He means things like “women”, “men”, “blacks”, “whites”, “short people”, “tall people”—as opposed to “Jedis” (Starwars), “Numenoreans” (Lord of the Rings), “Wizards” (Harry Potter).
Let’s not make obvious fails of understanding here.
Pretty much, although I’d use less politically divisive before subtler. Writers have been using invented species, bloodlines, Differently Powered Individuals, and what have you as stand-ins for real-world marginalized groups for about as long as people have been writing speculative fiction, and they’re very much meant to be read as such: sometimes this gets distinctly unsubtle, as per the mutants in The Iron Dream.
The political focus varies, though; back in the day, this was traditionally used to bring up some relatively specific real-world issue that would be delicate to handle directly (as in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Outcast)”). These days I think it’s more common to use the device to keep things general, in order to identify with a broad spectrum of causes.
The question seems confused. I’d ask you “better in what”? Better in being scientifically accurate? Better in averting offense? Better for the plot of any given story?
And if you mean “morally better”, do you really think that Tolkien having his stories portray Orcs (which he invented exactly because he wanted an inexhaustible supply of enemies against which we needed feel no moral qualm) as utterly foul creatures, isn’t any morally better than if he’d chosen a real-life group, e.g. African or Mongols, to play that exact role? Isn’t Harry Potter better that it has goblins in the role of greedy banker-types instead of e.g. Jews?
People won’t be motivated to commit hate-crimes against orcs or goblins, if orcs are portrayed as uniformly bad or goblins uniformly greedy in some story.
He means things like “women”, “men”, “blacks”, “whites”, “short people”, “tall people”—as opposed to “Jedis” (Starwars), “Numenoreans” (Lord of the Rings), “Wizards” (Harry Potter).
Let’s not make obvious fails of understanding here.
Ok, fair enough, but isn’t Fantastic Racism (or sexism or what have you) just a subtler version of regular racism ? It’s not really that much better.
Pretty much, although I’d use less politically divisive before subtler. Writers have been using invented species, bloodlines, Differently Powered Individuals, and what have you as stand-ins for real-world marginalized groups for about as long as people have been writing speculative fiction, and they’re very much meant to be read as such: sometimes this gets distinctly unsubtle, as per the mutants in The Iron Dream.
The political focus varies, though; back in the day, this was traditionally used to bring up some relatively specific real-world issue that would be delicate to handle directly (as in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “The Outcast)”). These days I think it’s more common to use the device to keep things general, in order to identify with a broad spectrum of causes.
The question seems confused. I’d ask you “better in what”? Better in being scientifically accurate? Better in averting offense? Better for the plot of any given story?
And if you mean “morally better”, do you really think that Tolkien having his stories portray Orcs (which he invented exactly because he wanted an inexhaustible supply of enemies against which we needed feel no moral qualm) as utterly foul creatures, isn’t any morally better than if he’d chosen a real-life group, e.g. African or Mongols, to play that exact role? Isn’t Harry Potter better that it has goblins in the role of greedy banker-types instead of e.g. Jews?
People won’t be motivated to commit hate-crimes against orcs or goblins, if orcs are portrayed as uniformly bad or goblins uniformly greedy in some story.