Mister Manticore Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Nerdanel' post='1468947' date='Aug 5 2008, 10.38']I meant that when an author writes a character with racial prejudices there are really only two options:[/quote] I don't agree with your expression, but I think there is something to say: "There is a technical term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot.'" Mary Sue has nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastard of Godsgrace Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Mister Manticore' post='1468955' date='Aug 5 2008, 17.45']I don't agree with your expression, but I think there is something to say: "There is a technical term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot.'" Mary Sue has nothing to do with it.[/quote] I think it has, since character which has views author disapproves of cannot be considered Mary Sue which by definition is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Manticore Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace' post='1468963' date='Aug 5 2008, 10.49']I think it has, since character which has views author disapproves of cannot be considered Mary Sue which by definition is perfect.[/quote] I don't consider most Mary Sues to have sufficiently developed character to have views in the first place. But not being a Mary Sue doesn't determine anything about the views of a character as relates to an author's own. It's really two different issues, and bringing it up? Just seems confused to me. Perhaps as bad as the complaints about Moorcock's essay being off target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 I've tried to read Moorcock specifically [u]Elric of Melnebone[/u]. It was okay. I've never finished the second book in the series. Tolkien remains a favorite dispite Mr. Moorcock's dislike of LOTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Manticore Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1468983' date='Aug 5 2008, 10.59']I've tried to read Moorcock specifically [u]Elric of Melnebone[/u]. It was okay. I've never finished the second book in the series.[/quote] I'd suggest reading some of his other books, he has written a lot more than just Elric. Or try some of his short stories if you don't want to read a whole novel. [quote]Tolkien remains a favorite dispite Mr. Moorcock's dislike of LOTR.[/quote] Why would it? Is there someone going around saying we should immediately disavow Tolkien because there is some criticism of him? Seriously, I begin to wonder if people are somehow getting the idea that the real intent of Moorcock's essay is to cause us all to burn every copy of The Hobbit, LOTR and the Silmarillon upon a great big bonfire while roasting marshmallows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdanel Posted August 5, 2008 Author Share Posted August 5, 2008 Mary Sues tend to have views that are identical to the author's own. I was writing quickly (unlike I did with the thread-starting post) due to the speed at which this thread is moving and the area I had to cover, but here it is all over again, simplified. EITHER 1) A character's racial prejudices are approved by the author. -> NOT A FLAW as far as the author is concerned. OR 2) A character's racial prejudices are not approved by the author. -> FLAW as far as the author is concerned. A tangential point: A Mary Sue does not have any real flaws. ("Flaws" like "not being able to play the piano" when it never comes up in the story, "being too thin", or "caring too much about her friends" do not count. "Being so beautiful it is a curse" especially does not count.) A Mary Sue cannot be wrong about things like racism. If she is racist it is because it is the Right Thing in the author's universe. Therefore, if a character has racial prejudices and the author does not agree with them (like Tolkien, for example), the character is not a Mary Sue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Manticore Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Nerdanel' post='1469030' date='Aug 5 2008, 11.28']I was writing quickly (unlike I did with the thread-starting post) due to the speed at which this thread is moving and the area I had to cover, but here it is all over again, simplified.[/quote] Ahem, you are going off in the wrong direction, perhaps I have been unclear in what I was saying, but I will try once again. I am not saying I am having a problem understanding you, I just think your expression of your ideas is not a good way to say it, in regards using the term Mary Sue, which is primarily a different issue regarding a character, not necessarily tied to the one you were discussing. In other words, you're confusing two issues, which don't necessarily fall together. They may share some similarities, but again, a character not being a Mary Sue doesn't automatically mean a character's views do not represent the author's. Sorry, but it just doesn't make a good argument. You can do better I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdanel Posted August 5, 2008 Author Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Mister Manticore' post='1469061' date='Aug 5 2008, 19.47']In other words, you're confusing two issues, which don't necessarily fall together. They may share some similarities, but again, a character not being a Mary Sue doesn't automatically mean a character's views do not represent the author's. Sorry, but it just doesn't make a good argument. You can do better I'm sure.[/quote] You are getting it the wrong way around. I was saying that the character's views in this case do not represent the author's -> (and, by the way) the character is not a Mary Sue. The Mary Sue thing was a tangential conclusion, not an argument to support my main point. It sounds like I should have written it out it more detail and better, though, although at least some people seem to have understood it like I meant it... I maintain that my logic is sound, although my writing may have been too hasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightsnake Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 I have read or tried quite a bit of Moorcock's output. Elric, Corum, Hawkmoon, Dancers at the End of time, and some others. Frankly, his criticism is largely incorrect and a lot of it seems a thinly veiled ego endeavor filled to the brim with hypocrisy. Does he even read his own work when he bemoans heroes behaving as 'eternal children' despite Elric running away, lamenting the unfairness of it all? Does he not get that while he flings insults at Tolkien for lamenting the loss of a Britain past, so much of his fiction is full of the laments of bygone ages? He comes across as a bitter old baby who can't handle Tolkien is more popular than he is when he thinks he's doing something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote]Does he even read his own work when he bemoans heroes behaving as 'eternal children' despite Elric running away, lamenting the unfairness of it all?[/quote] Yes, but that's the POINT of Elric in so many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Manticore Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Nerdanel' post='1469073' date='Aug 5 2008, 11.55']I maintain that my logic is sound, although my writing may have been too hasty.[/quote] Well, all the more reason to work on it rather than trying to defend it. I await your improvements. [quote name='Lightsnake' post='1469096' date='Aug 5 2008, 12.09']He comes across as a bitter old baby who can't handle Tolkien is more popular than he is when he thinks he's doing something different.[/quote] Really? I thought he came across as more of a Gothic Punk with pretensions of Glory. But not the modern kind of punk with the dyed hair. More like with a Cowboy hat. But no Karate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slurktan Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1468327' date='Aug 4 2008, 19.56']I'm probably the closest one to it that's responded so far and it's because I'm sympathetic to his arguments, even if I don't support them wholeheartedly. There is much about Tolkien that has made me uneasy before, especially in recent re-reads.[/quote] I'm just curious here but I'd like to see what makes you uneasy about Tolkien's work. I'm not going to argue with you or anything just am interested given that I am interested by a lot of things that you have posted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Manticore Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 Well, I'm afraid of how it promotes smoking and binge eating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turlough Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 I've only read LotR once (maybe one and a half times, I can't recall), but my main problem with it is the sheer dichotic nature of it. Sauron is evil. Period. Frodo, Gandalf, and their crew must destroy evil, because evil will enslave the world. IIRC, Gandalf is even supposed to be the physical incarnation of Tolkien's God. While I love the uhh.... flavor, I guess you can call it, of Middle-Earth, the backbone of the story is simply silly. I also thought his style a little long-winded at times, especially the Tom Bombadil stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerdanel Posted August 5, 2008 Author Share Posted August 5, 2008 Mister Manticore: I edited the intermediate logic step into my original post. On a second look, I think my text worked as it was, but since you were having problems I decided that I should make it simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Turlough' post='1469187' date='Aug 5 2008, 18.57']I've only read LotR once (maybe one and a half times, I can't recall), but my main problem with it is the sheer dichotic nature of it. Sauron is evil. Period. Frodo, Gandalf, and their crew must destroy evil, because evil will enslave the world.[/quote] This is fair, as most of Sauron's character development takes place in [i]The Silmarillion[/i] and [i]Unfinished Tales[/i], where his real character arc is revealed. Originally he was proud but not 'evil'. It was prolonged exposure to Morgoth, whom he wished to learn from, that made him so. [quote]IIRC, Gandalf is even supposed to be the physical incarnation of Tolkien's God.[/quote] No, he isn't. Gandalf is a Maiar, one of the angelic-like powers, but his abilities are hugely restricted whilst in Middle-earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightsnake Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Shryke' post='1469112' date='Aug 5 2008, 13.17']Yes, but that's the POINT of Elric in so many ways.[/quote] then Moorcock shouldn't be whining about other characters if he makes his intentionally despicable. And who are the ones who stand up to do the right thing at the end? Sounds like Tolkien's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Lightsnake' post='1469209' date='Aug 5 2008, 14.10']then Moorcock shouldn't be whining about other characters if he makes his intentionally despicable. And who are the ones who stand up to do the right thing at the end? Sounds like Tolkien's.[/quote] That's really stupid reasoning. Elric is SUPPOSED to be whiny. Moorcock is criticizing heroes who are supposed to be heroic, but are on closer examination, whiny children. Basically, hitting the guy next to you's target dead centre doesn't count as good aim if you were aiming at your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightsnake Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Shryke' post='1469221' date='Aug 5 2008, 14.20']That's really stupid reasoning. Elric is SUPPOSED to be whiny. Moorcock is criticizing heroes who are supposed to be heroic, but are on closer examination, whiny children. Basically, hitting the guy next to you's target dead centre doesn't count as good aim if you were aiming at your own.[/quote] Making a character an intentional whiny brat to satirize other heroes who aren't whiny brats and, in fact, are nothing like you describe reveals your own immaturity, lack of ability and knowledge. Moorcock failed in all respects, it appears. Though it's strange that so many of his other protagonists seem to follow Elric on the 'whiny little child' scale. In between Moorcock's rantings, you'd think he would've bothered to at least try to show someone how it was done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Manticore Posted August 5, 2008 Share Posted August 5, 2008 [quote name='Nerdanel' post='1469190' date='Aug 5 2008, 13.00']Mister Manticore: I edited the intermediate logic step into my original post. On a second look, I think my text worked as it was, but since you were having problems I decided that I should make it simpler.[/quote] Sorry, I don't see any actual edit to your words regarding the section I was concerned about. Just looks like you added a post script and removed a closing tag at the end. [quote name='Werthead' post='1469201' date='Aug 5 2008, 13.06']No, he isn't. Gandalf is a Maiar, one of the angelic-like powers, but his abilities are hugely restricted whilst in Middle-earth.[/quote] Perhaps a better way to put it would be that he's a direct agent of God (or rather, the equivalent powers of Tolkien's Middle-Earth)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.