Fantasy Tropes/Cliches that Annoy You

[Lemmy]

So words can have multiple meanings, but not collections of words, those have one objective meaning. Uh, sure, that totally makes sense. That said, if we accept your position (that authors of texts have final say over the meanings others can legitimately draw from those texts), you're wrong because someone else wrote that post and they could freely have used the interpretation-based definition of allegory.

Words (or collections of words) having multiple meanings doesn't mean every single meaning is correct in every instance and that therefore anyone can pick any meaning at any time and still be correct about what was said or the intentions and motives of the author.

By your logic, I could pick literally anything you wrote and choose to interpret it as you defending racism, sexism, xenophobia and/or anything else I want... And be correct, since what makes your arguments racist is how I choose to read them, rather than what you meant or what the words actually say.

[2D8HP]

...Does that seem like too much price, not enough price, just about right? The right sorts of prices?

What it sounds like is very intriguing!

I like it.

For reference my favorite "Magic systems" are.

Call of Cthullu,

Pendragon and,

Stormbringer

(I'm a fan of "Magic has a price/ is dangerous")

[Cosi]

Spellswords

I hate spellswords

I hate the name "Spellsword". Also all the other names that take a stance on what weapons a character should be using. It's a minor complaint, but the idea that you should code these things at the class level at all is stupid.

By your logic, I could pick literally anything you wrote and choose to interpret it as you defending racism, sexism, xenophobia and/or anything else I want... And be correct, since what makes your arguments racist is how I choose to read them, rather than what you meant or what the words actually say.

That's not, of course, what I said. I didn't say all interpretations are equally valid. I said that the author's intention does not effect the validity of an interpretation, and if the author wants to be interpreted in a particular way, they should make a stronger effort to produce a text that is not consistent with other interpretations. That doesn't mean that nothing influences whether an interpretation is valid. Furthermore, I didn't say that "validity" was some global truth. It's perfectly possible for you to understand something in a different way than I did without either of us being wrong -- this is why not everyone has exactly the same opinion of every book, movie, TV show, or song ever produced.

[Lord Raziere]

Awwww ****, you know what that reminds me of?

I hate the cliche in fantasy art where, to denote that someone is a magic-user, they must have some kind of ball of light or fireball or ice ball floating on their palm, or their arm must glow with some unnaturally colored flame.

Like, I get it. You want us to know your character is a magic user, but you thought staffs, robes, tattoos, magic wands, crystal balls, big Gandalf beards, and big floppy hats with stars and moons on it were lame. But come on, there's gotta be a better way.

.....Well yeah, that is the better way. than all the things you listed. I mean:
-staffs without sharp implements are basically things you thwack with and are thus less useful spears or halberds
-robes are only good for keeping you warm
-magic wands are already just one-hand sticks so you can just design a wand into a sword and cast through the sword
-crystal balls are impractical to use
-tattoos give you away
-big gandalf beards are for the unshaven, the old and the male
- big floppy hats with and stars and moons on it don't protect from arrows killing you in the head and not all mages are a paranoid 3.5 wizard who prepares protection from arrows every morning with their coffee.

honestly, if your doing your mage right, no one should be able to tell they are one until the spell is already being flung at them. that spellcasting indication is probably the best one, believable depiction wise. At least its better than signaling to the world that Your The Guy Who Did It with nonsensical clothing choices. Generally people are more suspicious and angry at spellcasters for their power in most fantasy settings and not afraid to to attack and succeed in killing them.

Heck, wuxia is more realistic about this than wizards: the entire concept of "crouching tiger, hidden dragon" is that the guy with the skill and power isn't always someone you expect or easily identifiable, so you have to look for it in the techniques and the person actually doing things to tell than just relying on their appearance.

that and it gives one a lot more choices in appearance if people have to be bound some weird cliched aesthetic.

[Kitten Champion]

I hate the name "Spellsword". Also all the other names that take a stance on what weapons a character should be using. It's a minor complaint, but the idea that you should code these things at the class level at all is stupid.

But it's a pun, everyone loves puns.

Though, uses a weapon and can cast magic is like 90% of JRPG characters

[Kardwill]

Drow should be albinos.

Well, in some settings, they were. Moorcock's Melniboneans or Dragonlance's dark elves are both pale-skinned psycho evil elves.
Then someone came up with the idea of the drows. Personally, I blame the fact that dark-skinned elven ladies in dominatrix gear and sexy pose are an important feature on the cover when you're trying to sell a RPG splatbook to teenagers

[Komatik]

Dragonlance's dark elves are both pale-skinned psycho evil elves.

Aren't Dragonlance's dark elves just individual exiles from the two kingdoms, like Dalamar?

[Wardog]

1) Unrealistic Language: A little overspecific, but geez is it prevalent. I don't expect writers to come up with new languages like Tolkien or anything, but it's not hard to tell when a writer is just picking random sounds and punctuation and smushing it together to make names. Most real places are named things like "River Town" or taken from an older name that is familiar to the person doing the naming. Watch as I create amazing new names with my patented "slamming my hands on the keyboard method": Dasmi'da, Fnac, Nofwe, Nac-lik, Powcker

Likewise, "every personal name is unique (and invented by the author, probably by keyboard mashing)".

In the real world, most cultures have a pool of names to choose from, which usually either mean something in that language, are derived from something that meant something in an older version of that language, or have been adopted from other cultures (where they meant something, etc). And if a culture had developed surnames or equivilent, its because there are enough people with the same given names that you need some way to distinguish between them.

It gets particularly silly when you have a setting with multiple fantasy-counterpart cultures, where e.g. fantasy-Japanese have Japanese-sounding names, fantasy-Vikings have Viking-sounding names, and fantasy-Medieval-Europeans have random-letter-mashup names.

[Kardwill]

Aren't Dragonlance's dark elves just individual exiles from the two kingdoms, like Dalamar?

Probably. Read them long ago, so it's kinda fuzzy (in fact, the only dark elf I remember is the guy in the Dragons of Ice module)

Anyway, for some time, "darke elf" meant "bad guy with pointy ears". If I'm not mistaken, the whole (pretty ridiculous) "drow civilisation" debacle became popular some time later.

[Kardwill]

The Deity Of Death Is Evil

...This one annoys me so much. Death is a natural process, so why do so many works seem to portray the deity/deities of death as being malevolent forces who often hate the living? I'm inclined to blame Disney's Hercules for this, but I think the trope's started before then.

Oh yeah, this one. I mean, in many real world mythologies, Death Gods are either psychopomps that guide souls to the afterlife, or wardens that herd them and prevent them from troubling the living and breaking the established order. They only take action when someone is cheating death. Not smiling beer buddies, sure, but actually mostly decent guys (I mean, compare Hades to the rest of his pantheon, and he's actually one of the few sane ones in this creepy family)

But in fantasyland? We have a truckload of giggling cruel psychodeathmurder gods.
Hell, there are actually stories about Death gods that actually try to kill people / destroy the world. When all they have to do is simply sit, wait and get every single soul in the world 20-80 years later. WTF?

So it's quite pleasing when some games world like Glorantha give more nuanced Death god.

[BRC]

Oh yeah, this one. I mean, in many real world mythologies, Death Gods are either psychopomps that guide souls to the afterlife, or wardens that herd them and prevent them from troubling the living and breaking the established order. They only take action when someone is cheating death. Not smiling beer buddies, sure, but actually mostly decent guys (I mean, compare Hades to the rest of his pantheon, and he's actually one of the few sane ones in this creepy family)

But in fantasyland? We have a truckload of giggling cruel psychodeathmurder gods.
Hell, there are actually stories about Death gods that actually try to kill people / destroy the world. When all they have to do is simply sit, wait and get every single soul in the world 20-80 years later. WTF?

So it's quite pleasing when some games world like Glorantha give more nuanced Death god.

I had a setting once where the resident god of death was lawful neutral, but many of their followers were chaotic evil murdercultists.


Basically, the deity in question was super lawful. Nothing more lawful than the inevitability of death. As a result, it was bound to give power to those who went through the proper motions of worship, the primary of which involved certain practices dealing with death and the dead.

A True Follower of this god would perform certain services, like being there to witness somebody dying, recording last words,preparing the body for body for burial/cremation, making sure the memory of the dead lived on, performing certain rites over the body, ect ect. In exchange for this devotion, the god of death would grant these followers cleric powers. Basically a combination priest/mortician.

But, at some point some people realized that they could hijack this system. If you massacred a village, then respectfully buried the bodies and performed the proper rites, you could rack up YEARS worth of "Death God Cred" in a handful of days! And, whatever the death god's feelings on this practice, they were so lawful that they refused to go back on their word about giving power to those who performed certain duties concerning the dead, even if they were responsible for the deaths in question.

[Lemmy]

That's not, of course, what I said. I didn't say all interpretations are equally valid. I said that the author's intention does not effect the validity of an interpretation, and if the author wants to be interpreted in a particular way, they should make a stronger effort to produce a text that is not consistent with other interpretations. That doesn't mean that nothing influences whether an interpretation is valid. Furthermore, I didn't say that "validity" was some global truth. It's perfectly possible for you to understand something in a different way than I did without either of us being wrong -- this is why not everyone has exactly the same opinion of every book, movie, TV show, or song ever produced.

You know what? I'm giving up on this discussion. I have no more patience for this. Have fun.

- - -

Tropes I hate:

This race is YOU, but BETTER: I really dislike things like Tolkien elves... They are boring, bland and frustrating. They come out as little more than a whole race of Mary Sues... Speaking of which...

Magic is a Mary Sue: I hate the MAGIC IS BETTER AND COOLER THAN EVERY NON-MAGICAL thing. I like when magic has its advantages and disadvantages. Where "magitech" isn't just "magic with steam-punk aesthetics", but the result of characters working trying to mix magic and non-magical technology to benefit from the advantages of both, just like when we use metal and concrete to create better structures than if we only used one or the other. Using magical fire to generate electrical energy, for example, is a cool idea... Using non-descriptive "magic batteries" that generate an all-purpose "magical energy" that can do everything and anything without any problem feels like a particularly lazy Mahou Shoujo anime.

The Chosen One: Gets old really fast. I prefer when characters' success and failures are real possibilities that depend on the character's choices, instead of a predetermined outcome decided by Destiny/Fate/The Gods/Whatever.

Time Travel: I really dislike time travel... I mean... The concept is cool, but it's always littered with plot-holes and often used as cheap get-out-of-jail-free cards to authors. Pretty much every good time travel story is good IN SPITE of including time travel, never because of it.

I'll also join in with the chorus against "Death is Evil" and "Race = Culture".

[Tinkerer]

Time Travel: I really dislike time travel... I mean... The concept is cool, but it's always littered with plot-holes and often used as cheap get-out-of-jail-free cards to authors. Pretty much every good time travel story is good IN SPITE of including time travel, never because of it.

YES! About the only time travel fantasy which I enjoy is Doctor Who and that is partly because it's so broken that it actually kinda fixes itself.

[Knaight]

Oh yeah, this one. I mean, in many real world mythologies, Death Gods are either psychopomps that guide souls to the afterlife, or wardens that herd them and prevent them from troubling the living and breaking the established order. They only take action when someone is cheating death. Not smiling beer buddies, sure, but actually mostly decent guys (I mean, compare Hades to the rest of his pantheon, and he's actually one of the few sane ones in this creepy family).

There's still the Persephone kidnapping incident, although it's not like that makes him worse than average.

[Orcus The Vile]

There's still the Persephone kidnapping incident, although it's not like that makes him worse than average.

But he really loved her and in some versions she loved him back but her mom didn't want him.

Compared to his brothers who were serial rapists he is a really nice guy.

[RedMage125]

Svartalfter?

Svartalfar live underground and are famous for their supernaturally good craftsmanship, particularly in metalwork. They're the inspiration for modern fantasy dwarves.

Dokkalfar, then.
The point, which you missed, Xuc Xac, was that the decision was NOT an arbitrary "because the author decided they should be evil and black" on some kind of whim. They are an adaptation of Norse Mythology's Dark Elves. The writers of D&D did decide that "dark elves" should be evil, as they were not necessarily evil in Norse Mythology, but they WERE dark-skinned, as opposed to their alfheim cousins who lived in forested realms. and were very fair-skinned.

There's still the Persephone kidnapping incident, although it's not like that makes him worse than average.

But he really loved her and in some versions she loved him back but her mom didn't want him.

Compared to his brothers who were serial rapists he is a really nice guy.

I REALLY don't think it's fair to hold that against Hades as some kind of selfish or evil act. Namely because he was under the influence of one of Eros/Cupid's arrows, and that's almost mind-control.

And in most versions of the original, Persephone DID come to love him (in some she ate the pomegranate seeds intentionally so her mom COULDN'T take her away). After all, he set her up in what is basically Heaven, showered her with gifts of jewelry, and did everything in his power to treat her like a QUEEN.

[Segev]

Yes, your expectation that black people are thugs is in no way racist. Wait, no, that's the exact opposite of true. You would think you could come up with a better reason your position isn't racist than a desire to believe explicitly racist things. At least, you could if you were in fact arguing from a non-racist position rather than a closeted racist one.

As another noted, you misunderstood, though I will apologize for how poorly worded it was.

Let me try a better one: There is a stereotype of "white privilege." Are you asserting that a black person has no right to dismiss a white person's claims that this stereotype is harmful to white people, and therefore needs to stop being propagated?

If you wanted it not to be understood as something, you should have made it clearer that it wasn't that thing. You do not have the authority to decide how people should understand things you say. You only have the authority to decide to say clearer things.

Really? That's interesting. So, if I wrote what I felt was a pastiche of Mormons, and somebody else took grave offense at my insulting representation of Muslims (even though "Muslims" never occurred to me), I'm guilty of horrific racist stereotyping of Muslims. Is that what you're saying?

The fact that you think this is close (combined with the "I just want to call black people thugs!" example above) is making it increasingly clear that your concern trolling is exactly that, and your actual beliefs are horrible racism.

Given that I didn't say what you put in quotes, this is at best a clear misunderstanding of my position on your part, and at worst a straw man.

You also don't dare answer the question, instead choosing to dismiss it as "racist."

Come now, if there isn't actually a similarity, SURELY you can tell me whether I described a pastiche of Nazis or Muslims there.

(Side note: "Muslim" isn't a race. Neither is "Nazi," though Nazis definitely had a racial component to their ideology. Heck, I am white, but could convert to Islam were I so inclined, and then I would be a Muslim.)

If you can't actually tell which I had in mind when I was writing it, I'll tell you in my next post, but I'm curious if you think you can guess. (I did have a specific one in mind, and find it interesting if you can't tell which.)

Yes, it is so hard to see why making the evil subrace of elves the dark skinned subrace of elves might offend black people. That is some incredibly subtle coded language that no one could possibly decipher.

So...making an evil subrace of dwarves white should offend white people, right? Because it's totally unsubtle coded language that everybody will decipher: all white people are evil like that subrace?

Yes, it is better to be able to ignore the implications of things. But not everyone is in the position to do that, so insisting that we pretend that they are is problematic. You can't just assume away the actual harms that are actually inflicted on actual people by saying "well we should all realize its fiction and treat it that way". That's not how it works, and the idea that it works that way is laughably naive.

The problem is when "implications" are read into things that...never were intended to bear them. It gets to the point where you literally can't win, because having diversity with actual flawed characters is "racist" while having them be too perfect is (truly) bad writing as well as "racist tokenism," and leaving them out is "exclusionary," and ... ... ... And that's with just actual humans of those groups. Toss in a fantasy/sci-fi setting with aliens and non-human races and suddenly anything can be "inferred" to be a racist stereotype.

Unless the parallels are so obvious that you would have to be deliberately engaging in figuratively closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears to pretend you can claim you aren't sure who stole the stuff you were guarding, even though your friends asked you to close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears while they spend some time "nearby," you probably are best just taking it at face value. Confront people who actually seem to take a racist extrapolation from it, sure.

It doesn't matter if orcs are barbaric brutes who prey on humans; that doesn't justify any action against any race of real-world humans. If you see parallels to a race of real-world humans, question why you see them. ARe YOU being racist by assuming they behave in that offensive fashion?

If it's a CULTURAL parallel, that's not racist. It is, however, culturist.

Oh, by the by, Mormon, like Muslim, Nazi, Democrat, Hindu, Communist, or Otaku? Is not a race. These are all cultures or sub-cultures. Nothing about mocking them is racist. It may not be called for or even acceptable, but it isn't racist.

[Cosi]

Let me try a better one: There is a stereotype of "white privilege." Are you asserting that a black person has no right to dismiss a white person's claims that this stereotype is harmful to white people, and therefore needs to stop being propagated?

"White Privilege" is not a stereotype. It's an assertion about how society treats white people, not how white people act. "White people can't dance" is a stereotype, and I would agree that non-white people shouldn't tell white people whether or not that stereotype is harmful to white people. That said, white people should be mindful of the degree to which their social position (e.g. White Privilege) changes how stereotypes, harmful or not, effect them.

Really? That's interesting. So, if I wrote what I felt was a pastiche of Mormons, and somebody else took grave offense at my insulting representation of Muslims (even though "Muslims" never occurred to me), I'm guilty of horrific racist stereotyping of Muslims. Is that what you're saying?

You're "guilty" of producing something that propagates Muslim stereotypes. What that means and how you should respond to it is an open question.

You also don't dare answer the question, instead choosing to dismiss it as "racist."

There is such a thing as begging the question. Questions contain in them assumptions, and answering the question accedes to those assumptions, either explicitly or implicitly.

(Side note: "Muslim" isn't a race. Neither is "Nazi," though Nazis definitely had a racial component to their ideology. Heck, I am white, but could convert to Islam were I so inclined, and then I would be a Muslim.)

1. "My position is bigoted, but not racist" is not the silver bullet you think it is.
2. The perception of Islam in America (and, more broadly, in the West) absolutely has a racial component.

If you can't actually tell which I had in mind when I was writing it, I'll tell you in my next post, but I'm curious if you think you can guess. (I did have a specific one in mind, and find it interesting if you can't tell which.)

The point was not that I can't tell. The point is that if you think that question is meaningfully ambiguous, it represents an offensive attitude towards Muslims.

The problem is when "implications" are read into things that...never were intended to bear them.

Nothing can be divorced from its context. Everything has implications. You can refuse to examine them, but that doesn't make them go away.

[Max_Killjoy]

As another noted, you misunderstood, though I will apologize for how poorly worded it was.

Let me try a better one: There is a stereotype of "white privilege." Are you asserting that a black person has no right to dismiss a white person's claims that this stereotype is harmful to white people, and therefore needs to stop being propagated?

Really? That's interesting. So, if I wrote what I felt was a pastiche of Mormons, and somebody else took grave offense at my insulting representation of Muslims (even though "Muslims" never occurred to me), I'm guilty of horrific racist stereotyping of Muslims. Is that what you're saying?

Given that I didn't say what you put in quotes, this is at best a clear misunderstanding of my position on your part, and at worst a straw man.

You also don't dare answer the question, instead choosing to dismiss it as "racist."

Come now, if there isn't actually a similarity, SURELY you can tell me whether I described a pastiche of Nazis or Muslims there.

(Side note: "Muslim" isn't a race. Neither is "Nazi," though Nazis definitely had a racial component to their ideology. Heck, I am white, but could convert to Islam were I so inclined, and then I would be a Muslim.)

If you can't actually tell which I had in mind when I was writing it, I'll tell you in my next post, but I'm curious if you think you can guess. (I did have a specific one in mind, and find it interesting if you can't tell which.)

So...making an evil subrace of dwarves white should offend white people, right? Because it's totally unsubtle coded language that everybody will decipher: all white people are evil like that subrace?

The problem is when "implications" are read into things that...never were intended to bear them. It gets to the point where you literally can't win, because having diversity with actual flawed characters is "racist" while having them be too perfect is (truly) bad writing as well as "racist tokenism," and leaving them out is "exclusionary," and ... ... ... And that's with just actual humans of those groups. Toss in a fantasy/sci-fi setting with aliens and non-human races and suddenly anything can be "inferred" to be a racist stereotype.

Unless the parallels are so obvious that you would have to be deliberately engaging in figuratively closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears to pretend you can claim you aren't sure who stole the stuff you were guarding, even though your friends asked you to close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears while they spend some time "nearby," you probably are best just taking it at face value. Confront people who actually seem to take a racist extrapolation from it, sure.

It doesn't matter if orcs are barbaric brutes who prey on humans; that doesn't justify any action against any race of real-world humans. If you see parallels to a race of real-world humans, question why you see them. ARe YOU being racist by assuming they behave in that offensive fashion?

If it's a CULTURAL parallel, that's not racist. It is, however, culturist.

Oh, by the by, Mormon, like Muslim, Nazi, Democrat, Hindu, Communist, or Otaku? Is not a race. These are all cultures or sub-cultures. Nothing about mocking them is racist. It may not be called for or even acceptable, but it isn't racist.

Yeah, sadly, the idea that intent doesn't matter, only outcome -- the "culture of seeking to be offended" -- has really made a mess of trying to address these issues.

The corrosive concept of "privilege" concept addressed here -- http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22439817&postcount=33 -- this thread already way too off topic.

[Max_Killjoy]

Dokkalfar, then.

The point, which you missed, Xuc Xac, was that the decision was NOT an arbitrary "because the author decided they should be evil and black" on some kind of whim. They are an adaptation of Norse Mythology's Dark Elves. The writers of D&D did decide that "dark elves" should be evil, as they were not necessarily evil in Norse Mythology, but they WERE dark-skinned, as opposed to their alfheim cousins who lived in forested realms. and were very fair-skinned.

Perhaps some insight? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drow_(...cation_history

Point is, as you say, that it wasn't just "I'll make up dark-skinned villains out of nowhere as a fig-leafed racist message".

[Scripten]

Yeah, sadly, the idea that intent doesn't matter, only outcome -- the "culture of seeking to be offended" -- has really made a mess of trying to address these issues.

The corrosive concept of "privilege" concept addressed here -- http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22439817&postcount=33 -- this thread already way too off topic.

No, it's actually just a rando on the internet expressing a poor understanding of the concept of privilege so as to justify being offended by the concept. It's just incredibly laughable that someone can simultaneously attempt to argue that minorities and white people are treated differently right alongside trying to argue that white people are not in a privileged position in society. False equivalencies are the order of the day for you and Segev.

Speaking of which, let me know when we have an entire book of dark-skinned races with one specifically white-skinned race that is evil by nature. Of course, that would only represent a fraction of the sheer breadth of content going in the other direction, but hey, I'm nothing if not charitable.

[Segev]

The argument is that you don't have the right to determine that a stereotype is "HARMLESS" because you say it is, absurd scenarios aside. If group X decided to somehow mutually agree as a totality that everyone else perceived them as violent thugs based on their X-ness, that would express a far more troubling underlying issue with your a society as a whole than whether you're viewed as a racist by people on the internet.

I'm happy to agree that being X-colored in skin, hair, eyes, or even neck or shape of ears, has little to do with whether you're a thug, a nerd, a pillar of society, or a hardworking yeoman.

At least, until you get into fantasy and start assigning such things, but....well, that's word-of-god territory. I prefer my races to be more nuanced, but I don't mind "the majority culture of orcs is that of nomadic raiding bandits." I also like my orcs green-skinned and tusked. I'm sure, somehow, this corresponds to a racist stereotype of some sort of cluster of human phenotypes. I couldn't tell you which ones, but I'm sure somebody will take offense at it nevertheless.

It's applying it literally to a "race" of people where you move into problematic territory, where your sinful nature is visible on your skin. Particularly with Drow, being designed as the swarthy inversion to those goodly Elves with fair skin. Also while I get the whole spider-people angle, the whole evil matriarchy is also an issue.

Eh, the drow are a particularly good example of really trying too hard or being too devoted to the surface layer in finding fault.

So, okay. You're claiming that "black elves are evil" is racist because it's implying or outright saying that "black people are evil." I can see where you might try to draw that inference. But even GLANCING at drow imagery dispells any connection to "black humans." I don't know of any stereotype of black people that would make you look at that stereotype divorced from D&D and think, "huh, that's like the drow!"

"You can't have the evil race have black skin!" is the only real objection left, and that's...it's silly. It's basically saying, "All evil races must be any color other than black." "No, wait, can't be yellow, either. Or red. Or brown. Or orange - that might look brown or red. No, wait, orange is okay, as long as they have stupid-looking enormous poufs of hair, because it's okay to insult a particular politician." :P

"White Privilege" is not a stereotype. It's an assertion about how society treats white people, not how white people act. "White people can't dance" is a stereotype, and I would agree that non-white people shouldn't tell white people whether or not that stereotype is harmful to white people. That said, white people should be mindful of the degree to which their social position (e.g. White Privilege) changes how stereotypes, harmful or not, effect them.

Interesting. So depicting white folks as being privileged and oblivious to it wouldn't constitute a stereotype?

You're "guilty" of producing something that propagates Muslim stereotypes. What that means and how you should respond to it is an open question.

Fascinating. So, if I create something I mean to be a libelous assault on Mormons, depicting them as horrible murderous ravagers, but people mistake it for being about Muslims, I'm guilty of perpetuating Muslim stereotypes. I say "fascinating" because this gets into "methinks the lady doth protest too much" territory.

(To reiterate: "Muslim" is not a race. Neither is "Mormon.")

There is such a thing as begging the question. Questions contain in them assumptions, and answering the question accedes to those assumptions, either explicitly or implicitly.

So, can you tell which group I was thinking of when I wrote it?

It was "nazis." I was actually concerned that it was too obviously "nazi" about half-way through, and would break any possible symmetry with the terrorists from ISIS.

1. "My position is bigoted, but not racist" is not the silver bullet you think it is.

Actually, it's important, because it is ABSOLUTELY FAIR to be critical of cultures, sub-cultures, and religions. That is valid debate. It is not fair to lie about them, but lies are refuted by simply revealing the truth. It is 100% okay to say, "You know, I don't think a culture which advocates beheading people just because they're gay has as much merit, all else being equal, as one which does not. I think you should reconsider that aspect of your culture."

2. The perception of Islam in America (and, more broadly, in the West) absolutely has a racial component.

To some. But that doesn't invalidate criticism of the culture. Nor does it mean that everybody who has issue with the culture and its practices is racist. Dismissing all criticism of the culture as "racist" is, itself, racist.

The point was not that I can't tell. The point is that if you think that question is meaningfully ambiguous, it represents an offensive attitude towards Muslims.

Ah, good, I did do a good job of portraying Nazis.

That said, ISIS and Iran both believe in racial purging of the Hebrew race, express expansionist interests, are very proud of their national identities as Islamic states, and violently oppress those who do not adhere to their standards.

Nothing can be divorced from its context. Everything has implications. You can refuse to examine them, but that doesn't make them go away.

This isn't the silver bullet you think it is. All this means is that nothing can be inherently called out as a racist work, because you can find it in anything...and you can find reasons why it isn't in everything, too.

[Max_Killjoy]

No, it's actually just a rando on the internet expressing a poor understanding of the concept of privilege so as to justify being offended by the concept. It's just incredibly laughable that someone can simultaneously attempt to argue that minorities and white people are treated differently right alongside trying to argue that white people are not in a privileged position in society. False equivalencies are the order of the day for you and Segev.

Her understanding is spot on, and ironically her comments directly address why your criticism entirely misses the mark.

That said, if you want to discuss it further, I linked to the other thread rather than repeat the post here for a reason.

[AMFV]

No, it's actually just a rando on the internet expressing a poor understanding of the concept of privilege so as to justify being offended by the concept. It's just incredibly laughable that someone can simultaneously attempt to argue that minorities and white people are treated differently right alongside trying to argue that white people are not in a privileged position in society. False equivalencies are the order of the day for you and Segev.

Speaking of which, let me know when we have an entire book of dark-skinned races with one specifically white-skinned race that is evil by nature. Of course, that would only represent a fraction of the sheer breadth of content going in the other direction, but hey, I'm nothing if not charitable.

Wizard of Earthsea. Are we done here?

[Max_Killjoy]

Nothing can be divorced from its context. Everything has implications. You can refuse to examine them, but that doesn't make them go away.

You may be conflating "implication" with "inference".

Your inference is not defacto the author's -- or the text's -- implication.

Sadly, we live in the postmodernist era of literary analysis, and "the death of the author" infests academia, such that only the reader's inferences have merit and the author means nothing. Which is a bit ironic, since it insists on elevating the reader's context to godhood while rejecting any role for the author's context.

[Bohandas]

"White Privilege" is not a stereotype. It's an assertion about how society treats white people, not how white people act. "White people can't dance" is a stereotype, and I would agree that non-white people shouldn't tell white people whether or not that stereotype is harmful to white people. That said, white people should be mindful of the degree to which their social position (e.g. White Privilege) changes how stereotypes, harmful or not, effect them.

The real problem with the idea of white privelege is the implication that not having the crap beaten out of you by overzealous police officers is a privelege rather than a right. They need to go back to describing things in terms of society mistreating non-whites.

[Cosi]

No, it's actually just a rando on the internet expressing a poor understanding of the concept of privilege so as to justify being offended by the concept. It's just incredibly laughable that someone can simultaneously attempt to argue that minorities and white people are treated differently right alongside trying to argue that white people are not in a privileged position in society. False equivalencies are the order of the day for you and Segev.

I do think the claim that "privilege" is a bad term is legitimate. That said, that doesn't do what Max wants it to, because it doesn't change the underlying social structures that exist.

"You can't have the evil race have black skin!" is the only real objection left, and that's...it's silly. It's basically saying, "All evil races must be any color other than black." "No, wait, can't be yellow, either. Or red. Or brown. Or orange - that might look brown or red. No, wait, orange is okay, as long as they have stupid-looking enormous poufs of hair, because it's okay to insult a particular politician." :P

The fact that it didn't occur to you that "don't have an evil race" was the obviously ideal solution here is what makes people think you are not as racially unbiased as you think you are.

Interesting. So depicting white folks as being privileged and oblivious to it wouldn't constitute a stereotype?

Ah, but that's different than "privileged", isn't it?

Fascinating. So, if I create something I mean to be a libelous assault on Mormons, depicting them as horrible murderous ravagers, but people mistake it for being about Muslims, I'm guilty of perpetuating Muslim stereotypes. I say "fascinating" because this gets into "methinks the lady doth protest too much" territory.

Again, "guilty" is the wrong word. You have produced a thing, and that thing has whatever cultural associations it does.

That said, ISIS and Iran both believe in racial purging of the Hebrew race, express expansionist interests, are very proud of their national identities as Islamic states, and violently oppress those who do not adhere to their standards.

You may note that there's a small number of Muslims who are not members of ISIS or Iranian citizens. I'm not an expert or anything, but I think it's "almost all of them".

This isn't the silver bullet you think it is. All this means is that nothing can be inherently called out as a racist work, because you can find it in anything...and you can find reasons why it isn't in everything, too.

Sure, you can perceive things as not being racist. But that doesn't mean people are wrong to perceive it as racist. It means there should be a discussion about the content of the work vis-a-vis race, and how we should respond to that content.

Sadly, we live in the postmodernist era of literary analysis, and "the death of the author" infests academia, such that only the reader's inferences have merit and the author means nothing. Which is a bit ironic, since it insists on elevating the reader's context to godhood while rejecting any role for the author's context.

The author doesn't mean nothing. The author is just not decisive. If you got a hate symbol tattooed on your face, no amount of insistence that you "mean it ironically" or "as a criticism of PC oversensitiveness" or "just thought it looked cool" is going to convince people that the symbol is not racist.

[BRC]

The real problem with the idea of white privelege is the implication that not having the crap beaten out of you by overzealous police officers is a privelege rather than a right. They need to go back to describing things in terms of society mistreating non-whites.

I think the problem stems from the fact that I've seen the term used two ways.

sometimes it means "Something that should be true for everybody, but is only true for the privileged group", and sometimes it means "Something that should be true for nobody, but is true for the privileged group".

Like, consider some minor crime, one that probably deserves some community service as punishment. A black person found guilty gets jail time. A White person found guilty of this crime gets community service. A Rich person found guilty of this crime gets off with little more than a fine because the judge thinks they "Have a promising life ahead of them".

People say "White Privilege is getting Community Service instead of jail time", and they'll say "Rich Privilege is getting a minor fine instead of community service", but the two uses have very different implications.

[AMFV]

The author doesn't mean nothing. The author is just not decisive. If you got a hate symbol tattooed on your face, no amount of insistence that you "mean it ironically" or "as a criticism of PC oversensitiveness" or "just thought it looked cool" is going to convince people that the symbol is not racist.

Well this is an interesting one. Having a Swastika tattooed on one's face is obviously not great, but that isn't equivalent to what you're addressing. It's like when people claim that tattoos of celtic crosses are racist because certain racist groups are fond of them. That's the sort of assertion you're making. You're attacking celtic crosses not swastikas.

[Scripten]

Wizard of Earthsea. Are we done here?

The Kargs are not an "always-evil" race so no, we're not. Also the irony of trying to use Ursula Le Guin to argue against the concept of white privilege... wow.

People say "White Privilege is getting Community Service instead of jail time", and they'll say "Rich Privilege is getting a minor fine instead of community service", but the two uses have very different implications.

But these are both part of the same whole. A person's position in society is based on the intersectionality of their various demographics. Everyone has certain levels of privilege and marginalization. Some are more pronounced than others, is all. When it pertains to writing fantasy, those privileges can come out in fairly unsavory ways, hence this conversation.