This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
@Ioper as well, Cincinnatus is the most classic trope of the reluctant hero, but even he was of a high ranking patrician family and never questioned that he was the right man to lead when requested. Likewise, King Arthur was still the son of the actual King and Brutus one of the most influential and powerful people in the country. This feels qualitatively different to me than the modern YA protagonist, a mundane teenager nervous of responsibility and convinced they're not the right person for the job. Cincinnatus/Arthur also immediately become the Dictator/king who is in charge of the imperial machine, whereas the YA trope is more about a tiny cog in the machine raging against it. You don't see that same kind of distrust of power inherent in the old myths.
Or, to put it a different way, King Arthur is chosen by prophecy via martial display and Harry Potter chosen by a school admissions board - one feels much more tailored from our modern neuroses than the other!
Am I grossly misremembering something or wasn't harry potter chosen by prophecy? I wasn't that into Harry potter.
I don't really disagree with the second part of your argument but by the premise of Tanner. I think he is overstating his case.
On another note, it seems to me that YA fiction is moving in the direction of their heroes not having much self doubt at all and being more pure power fantasies where the protagonist unashamedly seeks power, gets it and uses it to humiliate their enemies.
There were actually 2 children that would have met the requirements of the prophecy: Harry Potter and Neville Longbottom. It wasn't totally clear which was the one who would kill Voldemort.
Admittedly, being one of two chosen out of the hundreds/thousands of magical British children is fairly close to being chosen.
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair Greer doesn't say Tolkien invented the trope, and specifically references older examples like Cinncinatus or Yu and Shun, he's mostly claiming Tolkien popularized it.
Oh really? I'm probably pretty out of date with what's popular right now/
I'm thinking of the rise of Isekai, progression fantasy and cultivation.
The popularity of those is confounded a bit by their foreign origins - which adds novelty as a lure, and in works actually from China or Japan, changes the baseline cultural expectations the pieces used as references. Not a lot, it doesn't detract from your point, but I expect the first isekai or progression fantasy adaptation to go full mainstream will tone down some of the harshness, if not go fully feminised.
Cradle is about as close as cultivation can get to mainstream and it did tone down the harshness. It also goes full gender equality while most cultivation stories are "women can cultivate like men can, but for some reason most of the characters are men anyway".
Though to be fair, these stories are known for taking the harshness to ridiculous levels and have to be toned down to even make any sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link