Does it? Or is this just your own imagination?
Importance of white representation in fiction
- Thread starter aelf
- Start date
Does it? Or is this just your own imagination?
A lot of the tension I've seen around Lipman's comments stems from her right-wing commentary in general. In that people don't see her criticism as sincere wanting of Jewish representation, and just a part of the whole "culture war" shtick. However I know Jewish folk (anecdotally) who definitely aren't right-wing (or nationalist in any form) who agree with the sentiment, which I can at least understand.
The point about Kingsley is always a good one, because yeah, folks always seem to forget his Indian heritage.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
What are the passages in the book that describe Gandalf? I read the books a long time ago. I don't remember anything in the story where Gandalf's skin colours makes any difference whatsoever - but like I said I read the books a long time ago and when I think back to my "LOTR memories" all that pops in my head are the movies. If it's already been quoted I can look through the thread and find it
What's the problem with him being black or east asian? Is it described in the book that all wizards are white for some specific reason? If it's just said in passing that he's a pasty white grandpa and it has zero impact on the story, does it really matter what skin colour the actor playing him has?
Just curious why it's important that he's white, it doesn't seem to make an impact on the story.. but I ask because I just don't remember.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Well according to wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf
he started out as Gandalf the Grey and then became Gandalf the White.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf
he started out as Gandalf the Grey and then became Gandalf the White.
aelf
Ashen One
A lot of such impressions about skin colour of characters are actually formed by old book covers. Sometimes, certain important traits of characters are explicitly described in the text (e.g. hair or eye colour) but others are either not or ambiguously described. I have actually seen someone put forth recently the argument that book covers are important and may reflect authorial intent (but no explanation on why authorial intent is so important in this regard).
EnglishEdward
Deity
I would assume that many authors either gave the illustrator an instruction or approved the illustrator's drawing or at least were permitted
by the publisher some power of veto, although presumably those only applied while they were alive and not for posthumous re-publication.
by the publisher some power of veto, although presumably those only applied while they were alive and not for posthumous re-publication.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Senethro
Overlord
Gandalfs basically a lesser angel, and who depicts angels as black?
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
It's less normal. But why not? I think Angel from Buffy was sort of a darker take on angelic virtue. Figuratively, in dress, and brunette-ly?
I'm kinda fuzzy on how that plot went though, so if anything crazy blew out and he became the bad bad guy, that would be funny.
I'm trying to remember, rainbow didn't come out so well in Tolkien's wizard color scheme I don't think. That's sort of Slaaneshi before its time. Catholic rainbows are a positive, Tolkien being Tolkien.
Edit: Arg, I could have just gone with the super embedded in the culture one. Death is often the Angel of Death. Originating from Exodus and everything. Woof. Lamb's blood, dead babies, righteousness of The Lord in punishing slavers, the whole thing.
I'm kinda fuzzy on how that plot went though, so if anything crazy blew out and he became the bad bad guy, that would be funny.
I'm trying to remember, rainbow didn't come out so well in Tolkien's wizard color scheme I don't think. That's sort of Slaaneshi before its time. Catholic rainbows are a positive, Tolkien being Tolkien.
Edit: Arg, I could have just gone with the super embedded in the culture one. Death is often the Angel of Death. Originating from Exodus and everything. Woof. Lamb's blood, dead babies, righteousness of The Lord in punishing slavers, the whole thing.
Last edited:
Thats missing out his earlier history (which since he existed before time began is a lot).
https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Gandalf
I hadn’t heard about this. She looks nothing like Golda Meir, she’s a whole lot more attractive for one thing. I wonder if that will cause criticism some day, people who are conventionally very attractive playing the less attractive - like Sarah Paulson as Linda Tripp or Charlize Theron as Aileen Wuornos. But people don’t tend to chose “unattractive person” as part of their identity.
She doesn't look much like the Queen or Margaret Thatcher but between her acting and makeup it wasn't a problem in either role.
aelf
Ashen One
Even if we assume that authorial intent somehow matters in this area, giving approval might have a range of intentions behind it - from "This is okay" to "This is exactly how they should appear". Many people seem to assume the latter, for some reason.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Most authors would likely see a book cover as being in itself a snapshot adaption of their book
As to giving their approval, I think it would be more of an ~ is the illustration inconsistent
with my own imagination, and will it help me to sell more book copies ~ type of decision.
As to giving their approval, I think it would be more of an ~ is the illustration inconsistent
with my own imagination, and will it help me to sell more book copies ~ type of decision.
Authors almost never have approval of book covers. If their agent negotiates it they might have the right to be consulted about it.
EnglishEdward
Deity
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Well, that's something, but if the skin colour has 0 impact on the story then IMO it doesn't matter. In a fantasy setting, far removed from our reality, it seems that you have a lot of leeway in terms of casting. Didn't people complain about the Uruk Hai looking a lot different than in the novels? I could be misremembering, but in the end it didn't really impact the story any, so who cares.
Stanislaw Lem sometimes included his own drawings in his books from what I remember, but I don't think anybody would take that to mean that any adaptation should look to these drawings as gospel necessarily. The content of the story seems a lot more important wrt to what the characters look like to me.
The "Gandalf the White" thing just meant his robe and hat turned white, no? I don't remember his skin colour changing from grey to white.
If the race of the wizards was a big plot point then I could see his skin colour mattering then. Like.. If they were all "Norse men" or something who bought wizard robes and hats and learned how to cast spells on the Gondor version of youtube.. and the fact that they were all descendent from norsemen mattered somehow.. and there was a black skinned norseman who was adopted or something... THEN it would make sense to insist Gandalf is white, IMO. Since in that case there is an emphasis on race and it matters what the skin colour is. But at least based on my current understanding of what's written in the novel, the skin colour doesn't seem to matter
Stanislaw Lem sometimes included his own drawings in his books from what I remember, but I don't think anybody would take that to mean that any adaptation should look to these drawings as gospel necessarily. The content of the story seems a lot more important wrt to what the characters look like to me.
The "Gandalf the White" thing just meant his robe and hat turned white, no? I don't remember his skin colour changing from grey to white.
If the race of the wizards was a big plot point then I could see his skin colour mattering then. Like.. If they were all "Norse men" or something who bought wizard robes and hats and learned how to cast spells on the Gondor version of youtube.. and the fact that they were all descendent from norsemen mattered somehow.. and there was a black skinned norseman who was adopted or something... THEN it would make sense to insist Gandalf is white, IMO. Since in that case there is an emphasis on race and it matters what the skin colour is. But at least based on my current understanding of what's written in the novel, the skin colour doesn't seem to matter
Akka
Moody old mage.
I don't mind if people have honestly different breaking points for immersion when it's just honest personal preference.
Ok well, not really, I might mind actually, but if I do at least it's on "good/bad tastes" grounds. Lots of people don't care about plot holes, bad dialogue, people acting OOC or lack of realism (can of worms and pet peeve/special trigger of mine here) after all.
This thread though ? It gives strong vibes of having inconsistent breaking points that follow political stance lines, and it becomes pretty irritating - especially with the contrived rationalizations (trying to use the "we don't know Hobbit biology", seriously ?) that just screams of grasping at straws.
As for the people claiming that Gandalf being (in the events of the book) black wouldn't change anything, they are just jumping right into this part of my message :
You've this strange argument that somehow "the plot" and its mechanisms are important, but the whole explicit descriptions in the books and the entire setting aren't.
It's implicit everywhere that Gandalf is white, if only because nobody notice his skin colour while people NOT white are precisely noticed because they are unusual. I certainly don't believe anyone missed or didn't get that point.
And a setting is an integral part of a work (and a very important part of many works). Fiddling with it is a very shaky grounds for an adaptation (unless it's precisely one of the main deliberate twists), but a bunch of people seem to pretend that it's all irrelevant. I call BS on this.
I don't expect an adaptation to be perfect. But I do expect an adaptation to at least tries its best. That it attempts to tell the story as best as possible (and yes it includes bringing the setting, I can't believe I have to spell out this point).
Deliberately altering the setting when it's not the point, is just purposely adding flaws, and I don't see how it's defensible. Doing it for political reasons is even more insulting, because it's devaluing the work while being preachy. That people actually defend this is pretty maddening.
Last edited:
aelf
Ashen One
This argument is very thin and presupposes that characters in a fantasy world place the same importance as you on difference in skin colour.
If you're going to fret about actors' RL religious beliefs (assuming they have any or that they've shared what they are), then it would be a good bet that most TV shows and movies would never have been made.
My grandfather was prejudiced against Jews. He would say things when I was a child that I didn't realize were meant to promote that view until I was much older, and I finally put my foot down. I told him that if he's that much against Jews, he had to stop watching Star Trek and T.J. Hooker immediately - because William Shatner is Jewish. So was Leonard Nimoy, and multiple other people involved with the Original Series - from the production team to some of the technicians to several other actors.
I would guess that at least a third of my science fiction book collection was written/edited by Jewish authors. Their religion never mattered to me in the slightest as long as they turned out good stories. The only time I decided to blacklist an author from my library - and that happened fairly recently, when I realized I had one or two of his books - was in the case of L. Ron Hubbard. I don't harbor cultists in my personal library, thankyouverymuch. His books are now in the landfill, as I decided not to offer them to anyone else.
I told my grandfather about these other books as well, and said that if he insisted on spouting anti-Jewish rhetoric at me, he could leave my books alone. I would no longer let him read them. He tried to argue and justify himself, but I put my foot down. He realized that this was one argument he wasn't going to win. I'd let him read my library books over the years, from junior high school through college, and he never admitted it outright but I could tell that he looked forward to the times when I brought new books home either from the library or the bookstores. He loved reading and although he'd read a Harlequin romance if nothing better was available, my usual reading choices didn't run to sappy, predictable romance novels. So he didn't want to be cut off from that and therefore agreed to keep his views to himself, at least in front of me.
There are some people who consider it ironic that the star of the Handmaid's Tale TV series, Elisabeth Moss, is a dedicated Scientologist. They've wondered why she was cast, and consider her a hypocrite. At first it didn't bother me, as long as she did justice to the role of Offred, but when it came to actually promoting the show... she actually stated in an interview that The Handmaid's Tale is not a feminist novel.
This is so incorrect that I can only surmise that it's the Scientology/cultist part of her that won't let her understand that she was wrong. She was forced to backtrack on that comment as it angered Margaret Atwood - who as the author of the novel and one of the executive producers of the TV series is the ultimate authority on whether or not her own novel is a feminist novel.
Similar threads
