Fantasy

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar to davem

It's very possible that I just like having a good discussion with you.

Yes, it's rather like watching a spin doctor work on a politician's errs and mistakes.

Originally Posted by alatar

I would believe that there are insects in Middle Earth, as we see examples of the midges and neekerbreekers and having poor Grima name 'Worm.' Surely some type of bug - so close to Mordor - would attack the wounds and flesh of the dying on the battlefield.

Where there's spiders, there must be webs, ergo, critters of all sorts to catch and feed upon.

Originally Posted by davem

Thus, a line does exist as to what's acceptable & what isn't - 'Fantasy' as a genre does not = anything goes. We expect certain standards to be maintained, certain boundaries to be upheld.

The justification or explanation of the limitations to published work of any genre is whether this work promulgates or incites hatred towards a person or an identifiable group of people, not whether it falls within or without the moral tenets of a particular ideology or faith. Perhaps you might wish to work on an argument whether this includes Pullman's god or not, since you seem to enjoy bringing up Pullman so often in this discussion.

Originally Posted by davem

And who determines those 'grounds'? Who decides what questions can be asked & which questions (or perhaps questioners) are verboten?

*sighs* It's either the author's Fairy Godmother or those angels and demons that sit, one on each side, of readers' shoulders.

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see how an honest depiction of war excludes 'arresting sttrangeness'

Leaving aside that word "honest", the use of which has been refuted many times earlier on this thread to at least my satisfaction, I thought you have been arguing lo! these many posts that Tolkien's depiction of war is strange. Have you changed your mind now or is this just more of your spin doctoring?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The justification or explanation of the limitations to published work of any genre is whether this work promulgates or incites hatred towards a person or an identifiable group of people, not whether it falls within or without the moral tenets of a particular ideology or faith.

And that would apply if the 'person' was Hitler, or Torquemada, or the 'identifiable group of people' included Nazis, White Supremacists, suicide bombers...? Or are certain 'identifiable groups of people' excluded?

Leaving aside that word "honest", the use of which has been refuted many times earlier on this thread to at least my satisfaction,

I'd say it has merely been rejected...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The justification or explanation of the limitations to published work of any genre is whether this work promulgates or incites hatred towards a person or an identifiable group of people

No. No no no no no no no. No, no, NO. I will go to the mat opposing the false, pernicious and tyrannical false dichotomy between free speech and 'hate speech,' the tool of despots. No power, prince, potentate or Certified Victim Group gets a veto over any expression or opinion whatsoever. Not now, not ever.

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” - Noam Chomsky

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." --George Orwell

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." — C. S. Lewis

And JRRT: "I am not a "socialist" in any sense - being averse to "planning" (as must be plain) most of all because the "planners", when they acquire power, become so bad ."
-- and the most awful crime of the planners is the determination of which thoughts and opinions must be 'planned' out of existence.

[davem]

In the wider fantasy context - this is interesting - Disney's new moviehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...TE-prince.html

One disappointed fan wrote (sic): 'I think it's sad that he is white because its saying that black love isn't good enough and that black men could never be princes.

‘Disney had the perfect chance to make its first black prince, but instead it decided to go the controversial route.'

Another complained (sic): ‘I am very disappointed and I wished Disney had made the prince black,(and the ironic thing is the prince in the movie is white but the evil voodoo villain is voiced by a black actor and is black).’

Since announcing their plans for the first black princess in 2006 the production of Hollywood studio's 49th animated film has been dogged by racial controversy.

Originally called The Frog Princess, its heroine was to be a chambermaid called Maddy working for a spoilt white debutante in 1920s New Orleans.

But the storyline sparked a backlash from critics who claimed it reinforced prejudice and demeaned black people.

The princess’s original name was perceived by some to be a stereotypical ‘slave name’ and she was also a maid working for a wealthy white boss, which was criticised as being racially insensitive.

Even the New Orleans setting for the film was questioned as it had overtones of voodoo and slavery.

Disney has insisted its choice of a black princess was part of a policy to give characters as much diversity as possible.

Now, one could put forward all kinds of objections to these comments - starting with the 'bleedin' obvious' one that there were no black princesses in 1920's New Orleans (or black princes for that matter) but there were a surfeit of black maids - so in terms of historical accuracy the original script was 'truer' - & if a maid, then working for a wealthy white boss is hardly pushing at the bounds of reality.

One could go further & point out that there were (& still are) white princes, so that the fact that the prince in the story is white is again still within the bounds of likelihood. Further, just as there were & are white princes in this world there are black villains. So, nothing in the original script or the finished movie are 'untrue' as such.. One could even point up the fact that this 'black' princess is actually (if one sets aside skin colour) a 'European' princess - her dress, her lifestyle, even the house she lives in, are European in origin. Yet there are no objections being raised to the fact that 'European' culture is being presented as superior to 'African'.

Thus, it seems that in order for this movie to tick all the right boxes both the princess & the prince must be black - despite the fact that that would have been impossible in the New Orleans of the 1920's - & the villain should have been a white magician (or a white black magician - if you see what I mean). Or, in short, for the movie to be acceptable it must bear no resemblance to the facts as known.

But its fantasy, so any relation to reality at all is not a requirement. Mind you - it does have a talking frog (albeit one that is an enchanted white prince) so we mustn't push the demand for realism too far. Howevah...The objections to the movie are actually demanding a recognition & acknowledgement of 'facts' - that to present a young black woman as a servant to a rich white boss is more demeaning even than presenting her as a European princess, & that black men in a democracy have as much right to be princes as white men. And that white men can be black magicians.

Hence & thus, there is a demand that certain truths be present & fully acknowledged in this fantasy, but an equal demand that other truths be ignored. And that, I would say, is the core of this discussion.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

But its fantasy, so any relation to reality at all is not a requirement.

Hence & thus, there is a demand that certain truths be present & fully acknowledged in this fantasy, but an equal demand that other truths be ignored. And that, I would say, is the core of this discussion.

I don't think that 'truth' is the issue. The word I think to be more useful is 'plausibility.'

Some people are intellectually lazy; many not. Regardless, most do not take their conception of a thing or the world out every often, if ever, to see it really really works. We don't have time for that kind of in-depth analysis; sometimes we don't want to see where the analysis may lead. We pattern match, take shortcuts, use stereotypes, etc, all to get to the 'important' data or issue. Compromises are made fairly often.

Again, this isn't because people are stupid or lazy. I think that our brains are wired to screen all of the massive amounts of data that we are constantly receiving for relevance. Is it important? Do I need to look at something more closely? Or is there something else higher on the list? If so...

Sure; whatever...

We read about these toe-to-toe battles in Middle Earth, and if we thought about it, as davem may have pointed out maybe once or twice, it's a real visceral ugly abattoir-kind of event. But we're more interested in Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn and the like and so when Faramir's wounded are retreating back to the Gate, are we thinking about the guy with the compound fracture limping along as his life pours from his wound? Or do we gloss over that possibility to see what happens next?

Sure; whatever...

Anyway, a writer can write whatever he or she or it (hate to be specisist), and if the work works, is plausible, we can overlook where reality is cruelly tread upon because the work has crossed the plausibility threshold, and so issues with the same drop down on the priority list; superseded, mayhap, by questions such as: is this a good story, regardless of the genetic background of the protagonist? Is it sating the need I have to escape the world of reality for a moment before I drift off into sleep each night?

Sure; whatever...

[Inziladun]

I'm getting into this discussion late- after very many valid points have already been made.
If it's still being considered whether Tolkien was right in sanitizing the battle scenes, I should say "yes".
I, for one, am well aware of the realities of medieval combat- how could a sword fight realistically end, but with one combatant being either killed, or wounded so grievously as to be taken prisoner or maimed permanently? Losing digits and limbs during the fight was quite common, and a lust for carnage and blood colored the behaviour of many of the warriors- far from the commonly held view of the noble champions of chivalry who lived for the defense of Lady and Crown.
Tolkien does give us a small taste of this:

Then the Captain of Morgoth sent out riders with tokens of parley, and they rode up before the outworks of the Barad Eithel. With them they brought Gelmir son of Guilin, that lord of Nargothrond whom they had captured in the Bragollach; and they had blinded him. Then the heralds of Angband showed him forth, crying: 'We have many more such at home, but you must make haste if you would find them; for we shall deal with them all when we return even so' And they hewed off Gelmir's hands and feet, and his head last, within sight of the Elves, and left him.

The Silmarillion Of the Fifth Battle

And along similar lines:

....the enemy was flinging into the City all the heads of those who had fallen fighting at Osgiliath, or on the Rammas, or in the fields. They were grim to look on; for though some were crushed and shapleless, and some had been cruelly hewn, yet many had features that could be told, and it seemed that they had died in pain; and all were branded with the foul token of the Lidless Eye.

ROTK The Siege of Gondor

That's fairly graphic in itself, and I think that was enough to get across to the reader that war is not a clean, glamorous business. More detail would have been pointless-description for its own sake which did nothing to enrich the story, and would lead one away from the more important elements.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

And that would apply if the 'person' was Hitler, or Torquemada, or the 'identifiable group of people' included Nazis, White Supremacists, suicide bombers...? Or are certain 'identifiable groups of people' excluded?

Since you are so eager to learn about Canadian law, which was what I was referencing, here's a link that explains it: when hate is a crime It's a contentious law--as William Cloud Hicklin's post makes clear, so I'll also post this link: Parliamentary Information and Research on Hate Propaganda

However, the existence of the law serves the function in this discussion of proving that not just fantasy but all writing is subject to legal limits to what is allowed.

Originally Posted by davem

I'd say it has merely been rejected...

You say to-mah-to and I say to-may-to.

But its fantasy, so any relation to reality at all is not a requirement

This statement ignores the quotations from Tolkien's OFS that set up two requirements for fantasy, credibility and arresting strangeness, which is the core of the discussion.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Canadian law, which was what I was referencing, here's a link that explains it: when hate is a crime It's a contentious law...

That's putting it mildly, when it comes to the infamous "Human Rights" Commissions and the ghastly Section 13.

Just because some nation, even our close friend and neighbor, enacts a law more appropriate to Stalin's USSR, that doesn't make the conception legitimate.