Historical and mythology accuracy in media

[The Glyphstone]

*The most anti-Disney version I know of the Mulan story is the 17th Century The Sui Tang Romance by Chu Renhou, which moves Mulan to the Tang overthrow of the Sui, ~618 AD.

Spoiler: The Sui Tang Romance

Show

The basic gist is the same, except Mulan as a man is recruited by another warrior princess, Dou Xianniang, to fight the Tang. Xianniang finds out that Mulan is female and they end up swearing a bond of sisterhood.
Unfortunately Xianniang's father, Emperor Dou Jiangde, is captured and the women surrender to suffer his fate instead and spare him. The soon-to-be Tang Emperor commutes Jiangde's death penalty to exile in recognition of the women's filial piety (in reality he was executed) and Mulan is sent home to be with her parents.

Mulan arrives home, only to discover that her father has died and her mother has re-married. To add to her misery, the Khan of the Tang's Gokturk allies summons Mulan to his capital to be his concubine. Rather than submit to the humiliation, Mulan instead commits suicide.

Spoiler: Mulan

Show

I've heard that version and it confused me a little, because from what I understood Chinese imperial concubines were fairly high-status positions. At the very least, higher status than a peasant girl would have had, so being selected as one wouldn't be shameful to non-Western sensibilities. But that might be drawing on impressions from a later Chinese era.

[Brother Oni]

It's a study of 1800 skeletons from suburban burial grounds. It's mostly about poor people. Some e.g. were "fullones", fullers. I-II century AD. The study is this one, although I cannot access it, so I had to rely on interviews of the authors: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319194844

Caries seems to be far less frequent among I-III century BC Etruscans, somewhere between 27-20%, and it's much less frequent in Iron Age England, Gaul, and Greece, where it's more or less the half than among the Etruscans.

Unfortunately I can't access enough of the text to confirm your statements, so I'll take your word for it.

Spoiler: Mulan

Show

I've heard that version and it confused me a little, because from what I understood Chinese imperial concubines were fairly high-status positions. At the very least, higher status than a peasant girl would have had, so being selected as one wouldn't be shameful to non-Western sensibilities. But that might be drawing on impressions from a later Chinese era.

Spoiler: More Mulan

Show

Except she's not becoming an imperial concubine, she's becoming a Gokturk concubine, and I'd generally regard becoming a concubine being a significant demotion from imperial general, not to mention the *cough* primary duties of being a concubine.

I don't think I can get into further details without falling foul of the board rules, but you are right that this Sui Tang Romance version is very much framed from Qing Dynasty sensibilities - one common commentary is "even a Chinese woman would prefer death by her own hand to serving a foreign ruler".

[The Glyphstone]

Unfortunately I can't access enough of the text to confirm your statements, so I'll take your word for it.

Spoiler: More Mulan

Show

Except she's not becoming an imperial concubine, she's becoming a Gokturk concubine, and I'd generally regard becoming a concubine being a significant demotion from imperial general, not to mention the *cough* primary duties of being a concubine.

I don't think I can get into further details without falling foul of the board rules, but you are right that this Sui Tang Romance version is very much framed from Qing Dynasty sensibilities - one common commentary is "even a Chinese woman would prefer death by her own hand to serving a foreign ruler".

Spoiler: Even More Mulan

Show

Ah, that's the bit I was missing - she wasn't becoming an imperial concubine, it was a foreign ruler. Yeah, that makes it fit better with what I understand of Qing attitudes.

[Themrys]

I don't care very much about historical accuracy (probably because I don't know a lot about most time periods), and I don't expect people to have historically accurate bad teeth.

Culture must be portrayed accurately if relevant to the plot (you can't do a Jane Austen movie and have men just chat up women they haven't been introduced to - Mrs. Bennett complains on like the first page that she can't talk to Mr. Bingley, the desirable bachelor she wants to marry to one of her daughters, if Mr. Bennett doesn't go visit him) but I don't care that much if a dress is slightly too oldfashioned or too modern for the time period the story is set in, as long as it is not blatantly modern. Doesn't change the plot.

Disney's Hercules is annyoing because it gives people a completely false impression of the mythology. Would it have been so terrible to admit to this guy being a half-god and making Zeus and Hera a sensibly divorced couple? That'd still have sanitized the serial cheating away and would have given Hera a reason to antagonize Hercules, removing the need for villain Hades. I get that Disney can't portray mythology absolutely accurately, what with all the rape and murder and infanticide, but I'd like them to at least keep the roles roughly intact.

Of course, mythologies have always changed to reflect society, and the versions we think of as being the original ones probably aren't, either. But I like to dig out the oldest version of pretty much anything, too.


What annoys me most is if someone uses "historical accuracy" as an excuse for bad storytelling. Or just plain ... badness.

"We must have a lot of rape in this series because that's historically accurate" ... you know which series I mean. The one with the dragons and undead.

(I also heard it as excuse for blatant misogyny when playing pen&paper. In a setting that had magic. And unicorns. And fairies. To only mention the bits that GM actually made appear.)

Take for example, Mulan; in most Western tellings (the Disney version is the best known), Father Hua is called up to military service, despite having a gammy leg and Mulan steals her father's armour to save him from being forced to serve.

In the usual period the story is set in (Northern Wei Dynasty, approx 4th to 6th Century AD*), national service could be discharged in a number of ways and this was administered at the local village level, so the officials calling Father Hua up for duty would have been friends/neighbours/acquaintances that would have known he had a dodgy leg and no male heirs, so would have sent him off to a different job (eg prison guard, clerical assistant, etc) than infantry.

Mulan stole her father's armour and reported for duty because she wanted to kill some people, which significantly changes the tone of the work.


*The most anti-Disney version I know of the Mulan story is the 17th Century The Sui Tang Romance by Chu Renhou, which moves Mulan to the Tang overthrow of the Sui, ~618 AD.

Spoiler: The Sui Tang Romance

Show

The basic gist is the same, except Mulan as a man is recruited by another warrior princess, Dou Xianniang, to fight the Tang. Xianniang finds out that Mulan is female and they end up swearing a bond of sisterhood.
Unfortunately Xianniang's father, Emperor Dou Jiangde, is captured and the women surrender to suffer his fate instead and spare him. The soon-to-be Tang Emperor commutes Jiangde's death penalty to exile in recognition of the women's filial piety (in reality he was executed) and Mulan is sent home to be with her parents.

Mulan arrives home, only to discover that her father has died and her mother has re-married. To add to her misery, the Khan of the Tang's Gokturk allies summons Mulan to his capital to be his concubine. Rather than submit to the humiliation, Mulan instead commits suicide.

So if we assume Disney based its version on the one you quote as being most anti-Disney, by making it so that Mulan reports for duty to save her father, they conserved the filial piety bit. I think that's a good decision. People won't use Disney's Mulan as a source of historical knowledge on how the army worked in that time period, but they might unconsciously draw their ideas on what the culture was like from it.

And I don't think it changes the character that much. You still get the impression that Mulan wants to kick some enemy ass in the Disney version. Well, at least I got it. She certainly doesn't seem very upset at having to become an awesome war hero.

I don't expect much historical accuracy from a Disney movie, really, so them portraying the main character about right is plenty enough. (Didn't see the sequel, but I think I'd hate it)

@The Glyphstone:

Spoiler: Mulan

Show

As a woman, I can tell you that the very prospect of being raped - which is what this means - by pretty much anyone whatsoever is humiliating. People claim there's cultures that managed to socialize women out of wanting bodily autonomy, but I remain sceptical. Add to that that suicide is much less taboo in the culture than it is in Christian countries, and it makes all the sense in the world why a woman who obviously was willing to risk a lot to get some respect in patriarchy would rather die than become a prostitute with a pretty title. Giving pretty titles as compensation only works with people who care about what society thinks. Mulan doesn't seem to have been such a person in pretty much any version.

[Brother Oni]

And I don't think it changes the character that much. You still get the impression that Mulan wants to kick some enemy ass in the Disney version. Well, at least I got it. She certainly doesn't seem very upset at having to become an awesome war hero.

I think it does. You go from an unwilling hero, wanting to protect her father (admirable and understandable in nearly any culture) to a hotheaded young woman who wants to go kill people (not so good).

As a reverse example of this, take the whole 'Han shot first' debacle in the the Special Edition remake of Star Wars' A New Hope. You go from a dangerous man of dubious moral character to a lovable rogue who killed someone in self defence. This has the effect of significantly diminishing the impact of Han's character development in the final Death Star run, where despite all his self serving actions earlier in the movie, flies in to save the day against overwhelming odds.

Going back to Mulan again, there's also significant differences between the standard ending (Mulan retires after many years service as a general and is only found out as a woman when her old comrades drop by her home one day), the Sui Tang Romance version (Mulan commits suicide, abandoned, alone, with no prospects) and the Disney ending (Mulan is revealed publicly as a woman but is still accepted and even honoured).

Disney get one aspect right about Hua Mulan (the action female bit), although to be fair, it's still better than what they did to Hades (that said, James Woods did a magnificent interpretation).

[Aeson]

As a reverse example of this, take the whole 'Han shot first' debacle in the the Special Edition remake of Star Wars' A New Hope. You go from a dangerous man of dubious moral character to a lovable rogue who killed someone in self defence.

Han shooting Greedo could fairly easily be rationalized as self defense without the Special Edition making Greedo take a shot; Greedo was pointing a gun at Han and dialogue strongly implied that he wouldn't at all be displeased to find an excuse to pull the trigger. That's more than enough to make Greedo a clear and present danger of a level which justifies the use of lethal force against him.

Ironically enough, the fact that Greedo takes a shot and misses in the Special Edition might actually make the self defense case weaker, though not in a legal sense, because Greedo failing to hit Han at the end of their conversation suggests that Greedo's shot might have been intended to be something along the lines of a warning shot - something to intimidate Han into accompanying Greedo to Jabba or bribing Greedo to go away - rather than being intended to kill or incapacitate.

[Bohandas]

As a reverse example of this, take the whole 'Han shot first' debacle in the the Special Edition remake of Star Wars' A New Hope. You go from a dangerous man of dubious moral character to a lovable rogue who killed someone in self defence. This has the effect of significantly diminishing the impact of Han's character development in the final Death Star run, where despite all his self serving actions earlier in the movie, flies in to save the day against overwhelming odds.

I don;t think that's the problem with it, it just makes him and Greedo both look like doofuses. Greedo misses a shot at point blank range, and Han fumblingly fires back.

[foelancer]

Disney's Hercules is annoying because it gives people a completely false impression of the mythology.

I agree, the worst part is not that it is historically inaccurate but that it makes people think thats what happened and this can happen even if the work is not trying to be historically accurate or is set in another world or something like that for example horrible histories is almost completely accurate but i did have a friend that thought that vikings had cow bladders on their helmets because of a throwaway joke
and to bring something else up Vinland Saga (the manga) is historically accurate mostly but portrays vikings as a lot more evil like saying that the ideal viking is a bloodthirsty warmonger despite the fact that the vikings were no more evil than the english, who, mind you were the ones who killed EVERY SINGLE DANE LIVING IN ENGLAND including children farmers and the elderly

so who are the evil ones now

[foelancer]

oh and also i was planning to make a youtube video covering this subject so are you all cool with me including your replies and would you like me to cite you in the comments

[Scarlet Knight]

Let me talk about some Robin Hood movies.

The Russell Crowe version: I loved the historical weapons and characters such as William Marshall & Queen Elenore, but hated how they felt Robin had to be an imposter and Marion had to be a warrior. In the end a really bad movie outweight historical pluses.

Kevin Costner: So horrible in too many ways to list; but the idea that a Moor had to be added just so they could bring in gunpowder because we can't enjoy any movie without explosions! On the plus side it gave Mel Brooks plenty of material for his Men in Tights which was actually great because of this movie's lousiness.

Errol Flynn: No one cared about inaccuracies because it was just a great adventure movie with a great cast. Suspend all your disbelief because it was ( & is) an alltime great picture for any genre.

[Telonius]

I'm generally able to suspend disbelief for most things, unless the presentation is truly awful. If Shakespeare can have a clock strike three in Julius Caesar, I can give Joe Director a little slack for messing things up. However, I do live near Washington, DC, and have learned to never watch a World War 2 movie with my friends who work at the Navy Yard. "Hey, that ship hadn't even been built yet!"

[Aedilred]

Let me talk about some Robin Hood movies.

The Russell Crowe version: I loved the historical weapons and characters such as William Marshall & Queen Elenore, but hated how they felt Robin had to be an imposter and Marion had to be a warrior. In the end a really bad movie outweight historical pluses.

Kevin Costner: So horrible in too many ways to list; but the idea that a Moor had to be added just so they could bring in gunpowder because we can't enjoy any movie without explosions! On the plus side it gave Mel Brooks plenty of material for his Men in Tights which was actually great because of this movie's lousiness.

Errol Flynn: No one cared about inaccuracies because it was just a great adventure movie with a great cast. Suspend all your disbelief because it was ( & is) an alltime great picture for any genre.

Let's not overlook that Robin Hood was all over the place historically anyway. Richard didn't die fighting his way home from the Crusades: he got home, sat around for a while and then started another war, in which he died The Magna Carta elements were, as usual, completely misrepresented in ways I won't get into because of the politics ban. And that French invasion obviously never happened. The French did invade during John's reign, but at the end, not the beginning, and it was at the invitation of the cause Robin supposedly supported, rather than an event which unified the kingdom in opposition to the invader.

Like you, I did like the use of historic characters generally ignored, and I thought Oscar Isaac was magnificent (as he generally was in his early career before he became too big a star to get given decent parts(?!?)) but I ended up giving the film low marks both for general quality and for historical accuracy.

Prince of Thieves... well. Regarding Morgan Freeman's character, I don't think this was an excuse to use gunpowder and so on (some of which were anachronistic anyway) so much as to justify having a POC in the cast. It wasn't a new idea, either: the idea of having a "Moorish" character in the Merry Men was around at least as early at the time of Robin of Sherwood in the mid-80s. I don't actually hate Prince of Thieves and find it adequately entertaining, but in fairness I'm not sure whether that's just because of Alan Rickman.

What annoys me most is if someone uses "historical accuracy" as an excuse for bad storytelling. Or just plain ... badness.

"We must have a lot of rape in this series because that's historically accurate" ... you know which series I mean. The one with the dragons and undead.

Inasmuch as that one goes, I don't think "historical accuracy" is the creative objective per se. I'm talking principally about the books on the basis that the TV version is an adaptation thereof. The first aim a deconstruction of the classic chivalry motifs, which gives us a spread of characters from those who are actually good and decent people, through to those who are entirely out for personal interest and get off on rape and murder. More interestingly, and originally, it gives us the characters in between: those who adhere to the letter of the code of chivalry to the extent that they let it override more convenational moral concerns; those who aren't necessarily bad people by inclination but have internalised toxic ideologies of their society, and those who can see all of the above but find nobody's listening to them when they try to point it out.

The second is to take a bat to the idea, pretty much standard in fantasy, that war is exciting and cool, by showing us the nasty underside and what happens to people who get caught up in it - which is a contemporary concern at least as much as an historical one.

That this is expressed so often as rape, well I don't think the depiction of it in the book series at least is unproblematic - but I also think that audiences in general and fantasy in particular have become largely desensitised to fictional violence in itself, while sexualised violence retains the power to shock, so that's often what the author uses to provoke the desired reactions of horror and disgust from the reader. That doesn't necessarily or entirely justify the content of the books in that respect, but I think - I think - the reasoning behind the way it's used is valid in principle.

[veti]

One thing I object to in the retelling of myths is when the teller pretends to set the story in its "original" setting, and then goes out of their way to break any semblance of authenticity in that setting.

Like with Robin Hood. I have no problem with recasting Robin as a 20th century American gangster (Robin and the 7 Hoods, 1964). And I'm fine with a "period" story that has no basis in pre-existing canon (Robin and Marian, 1976). But if your story concept requires applying the adjective "sassy" to Marian (Robin Hood, 2018), or to anyone else for that matter, then for pity's sake don't pretend it's set in 12th-century England.

Robin is a fine case study in the evolution of mythology. Modern accounts seem to take it as given that his adventures took place in the reign of King John, but that's just an interpolated assumption - there's no basis for it in the earliest stories. That timing was firmed up during the Tudor period, because it provides an appropriate backdrop for preaching about loyalty to the monarch - and the idea of "true kingship" was a very big part of the Tudor platform, particularly Elizabeth I's, because of how shaky her own hold on the throne was.

In the growth of the Empire, Britain began to obsess about the importance of heredity and race, and it was at that time that Robin became a dispossessed Saxon noble. In the mid-20th century, "standing heroically against foreign invasion" became relevant, so Robin did that. A little later we were introduced to the idea that he didn't steal from "the rich" as a class, but more specifically from "tax collectors". I don't think I'm giving away too much when I say that the authors of that twist were rich people who didn't like paying taxes.

Where it gets tricky is when you shift focus from the outright-mythical figure of Robin to, for instance, Kings Richard and John, because it quickly becomes clear that the line between "history" and "myth" is actually pretty blurry. Of course, in ancient times "kings" were part-divine anyway, so it makes perfect sense that they should be simultaneously both historical and mythical. Part of the king's job is to have stories told about them - it's a necessary part of uniting the people. And since verifying those stories would generally have been out of the question, what can we say about their accuracy?

Every story has an agenda, including those that happen to be "true". Every story can be told from a different perspective, or as part of an entirely different story. What upsets me most is when a story I know and respect is hijacked by an agenda I... have less respect for. (The aforementioned Mel Gibson atrocities being a prime example.)

[foelancer]

those who adhere to the letter of the code of chivalry to the extent that they let it override more convenational moral concerns;

why didnt you just say lawful neutral?

[Aedilred]

why didnt you just say lawful neutral?

Well, four main reasons. First, such a shorthand doesn't fit nicely with the way I wanted to express myself or the point I was trying to make. Second, this isn't a D&D forum. Third, I don't think D&D alignments are all that helpful as character descriptions outside a fairly limited context. Fourth, it isn't really what I meant anyway.

But ignoring all the above, yes, I could have said that.

[GloatingSwine]

but I also think that audiences in general and fantasy in particular have become largely desensitised to fictional violence in itself, while sexualised violence retains the power to shock, so that's often what the author uses to provoke the desired reactions of horror and disgust from the reader.

Although it might just be a lack of imagination in the character and scale of the violence.

For example after the Battle of Kleidon the Byzantine emperor Basil II had somewhere between 8000 and 14000 prisoners' eyes put out. Leaving one man in a hundred with one eye to lead the other 99 home.

[Clertar]

Outlaw King last year gave me a historical satisfaction that few movies have.

[Sapphire Guard]

Han shot first was always a mountain out of a molehill. No one cares when Leia shoots first stormtroopers holding her at gunpoint on Endor.

Re historical accuracy, it depends on the story. 'Are they trying to be historically accurate?' is the key question.

Dunkirk bothered me because the role of the French was played down so much. The scaled down numbers, however, did not, because it's unfeasible to have the correct scale of the evacuation onscreen.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

It looks like Master And Commander: Far Side Of The World hasn't been mentioned yet. It's one of those few movies known for near perfect (or as close as it's going to get anyway) historical accuracy. Waterloo is also worth mentioning for special achievements in reenacting a battle.

[snowblizz]

Dunkirk bothered me because the role of the French was played down so much. The scaled down numbers, however, did not, because it's unfeasible to have the correct scale of the evacuation onscreen.

I watched that and coudln't quite put my finger on what it was that bothered me. Then I saw a youtube forget by whom (History Buff maybe?), who mentioned the lack of numbers and it clicked for me.

[Fyraltari]

Dunkirk isn’t a war movie, it’s an horror movie. It isn’t about the battle of Dunkirk, it is about a bunch of young men desperately trying to escape from an unseen but ever present ennemy.

[The Jack]

Han shot first was always a mountain out of a molehill. No one cares when Leia shoots first stormtroopers holding her at gunpoint on Endor.

Re historical accuracy, it depends on the story. 'Are they trying to be historically accurate?' is the key question.

Dunkirk bothered me because the role of the French was played down so much. The scaled down numbers, however, did not, because it's unfeasible to have the correct scale of the evacuation onscreen.

It was a moving scene, but the biggest historical blunder (other then the town not being mostly rubble) was the little ships: they didn't come in one glorious wave, they were minor suplements to a continuos evacuation.

Also the pilot and his fuel...

I don't care for a lot of minor things. The pamphet and the boom-boom-boom of the tailgun were really nice touches, but that movie took big liberies for drama... and it mostly pays off.

Outlaw King last year gave me a historical satisfaction that few movies have.

Nah it bothered me. The real MC was a cunning and calculating instigator who wanted power IE not a conventional hero that got suckered up with bad situations and noble values. They made him hollywood palatable.

Turned me of the Medicis and a whole load of other historical dramas.

[Rodin]

Dunkirk isn’t a war movie, it’s an horror movie. It isn’t about the battle of Dunkirk, it is about a bunch of young men desperately trying to escape from an unseen but ever present ennemy.

I never thought about that before, but you're right. If you show the French, you're also showing the Germans, and you're also taking away the looming threat of the rearguard being breached at any time. Dunkirk does show the French at the beginning and stresses that they're doing the work of holding off the Germans, and the commander at the end says that he's going to return for the French that bought them the time to escape. I'm pretty sure they also put up the figure of how many French were evacuated in the subsequent days.

The French were not villainized, or forgotten about, or otherwise treated badly by the film. They simply weren't the focus, which was squarely on the evacuation. I don't have a problem with that.

[Fyraltari]

I never thought about that before, but you're right. If you show the French, you're also showing the Germans, and you're also taking away the looming threat of the rearguard being breached at any time. Dunkirk does show the French at the beginning and stresses that they're doing the work of holding off the Germans, and the commander at the end says that he's going to return for the French that bought them the time to escape. I'm pretty sure they also put up the figure of how many French were evacuated in the subsequent days.

The French were not villainized, or forgotten about, or otherwise treated badly by the film. They simply weren't the focus, which was squarely on the evacuation. I don't have a problem with that.

They showed French soldiers holding off the German and French soldiers being denied passage on the ships at the beginning as well as the (historically accurate to the surprise of a friend of mine) refusal of a British officer to leave without the French. Plus the fact that

Spoiler

Show

Gibson is French.

Honestly, speaking as a Frenchman, I was pleased by the treatment the French Army received in Dunkirk it was accurate and respectful, therefore miles ahead of most Anglo-Saxon WWII movies.

[Sapphire Guard]

For the most part, yes, but

Spoiler

Show

the one french lead being someone dressed as an englishman in order to be allowed to flee

could have been chosen better.

I'm not angry about it or anything, I just thought it was slightly unfortunate.

[The Jack]

For the most part, yes, but

Spoiler

Show

the one french lead being someone dressed as an englishman in order to be allowed to flee

could have been chosen better.

I'm not angry about it or anything, I just thought it was slightly unfortunate.

But he's one dude.
And you've got all the brits panicking and going full nationalist on him. Yeah, it's partly justified, but a lot of it doesnt make the brits look good.

[Aedilred]

Han shot first was always a mountain out of a molehill. No one cares when Leia shoots first stormtroopers holding her at gunpoint on Endor.

Re historical accuracy, it depends on the story. 'Are they trying to be historically accurate?' is the key question.

Dunkirk bothered me because the role of the French was played down so much. The scaled down numbers, however, did not, because it's unfeasible to have the correct scale of the evacuation onscreen.

I don't see how it would be unfeasible. Directors have been doing big crowd scenes since the dawn of cinema. Back in the day they did it with thousands of extras; now they tend to use CGI. Any time you've seen an army on screen in the last 20-25 years, if not longer, it's likely that it's been done with CGI, and if done at all well it looks absolutely fine.

Christopher Nolan doesn't like using CGI, which is fair enough in itself, but he didn't compensate for that, either by hiring more extras or by keeping the focus of the camera more tightly restricted so that the vast expanses of empty beach weren't invisible. Compare, for instance, the Dunkirk scene in Atonement where there are probably only a couple of hundred people shown, as in Dunkirk but the scene composition and camerawork meant that it looked crowded and full. As it was, in Dunkirk, we were being constantly told about how there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers stuck on the beach but that was at odds with what we were seeing. It was all told, not shown, which violates one of the fundamental rules of cinematic storytelling, and it was so easily avoidable.

Had that been fixed, I would have come away from the movie with a much better impression. There were still problems, but I think it would have seemed a lot better.

[Scarlet Knight]

Historical accuracy is literally the most important thing in fiction. What's this crap about artistry and craft and theme and structure and plot and characters? Baloney. More apologism for ignorance from the children of our failed public schools. I would literally divorce someone if they told me they liked Amadeus.

But... the soundtrack was AWESOME!

[Clertar]

But... the soundtrack was AWESOME!

Rock me Amadeus

[foelancer]

Well, four main reasons. First, such a shorthand doesn't fit nicely with the way I wanted to express myself or the point I was trying to make. Second, this isn't a D&D forum. Third, I don't think D&D alignments are all that helpful as character descriptions outside a fairly limited context. Fourth, it isn't really what I meant anyway.

But ignoring all the above, yes, I could have said that.

Yeah fair enough:)