Importance of white representation in fiction

[EnglishEdward]

Yeah, but you left out the part where he said that he will overrule the encyclopedia when he sees fit, which he did a whole bunch in the sequels.

This reminds me of Doctor Who where there are at least three different totally incompatible accounts as to how the Daleks came into existence.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Angst Right at the top of your map it says "White Mountains." Well, some people might think that is all about snow, but clearly Tolkien was making a statement....

 

[Sarin]

This reminds me of Doctor Who where there are at least three different totally incompatible accounts as to how the Daleks came into existence.

Considering the way Doctor Who treats the time, I'm not entirely sure if there can be anything incompatible in that universe.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Keywords: in the Shire.

Shire was just Gandalf's little side project. The reason why he, Saruman and Radagast were sent to ME was to advise the obvious powers-Gondor, Rohan, elves and what little was left of Arnor, while the Blue wizards were apparently sent to sway Rhun.

But Gandalf was an outsider almost everywhere. The elves may have known and trusted him but plenty in Gondor and Rohan didn't.

 

[Sarin]

But Gandalf was an outsider almost everywhere. The elves may have known and trusted him but plenty in Gondor and Rohan didn't.

Despite being often called bearer of bad news, and disliked when Wormtonuge wormed his way in and Denethor was affected by palantir, he still commanded enough respect and influence to gain immediate entry to the lords' halls, no questions asked.

Do you think Gondorians would just let him waltz in if he was black or brown, given how they were in constant warfare with such people?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah, but you left out the part where he said that he will overrule the encyclopedia when he sees fit, which he did a whole bunch in the sequels. So there's a whole bunch of contradictions between it and the original novels already and you can see that both went in separate directions when you compare them both. I don't own it yet like I said, but I've read many excerpts from it online. I see the encyclopedia as a fun "what if" sort of appendix, but not a definite guide. The same way you probably see the prequels, minus the fun part.

I didn't leave it out. That's what "hold my own counsel" means. He gives his delighted approval to the Encyclopedia, but won't be bound by it. If he had considered himself bound by it, the plot of both Heretics and Chapterhouse would have been very different, since Duncan Idaho would not have been in them.

Here's another tidbit of information: There were plans for Herbert and McNelly to collaborate on a novel about the Butlerian Jihad - presumably the version related in the Encyclopedia. Jehane Butler was both a priestess of one of the local religions on her world, and a Bene Gesserit sister who was part of the Kwisatz Haderach breeding program (which promptly flies in the face of nuDune's nonsensical assertion that the BG only existed after the Jihad and had its start on a planet said to be inhabited by witches).

The catalyst for the start of the Jihad was indeed the death of a child - but it wasn't a cartoonish robot that killed Jehane's child - it was a self-programming medical AI that decided Jehane's unborn child was deformed, and aborted it. This happened shortly before Jehane had been about to give birth; she knew the fetus was female, had already named her (Sarah), and her baby would have been the penultimate step away from achieving the Kwisatz Haderach.

Events that resulted from this brought the Jihad. It was a war of opposing ideology, with each side holding its own view of whether computers, AI, or "thinking machines" as they became known as were good and useful tools, or if they were evil, dangerous, and served to weaken humanity by taking over much of the work and even thinking that humans should be doing for themselves.

Eventually the "thinking machines are evil" side won, and the way this belief was reinforced (besides physically destroying all computers and AI) was a reworking of the religious tenets that were part of daily life of the Imperium. Earth was not destroyed; that's just "explody-BOOM!" nonsense KJA/BH came up with. The Orange Catholic Bible was revised, and it's quite plain in the Appendices that the place where this was done was Hawaii. You can't have a religious conference in Hawaii if the planet has been glassed over.

I can see the signs in KJA/BH's books of scenes that were clearly intended to be ones easily adapted for the screen. Frank Herbert didn't have this level of conceit, so his books are more literary and complex and nuanced... and difficult to film, because they're complex and so many people just don't understand where they should emphasize the nuance and where it's okay to just go with the action.

I don't see the prequels as a fun "what if". I see them as garbage that is inferior fanfic at best (there are some really good Dune fanfic stories, a couple I found that are quite humorous - like some of the more ridiculous ways some of the Duncan Idaho gholas died during the 3000-year reign of Leto II - but most are mediocre and some are atrocious, as they go the incest route with Leto and Ghanima).

KJA can swear on his stack of New York Times Bestseller Lists until every cow in the universe comes home that his and BH's version of "Dune 7" and the Butlerian Jihad were based on Frank Herbert's notes that were found in an attic/bank box/garage/wherever, but I simply don't believe him. There have been too many different versions of this story, and "Dune 7" (Hunters/Sandworms) doesn't mesh with where FH was going at the end of Chapterhouse. Hunters/Sandworms is a sequel to KJA/BH's books, not FH's books (much like Enterprise and DiscoTrek are prequels to TNG, not TOS, as they ignore too much TOS-established canon). They're just piggybacked onto the idea that this is how FH would have finished the series, if only he hadn't died of cancer in 1986. People have been asking him for the better part of the last 15 years to publish the notes - for the benefit of the scholars who study science fiction as a literary genre, and for the fans who are interested in the process of writing and the ideas their favorite authors had.

KJA/BH/the HLP have always refused. KJA coyly claims that "there's not much to see, and who cares anyway?"

Well, scholars care. Fans care. And if there's "not much" then why did he claim at one point that they found a treasure trove of files on paper and computer floppies, not to mention FH's unfinished manuscript? He needs to make up his mind which version he's going to go with, because they can't all be true. At this point I'm more of the view that they found the unfinished manuscript, didn't understand it, KJA decided that "explody-BOOM!" action is what makes the $$$$$$$, so that's the direction they took. Don't make the readers think too much, especially since the authors themselves don't understand the source material and don't give a damn when readers who do understand it frown and say, "Waitaminute, this doesn't make sense, that doesn't make sense, and WTH were they THINKING?!"

To stay on topic here, let me just say that Rocky should have always been a cyborg, and let me re-iterate how stupid I think that "the importance of white representation" sounds to my ears. Americans are way too focused on skin colour and identity. White culture doesn't exist, so you can't represent it. If y'all mean WASP representation then just go outside and look around

When I hear "white culture" I wonder what part? White people in North America? Europe? Australia and New Zealand? Ex-pats? Cultural things white people do that nobody else does?

When I start thinking about cultural appropriation and making costumes based on past versions of current cultural regions and countries, I found myself getting annoyed at Viking costumes. That's part of my ancestry, going back a millennium or so. People mock it now, and I do enjoy the Hagar the Horrible comic strip, knowing which parts of it are exaggerated for humor (the creator of that strip was one of the original generation of SCA people, and the character of Lucky Eddie was based on a real-life SCA member). But you can't say "don't make a costume of my ancestry" and then do the same thing yourself of someone else's ancestry. That's hypocrisy.

 

[Angst]

@Angst Right at the top of your map it says "White Mountains." Well, some people might think that is all about snow, but clearly Tolkien was making a statement....

I foud this quite amusing too

 

[warpus]

@Valka D'Ur I wonder where the Dune movie/Tv series franchise that the new movie will no doubt sprout (and has probably been in part designed to sprout) will take some of these ideas. What will they draw from the prequel novels? Will they get access to FH's secret notes that nobody's seen except his son or whatever? Will they draw inspiration from the encyclopedia? Will it be a combination of the above? The "Sisterhood of Dune" TV series is being made right now, I can't wait to see how that pans out. Could very well be controversial since it seems it's based on a prequel novel, in part at least. DV is directing the pilot so I have faith that it will be done well, but it isn't based on one of the original 6 novels, so.. it seems some people will probably complain. No doubt we will one day see a Butlerian Jihad TV series or movie as well, especialy if the franchise continues to expand and be successful

To keep this on topic though, I am super curious about some of the casting decisions for part 2. I have a feeling that the Herald of change was supposed to be a hint that House Corrino is all black. I could be completely wrong about that, but that sort of decision will no doubt create some controversy in the Dune fanbase at least, as the Emperor is supposed to be related to various other characters in the story, who are all white. That does not preclude a black emperor on its own, but he's also described as having red hair I think. The Herald of change just had this exotic quality about him, the way he carried himself & spoke, I am getting this sense that House Corrino will be "like that". I could be completely wrong.

I haven't thought this through, so let me type it out. Is it weird to have a cousin who has a completely different ethnic background than you? That isn't necessarily a problem, right? So that sort of casting might not necessarily be a problem, but I haven't really thought it through. Would it be weird though if one side of the family is all black and the other side of the family is all white? Wouldn't there be more mixing if that happened? i.e. this side of the family has some black and white members, and same with the other side of the family. So.. We have seen that House Atreides is all white and basically Greek-ish, so.. would that imply that an all-black House Corrino would be unlikely? Could somebody with a larger extended family comment on this?

I could very well be wrong and the Emperor is going to be Tom Cruise or uhm some other white guy. I just get this sense that DV isn't going to go there. I think it can work, but I haven't exactly thought it through

 

[AmazonQueen]

Despite being often called bearer of bad news, and disliked when Wormtonuge wormed his way in and Denethor was affected by palantir, he still commanded enough respect and influence to gain immediate entry to the lords' halls, no questions asked.

Do you think Gondorians would just let him waltz in if he was black or brown, given how they were in constant warfare with such people?

Probably.
They were in constant warfare with Mordor. If a representative of 1 of Mordor's subject nations had turned up they would doubtless have been interested if there was any possibility of them breaking with Mordor.

 

[Gorbles]

Totally agree with that, but you'll notice that if an author integrates something badly, it's considered a flaw.
And notice that by essence, altering a work with political intent is tacked-on. You can't integrate it without changing the work, unless it was already in the work to begin with (in which case you don't need to add it).
You kind of pointed precisely one of the main reason I despise shoehorning political stuff into existing work (the second being the nature of altering a work for political purpose, which you refer later as my problem with the "intent").

But it is possible to integrate a political lesson well, no? Maybe this is something we simply disagree on. Certainly, I think there are plenty of examples where political messages are tacked-on, that's for sure.

And yet is is, and you actually admits it low-key later by recognizing that Gandalf is "implicitely" white. More about that later.

My note of implicit was set against your claim of it being explicit. The setting could well suggest that Gandalf is white, but that doesn't mean he can't be presented differently. Much like how @Sarin presumes the Blue Brothers could be East Asian, when in fact all available depictions (not that there are many) also depict them as old white dudes. If anything, in my opinion, it would be more incongruent to make them young, regardless of their skin tone. The text is pretty firm about how they already looked old by the time they came to Middle-Earth, so I could appreciate people being inflexible with that more than I can anything implicit.

Representation in casting is a political issue, it has absolutely no place in artistic decisions (unless the work is itself about said political issue). Arts are welcome to address politics, but politics should stay away from art. Attempts to modify art because of political agenda has a name : propaganda. And it's not something I want to condone, and people condoning it are typically hypocrites because they only condone it as long as it goes their way and are quick to denounce it when it goes the other (see all the - valid - complaints about whitewashing and compare them to this thread).

Also, why would "being able to act" is acceptable but "not looking like the character is supposed to" isn't ? After all, both are about adding immersion to the work (I'll recognize that good acting is generally more important than appearance, but both counts nevertheless, and if you accept one on this ground, why would you reject the other ? Screams of double-standard to me).

Representation in casting is about a bunch of things. It could be a potential market demographic that your shareholders advise you to tap into. It could be a token attempt at diversity. It could also be the genuine urge to see different kinds of people - as we have on our modern Earth - represented in the cast (of whatever adaptation it is). Of the three, I naturally find the third the most palettable.

For example, we have a modern example of casting a black person in place of a white person. Hermione from Harry Potter. The author declared that she never explicitly stated Hermione was white, and therefore a black actress (in a specific stage production) was absolutely fine. Ignoring for the moment that she actually did clarify Hermione's "white face" in one of the novels, she made the authorial decision to support the decision made. The problem here is that nobody can for Tolkien. But that naturally goes both ways. We're stuck with what is implicit, what is explicit, and what is flat-out not stated in the slightest (or even implied from the setting). Which is going to ultimately going to come down to opinion more often than it isn't.

You talk about whitewashing, and I don't want to spend too long on this, but people with white, or lighter, skin tone(s) in general are not lacking for representation. It's not hypocritical to support representation of a minority and be tired of yet another white dude with crafted-for-the-camera stubble. I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion, but my point is that the context in either case differs, and as such, so do the relevant arguments for and against it.

I already answered this point several times, it's about the general tone and flow. It's even been the focus of several posts, I'm just a bit tired of repeating myself here.

Sure. But I don't think we're seeing eye-to-eye on how that general tone and flow comes across. Surely it's in the eye of the beholder? This is why I apologised for relativism all the way back, because I strongly feel a lot of this is a result of personal preference, rather than some objective measurement.

Intent and results are of course not the same (though they aren't completely separate, because the reason why some change are made is often strongly correlated with the quality results you get).
But the main point is that your definition of "quality doesn't suffer" is glossing over some pretty impactful parts - see below.

I'll answer below, I just wanted to quote reading this bit first.

Wrong, you've claimed it, you've not demonstrated it. If you gave him blue skin and flappable ears and didn't change a line of dialogue, it would also not change anything in the story. But it would look out of place, and the fact that nobody would react to it would make it even more weird, it would not "demonstrate" that it made no qualitative impact on the work*.

To come back at the previous "tacked on" and "setting tone" parts above, lots of things are implied and not detailed, the implicit being one of the most powerful tool in storytelling (elegance in writing is often about making the reader understand what is conveyed implicitely rather than explicitely). The fact something is "implied" doesn't mean it's "ignorable" nor that it doesn't participate in the overall feeling (on the contrary).

It's implicit that Gondor is "medieval european" in feel, even if not everything is detailed. When thinking about the soldier of Gondor, we imagine typical european gear. If you had suddenly a few guys in samurai armor, it would be pretty noticeable. That would either be deliberate (implying there are other cultures inspired by Japan in some other place of the world and they are somewhat involved in Gondor, or that there are mercenaries/travelers from afar, whatever), in which case it can participates to the worldbuilding and feel if it's well integrated and written, or just tacked on, a flaw that stick out and breaks the flow and blurry the perception of the setting. Forced diversity falls square in the latter.

* I should normally not need to point it, but just in case : Gandalf with blue skin and flappable ears is obviously not on the same level as him being black, the point is precisely to push the concept farther to illustrate it, it's a common reasoning device, etc.

I understand the rhetorical device, but the point here is demonstrating the difference between an individual threshold of tolerance (which you accept other people will set differently to yourself), and obvious absurdity. Gandalf, and the Istari in general, insofar as they are described, are described as old men. Explicitly. Naturally-occurring, healthy blue men do not exist, neither in Tolkien's Legendarium nor in the real-world.

And hey, if the setting had other human types with wildly-different skin tones, maybe that alteration could then be justified in the same way. It doesn't, but that's just a random thought. Even if it's arguable that he is implicitly white by the setting. He could be (white). But given the lack of reference to his skin tone, he doesn't have to be (white). I don't find the idea jarring. You do. Again, I'm repeating myself but I don't understand what's wrong with either opinion, other than you simply disagree with mine (and vice versa).

And please, I'm not upset at all, but quote me accurately. I didn't say "no qualitative impact on the work". I specified the plot and character interactions, because the driving theme throughout our discussion has me been trying to explore our differences in opinion over how we both interpret the setting. Evidently, changing Gandalf's skin tone has some qualitative impact on a potential adaptation for you. Right? You would find it jarring, personally. So it'd be silly for me to say that there is no impact on such an adaptation on the whole.

But to come back to implicit vs. explicit . . . the whole point of something being implicit is to give wiggle room. Or to relegate it as lacking in importance compared to more explicit details. Or, more accurately, there are many ways in which implicit details can be used to benefit the story. It doesn't have to be a tool in the way you're describing it. It can quite simply just be leaving things up to the imagination.

Black people existed in medieval Europe. I'm not even really that on-board with the whole medieval setting because there are plenty of things that suggest a more advanced general timescale (with the smoking, and the whole setting of the Shire and so on - in the same timeline that Gondor exists), but sure, let's run with it. Black folk still existed then. Nobody's saying "make every Gondorian black". We're talking about making a single character (who isn't even Gondorian) black, and you're talking about forced diversity, with hypotheticals like Gondorian soldiers wearing samurai armour. You're insisting the implicit must be explicit. Why?

Adapting one thing into something similar isn't the same as adapting another into something very different. What I want to understand why other peoples' differing opinions (i.e. making Gandalf black) are inherently political / forced diversity - but yours are not. I've established that black people can exist in the setting, and that Tolkien doesn't consider skin tone a remarkable thing a lot of the time (if you disagree, I want to know how you think they can't, and / or why Tolkien does, but I don't think you do disagree here specifically). I want to know why this is such a jarring change. I know it's because you don't find it a good fit for the setting - I want to know why it doesn't fit the setting, for you. We're all interpreting from what isn't written in the text. Isn't it natural we arrive at different answers?

Do you think Gondorians would just let him waltz in if he was black or brown, given how they were in constant warfare with such people?

I dunno, do you? If you do, isn't that you inserting your assumptions about real-world race into an imaginary setting loosely based on Europe?

 

[Sarin]

Probably.
They were in constant warfare with Mordor. If a representative of 1 of Mordor's subject nations had turned up they would doubtless have been interested if there was any possibility of them breaking with Mordor.

Now THAT is what contrived rationalization looks like.

Even if they claimed to speak for the whole Harad or Rhun, they wouldn't be let within a thousand meters of the ruler out of suspicion that it's an assassination plot. If he'd claim to be an advisor from distant land sent to help them against the very same people that he appears to be, he'd be lucky to leave without an arrow in the eye.
And even if he somehow managed to gain a measure of trust, in the moment anything went wrong, he'd be the first to be blamed and executed.

I dunno, do you? If you do, isn't that you inserting your assumptions about real-world race into an imaginary setting loosely based on Europe?

No, that's me inserting some goddamn reason.

 

[Gorbles]

No, that's me inserting some goddamn reason.

No, that's you inserting your reasoning. You're applying real-world human racism to interactions between Gondor and a known wizard. A wizard who's visited Gondor, on and off, for decades, if not centuries. Good luck with that

EDIT

For example, like I said way earlier in thread (and common to fantasy in general), Tolkien expressed division through the fantasy races themselves, rather than any specific correlation to real-world ethnicities. Denethor (and by extension, Boromir) grew to not be a fan of the elves, and as such, Denethor grew wary of Gandalf, who was a friend of the elves. This also affected his relationship with Faramir. Not because any of them happened to be black, or whatever. Because of the relation with the elves (and probably trying to match Sauron in his Palantir, too).

 

[AmazonQueen]

Now THAT is what contrived rationalization looks like.

Even if they claimed to speak for the whole Harad or Rhun, they wouldn't be let within a thousand meters of the ruler out of suspicion that it's an assassination plot. If he'd claim to be an advisor from distant land sent to help them against the very same people that he appears to be, he'd be lucky to leave without an arrow in the eye.
And even if he somehow managed to gain a measure of trust, in the moment anything went wrong, he'd be the first to be blamed and executed.



No, that's me inserting some goddamn reason.

Must've missed all the references to the deep racial conflicts between humans in Tolkien.
I do remember many of the southern lands had once been ruled from Gondor and many of Sauron's top human lieutenants were Black Numenoreans, not a reference to skin colour since these were people of the same racial stock as Gondor who had turned to evil.
I think you're trying to insert thinking from our world that was not present in Tolkien's writing.

 

[Sarin]

No, that's you inserting your reasoning. You're applying real-world human racism to interactions between Gondor and a known wizard. A wizard who's visited Gondor, on and off, for decades, if not centuries. Good luck with that

Not trusting people with whom you're at constant war is now racist?

Must've missed all the references to the deep racial conflicts between humans in Tolkien.
I do remember many of the southern lands had once been ruled from Gondor and many of Sauron's top human lieutenants were Black Numenoreans, not a reference to skin colour since these were people of the same racial stock as Gondor who had turned to evil.
I think you're trying to insert thinking from our world that was not present in Tolkien's writing.

Yeah, a white minority ruling black people. Something Tolkien was well acquainted with. At least some Haradrim were explicitly described as dark skinned and Rhunnic people as slant-eyed, while Gondorians are descibed as pale-skinned.

Between that and plenty of parallels with real world, the racial divide in Tolkien's work is quite clear, even for someone like me whose cultural background doesn't involve seeing everything through the lens of skin color.

 

[Gorbles]

Not trusting people with whom you're at constant war is now racist?

You literally described them in terms of skin colour. Logically, if the basis for distrust was that they were at war, that shouldn't matter. You made it matter.

 

[Sarin]

You literally described them in terms of skin colour. Logically, if the basis for distrust was that they were at war, that shouldn't matter. You made it matter.

Not really. Tolkien made it matter when he described them as different races, drawing from different cultural parallels.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Not trusting people with whom you're at constant war is now racist?



Yeah, a white minority ruling black people. Something Tolkien was well acquainted with. At least some Haradrim were explicitly described as dark skinned and Rhunnic people as slant-eyed, while Gondorians are descibed as pale-skinned.

Between that and plenty of parallels with real world, the racial divide in Tolkien's work is quite clear, even for someone like me whose cultural background doesn't involve seeing everything through the lens of skin color.

And yet many of them are ruled by Black Numenoreans, who are white.
You do seem to be seeing this through the lens of skin colour.
Tolkien's life was dominated by conflict between European nations, during which most of the non-whites involved would have been on his side.

 

[Sarin]

And yet many of them are ruled by Black Numenoreans, who are white.
You do seem to be seeing this through the lens of skin colour.
Tolkien's life was dominated by conflict between European nations, during which most of the non-whites involved would have been on his side.

You keep repeating that Numenoreans are white. I'm not disputing that, but what's your reason for asserting that?

 

[Gorbles]

Not really. Tolkien made it matter when he described them as different races, drawing from different cultural parallels.

Now that's a contrived rationalisation. I understand why you made it, you're stuck going on circles. But it's contrived nonetheless.

Enjoy moving the goalposts. You were the one who declared people would be refused entry for being enemies with a different skin tone. You've elected to repeatedly ignore that Gondor has enemies who are full of white dudes in their ranks as well. If this is the "reason" you're trying to insert, I'll continue to laugh at it, thanks.

 

[Sarin]

Now that's a contrived rationalisation. I understand why you made it, you're stuck going on circles. But it's contrived nonetheless.

Enjoy moving the goalposts. You were the one who declared people would be refused entry for being enemies with a different skin tone. You've elected to repeatedly ignore that Gondor has enemies who are full of white dudes in their ranks as well. If this is the "reason" you're trying to insert, I'll continue to laugh at it, thanks.

Besides the fact that Black Numenoreans are pretty much just a controlling minority in some Haradrim lands, you're making wrong assumption that it's about white people in Harad, while the issue is black people in the north.

In Gondorian minds, it would be like this:
"White guy? He could be from anywhere. Rohan, Bree, Gondor hinterlands or other place west or north, and those are friends. Could be Black Numenorean, but those are few...odds are he's not one."
"Black guy? He's 99.9% from Harad, there are few black people elsewhere. And Haradrim are our enemies."

Edit: anyway, I'm off for today. I'll continue this tomorrow....