SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Le Guin thinks so:

http://www.slate.com/id/2111107/

"My color scheme was conscious and deliberate from the start. I didn't see why everybody in science fiction had to be a honky named Bob or Joe or Bill. I didn't see why everybody in heroic fantasy had to be white (and why all the leading women had "violet eyes"). It didn't even make sense. Whites are a minority on Earth now—why wouldn't they still be either a minority, or just swallowed up in the larger colored gene pool, in the future?

The fantasy tradition I was writing in came from Northern Europe, which is why it was about white people. I'm white, but not European. My people could be any color I liked, and I like red and brown and black. I was a little wily about my color scheme. I figured some white kids (the books were published for "young adults") might not identify straight off with a brown kid, so I kind of eased the information about skin color in by degrees—hoping that the reader would get "into Ged's skin" and only then discover it wasn't a white one."

So, what do you think?

I suspect changing Ged's color (as he is an alien they had to find an actor of a different race--namely human) was either one of those stupid production decisions ala "we can't call him 'Bruce Banner' because 'Bruce' sounds gay, so let's name him 'David Banner' instead." Or someone wasn't reading closely enough. I wonder why she had so little creative control in the production. It sounds like she sold the rights and walked away.

I think it is possible that some readers never even notice what color the people in the story are. Don't notice, don't care. Whites of course have the privilege of not caring, of being "colorblind." Nobody else does.

Ursula K. Le Guin

I guess this pretty much has me pegged on the subject. I have always thought that most books are purposefully vague on this most of the time in order to help the reader identify with the protagonist … so I did not really notice what was in the author’s own words a wily treaty of the overarching color scheme.

Casting directors are pretty much famous for ignoring character descriptions in the original book ... the lower the budget the less discriminating they become. Having seen the movie, I can't really say that I was all that impressed with the acting, so I am not at all surprised that casting appears to have received short shrift.

Interesting topic and article. Thanks for linking. I knew she disliked it, but I had no idea Le Guin was so strongly opposed to the miniseries. And it would seem she had very good grounds to be so.

Guiltily now, I have to admit that I enjoyed the Earthsea miniseries when I watched it, though I realized even then that it was a very loose interpretation of the books in many respects, race being just one of these.

I wonder if Le Guin will ever have an adaptation that she approves of made, perhaps for the big screen this time.

I do believe that the character's should've people a people of color. Why not? Why did they have to be white? Especially since this book was written in the 60's and there were so few diverse characters then, that it was probably great to have a writer not use a typical white character. And then 50 years later change the characters to white? I was a little disappointed.

I think the thing that one has to remember is that whenever you adapt a creative work to another medium, changes will be made. Some of them are from necessity, others stem from the new artist's interpretation of the original. That said, I would have to wonder why the producers had to change Ged's skin color. It certainly isn't a cinematic necessity.

Of course, I have to confess that despite Ms. LeGuin's character description, I continued to have a mental image of Ged as a white boy. But I think the story was still good despite my unintentional "re-coloring".

I didn't notice very much description of Ged's skin color. In her other books she has some beautiful descriptions of the different skin tones and features of her characters, and I think since I didn't find any of that in The Wizard of Earthsea, I too just pictured him as white (not for any particular reason, just my default perception I guess)

So, even though I understand LeGuin's displeasure at the casting of a white actor, I think it may have been unintentional...I didn't see the miniseries...perhaps they simply found a great fit for the character and the people in charge of casting thought that the skin tone was vague in the book.

hmmm...maybe I should check the book out again to find the descriptions I missed the first time around.

I think it is a big deal. There are far too few strong, main character roles for people of color. Here, you have a fantasy writer who conciously makes the decision to make Ged and several of the other characters darker skinned, and Hollywood anglicizes them. I think it is sad.

Vicki Jean,

LOL about Frodo's hair color. I could forgive some hair color or eye color (e.g. Harry Potter) changes, but skin color change is too big.

To all,

I think it is interesting that some of you unconciously pictured Ged as a "white boy." Le Guin's descriptions of Ged and Ogion's skin color, and how all of the people of Gont were dark skinned jumped out at me from the beginning. Did you pick up on how the barbarian invaders (the Kargish) who were feared across the Achepelago were white?

I thought this was a great juxtaposition to the typical white=good and black/dark=evil symbolism found in most fantasy books. And I am not just talking about skin color--the good knight battles the dragon on his WHITE horse; the WHITE wizards usually stand for justice; the villian is clad in black armour, the evil brought darkness across the land, etc.

I was not a huge fan of the book, but I did like Le Guin's effort to make dark fight on the side of good.

J-Lynn I think it is interesting that some of you unconciously pictured Ged as a "white boy." Le Guin's descriptions of Ged and Ogion's skin color, and how all of the people of Gont were dark skinned jumped out at me from the beginning.

It is not so much that I 'pictured Ged as a "white boy"' so much as I pictured Ged as me. This is pretty much a requirement for me to enjoy any book really (I have to be able to identify with the protagonist in some fashion). As far as the others are concerned, I didn't dwell of it anymore then I would care about Frodo's hair color ... it is all extraneous unless the author plans on using (or challenging) common stereotypes.

What is more common is the author using it as a character development shortcut ... in other words … the author is being lazy (unless the intent/plot of the story actually deals with such issues). When used with minor characters with whom the main characters interact, the author needs to develop his own regional stereotypes and associated features earlier in the story so that the read may use such as an accurate predictor of character behavior … such as the ‘white’ barbarians. To me, this whole collection of imagery evoked a Germani/Chaos vs. Roman/Mediterranean/Order analogy and not much more.

Along the same lines, color coding characters with 'white' hats or 'black' hats is mostly a visual trick and is only used because some literary descriptions involving light and shadow are difficult to translate visually. I generally associate such with environment or surrounding … ie. Protagonist is wearing a white hat or is riding a white horse because he is making a choice of alignment and not that to protagonist himself is white or black. Give a white character a black hat and he is every bit as evil as a black character in a black hat and vice versa.

They made Ged white because of racist media perspectives, pure and simple. They assumed a predominantly white country would want to watch a show in which a white man was the protagonist.

Molly said: They made Ged white because of racist media perspectives, pure and simple. They assumed a predominantly white country would want to watch a show in which a white man was the protagonist.

That's a pretty strong statement. Do you have any specific facts to support it, or is this pure and simple speculation?

It's an opinion made from years of study on racism issues. ;) I'm an Anth major. It's not hard to come to such a finding. It's not like they had a magnificent new talent to showcase, or a major star deigned to play Ged for peanuts so they could make it. There was no reason to make Ged white.

There's absolutely no reason to change Ged except to market a product to an audience. I'm not saying they are evil racist KKK members, I am saying they make decisions based on opinions of product marketability that happen to be racist.

And no, I don't have a Secret Memo that they burned all the copies of but mine. ;)

Molly said:There was no reason to make Ged white ... There's absolutely no reason to change Ged except to market a product to an audience.

I'd disagree with that statement (of course I find most absolute statements problematic); I believe that there could be (and probably are) several reasons for this casting decision. As I am not privy to the actual casting, nor do I communicate with the casting director, I have no way of verifying what the actual reasons are though.

IMHO the default casting would favor actors that are more like the director. This has very little to do with marketability and more to do with natural affinities and people that they have worked with before. It is more likely that anything which diverges from this default is a specific marketing decision then anything which matches this default. I think that the decision to cast Danny Glover as Ogion (one of my favorite actors who appeared to be miscast in this role and/or poorly directed) was more likely a marketing decision then how they cast Ged. In addition, it is quite possible that the time allowed for casting a made for TV movie was severely constrained, preventing a more in depth search for the role of young Ged. It is very much conceivable that the director’s rolodex also limited the field significantly as well. It is also been my experience that TV directors don’t really care that much about physical descriptions and have even gone so far as change gender when it suits them.

While I do accept the opinion that some media marketing decisions are racially biased, there are several reasons for Ged to be cast as he was that do not involve marketing a product to a specific audience. Whether or not this is the case here is beyond my ability to discern (and it may actually have been one of many reasons), but that does not detract from the fact that your primary premise here is false.

Kristjan, "Along the same lines, color coding characters with 'white' hats or 'black' hats is mostly a visual trick and is only used because some literary descriptions involving light and shadow are difficult to translate visually. I generally associate such with environment or surrounding … ie. Protagonist is wearing a white hat or is riding a white horse because he is making a choice of alignment and not that to protagonist himself is white or black."

I understand what you are saying, this was my point too. The overused color imagery in fantasy often isn't tied to the characters race. Usually, the color white represents good and the color black represents evil (most social researchers will argue that there is a historically significant racially-tied reason for that), I just thought one of the more interesting parts of the book was Le Guin's decision to reverse the color stereotypes, using the characters race.

Kristjan,
"While I do accept the opinion that some media marketing decisions are racially biased, there are several reasons for Ged to be cast as he was that do not involve marketing a product to a specific audience."

While you provide a well thought out and rational argument about various reasons why the director may have cast a white actor. I tend to agree with Molly, I think it was a racial decision.

If you look at historical and current television, most of the shows have predominantly white casts and most of the shows have white protagonists. The only time the main character is not white (the positive exception being children's programming) is when the show targets a specific audience like Cain was a show about a Latino family, or Girlfriends is a show targeted for an African American audience. While any of your scenarios could be true, I think race was the main factor.

In Wizard of Earthsea LeGuin reversed this zalso by making the Kargads and Oskillians white. Both were portrayed as not necessarily good or civilized.

I found this GREAT article, here are Le Guin's own words:

"It does matter. It matters a whole lot. I live in a racially bigoted country. From the start, I saw my Earthsea as a deliberate refusal to go along with the prejudice that sees white as the norm, and the fantasy tradition that accepts the prejudice.

If you're white, ask a colored reader of fantasy whether it matters. Ask them how often they found themselves in fantasy books or movies when they were growing up, and how they felt about it. "


Thank God for actors like Will Smith who are starting to break these barriers. Here is a link to the whole article that everyone should check out... it is more from her then what is on her website:

http://www.locusmag.com/2005/Issues/0...

J-Lynn said: I understand what you are saying, this was my point too. The overused color imagery in fantasy often isn't tied to the characters race. Usually, the color white represents good and the color black represents evil (most social researchers will argue that there is a historically significant racially-tied reason for that)

I have not found the connection between white and good with its opposing black and evil theme to be historically grounded with skin tone; although that imagery is certainly well founded within US history. Looking at comparative mythology among various cultures with a mix of skin tone, you will find almost identical treatment of the subject. The color white is generally associated with light/day, which has the ability to reveal truth and good, while the color black is typically associated with darkness/night when various spirits and demons are well hidden while they roam freely just beyond the fire light. In many myths, these evil beings are completely destroyed when exposed to the light. In addition, life and death cycle is frequently imposed upon this same scheme where life is linked to light and the coming spring and death is linked to the advancing darkness and the coming winter.

I just thought one of the more interesting parts of the book was Le Guin's decision to reverse the color stereotypes, using the characters race.

I agree, it is an interesting perspective ... and given that I missed the specific intent of Le Guin's stated treatment of race, I am not all that surprised that I missed that possibility. Of course, I think my racial stereotypes might be different enough to have made that connection difficult regardless ... and as already stated, I don’t associate barbarians with evil, just chaos/change/entropy, which can sometimes be a force for good :)

Kristjan, I have never heard that they cast leads who are like the director. Do you think that every director who has a black lead is black? Every French director casts a Frenchman?

I think a director, casting or otherwise, who doesn't pay attention to what society wants in the form of actor rapidly becomes someone who has another job.

I looked into the director of this show, Robert Leiberman, and he's pretty much a TV show hack. I think this makes it even more likely casting was made for reasons of marketability than before.BTW this is the guy: http://www.oldkewgardens.com/guest/rh...

I think if he was gonna cast someone like him he'd cast a hairy Alan Alda. ;)

Molly said: I have never heard that they cast leads who are like the director. Do you think that every director who has a black lead is black? Every French director casts a Frenchman?

That is not quite what I said … and as I previously indicated, absolutes are always problematic ;) A default is simply something that is chosen because the powers that be refuse to actually make a choice. It is the easy way out and does not require conscious thought. To imply that deviation is not possible violates the definition of default. It is my contention that selecting a young white actor here was easy and did not require much thought by the director. As far as why a default would favor (again, this does not indicate any exclusivity … just a trend) some characteristics over others is based upon natural affinities … which is supported by quite a significant amount of social science. It is much easier to associate with persons who share common characteristics. To counter this would require a person to be aware of this trend and to consciously mitigate it. There are other factors that also come to play in this casting decision … some of which are a result of racism within the industry (such as the number of minority actors within the general pool available for selection) that also make hard to cast a minority actor and much easier to cast a white actor. Again … it is very reasonable to assume that the director took the easy way out here as opposed to making a conscious effort to seek out a more appropriate casting.

I think a director, casting or otherwise, who doesn't pay attention to what society wants in the form of actor rapidly becomes someone who has another job.

Sure … but there are several factors that go into casting and it is the composite that society really cares about. I really don’t think his job would have been on the line here if he had actually taken the extra effort to cast the lead appropriately. Is this what you are proposing?

I think if he was gonna cast someone like him he'd cast a hairy Alan Alda. ;)

As much as I like Alda, I think people would notice his abundance of experience here :)

Yeah Kristjan, you say things just default, but you are neglecting to say WHY they default. In this case things default because like you said, white people want to see white people. Which is absolutely, exactly my point.

Which means they cast white people. Which you can debate all you want, but still is a racist marketing decision, and believe me, little that costs that much money to do is done blindly by default. Unless you are in the government, which the SciFi channel is not.

And absolutes may be a problem for you, but I didn't choose the word never for fun, I mean it, 'cause I have known a lot of casting directors in my time, had a live-in BF who worked in the industry, and met many. :D

Molly said: … you say things just default, but you are neglecting to say WHY they default. In this case things default because like you said, white people want to see white people. Which is absolutely, exactly my point.

Actually things typically default when the choice does not matter. It is completely impossible for any director to control all aspects of his production. This means that they prioritize which factors they wish more control over and allow the rest to default. When they actually put the effort into changing the default, then you can be sure that there is a specific reason, such as marketing, that is driving that choice … otherwise you do not know unless the person making that choice actually voices his reasons for wanting the default.

As to why the default is the default … I believe that I covered that as well. People will naturally associate with others with whom they share the most characteristics. This includes cultural behaviors, race, language, etc. To single out one factor here as dominate is a gross oversimplification. It is certainly not so simple as to state that white people want to see white people. There is more to it then that … as is evident from the handful of crossover stars that have wide appeal across racial demographics.

Which means they cast white people. Which you can debate all you want, but still is a racist marketing decision, and believe me, little that costs that much money to do is done blindly by default. Unless you are in the government, which the SciFi channel is not.

A marketing decision must be actively voiced. It must be made by a single person or small committee; it is not made by the industry at large. In order for such to be racially based, somebody somewhere must have specifically voiced a preference for an actor of a specific race (or the inverse … avoidance of a specific race). This is quite different from acknowledging that prior and existing racial and/or gender bias makes it more difficult for minorities to succeed within the entertainment industry. This is why we have affirmative action programs … so that we can overcome the net effect of such social bias. As such, an active decision to specify race, whether it is to re-enforce an expected default selection or to counter an existing bias would both be a racist decision … accepting a default is not.

I work on large financial data systems … I can assure you that quite a lot of decisions that deal with more money then this production is likely to have cost are done by default (i.e. “Nobody was ever fired for buying IBM” … etc.).

And absolutes may be a problem for you, but I didn't choose the word never for fun, I mean it, 'cause I have known a lot of casting directors in my time, had a live-in BF who worked in the industry, and met many. :D

You have me at a disadvantage here :) My understanding is primarily based upon theory and general observation. The few casting directors that I have met are pretty much restricted to local theatre productions where my daughter was auditioning … somehow the idea of an open audition for leads in a Hollywood production seems unlikely; I envisioned more of a networking approach to casting similar to how HR recruits high skilled employees in Fortune 500 companies. Is this incorrect?

Kristjan,

"A marketing decision must be actively voiced."

You don't think at some point during pre-production someone brought up the fact that the character was black in the book? The screenwriter? The casting agency? LeGuin herself said that she was strongly opposed to the casting change from the beginning. I think it would be naive to think that at some point the issue wasn't "actively" discussed.

By the way, I am really glad we are having this discussion. Race is so often delicately avoided in our society (as is possibly evidenced by the fact that there are only about 4 of us that are still activey debating this topic). I appreciate being able to have an open discussion. Great posting topic Nick.

"LeGuin herself said that she was strongly opposed to the casting change from the beginning. I think it would be naive to think that at some point the issue wasn't "actively" discussed."

J-Lynn --

I think this changes my mind about the passive nature of the decision (where I was giving the casting agents the benefit of the doubt) If LeGuin was active in the development of the miniseries and vocal about her opposition...then there is no excuse. I think it's sad that they did not respect the author's wishes, and disturbing that they felt the need to change it in the first place.

J-Lynn said: You don't think at some point during pre-production someone brought up the fact that the character was black in the book? The screenwriter? The casting agency? LeGuin herself said that she was strongly opposed to the casting change from the beginning. I think it would be naive to think that at some point the issue wasn't "actively" discussed.

Well, I was not truly aware of the difference until it was raised here in this forum, and this was one of my favorite trilogies. LeGuin talked to only one of the individuals involved and very quickly after that the series was in production. I doubt her input on this was actually heard at the director level. When the director outlined what he was looking for to the casting agencies, I further doubt race was specified either … although gender, age, price and availability probably topped the list that was.

I know LeGuin cared very much about this; unfortunately, I never did until it was recently brought to my attention; and, I would not have regardless how this was cast. I was surprised at Danny Glover, but I think that had more to do with associating somebody I admire a great deal in what appeared to be a ‘B’ production. I thought they were trying to use his name to pull in more viewers of all races. Maybe I am unique in that respect (I hope not though). I now am a little sad that the director didn’t care enough to remain more true to the author’s vision, but I have come to expect stupid decisions like that from Hollywood. Perhaps I am, as you say, naïve … it would not be the first time that I have found myself so.

Kristjan,
I hope that Hollywood's take on the book does not influence your love of the trilogy. That would be a real tragedy. Now, the next time you reread it, you will have a whole other symbolic level to appreciate.

J-Lynn... not to change the subject... but I thought there were 5 books? Wikipedia says: The books that follow A Wizard of Earthsea are The Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore, Tehanu, Tales from Earthsea and The Other Wind. I am just curious because I am going to finish the series and I was wondering if wikipedia made a mistake?

Angie said: J-Lynn... not to change the subject... but I thought there were 5 books? [...] I am just curious because I am going to finish the series and I was wondering if wikipedia made a mistake?

No ... it started as a trilogy, then the author added two more which I have not read yet (they are on the list though when I get more time). I still think of it as a trilogy out of habit.

Thanks!

Kristjan, I think you are oversimplifying.

Default IS racist in this context by definition. if you automatically cast a white person, that's racist.

And I dunno how Fortune 500 companies recruit, so I can't answer you. Blissfully corporate knowledge free. :D

Molly said: "I think you are oversimplifying. Default IS racist in this context by definition. if you automatically cast a white person, that's racist."

Possibly ... I was not trying to say that the default was not racist. I think that it clearly is. What I was trying to say was that marketing decisions are generally active decisions and that allowing a default was not the same as actively choosing the default ... so the problem is in combining the two. In this particular case, I think either is a reasonable assumption when looking at the casting decision.

Molly wrote: Default IS racist in this context by definition. If you automatically cast a white person, that's racist.

Agreed, Molly. This book was published in 1968. Civil rights movement in the States, race riots, bombings, Jim Crow. For an author to populate an entire continent primarily with dark-skinned people was hugely significant, and is sufficiently rare to be hugely significant now. I took the red skin colour to be more Native than black, myself. That's perhaps my cultural bias from living in western Canada, where there are more First Nations and Métis people than black people. People of those backgrounds are vastly underrepresented as well, as heroes and as just plain, everyday folk. Changing the main character, in this context, from dark to white, is racist - not the kind with guns and curses, but a blander kind that can hide behind corporate-speak, unseen perhaps by its perpetrators, but not by those blurred or obliterated by it.