OOTS #1219 - The Discussion Thread

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean there’s a lot of fiction where special abilities are exclusive to a specific subset of the cast...

Examples: Katherine Kurtz, Deryni; Robin Hobb, Farseer Trilogy.

That doesn't mean it's not wrong, though.

That looks like a pretty arrogant stance to take: "you're writing fantasy wrong" (well, that's how it came off to me). If you want to tell a better story, write one.

There's plenty of examples where it applies in real life as well. Say you have two people who have differing centers of gravity but are otherwise equal in every aspect. The one with the lower center of gravity will always be a better swimmer due to how swimming works physically, and the one with the higher will always be a better runner due to how running functions physically. Reality isn't fair, so why should fiction be?

That's not a bad way to look at it.
I'll offer a slightly different take based on a discussion I had with my son. (a la each person has different gifts/characteristics)

We just watched the recent Disney movie release, Mulan - the one with real people, not the cartoon one with Eddie Murphy as a wise cracking little dragon. I enjoyed it. It's a different presentation of a legendary character, and it's got a little bit of that Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon style of martial arts conmagic which I personally find appealing).

My son's critique was that in this version of the story, Mulan is shown to have extraordinary powers - referred to as chi in this movie - and has to hide them due to cultural issues. In the cartoon version she started as an ordinary person who grew into her heroic success by by wit, pluck, perseverence and a little luck. He prefers that kind of story arc to "hey, look, you have super powers!" stories.

Which takes me to your point that I think relates somewhat to the OoTS story and charcters: in the narrative norms of Dungeons and Dragons, each character is different. (see your CofG point). In the Pre WoTC D&D, roll for stats rather than point buy, you could nearly guarantee (due to dice roll distribution) that of the six characters in your party they will not be equal; and yet they'll each be a character in play. Ya know what? For a quarter of a century, and longer, people had great fun doing that.

Each character has value, and how that value contributes to team success is (ideally) emergent during play - it is not pre-ordained. (I am playing a bard with a sub optimized paladin and a sub optimized cleric presently in a 5e game; the party still works together and finds ways to succeed).

[Metastachydium]

Star Wars doesn't do that, though. Most protagonists in the original trilogy aren't force sensitive. And those that are aren't made into gods that are a class above everyone one. Any interpretation that it does says more about your own biases than about the movies themselves.

In the first movie, Luke never does anything alone. He's never set apart from the rest. He hires Han to get him to Alderaan because he can't do it himself. He hooks him into helping him save the Princess because he can't do it himself. He then joins the rebels to attack the Death Star because he can't do it himself. The original movie, and trilogy, are a story about Luke, Ben, Leia, Han, Chewie, R2, and C3PO. Less than 29% of those really display any force powers, and them having the Force is never really made central to the plot. The whole story could have played out just fine without any of them having the Force. Because while the Force was a good tool that helped them out of a few bad situations, it was never central to a task at hand. Aiming the torpedo onto the first Death Star wasn't implied to require the Force. Destroying the AT-ATs with harpoons didn't require the Force. Shutting down the shields on Endor's moon didn't require the Force.

So no, Star Wars doesn't send a message that "people are born into different classes, and these classes matter, some people being born superior in value to others". Characters who lack force powers are never set out to be inferior in any way. The closest the original trilogy came to that was with the weak-willed being susceptible to mind tricks, but even that was clearly demonstrated to not apply to all non-sensitives. You really have no basis to make the claim that Star Wars promotes prejudice in this way, other than your own apparent biases than acknowledging differences apparently inherently leads to discrimination.

Glad to hear that. (For the record, I never said Star Wars was a crime against humanity (heck, I haven't even seen all the original trilogy (I know, I know, burn the heretic etc. etc.)), I just clarified Peelee's position for someone who misunderstood something, and had I said that, this would still not be a hill I care to die on.)

That looks like a pretty arrogant stance to take: "you're writing fantasy wrong" (well, that's how it came off to me). If you want to tell a better story, write one.

Didn't mean to sound arrogant (obviously. Whoever wants to sound arrogant?) All I'm saying is that 1) I can see why Peelee would take issue with this specific aspect of certain settings and 2) „it's done a lot” tends not to be a very good argument in such contexts (I mean, hostile stereotyping is also done a lot without folks realizing it's problematic, but that doesn't make it nice).

[KorvinStarmast]

Didn't mean to sound arrogant (obviously. Whoever wants to sound arrogant?) All I'm saying is that 1) I can see why Peelee would take issue with this specific aspect of certain settings and 2) „it's done a lot” tends not to be a very good argument in such contexts (I mean, hostile stereotyping is also done a lot without folks realizing it's problematic, but that doesn't make it nice).

OK, sorry if I came off all grumpy there. As TR once said: it's not the critic who counts. (And that finger points at me a bit given some of my criticisms of what has happened in Star Wars stories ...)

[dancrilis]

Exactly. Plus, there's people having different abilities and presenting them as equals but not better (eg the Charles Xavier's teachings in X-men), as opposed to presenting them as objectively better and superior (eg Magneto's teachings in X-men). It's perfectly fine for people to be different. That's natural. It's not fine for differences to create a different class of people. Which, hey, is the exact message of X-men!

The older I get the more I love X-men.

I am not sure I am following - X-Men specifically has a whole class of people (mutants) who have superhuman abilities inaccessible to other people (like Star Wars and the force) which you seem fine with but I understood that you didn't like there being a being such a class of people i.e:

It's a whole separate biological class of people. That is what I take issue with.

So I am unsure again on what the issue on this is with RotJ relating to the force being strong in some families.

[Peelee]

Star Wars doesn't do that, though.

It does. As you correctly point out, the original trilogy does not, but Star Wars encompasses more than the original trilogy, and large and prominent amounts of both old Canon and new Canon do push that message.

I am not sure I am following - X-Men specifically has a whole class of people (mutants) who have superhuman abilities inaccessible to other people (like Star Wars and the force) which you seem fine with but I understood that you didn't like there being a being such a class of people

It's about the representation. Which is why I delineated between Professor X and Magneto's teachings.