![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethI watched Merlin.
I forgot it was on while it was actually on, only caught it because the box is set to.
This is not a good sign.
ASH is as worth watching as ever, and seems to be developing interesting backstory layers.
The kids I'm still not really caring about.
... how old am I, calling them kids?
ANYway
as I have for the last few weeks, I find myself thinking on magic and how differences in portrayal tie in with politics/power issues like class, gender, and race.
There's a lot of subtleties to this one and I know this isn't going to be essay quality thinking here, but I'll have a go.
Lets start with language. Magic spells are in a strange language. Everyone knows that. Makes them special. Except this has not always been the case. Greek curses were quite matter of factly in Greek, far as I know. I've got a book on them around here somewhere. Don't think I finished reading it, actually. But any old Greek dude could scratch a curse on something in their own words and call it done. So what's with this ancient language bit?
Latin was, for long and long, the language of scholarship, religion, and law. But not the language of the masses. So you got the few, who had the knowledge-power, gained from their latin language learning. And then you got the rest, mostly being bossed around. So when you see spells written in Latin, or some approximation thereof, it somehow feels natural. But it's not that secret knowledge was in Latin, it was that Latin knowledge was a bit secret. Same with Greek, there was a class divide, where posh schools taught it and the rest of the country didn't have any greek. And this still happens, language keeping things secret, often just on accident. I've been trying to read about greek tragedy and bumping into people who think everyone can read greek and latin and french and german and english and all. Because, in their world, it was true. Their little very educated corner of the world. I'm trying to get educated, but this language thing is an irritating bugger.
So put your spells in Latin, and you're linking them to a class system where knowledge is held by the powerful, the upper classes, and language is used to exclude.
Then there's the languages of conquered populations. Or imported slaves. I'm not much qualified to talk on either, but I do know that language and power get right tangled up. There's situations where the powerful conquerers have a new language, and pretty much keep it to themselves. But there's other situations where the language of the conquered is systematically erased. I think this was attempted on the original inhabitants of both Australia and North America. I read that Welsh got right unpopular for a long while. I know slaves got imported from all over and didn't always share a language to keep it going. Languages can turn secret, even to the point that merely speaking that language is an act of rebellion.
Put your spells in the secret language of the ancestors that way and it's a kind of knowledge that the upper classes are repressing, a way of fighting back against power.
Which one is Merlin doing?
I can't actually tell. I only speak English.
But I'm wondering how much thought most people put into it. Do they think through politics like that, think language-power, who holds it and who is trying to get it and who wants it stopped? Or is it just 'Hey, need a spell, I know, lets make it sound mysterious!'
If you take real world languages as your root you're importing all the existing connotations of that language. And, along with it, if you're not careful, a whole ton of race and ethnicity issues. Which is especially a problem if you're going to make a lot of magic users evil. If there's only one good mage, and he's allied with the crown, well, that already says a lot about power structures. Much of it stuff this democrat would really rather give the boot to.
And then there's the gender thing. You know, evil witches. What's the image? Very strongly gendered. So, okay, last week it was a bloke, this week and first episode a woman, so it's possible they'll alternate. But their ongoing hero is a bloke and their ongoing villain appears to be a woman. What's that saying? And it's not saying it in an ahistorical vacuum. There's centuries of oppression tangled up in anti-magic. Still going on, in some parts of the world. Call a woman a witch, strip her of property, kill her off. Old, old story. Do we really want to tap into that? Without turning it around somehow? You've got to have good witches. Good women with power. If the good women serve and the bad women have power... nasty.
One thing about magic is it's a kind of power you can't take away. Like martial arts. You can take a man's sword, but you can't take his kung fu. Which translates to hard work, I think. Ooh, I looked it up on wiki and it's even better - means "achievement through great effort" or simply virtue. So, yeah, seriously can't take that from someone.
But there's a big difference between magic that is born within someone and magic that can be learned. The one is a two tier system where some people are just born better. Hello, aristocracy. The other starts with the idea that everyone is born kind of the same and then studies up on stuff.
Which assumptions would you rather have underpin the world?
And, yeah, born equal does not mean born the same. All got different strengths and weaknesses. But when the whole basis of getting into magic school or not, having the power or not, is just in how you're born? What's that say about how the world is built?
So there's ways of writing magic that structure the world as something where power is born in only those of the right descent and polished through elite education, and there's ways of writing it where power is something anyone can get at with hard work. And either way can be the province of good or bad people, or split up and coded so one group gets all the bad.
Guess which my politics prefers?
Also, mostly? I prefer people consciously thinking on it. I've been reading today about writing, and someone actually thought there's stories that aren't political. I have to disagree in the strongest terms. There's only stories where you haven't noticed the politics. Usually that means they support the dominant assumptions. And, well, not always loving that.
I forgot it was on while it was actually on, only caught it because the box is set to.
This is not a good sign.
ASH is as worth watching as ever, and seems to be developing interesting backstory layers.
The kids I'm still not really caring about.
... how old am I, calling them kids?
ANYway
as I have for the last few weeks, I find myself thinking on magic and how differences in portrayal tie in with politics/power issues like class, gender, and race.
There's a lot of subtleties to this one and I know this isn't going to be essay quality thinking here, but I'll have a go.
Lets start with language. Magic spells are in a strange language. Everyone knows that. Makes them special. Except this has not always been the case. Greek curses were quite matter of factly in Greek, far as I know. I've got a book on them around here somewhere. Don't think I finished reading it, actually. But any old Greek dude could scratch a curse on something in their own words and call it done. So what's with this ancient language bit?
Latin was, for long and long, the language of scholarship, religion, and law. But not the language of the masses. So you got the few, who had the knowledge-power, gained from their latin language learning. And then you got the rest, mostly being bossed around. So when you see spells written in Latin, or some approximation thereof, it somehow feels natural. But it's not that secret knowledge was in Latin, it was that Latin knowledge was a bit secret. Same with Greek, there was a class divide, where posh schools taught it and the rest of the country didn't have any greek. And this still happens, language keeping things secret, often just on accident. I've been trying to read about greek tragedy and bumping into people who think everyone can read greek and latin and french and german and english and all. Because, in their world, it was true. Their little very educated corner of the world. I'm trying to get educated, but this language thing is an irritating bugger.
So put your spells in Latin, and you're linking them to a class system where knowledge is held by the powerful, the upper classes, and language is used to exclude.
Then there's the languages of conquered populations. Or imported slaves. I'm not much qualified to talk on either, but I do know that language and power get right tangled up. There's situations where the powerful conquerers have a new language, and pretty much keep it to themselves. But there's other situations where the language of the conquered is systematically erased. I think this was attempted on the original inhabitants of both Australia and North America. I read that Welsh got right unpopular for a long while. I know slaves got imported from all over and didn't always share a language to keep it going. Languages can turn secret, even to the point that merely speaking that language is an act of rebellion.
Put your spells in the secret language of the ancestors that way and it's a kind of knowledge that the upper classes are repressing, a way of fighting back against power.
Which one is Merlin doing?
I can't actually tell. I only speak English.
But I'm wondering how much thought most people put into it. Do they think through politics like that, think language-power, who holds it and who is trying to get it and who wants it stopped? Or is it just 'Hey, need a spell, I know, lets make it sound mysterious!'
If you take real world languages as your root you're importing all the existing connotations of that language. And, along with it, if you're not careful, a whole ton of race and ethnicity issues. Which is especially a problem if you're going to make a lot of magic users evil. If there's only one good mage, and he's allied with the crown, well, that already says a lot about power structures. Much of it stuff this democrat would really rather give the boot to.
And then there's the gender thing. You know, evil witches. What's the image? Very strongly gendered. So, okay, last week it was a bloke, this week and first episode a woman, so it's possible they'll alternate. But their ongoing hero is a bloke and their ongoing villain appears to be a woman. What's that saying? And it's not saying it in an ahistorical vacuum. There's centuries of oppression tangled up in anti-magic. Still going on, in some parts of the world. Call a woman a witch, strip her of property, kill her off. Old, old story. Do we really want to tap into that? Without turning it around somehow? You've got to have good witches. Good women with power. If the good women serve and the bad women have power... nasty.
One thing about magic is it's a kind of power you can't take away. Like martial arts. You can take a man's sword, but you can't take his kung fu. Which translates to hard work, I think. Ooh, I looked it up on wiki and it's even better - means "achievement through great effort" or simply virtue. So, yeah, seriously can't take that from someone.
But there's a big difference between magic that is born within someone and magic that can be learned. The one is a two tier system where some people are just born better. Hello, aristocracy. The other starts with the idea that everyone is born kind of the same and then studies up on stuff.
Which assumptions would you rather have underpin the world?
And, yeah, born equal does not mean born the same. All got different strengths and weaknesses. But when the whole basis of getting into magic school or not, having the power or not, is just in how you're born? What's that say about how the world is built?
So there's ways of writing magic that structure the world as something where power is born in only those of the right descent and polished through elite education, and there's ways of writing it where power is something anyone can get at with hard work. And either way can be the province of good or bad people, or split up and coded so one group gets all the bad.
Guess which my politics prefers?
Also, mostly? I prefer people consciously thinking on it. I've been reading today about writing, and someone actually thought there's stories that aren't political. I have to disagree in the strongest terms. There's only stories where you haven't noticed the politics. Usually that means they support the dominant assumptions. And, well, not always loving that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-05 12:14 am (UTC)But then people got invaded, and people get slaughtered, sometimes because they were magic users and a possible threat, sometimes just because they were villagers Knowledge gets horded, for fear for their lives or attempts to keep power. And then suddenly, or over a few centuries, you go from a more-or-less democratic system to an oligarchy.
Because, it's the middle ages. There are few things that you can do to not have really crappy associates with witchcraft during this time period.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-05 12:32 am (UTC)lots of interesting.
did you get my email reply about the beta?
no subject
Date: 2008-10-05 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-05 10:35 pm (UTC)In other words: I should have everything but the last two questions done tonight. I might send everything but those to on.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-05 11:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-11 09:40 am (UTC)not poking or anything but
if you've got some answers done could you send them on?
then I can do thinking about them.
thanks :)
hope you have wellness.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-05 11:05 pm (UTC)... actually, that's kind of pretty...
no subject
Date: 2008-10-05 04:43 am (UTC)As I'm sure you are aware, until fairly recently (certainly within the lifetime of people still alive) there were active measures to repress Welsh and Gaelic. School children would be beaten for using their own language. And if you strip away the medieval accretions these Celtic languages are of course the descendants of the language Arthur himself would have spoken. While Old English is the descendant of the language spoken by his enemies. This may represent a token gesture towards the origin of the legend. Or it may just be that the writers like the sound of the words.
There is much dispute about the level of lay literacy in Latin during the middle ages. It may have been seriously underestimated. Also we shouldn't think of the priesthood as entirely a separate class - they may have been better educated, but they frequently came from the people they were serving, and through parish clerks, sub-deacons and similar positions there was no strict demarcation line between those with the knowledge and those without - there were just gradations of knowledge on a continuum. The sacred was demarcated, but not the knowledge of it.
I have noticed that people who have been taught any form of cultural studies from a radical perspective are taught a particular way of thinking about language, and also use language in a very specific way. They tend to use a lot of jargon, which is of course a modern method of excluding outsiders. They also give enormous value to certain words, frequently different from the values the general population give. They are aware of language all the time, in a way that most people aren't. I suspect this actually puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to working out people's intentions - which they clearly know on some level since their perspective also focuses a lot on denying the value of intentions.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-05 07:14 am (UTC)... up to the last line.
Intentions are a weird, tricksy, thing, and I don't know as paying attention to parts is a disadvantage.
Also, intentions matter to the person doing the intending, not so much to the audience. Audience is, usually, bigger. Needs looked at.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-05 09:11 am (UTC)True.
But I think it is possible to value intentions while still acknowledging it is virtually impossible to know what someone else's intentions actually are. A thing can be known to have value even if it cannot be precisely defined.
I expressed myself badly. Paying attention to parts is not a disadvantage. I think it is a good and valuable intellectual endeavour. I think the thing that is a disadvantage is that the radical method teaches people, possibly without them being aware, to give different values to words to the ones the majority of the population assign. This can be confusing when trying to work out what other people meant or why they did something. I have seen too many clashes of 'ordinary meaning' with 'radical meaning' to not consider this a problem. In fact I would say it was one of the main causes of disputes about gender, race etc. issues here on LiveJournal - a lot of it is a culture clash between those who understand and use the radical jargon and those who don't.