand years and yet in very many ways, still felt uncomfortable with that cultural mindset. The pagan revival, the revolts against the landowners, the Luddites*, the reverence for things like Stonehenge, genealogy, nature. Not very Norman. More like pre-Christian or Saxon/Celt.
So for someone to revise this mythos with multi-racial characters that had NO origin in the stories, is bad. It's wrong, it's a mistake.
For American readers, imagine this:
Little Women: A story of lesbian friendship in a family of Khazak-American immigrants.
Huckleberry Finn and his Iroquois friends.
The Crucible: A dramatic retelling of the infamous Salem Witchcraft/Buddhism/Sikhism trials.
None of these stories seem like they couldn't have been written that way, right?
But they fucking weren't!
Politically correct revisionism is never a valid reason to have black hobbits in 'The Hobbit'.
Stop applying your beliefs and preferences to something from a time before you. THAT is a critical miss.
*Luddites were an organisation that resisted technological changes in their economy. They were NOT against technological progress, they were against capitalist exploitation of that technology to disempower and empoverish the working classes. For example: mechanical harvesters making seasonal harvest workers redundant. Go read a real history book, America.
@CitySquirrel: I'm an Irish/German/Scandinavian man by genome and history.
My closest three friends are an American/Russian/Irish woman, a Kenyan Masai woman and an Irishman. They're my friends because we all think alike, like the same things, act alike.
You're correct. The body is not the mind within.
My closest three friends are an American/Russian/Irish woman, a Kenyan Masai woman and an Irishman. They're my friends because we all think alike, like the same things, act alike.
You're correct. The body is not the mind within.
People like you are the reason racist think their jabbering makes sense.Desert Tiger said:
If Bilbo himself was in a wheelchair, yeah that would be strange, since mountains aren't exactly wheelchair accessible, so they would have to rewrite a lot of the story to fit that in. But if at one point the movie pans through Hobbiton and one of the extras in the background happens to be sitting down in a chair with wheels on it the movie would not be ruined for me. Same if one of those extras happened to be black, etc. Am I saying there should be black hobbits, or that the movie needs a few token characters in the name of diversity or fairness or whatever? No. I had no problems with the Aryan friendly Lord of the Rings movies. I'm just saying that I wouldn't have a problem seeing a black hobbit running around, and in all honesty no one else should either unless they are a bit racist.
Also, for that whole climate and pigmentation argument, try to remember that other races didn't start out white and then developed pigmentation, instead humans who migrated to Europe lost their pigmentation and became white over generations. I'd also like to point out that parts North America have a climate just as shitty as Europe's, and guess what color the natives of that land are? Hint: not white. So keep your faux fantasy world evolution to yourself.
PS. That last paragraph in my original comment, the one about Asian elves, etc, that was supposed to be a joke. See I think its stupid that we attach all these traits to fictional creatures that never existed. So rather than use the normal fantasy stereotypes (like Scottish Dwarves) I figured I'd make up my own. The great thing about that is that even though these changes would be inconsequential and wouldn't change the story one bit, making any changes, such as having Saruman speak with an Australian accent instead of a British one, would probably upset some people. ^_^
Try to read the whole post next time.Mr.Squishy said:
So a Black MLK or and Indian Gandhi would be preferable. Though I suppose someone of a different race that looked close enough to the real life individual would be okay too (ie. tanned white guy or latino playing Gandhi). FUN FACT: Ben Kingsley, the guy who played the Rabbi in Lucky Number Sleven, played Gandhi in the 1982 film.psycoking said:
As for fictional characters, I would have no problems with, say, a Black Englishman playing James Bond, or if Jackson cast a black guy as Gandalf. There would be a moment where I would go "Ok. I guess Gandalf is black now." But after that, unless they went so far as to rewrite Gandalf's character so that he'd speak jive, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Oh it's a fucking great film. But you know... Banderas is Spanish. Wrong continent.Neferius said:"Antonio Banderas as the Mariachi in Desperado." -Hey! I liked that Movie. And ...is that Suchong doing a back-flip!?
That news story is what the strip is based on. I didn't even know about the whole black Thor character thing until Cory linked me to the Penny Arcade strip (I didn't even realize there was a Thor movie until now) while I think the film should cast the best actors possible regardless of race I do think firing the casting guy, who was just following a brief issued to him by the production company, was ridiculous.XShrike said:
And yet again, this. Very much true on all accounts, sir, and I salute you.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Boom. /thread. It's like people seriously think every racial group was locked down to their origin country pre-Model T (Ever heard of these newfangled boaty whatchamacallits?). All races have people who travel far away. Get over it.SirCannonFodder said:
HEY! Tom Hanks was perfect for that movie!Irridium said:
Why is it people are up in arms about shoehorning ethnic actors in a "white" movie, but very few of them bat an eye when the inverse shoehorning happens in a "non-white" movie? It goes both ways, people.
Except the Hobbits. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a major part of the culture Tolkien created for the Hobbits their desire to stay secluded? Other people in this thread have written longer posts than I have enough knowledge to write, but Hobbits were created to be a race of people not only uninterested in exploration or expansion, but actively against it. In universe, most Hobbits might very well shun someone who looked different enough.Deimateos said:
But you're right, they had at least 5 hobbits who traveled a significant distance. Who were ALL seen as odd at the least.
And in reference to the boats you mentioned, I may be wrong, but I believe that Tolkien stated very clearly that most Hobbits were afraid of the water.
That may be true, and I don't claim to be a "Tolkien Scholar" like so many false prophets who have been getting owned here, I'm just going off of truths of the time. The Moors (ie. Africans and Middle Easterners) would be able to travel through the Anglo-Saxon countries from time to time, seeing as they were just a country and a boat ride from the British isles (While they occupied Spain before the Reconquista between 700-1500AD). This was more than enough time for a merchant/doctor/scholar to travel in the area that would become England.Compatriot Block said:
vvv "When the Moors Ruled in Europe" (Documentary) vvv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-768956312207897325
Sure the Moorish Empire was disbanded for centuries prior to the United Kingdom, but that doesn't mean trade routes or knowledge of the Moors disbanded with it. Those with educational clout would have access to it, someone like Tolkien, who was a Professor at Oxford. Add to this the fact that Tolkien was born in South Africa (and spent three of his five formative years there), and the claims of Tolkien "not knowing any Blacks" suddenly start to sound outright ignorant.
According to the Lore, "The Harfoots are the most prodigious hole-dwellers and were the first to cross west into Eriador." So at some point Hobbits did travel (however infrequent), which mean the idea that some still would isn't that outlandish.
Again, not being a die hard of the stories, I don't know about the boats, but if we're going by Jackson's version, Sam & Frodo didn't seem to be that bothered both instances they came across boats and water, so in the Jackson storyline, it seems like a non-issue.
Has anyone here actually read the "Racism" news article? Okay, here is a link http://movies.msn.com/paralleluniverse/hobbit-racism-allegations/story/feature/
For those that don't want to read the article.
The complaint was NOT from a black man or woman. The complaint came from a Pakistani woman, aka a brown (not black) skinned person. Which as many have said would have fit the Harfoots race/clan very easily. So yeah the choice to keep the hobbits "white" is a racist choice not keep a true to it's source problem.
If you can find a great actor for a hobbit who isn't white than use that actor. If you go the whole "stay to it's source" route you could ruin a good movie from a weaker but more appropriate character.
For those that don't want to read the article.
The complaint was NOT from a black man or woman. The complaint came from a Pakistani woman, aka a brown (not black) skinned person. Which as many have said would have fit the Harfoots race/clan very easily. So yeah the choice to keep the hobbits "white" is a racist choice not keep a true to it's source problem.
If you can find a great actor for a hobbit who isn't white than use that actor. If you go the whole "stay to it's source" route you could ruin a good movie from a weaker but more appropriate character.
1) People on both sides are too easily offended.
2) Politically correct teenagers usually mean well but are often misguided and confuse real racism with perceived racism. Its not their fault, they grew up during a time when the PC machine was actually worse than it is now.
3) Racism sucks, but over compensating to avoid the slightest hint of it sucks even more. Lets all grow a pair and move on to more important things. Like boobs. Yeah! Boobs! Ey? Ey?
2) Politically correct teenagers usually mean well but are often misguided and confuse real racism with perceived racism. Its not their fault, they grew up during a time when the PC machine was actually worse than it is now.
3) Racism sucks, but over compensating to avoid the slightest hint of it sucks even more. Lets all grow a pair and move on to more important things. Like boobs. Yeah! Boobs! Ey? Ey?
anyone who thinks a violent English guy is like that has clearly never seen the sort of news that is covered here.
*Bursts in way too late*
Now, I coulnd't care less if they cast a black person as a hobbit, but really, try to have some basis in your arguments.
What are you talking about? Never in my life have a seen a coloured person with brown hair. Every single one I've seen has had BLACK hair. I just find it odd that you would elaborate so much on this point when it is by far the weakest and most nonsensical. I am pasty white and have curly brown hair. So all in all both the "red cheeks" and "brown hair" imply a fairer-than-black complexion, otherwise they would have black hair and the redness in the cheeks wouldn't be apparent.Soylent Dave said:
Now, I coulnd't care less if they cast a black person as a hobbit, but really, try to have some basis in your arguments.
