Pawn of Prophecy discussion

The strong classification of the peoples based on their race was an aspect of the book that has always bothered me, even though I enjoyed the series a great deal at that time in my life.

I will speculate that perhaps the books are also a product of their times. Eddings started publishing these books in the early 80s, so I imagine that he began seriously thinking about them in the late 70s - earliest 80s. Those were days when women* were told that they could not do math and science because our brains could not work that way (I know I was a woman studying in the sciences at the time). They were days when the nature-nurture debate was hot and heavy and everyone - scientists, academics, journalists, laypersons - had an opinion and a say on it.

I'm not in any way trying to make excuses for Eddings. However, I am suggesting that the prevailing culture of the time might likely have affected Eddings approach and writings.

*I actually also had strong issues with Eddings' treatment of women in the second series, the Mallorean.

This must be a troll, seriously?

Felix wrote: "This must be a troll, seriously?"

Best observation on the "controversy" so far. I find myself wondering if the reader starting the thread ever experienced any real bigotry on a personal level.

There is either too much to say on the topic or no reason to talk at all, which makes the case for "troll" work for me. Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing still rings true because we had trolls then and now.

Jay D. wrote:
Best observation on the "controversy" so far.

He says, trolling.

These are totally racist books.  

Wait! Don't panic!

If we accept the descriptor "racist," what does that imply?

1. Does it necessarily follow that Eddings was racist the way most (white) people mean the term (aka "consciously malicious based on race").

No. He might have been, but we can't assume it.

2. Does it necessarily follow that Eddings echoed systematic racism of his own surrounding culture?  

Not conclusive, but probable.  That *is* how culture works.

3. Does it necessarily follow that Eddings was a terrible person and all his works are evil poison?

Um, no, not especially. He might have been like your racist grandpa, but we can't really tell one way or the other from his books.

4. Does it necessarily follow that Eddings had a racist agenda in his plot choices?  

Guess what? Nope. Possible, like #1, but quite a stretch.

5. Is it likely that the books are deliberately subversive metaphors for real race relations?  

Seriously--have you read them?  That is really incredibly unlikely. Hahaha.

That's right! Actually, saying the books are racist only implies the books are racist. But what does *that* mean if it doesn't directly mean any of that other stuff?

It means that Eddings postulated a world wherein race/ethnicity/nationality were pretty much the entire determining factor of every individual's personal qualities and abilities. It was the primary in-world classification of the human species and all characters pre-judged others based almost entirely on race.

Whether or not this in-world reality is creationist or evolutionary is irrelevant to that being racist. Whether the judgments or their results are positive or negative is irrelevant to that fact by itself being, literally, racist. Whether there are occasional exceptions to the (racist) rule is irrelevant to whether it's racist. Whether it's a fantasy trope? Doesn't matter (fantasy tropes can be racist). Whether there is fictional historical context surrounding the fictional racism similar to the real world is irrelevant. Whether the characters are consciously genocidal, homocidal, institutionally discriminatory, or hateful...you guessed it. Irrelevant!

Is it a symptom of political correctness or oversensitivity to call these books racist?  Gawd, no.  Neither is it a symptom of political correctness to dismiss proto-science based on the idea that the earth is flat. Calling this series racist is like calling a fantasy series with a flat world unrealistic.

It's just a fact. They're racist books.

Is it, however, a symptom of privilege and over reactive defensiveness to recoil so hard from the word "racism" that one refuses to see what's plain as the nose on one's face?  Uh, yup.

I thought the book displayed more cultural stereotypes rather than racial ones (except for the Angaraks which I really did perceive as Middle Eastern)

Also, I never caught an implication that Tolnedrans were modeled after Jews. I always thought they were a stand-in for the anciant Roman empire. My son thought the same thing.
I think the Dragonlance novels more clearly displayed racism with the intention of proving that racism is bad, giving examples of wars between different elvish societies, or mountain dawrves vs. hill dwarves, or humans vs. elves, etc.

Isn't Fantasy to be read for escapism/enjoyment? Not to raise moral/world political problems? If not - I would read nothing but non-fiction & news papers etc..... I read fantasy for a great story that takes place in a vivid sometimes dark/light setting filled with magic & Heroic adventure!

Well said, Felix!

And yes, that's exactly why I read it. :)

Interesting thread! Here are the questions raised, as near as I can tell, including my responses:

What is racism?
I would define it as a belief that race or ethnicity defines and limits people. I notice that others define it as an intent to discriminate, which is a much narrower definition than mine.

Is this a children's book?
It is written on a child's level, and many people read it as children when it came out.

Is the book racist, in the sense that characters are defined and limited by their race or ethnicity?
Yes. I cringed a lot while reading it.

Is it racist in the sense that it's trying to be racist?
No, I think Eddings is lazy and uses characterization shortcuts. That's also why this book seems so much more racist than Tolkien; Tolkien's characters are nuanced and less defined by their race.

Will it harm children who read it?
The racism is not the point of the book, so I think it would mostly go unnoticed, especially by white children. I don't think it would even harm them subliminally. Children who have experienced racism might pick up on it more, so they would be better off reading something by Nancy Farmer. Actually, everyone would be better off reading something by Nancy Farmer.

I remember reading these books back in the 80’s. I also remember a friend telling me how every person for a country was exactly alike. I never thought about racism. I thought lazy world building and lazy writing. But not racism.

being culturally diverse, and racist are two different things. There are many parts of the United States where culture actually outweighs race in how people look at each other. I might add being from a certain country and having their culture doesn't necessarily make you a different race from someone. I grew up listening to jokes about different cultures, they weren't intended to be mean spirited but basically just to show every different culture has their idiosyncrasies and I think Eddings captures that perfectly.

I have to confess that the first time I tried, unsuccessfully to read this book I had a short capacity for patience. What can I say? I was ten years old thought the cover was cool.
Last year I tried it again on kindle and gave myself a gold star for sticking it through. Im glad I did. The story is more action and movement than scene description.
As far as the point concerning racism. It wouldn't a very strong arguement. In Greek mythology different Gods had a penchant to be more affectionate to those, who on occasion, pleased them through action and faith.
Race had very little to do with it. A and C would always have a reason to hate B whether they shared the same gods or not.

I don't think of the book as entirely racist as I think Eddings deliberately created the characters as caricatures of types rather than people. It's a simplified way to world build. But there is a decided bias in the idea that the West are the good guys and the East are the bad guys. Unfortunately, I think that's a product of the time period in which it was written. For me though, I found the books more sexist than racist. The female characters are, for the most part, stereotypes of females. They're either nagging, scheming, manipulative, or helpless. For example, Polgara may be powerful and respected, but she's also uptight, nags, has no sense of humor, and can't seem to relax. Ce'Nedra is even worse. She's vain, greedy, shrewish, and very manipulative. The queens are almost as bad: Islena is dumb and pretentious, and so weak willed that she can't even stand up to someone because he yells at her. Silar might be smart, but she's also quiet and doesn't give her opinion. Layla is pretty much just a mom who does nothing but have babies all the time, mothers her husband, and goes into hysterics when she has to travel by ship. Porenn is the only one who shows a modicum of intelligence, but she's shut down for being too young and then ends up being focused on just getting pregnant.

Will wrote: “Yes, because this is generally considered a childrens or young adult series and it encourages thin..."

As a young adult/teen I have enjoyed this book series very much and have not found that it encourages any racist thinking what so ever

Phil wrote: "Interesting thread! Here are the questions raised, as near as I can tell, including my responses:

What is racism?
I would define it as a belief that race or ethnicity defines and limits people. I ..."

Bravo, Phil. I give your opinions a lot of credence because 1. you're thoughtful and articulate, and 2. you speak from experience at the front lines. But even if I weren't predisposed to 'like' your comment, I would, cuz it's a good 'un.

Rena wrote: "Eddings seem to work on the theory that each race had stereotypically recognizable, inheritable personalities, (All Tolnedrans are greedy and like money. All Thulls really are stupid, all Sendars are incredibly sensible and practical, and so on) and then judged them based on that. This is kind of really problematic! ..."

Well put!

Cheryl wrote: "Phil wrote: "Interesting thread! Here are the questions raised, as near as I can tell, including my responses:

What is racism?
I would define it as a belief that race or ethnicity defines and limi..."

Thanks, Cheryl!

I don't see it as racism, I like the way Neal summarized things and Randy explained the transition into the Malloreon.
I loved the series and thought the way Eddings created the Gods, their followers, the universe and it's purpose was quite interesting. If you finish the Belgariad you would understand.

If you found this racist then Star Trek TOS should be equally racist to you since Roddenberry created alien races using the same kinds of tropes. ie. Planet of Hats.

Jeremy wrote: "The main reason I dropped this series partway through book two is, it's just bog-standard sword and sorcery. However, I was also getting the impression that Eddings has a cockeyed view of humanity...."

I don't know how much of Eddings' personal views come into his writing. He writes wonderful parental figures, but then he and his wife both went to jail for a year and had their kids taken from them for child abuse.

So I think what's on the page is more calculated for effect and less from the heart.

Is Eddings writing racist? Hard to say. In many of his series Eddings proposes that different races of people have very different and dependable characteristics/character traits deriving directly from their ancestry.

The Belgariad/Malloreon operates very much along a “race determines who you are” premise, which would be clearly extremely racist if you believed it in the real world, but which may flow logically from the natural order and cosmology of the fictional universe. On the other hand, as noted above, individual instances of racial mixing are uniformly described in a positive light.

In many ways my favourite Eddings series is the Elenium, and that takes these topics in a slightly different direction.

In the Elenium itself, apart from trolls and ogres, there are really only two races (three if you count the half-breed Zemochs). The Elenes are divided into a number of kingdoms and cultures, each representing a different Earth culture - basically Scandinavia, Western Europe, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, and somewhat surprisingly, Muslim North Africa or the Middle East. Each subgroup of Elenes is distinct from the others, but their “national characteristics” aren’t as strong as the racial characteristics in the Belgariad/Malloreon, and there is a lot more variety within each culture.

On the other hand, the Elenium posits that intermarriage between races is an abomination, condemned by both the God of the Elenes, and the Younger Gods of Styricum. The main villain nation of the series, is the one place where Elenes and Styrics have intermarried. Again, premises that would be racist in the real world, but perhaps not in a fictional world.

It is however, worth noting in the Elenium that homosexuality in a character pretty much automatically makes them a despicable villain (I don’t remember any homosexual characters in the Belgariad/Malloreon), and Eddings also seems to have a tendency to equate obesity and evil (though Rhodar of Drasnia is a major exception to that rule, though his obesity also kills him).

WOW!

I went to Reed College and read his personal papers.
Were these books racist? Complicated question.
Was David Eddings racist? Yes.
Each MLK day he penciled down "National N---- Day"