WooHooMan
Auror
Barbarian heroes tend to be shirtless so I guess that's something.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Black vs White symbolism
- Thread starter Gryphos
- Start date
Barbarian heroes tend to be shirtless so I guess that's something.
DeathtoTrite
Troubadour
I have to disagree with the article... a lot. Trying to say that any case of black and white is a case of ingrained racism is pretty stupid actually. I don't think anyone reading about the Dark Tower of Mordor was thinking "oh no, here come the ethnically diverse people!" Same applies to Nazgul. As someone already pointed out, plenty of white supremacist groups have gone for black uniforms. If black==impure, clearly the SS were not informed.
We fear the dark because its the unknown, not because of some ingrained racism. Yes, some things portray ethnicity of non white races with questionable motives. No, this in no way characterizes the whole trope.
What I dislike more about this article is it perverts the writing process from a creative exercise in discipline into trying to achieve a goal probably not originally intended in the story and one that will transforms your work into a political soapbox.
We fear the dark because its the unknown, not because of some ingrained racism. Yes, some things portray ethnicity of non white races with questionable motives. No, this in no way characterizes the whole trope.
What I dislike more about this article is it perverts the writing process from a creative exercise in discipline into trying to achieve a goal probably not originally intended in the story and one that will transforms your work into a political soapbox.
WooHooMan
Auror
I did. In fact, I read a thing that argued Tolkien intentionally put racist implications in his work to make them seem more archaic.
But be that as it may or may not be, I think this interpretation of the cliche just proves it's a dumb, dated cliche and it's about time we get rid of it.
Mindfire
Istar
I wouldn't go that far. Things stick around long enough to become clichés for a reason. Though they may send unintentionally harmful messages, I don't think we should get rid of them altogether. (Baby, bathwater.) But rather, we should seek to understand them, understand why they are so resonant and enduring, and then either use or subvert them in a way that is intelligent and furthers the story we seek to tell.
Very well said, Mindfire.
Ireth
Myth Weaver
On the topic of subverting (or rather, inverting) the black/white cliche, I find Disney's Tarzan to be an interesting example. In the jungle, light is bad and dark is good. Light represents sunlight, exposure and danger; dark represents shade, cover and safety.
DeathtoTrite
Troubadour
Its overused in the sense that "Oh no, the big bad black doomey doom villain! A far more interesting subversion, in my mind, is not dark good, white bad, but black and white are together and are both evil in that austere sinister way.
WooHooMan
Auror
Like a yin-yang type thing? I'm a little surprised those aren't more common.
Although, I think a more interesting "subversion" is to have good and evil but find a more unique way of symbolizing them. I think that's all I've been talking about this whole thread.
I don't think anyone cares about the unintentional harmful messages and I doubt too many people don't understand why the cliche worked.
I think we should encourage people to find new approaches to symbolizing concepts like morality rather than encouraging people to stick with the old symbols because they've worked in the past. I also don't think simply subverting cliches is especially impressive to the point where it should be encouraged over inventing new approaches.
Am I making sense? It's late and I've had a long day.
Last edited:
Miskatonic
Auror
What's wrong with everyone deciding what type of audience they want to address with their interpretation of morality so people will gravitate towards what they enjoy and relate to? I don't see the point of turning literature into social engineering.
There are a lot of different points of view to cover a full spectrum of interpretations of morality without having to demonize one or the other.
Gaijin Saga deals with Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, etc. A big part of the story is understanding these spiritual paths and the cultures that have embraced them. My other story is probably going to appeal to a majority white audience that likes that type of world, though there still will be elements of non-white cultures in there.
Diversity is a variety of outlooks, so if that's what we want we should embrace it.
Last edited:
WooHooMan
Auror
I'm sorry but I'm a little confused as to what you're saying here. I don't think I've said that people shouldn't portray different interpretations of morality and I've been actively speaking in favor of finding diverse/different ways of portraying convention good vs. evil morality.
I have no idea what your talking about with "social engineering" or religions or white audiences liking non-white whatevers - like, I seriously don't know what you're getting at. I feel like you're putting words in my mouth.
Did you just make this reply to plug your story?
I think maybe we should make the thread's subject clear: we are only talking about moral absolutism (good vs. evil). Other systems of morality exists and absolutely can/should be written about but they are irrelevant to this specific thread.
On the subject of moral absolutism, we are talking about visual symbols meant to represent good and evil.
I'm arguing in favor of finding new ways to express the dichotomy of good and evil without relying on the time-worn "black vs. white" symbol.
Miskatonic
Auror
Nah not trying to plug my story. I did misinterpret some of what you are saying.
I interpreted that in the wrong way. Replacing symbolism from the past with something else, assuming the past symbols were somehow wrong or bad. Hence trying to influence the general idea of morality, thus social engineering. I missed the mark by a long shot on this one now that I read it in the real context.
The thread's subject has weaved all over the place, so what you were referring to in your post might have come across as referring to something else where your dialog with Mindfire was concerned. I thought you were talking about presenting a different approach to interpreting morality, coming from a cultural standpoint and not the basic duality of good and evil.
My apologies, wasn't trying to come across as combative or trying to put words in your mouth.
I guess sometimes we make an ass out of ourselves for everyone else to see.
I interpreted that in the wrong way. Replacing symbolism from the past with something else, assuming the past symbols were somehow wrong or bad. Hence trying to influence the general idea of morality, thus social engineering. I missed the mark by a long shot on this one now that I read it in the real context.
The thread's subject has weaved all over the place, so what you were referring to in your post might have come across as referring to something else where your dialog with Mindfire was concerned. I thought you were talking about presenting a different approach to interpreting morality, coming from a cultural standpoint and not the basic duality of good and evil.
My apologies, wasn't trying to come across as combative or trying to put words in your mouth.
I guess sometimes we make an ass out of ourselves for everyone else to see.
Last edited:
WooHooMan
Auror
My apologies, wasn't trying to come across as combative or trying to put words in your mouth.
I guess sometimes we make an ass out of ourselves for everyone else to see.
Hey, don't worry about it. No one can ever keep track of who says what in a thread that's been going on after three pages. That's just how forums seem to work.
