|
I'll preface that, while I was annoyed by the fifth season because of the reasons above, it was written well, and have good characters that carried it through. The story "The Ones Who Stay and Fight" from this collection made me so angry, to the point I'd rather not read anything by this author again. It's a response to "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula LeGuin. Omelas is a thought experiment about how we all accept the suffering of another to live in society; in the story it's an actual child locked in a closet, humiliated and beaten to somehow maintain the utopia is Omelas. Everyone has a choice to live in utopia, or walk away, but walking away is an unknown, and not necessarily going to end well for those that do. Now I guess Jemisin didn't accept that, and believed there would be someone who fights the system... so we get a story about a utopia with police who murder (humanely, lol) people whose beliefs don't fit in society, like selfish people, and if the person has children those children might be killed later, or become the secret police, depending if they can conform to society. She explicitly writes it as a response to Omelas, but if that's the case she didn't get what LeGuin was saying; the protagonists in "The Ones Who Stay and Fight" don't fight anything, they are just more actors in the suffering of others, they are like the ones who stay in Omelas. It just seems like Jemisin believes her story's murder and oppression is okay because she thinks it's humane, and that's super hosed up. killer crane fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Apr 3, 2021 |
#
¿
Apr 3, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
mllaneza posted:Black Future Month immediately takes a turn from that first story. Read past it, there are some outstanding stories in there. A couple of my early favorites revolve around food and relationships. There's some mysteries, some tales of sacrifice, some really creepy bodyhorror. I'll give it a try at some point, probably. I've just had a bad taste after fifth season and... I don't know why she decided to take on LeGuin, I just don't get it; maybe it was a fine story until she decided it worked as an argument against one of the best sf writers ever. Also I remember my biggest annoyance with the Fifth Season series: it's effectively Atlas Shrugged, but fantasy. That oppressive have-nots are keeping the best humans down, not allowing humanity to thrive because they fear/are jealous of/exploit the truly talented peak. I've heard interviews with Jemisin, and there's such a disconnect between her belief in public, and what comes across on the page. Maybe reading more of her work would expand/explain, but I've read her most famous, award winning series, and her response to one of the best works of sf literature, and her best foot is not forward.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2021 05:19
|
|
|
Nerdburger_Jansen posted:I just read this, out of curiosity from this description. The vision is one of eternal violence against a disease (bad people) to maintain a utopia. Interestingly, the author predicts your rage, and attributes it to the fact that equality enrages you. The deeper logic appears to be that those who get squeamish at this kind of unending violence just have accepted that inequality is part of the world (meaning that the desire to achieve this utopia, and the willingness to take on this unending violence against the disease, are one and the same). "My oppression is the right kind of oppression cause it oppresses the right people," is a stupid response to the Omelas story. The story just wedges itself as agreeing that society exists on the backs of the oppressed, whether a child in a closet, or a "bad guy" getting killed by the secret police. It doesn't say anything different, in fact its manifesto is to stay and continue the suffering of others. At least in Omelas you could walk away, in Jemisin's story you'd just be killed. It doesn't offer another coherent viewpoint. e: again it may be a fine story by itself, but she explicitly wrote it as a response to Le Guin's story... and I criticize it for failing at that. killer crane fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Apr 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2021 06:56
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:It's almost as if police aren't literally killing people in real life to "preserve utopia" and the real world choices are either to join those police and maybe influence change or get murdered yourself at some point by opposing them. That is what Omelas is about. biracial bear for uncut posted:Also see how many people are in denial about this even happening, or trying to justify it. That is what Omelas is about. biracial bear for uncut posted:The problem ITT is the assumption that the story Jemesin wrote is about a fictional society, and not an indictment against a real one that we actually live in. That is what Omelas is about. Jemisin wrote her story as a response to Le Guin's story; that's not extratextual, she mentions it within the story. It fails as a response, because it doesn't actually say anything new. If it's a retelling it fails, because, while it has suffering, it misses the act of walking away.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:It's almost as if "walking away isn't possible" is part of the response. If that's the case, Jemisin is saying there's no reason to even try not to act in the suffering of others for our own benefit. Walking away, in Omelas, means even trying to not participate in suffering correlates to losing benefits of living in society. So saying walking away isn't possible is saying trying to minimize suffering isn't possible... so we should just participate in it to maximize our own happiness. AGAIN: all this story does is agree with those that stay in Omelas, and you're saying it defends them as the only/right decision; it's a bad response to Le Guin's story, and that's been my only criticism. If you're right, that she intends it to mean walking away is not possible, and suffering is justified, then it's just a story of "gently caress you, got mine." That, and if Fifth Season is a retelling of Atlas Shrugged, I'm leaning on believing NK Jemisin is, through her texts, a huge Libertarian, and maybe the new Ayn Rand. I get I should read more of her work before having such a spicy take. And I don't think she wrote The Ones Who Stay to defend causing suffering, but, again, as a response to Omelas, that's what kind of what it is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:Where is this thing about Fifth Season being a retelling of Atlas Shrugged coming from? Did Jemisin suggest that somewhere? Nah, it's just my own unfair, bad faith take on the theme presented on the page (the superior people are kept down by the greedy masses). They're good books, with well written characters, and palpable emotional prose. On that note though, I don't ever intend to seak out extratextual content by authors to explain what they write. If it was supposed to come across in the story, then it should come across in the story. If it doesn't, they failed in their intention as a writer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
You're missing what act is taking place in Omelas. The point isn't that opting out of society ends the suffering of others; It's that if you try to not participate in the suffering of others you will lose benefits of society. The people in Omelas aren't walking away because they don't want the comforts of that society. They walk away because that don't want to participate in suffering, and they lose their society because of that choice. Just the act of living in Omelas is, at least, passively causes the suffering in that society. It's hyperbolic in the story, because utopias are hyperbolic ideals. So saying "you can't actually walk away from society," in the context of Omelas, is saying "you can't actually attempt to not participate in suffering." If Jemisin's point is that you can't walk away, that you shouldn't try to not participate in suffering, then she's just agreeing with those that stay, and rationalizing their decision. When I saw the name of her story, and someone in another thread said it was a response to Le Guin, I had wondered if/hoped it would give a third way to Omelas. What does staying and fighting mean? How would someone in the Omelas stay without participating in suffering? Then I read it, and it didn't say anything new, it just agreed with one side. I can see the story by itself would be a fine critique of society... But it's not by itself, she wrote it as a response to Omelas, and it fails at that. e: if the point of her story is that we can't not cause suffering, that we should instead embrace the suffering we cause, and cause the right kind of suffering to the right kind of people, then it's an abhorrent message. While maybe that sounds nice for fully automated gay space communism, because this is a thought-experiment-as-story, it's also justifying the same act by others to obtain other societal "ideals," like racial purity, or militaristic hegemony. I don't accept that Jemisin believes a person should strive to cause suffering to obtain the society they desire. killer crane fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Apr 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 13:37
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:I'm not seeing anything that says she's rationalizing the decision, though. Just that it's impossible not to share some of the responsibility/guilt for society being the way it is. That is what Omelas is about. That is the point of the original story by Le Guin. If you're saying Stay and Fight is a retelling, then it fails, because the heart of Omelas is about the consequences of not participating in suffering, and Stay and Fight gives no alternative to participating in suffering, no consequences for not participating. I don't see why she wrote it as a response to Omelas. It was like a golden glove rookie boxer going against the heavy weight champion. Yeah, she's a good writer, but she's taking on greatness. Yeah, on is own, I see the point of the story, it might be a fine story, but it's a response to Le Guin, and as a response it sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
Again, on it's own, it's a fine story, but the story as a response to Omelas is bad. It's bad because walking away is about rejecting your own participation in suffering, and accepting the consequences of that. Staying, in Omelas, is accepting your participation in suffering for personal comfort in society. The action of those that walk away isn't leaving society behind, it's about not being the cause suffering. The worldly application of the story isn't about a trust fund baby going to live in an eco commune in Montana so they don't have to hurt anyone, it's about how trying to ethically consume, or volunteer, or adjusting your life to lessen the suffering of others has consequences to your ability to live, laugh, love in society. So, because this is a response to Omelas, literally saying "don't walk away" is telling you to participate in causing suffering. Either that, or it simply misunderstands what walking away means, and it is arguing against trust fund babies living in an eco commune in Montana. That's why it's a bad response. e: I feel like I'm just retreading, and I don't really want to argue this anymore. I accept that is a good call to action story, where we need to do something to fix society's ills, and maybe that something needs to be drastic. I don't disagree with that message in the story. I think tying this story to Omelas changes the intended message, and makes it a bad story. It can be both. I just wish she hadn't tried to take on Le Guin, because it really did not work. killer crane fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Apr 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 17:48
|
|
|
Dude, the name of the story "The Ones Who...", the call to action at the very end "don't walk away," the fact that she mentions Omelas at all. It's not subtle.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
Then why name it what she did? Why end it with "So don’t walk away. The child needs you, too, don’t you see? You also have to fight for her, now that you know she exists, or walking away is meaningless." Why directly reference Omelas at all? It's not a long story, with a few minor throwaway references to another story. It's short, and very intentionally invites the comparison. As a conversation with The Ones Who Walk Away it fails because it doesn't add anything new, it just entrenches itself in defence of causing suffering. As an homage it fails because it doesn't address the heart of the original. And if the title, direct reference, and thesis statement of the piece are "just references," then the whole thing is a cynical attempt to latch herself onto a more respected author.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
If the story had nothing to do with The Ones Who Walk Away then you're right, it's not a defense of causing suffering. But that's not the case. As a response to/conversation with/argument against The Ones Who Walk Away, which asks if would you allow suffering to continue to maintain the luxuries of society, The Ones Who Stay and Fight says, clearly, yes, as long as it's the right kind of suffering (we'll even do it humanely). e: If it's a cautionary "change now, or suffer our fate," it's still saying to prevent the suffering of all later, you must cause suffering now... Now if that was to be "to prevent suffering later, you must endure your own suffering," then it's a rehash of Omelas, if it's "to prevent suffering later, you must ensure the right people's suffering" then it's a defense of causing suffering. killer crane fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Apr 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure this is the actual argument Jemisin is trying to make: Then she's just landing on the side of causing suffering to make society more comfortable. As a response to The Ones Who Walk Away, it's just agreeing with those that choose to stay in Omelas. It's not staying and fighting, it's just rationalizing staying. killer crane fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Apr 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I think some of these criticisms of the wizard and x-men stuff overlook some simple human aspects. You can have all the power in the world but you can't make people like you and want to genuinely be your friend. A small minority of people with great power could be controlled and manipulated by society over generations based on that simple idea alone. Hey isn't that the theme to, like, all of Ayn Rand's books? The masses have controlled and manipulated the truly powerful because they don't like the powerful (they're jealous or afraid of them). It's the disparity of power that makes these stories ridiculous. But I'll bite, say they were subjugated, say their powers were manipulated by others. What do they do when they're free to use their powers? In X-Men the powerful fight each other over whether they should subjugated normies or not. Ayn Rand just had the powerful leave the unwashed masses to wallow, it maybe passively harming, but not directly. The Fifth Season had them blowing up the most populous cities without warning, and killing the majority of humanity; sure they're trying to fix the world, but there was no attempt to mitigate death. It brings it back to justifying causing the right kind of suffering to the right kind of people. If I, as a reader, didn't know Jemisin's race, or that it influencer her writing, The Fifth Season is a treatsy on might makes right; don't let anyone tell you not to use your power to create the world you want, whether you're a marxist, nazi, whatever. Destroy the world if you have to. killer crane fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 6, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:If that is what you got from those books then you're a terrible person, because the point isn't "whoever survived was right after all" or "might makes right" or whatever you're projecting here. Sorry you're in a sub that discusses theme and subtext. Something can be well written and have poo poo themes. What do you think it means that the story justified genocide as world saving? That the fear of the wizards is portrayed as bigotry, when the wizards murder people often, and sometimes by accident? Why do you think Jemisin chose such a wide power difference between wizards and normies, giving one the ability to singlehandedly commit genocide? Why write them as victim and savior? What does that say about those in/with power currently in the real world? biracial bear for uncut posted:Also drop the Ayn Rand horse poo poo, she was a poo poo writer and a poo poo person, stop dragging her corpse into this thread. I bring old Ayn up because her fiction writing about discordant power structures, where effectively the ubermensch are kept down by lesser humans, is an apt comparison to the power dynamic is The Fifth Season.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
The British in India and Pakistan? French occupied Vietnam? Poland under soviet rule? Various points in Japanese and Korean history? Each of these had mixes of cultural, financial, and population power greater than their colonizers within the occupied area (ei Vietnam was not more powerful than France, but we're more powerful than the French in Vietnam). All is these eventually gained independence from the colonials, and some took generations, and sometimes only after realizing/consolidating internal power. They're not great examples, because the colonizers could just spend more power from outside the colony the overpower uprising within (see history), but they work as microcosm.
killer crane fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Apr 6, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
quote is not edit
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
Ccs posted:Ann Leckie's The Raven Tower. I just want to say the power dynamic in this story is similar to The Fifth Season (powerful being subjugated), but Strength and Patience doesn't commit genocide to get what it wants, it liberates, and the city loses the luxury they obtained from the raven subjugating it. Ccs posted:Yeah I mean I assume the people who would be organizing a revolt were cognizant of the fact that the colonizers could outspend them. If we transpose this to fantasy literature it's similar to how in the Inheritance trilogy some gods have to serve humans, not because the humans are more powerful than them but because there are more powerful gods out there than can crush the currently servile gods. Most of them could have revolted, or liberated earlier, but the colonists had convinced them they lacked enough power.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Many oppressed peoples have the ability to kill, or not kill. I'm not sure why you're hung up on the magical earth mage aspect. Power disparity exists in the real world without magical earth mages. The problem pretty much everyone itt has with this book is how it addresses power dynamics, and the implications of that in the theme of oppression. like ccs pointed out: oppression flows from power, not to.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Uh "everyone in this thread" except the people who disagree, I guess? yeah, that's what i meant. Jaxyon posted:Anyhow, your argument seems to rest on the idea that the Guardians have no power or not enough to defeat the orogenes, but the book makes it clear that they certainly are able to completely genocide them when a Fifth Season comes. The power dynamic between humans and orogenes isn't changed. So the guardians can genocide orogenes, because the orogenes can/will/have murdered entire cities in accident during fifth seasons. In the book that's seen as a bad genocide, which you think any genocide should be... BUT the orogenes go ahead and genocide humans (who don't have the powers to stop them), and that genocide is seen as completely justified. Which goes back to the idea that causing the right kind of suffering to the right kind of people is justifiable. Jaxyon posted:It's like asking why black people in the US don't bomb state capitols on the regular, and ignoring the existence of police. To extract the metaphor like below, in the story they do bomb the capitol, they bomb the city, they burn down every house and apartment, they poison the water supply, and they are completely justified in doing that. They don't just kill the cops, or the instrument of the state, they kill anyone, guilty or innocent, for living in the society they are oppressed in. In the end it's to save the world. Hey, maybe it's a tear down the system metaphor, but it justifies genocide to do it. killer crane fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Apr 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:But what Jemisin is proposing is: What if the fears were founded? What if the oppressed people really could ice entire towns or shake apart cities? Wouldn't oppressing them be justified? And of course, the obvious message in the books is: No. It wouldn't be right to enslave and oppress minorities even if they were mighty earth-wizards. I think that is where the metaphor/thought experiment breaks, if that is the message she intended, because once you apply that to current, real world power structures it becomes libertarian liberation fantasy. You can't apply everything else directly to the metaphor, but say the power structure are imagined power structures in real life. Once you take into account the power disparity then the real world application becomes Elon Musk complaining about higher taxes, or Mitch Mcconnell complaining about higher participation in the democratic process. To make democracy work, or any social program work, yes, we do need to take control from those in the minority with power, the 1%.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 14:13
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:The thought experiment is specifically "what if oppressed minorities were powerful" and again, the oppression would not be justified. That's just picking and choosing to not apply the power dynamic to the metaphor. There's a vast difference between "oppressed minorites who happen to be powerful," and "a minority oppressed because of their power." Even as a "what if oppressed minorities were powerful," it then goes on to justify them committing genocide. It just doesn't work. Uranium Phoenix posted:I have no idea where you're getting the libertarian/politicians/1% stuff because they are not an oppressed minority; it is not a metaphor for them at all. Because in the story the orogenes are specifically a minority oppressed because of their enormous power. Currently what minority group holds extreme power? What do they view as oppression against them? They absolutely believe they are being oppressed for their power. Uranium Phoenix posted:Jemisin is clearly writing black fantasy, rooted in black American experience. Also, it's not a book about democracy or what political institutions could look like. I don't think she's "clearly" writing that, because the metaphor is broken by the power dynamic she chose, so it's not clear. She may have intended that, but I don't really care about authorial intent; so maybe you don't believe in death of the author, and that's where the disagreement comes from. I know it's not a book directly about political institutions, but it's a book alluding to our current society, and the power dynamics within that society.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
Revolving a power fantasy around saving the world by committing genocide is a deep level of hosed-upness, whether your feel disenfranchised by your race or because you're an incel neckbeard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The world is not saved by genocide in the Broken Earth series. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Alabaster uses his mega-wizard power to cause the rifting (which kills... almost everyone) without any warning in order to begin the process to save the world.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:The Rifting was a consequence of opening the Obelisk Gate, not a direct application of Alabaster's orogene powers (and also, doing that resulted in Alabaster losing his Orogene abilities and turning into a Stone Eater). This isn't misrepresenting the plot though. Alabaster's magical actions to save the world kills massive amounts of people... and his actions are portrayed as necessary to save the world. Causing the right kind of suffering to the right kind of people. That's the problem with the story as "just a power fantasy." It hinges the entire story, the heroic climax, on originally ripping the earth apart. It ends up as an apocalyptic/post-apocalyptic power fantasy that justifies having the apocalypse as a good thing in order to reshape the world correctly. That's comic book villainy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's not clear at all that Alabaster had to cause the Rifting, just that it was his understanding of it along with his wish to destroy the civilization that had traumatized him. huh, I thought it was essential to the story that the rifting was Alabaster's first step in saving the world. I feel like I've come across as hating this series, but really I appreciate it in a lot of ways. Jemisin is talented, the characters are well written, and most of the story is compelling. The books deal with trauma and loss in very real and sensitive ways. That it stumbles, in my eyes, over the issues of power dynamics, and justifications for causing suffering is a disappointment, because it is otherwise a great series.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
I think the weapon thing keeps coming up because guns should be regulated, and libertarians keep coming up because people with extreme wealth should be taxed. Because of how the story deals with power disparity it can be both read as being against racial oppression, but also against curtailing any "freedom." I think everyone arguing against the use of power in the story understands what the writer intended, but sees it as also unintentionally (we hope) defending some pretty lousy ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:Oh, come on. I honestly don't know Jemisin's views on economics and guns. And really, from the books, I could assume she believes people should own all the guns to prevent tyranny and oppression, or that government control of economics is just another tool of an oppressive system. That I can't tell is frustrating.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Regulation is not oppression and it's pretty messed up to suggest that's an apt metaphor. I mean... removing access to legal abortion, and limiting marriage rights are regulations.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:What about forced sterilization, rape, murder, and child abuse? You said regulation is not oppression, and that's silly, because of course it can be oppression. Those things are also oppression. Also I think the discussion about threat misses real problem with power disparity in the metaphor. We can agree you shouldn't oppress people at all, even for their "power" in real life, but should regulated/democratize power in real life. We can also agree that oppression flows from power, not to power, and justice is the democratization of power to attempt to stop oppression's flow. Now when applying the treatment of the orogene as metaphor it is (in most cases) hyperbolic; for metaphor hyperbole is normal. How hyperbolic should it be read to apply to real life? Reading it less hyperbolic it is a minority being oppressed, reading it more hyperbolic it is someone's power being democratized. So the power structure in the story doesn't work for this metaphor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It does not matter because the people doing the oppression always think the fear has a real foundation. So we all agree that controls on something legitimately dangerous is usually okay. Fear is a good excuse for gun control. So what happens to the metaphor of oppression when you give the oppressors something to actually fear about the oppressed? It breaks the metaphor because it muddles bigoted oppression and control for actual social safety.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
let's examine the wrong things about this postJaxyon posted:Lets examine all the different wrong things going on in this part of your post alone: You're right, I didn't say oppression is control, I don't know where you're getting this. It's not like I said "regulating guns is oppression." but that you've somehow read it like that shows how broken the metaphor is. Jaxyon posted:2) Child abuse isn't "regulation" Wow, thank you for clarifying that. I must have forgotten writing that. Oh, I'm being told I did not say anything like that. Metaphor does not require a 1:1 text to real life application. Jaxyon posted:3) Collective punishment for a group for potential danger isn't justified I'm not sure you're reading the post you quoted. Do you feel like taking away automatic weapons from gun owners is punishment? Cause that's the only reading of your third point that makes any sense, because I was taking about gun regulation, and now your point again is proof positive of the metaphor is broken. Jaxyon posted:4) The oppressor always thinks the oppressed is legitimately dangerous Again, what do we do with things that really are 100% provably dangerous? Jaxyon posted:5) Fear isn't a good excuse for gun control, safety is We seek safety from things we fear. Safety isn't a motivating factor in and of itself. Jaxyon posted:
Controlling their user of the guns would be just, and because the guns are intrinsic to them, it would be a control of them as people... The metaphor again breaks. Jaxyon posted:
more likely you'd get a gun rights activist, or some alt-right libertarian chud reading it, viewing the oppression of power as a metaphor for control of power, and it would not be a misreading of the text.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I think part of the issue is you've picked up Ccs's argument, who did liken oppression against wizards to gun control. I think ccs is trying to point out the same thing; not justifying oppression because of their power, but that someone can read the metaphor as controlling power. (I think) Ccs is coming at it from a gun nuts perspective, showing you how someone like that can interpret the story as oppression against themself, trying to show that that person isn't illogical in their interpretation, in order to prove that the metaphor breaks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Lets get to the core of this, then. Yeah, that's the problem, I do want to limit people's freedom to buy automatic weapons because I see that as a danger. I want to limit people's economic freedom when they inherit extreme wealth because hording that wealth is a societal danger. This storys thesis can easily be read as being against both of those things, and it won't have to ignore anything in the texts. I mean, that's why having people born with AK47s growing out of their arms confuses the point of oppression. How do you ensure everyone's safety? You'd have to put some control on those people, and the use of their Ak47 arms. Where's the line between oppression and control at that point? killer crane fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:But the issue you have with the text is that orogenes don't exactly correspond to marginalized people in the actual world. Giving the orogenes magic powers lends them to be read as corresponding to groups in power who feel oppressed, and legitimizing those feeling, instead of corresponding to an actual marginalized groups.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:But the orogenes are a (textually) actual marginalized group. This is my issue with the argument that they're a poor metaphor for marginalized groups. They are literally a marginalized group. You don't need to read them symbolically at all. I don't think it's been argued that they don't symbolize marginalized groups. The problem is that this symbolism is broken to include people currently in/with power, and legitimizes those people feeling marginalized because of their power.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I'm arguing that they don't symbolize marginalized groups. I'm arguing that they are literally a marginalized group. There are no separate vehicle and tenor here. There is no need to read them symbolically at all. I said a while ago that I was just looking at subtext in the story. Yeah, in the story they literally are a marginalized group, and they literally have superpowers, and they're literally marginalized because of their superpowers. To drag up old Ayn, she's not just literally writing a story about people being oppressed for being really good at trains. I don't like to just examine surface level story. If I can't apply a story to real world, or if I'm being told not to (cause it's only a story, bro) then it's a bad story to me. PeterWeller posted:I agree that the oppressed wizard trope is flawed and implausible because it fundamentally mistakes the power dynamics behind oppression. Yeah, that's all I'm really talking about, and what disappointed me about the story. It's a big flaw that's not resolved in an otherwise great series. killer crane fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 02:07
|
|
|
Y'all need to define when control becomes oppression, cause that point seems to be one of the issues here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:There's no universal definition but for me it's when you hurt, damage, or treat unjustly someone for things they were born with, like ethnicity, skin color, rock magic, orientation etc. How about folks being born into extreme wealth? They had no control over they. Removing their wealth is a damage to them, especially seen by them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You're not born wealthy as a part of your being, it's a possession you gain after birth just like a gun. I asked at what point control becomes oppression, and your said when you're treated poorly for something you're born with. I gave you an example of people born with something they feel oppressed for, and now you're both saying that doesn't count, but also would be oppression in extreme harsh treatment, but it's still not valid, and you still didn't really answer at what point control becomes oppression for the wealthy. Also is religion an valid reason to oppress someone? It's a belief given to you, or one your chose after birth, so it doesn't pass the litmus test of intrinsic quality one's born with to define oppression. At what point does controlling someone's religious freedoms cross into oppression?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 13:29
|
|