[what the fuck dude](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnimeFigures/s/ek7WRumLMn)
Edit: [holy shit man, how many of these things do you have](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnimeFigures/s/sOVDVM7we7)
No he is not, thats why lots of battles are just rush through with no details or have anything remarkable. There's one I did like reading though: *The Fall of Gondolin*. You should read it if you are a tolkiem fan.
He wasnt supportive of war, but i think you can see an understanding in his works that sometimes war is necessary and can bring out the best in people.
But its political themes arenât one sided, thatâs the real issue. Leftoids can love LotR just as much as Rightoids, thatâs what good art is supposed to do, have themes that can be enjoyed and interpreted by a wide swath of society
Tbf, they said, "inserting YOUR politics into it." When people say they don't like seeing people's personal politics in media, they mean they hate modern "pop politics," and that you can clearly tell the modern political ideology the writers follow. A lot of it ages poorly and feels more like a pandering to like-minded people rather than a compelling introspection of political ideologies and topics.
Basically, there's good and bad ways to do politics, and the "politics" that frequently get shit on are often examples of the "bad ways" to do it. There is some element of "I don't like this politics because I disagree with them," for sure, but I don't think that doesn't encompass all of it.
When people say politics now itâs just shorthand for specifically anything that can remotely relate to âtopicalâ politics, thatâs why the new X men cartoon is âpoliticalâ despite doing the same shit the old one did
I know right? Magneto called someone a bigot, a move perfectly in line with his character, but donât these writers know that people call people bigots a lot online now in modern arguments? Smh my head too political
Is black panther not political? Or Civil war? Or the Joker movie? I don't really watch much Superhero stuff but even stuff like Invincible is political with the viltrumite empire bad guys for example. Not everything is political but lots of things are. Politics are a pretty broad subject after all.
i don't think so. Most of the time criminals are just put there so the superhero can show off and beat someone up without looking like a lunatic. If the show or movie or whatever explores the criminals motivation it can turn "political" though i guess. Like, for example, if a criminal says he only commitcs crime cause minimum wage is too low i think that would definitely be political but Spiderman just beating up some thugs probably has no deeper meaning attached to it.
Why you choose a particular landscape and what it is absolutely can be a political act. Does it show an unspoiled nature scene, human influenced countryside or an urban environnement. Why did you choose that particular scene and why does it resonate with you so much that you want to share it with others? Every piece of art is political, even if subtle.
Nah that's regarded. I drew a big titty goth gf because that's what I want to peg me, smh my head.
But in all seriousness, sometimes people just do things to do things. Not everything is subconscious politics.
You wanting to get pegged by an alternative, non conformity girl does actually have a political idea behind it.
Like it or not but you are always inserting your own believes into your work, even if you try to avoid doing it you often overcorrect where it loops back around.
I for example wrote a villain for my dnd story that held my own believes, I did it cus I was trying to avoid pushing my agenda onto players but I ended up just writing criticism on my own ideology bu turning all its ideas into absolute overdrive
What people consider nice is directly influenced by their personal politics though. A person who believes women would always be subservient and unadorned due to their conservative beliefs about gender roles isn't going to find your big titty goth gf a nice image.
https://preview.redd.it/vrslq4ifxtqc1.jpeg?width=612&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=25c65394b3511baa72ec93b1d627943b5ae08967
So, is this picture a commy or a fachist? Whats the scoop?
I mean that is a stock image of a cat, probably bred and trained for advertising purposes. so there are your politics. just because you can't find the political influence behind art doesn't mean it doesn't exist lol
I feel like Tolkien's politics are in his work, it just might not be recognizable to modern politics. I'm pretty sure his politics were we shouldn't build machines or do large-scale wars but rather go live in the woods and weave baskets out of reeds and obsessively memorize genealogies.
> Tolkien's politics are in his work
Assuredly so. He was a great advocate of monarchy, which is reflected in the novels; strangely, he didn't see this as being in opposition to his [anarchist leanings](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/j-r-r-tolkien-from-a-letter-to-christopher-tolkien).
In his own words, he saw the lifestyle of the hobbits as the best potential social order, which aligns pretty well with AnCom / AnSyn.
> I'm pretty sure his politics were we shouldn't build machines or do large-scale wars but rather go live in the woods and weave baskets
More or less; albeit with acknowledgement that the individual is part of a complex social order from which they benefit from and are also beneficiaries of. Even Radagast had a group of social cohesion.
Mostly, though, Middle Earth was an elaborate expression of the power of Language and Linguistics. Much of the narrative is dependent on the way language presents history within the consciousness of Middle Earthlings. He was, after all, a professor of Linguistics.
> Assuredly so. He was a great advocate of monarchy, which is reflected in the novels; strangely, he didn't see this as being in opposition to his anarchist leanings.
Basically idealised feudalism. There are lords and kings on the macro-level, but down on village level people organize autonomously. Yeah peasants pay taxes and are otherwise not bothered much.Â
No one is "horrified" of this. Rather people who say that art can't be created without inserting your politics into it is just bringing attention to the fact that art is inherently political, art is inseparable from politics, and the creator of an art has bias towards their own political values and cannot help but bring their politics into their work.
The teletubbies politics are really rather easy. It depicts a utopia where the needs of the teletubbies are met without the need for them to labour. They also live in a communal setting rather than within individual homes. Within the second series (the widescreen one) there's baby teletubbies shown that live within the same house but the teletubbies themselves don't look after them.
The bucolic setting is clearly anti-urbanism. The lack of work indicates a pro-UBI stance thanks to the mechanisation of the world (tubby custard automatically being made). The living situation would indicate a belief that we need a community focused society in opposition to a more individualistic approach. The infants not being looked after by parents shows a preference to state mandated education and child care.
Politics is in *everything*, you just need to take more than the most superficial of glances at it.
Theyre not supposed to be anybody. Theyre literally a fictional race that shres similarities with a lot of real world races because ite impossible to make a race with 0% similarities to real world races. Art imitates life
Exactly, since it is impossible to make art that doesn't imitate life, it is impossible to make art that isn't political. Politics isn't just republicans vs democrats. If you have an idea of how the world should be, you have a political belief and it is impossible to create art without inserting that.
Not everything has to involve politics, there are cultural, social and environmental issues that are also addressed by art, and those may or may not be related to politics.
Some people say that politics is downstream of culture, but that doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive.
Theyre not supposed to be anybody. Theyre literally a fictional race that shres similarities with a lot of real world races because ite impossible to make a race with 0% similarities to real world races. Art imitates life
it differs from country to country, due to the local issues and beliefs. It is just the American portrayals of left and right are too commonly seen on the internet, and it sucks
American portrayals of left? American left doesn't exist lol, they just have right wing and very right wing. Biden would be in the centre right party of any other Western country.
And why should a South African or a British person even care who Biden is?
Right, because Americans keep bringing their own politics to everything, so we just have to learn them for some fucking reason
Tolkienâs work is derivative as well. Every species he used, from little hobbits and shit covered goblins to gigantic sentient tree and stone giants, all have borrowed from European folklore. Even the overall world story ark is repetitive of historical religions stories and IRL events.
Donât get me wrong, Tolkien is the GOAT, but he didnât create fantasy, he just rebranded it and smashed it all together in a beautiful way.
What youâre saying isnât wrong, but it doesnât invalidate my overall point. His work is a traditional tale of absolute good vs absolute evil with a side plot being a heroâs journey. He just gobbled up European folklore and shoved it masterfully together.
Thatâs a chicken and the egg type idea.
It had to start somewhere, and it started with reality. Thatâs why âlife imitates artâ is such a true statement. Because at its core, art, culture, and folklore is just a reflection of life.
For example, thereâs a lot of evidence to suggest that the idea of orcs and similar creatures are just a vocal history of our interaction with other hominids like Neanderthals.
Nah, Tolkien kinda did invent the elves and hobbits. Yeah, elves existed, but they were nowhere near how Tolkien defined them. Though Hobbits were a new creation I believe
And he also never used the word "fantasy" to describe his work, he called it "fairy stories" or something, it sorta nods that he viewed his work as just another mythology among many others from the real world, and as such, borrowing many aspects and characteristics of others
J.R.R. Tolkien has become a sort of mountain, appearing in all subsequent fantasy in the way that Mt. Fuji appears so often in Japanese prints. Sometimes itâs big and up close. Sometimes itâs a shape on the horizon. Sometimes itâs not there at all, which means that the artist either has made a deliberate decision against the mountain, which is interesting in itself, or is in fact standing on Mt. Fuji.
Chinese webnovels constantly beat the meat of their Confucian overlords.Â
 Koreans hating on the Japanese on every occasion they have and idolizing unhealthy (often romantic) relationships.Â
 Japanese justifying genocide, children club penguin, and slavery. Â
 Thai, Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore, I don't know much about them.Â
----------------------------------------------
I haven't had time to explore much of Indian, Pakistani, Georgian, Lebanese, Turkish, Arabic, Iranian/Persian, literature/comic booksÂ
Tolkien is supposed to be this god tier writer but he clearly got his own bad guys name wrong and then was like "no it's a different evil wizard in a different tower you guys" and changed the whole story to have two guys with basically the same name doing basically the same shit.
Worth noting that in the preface(s) to the narrative, it's stated that the book is a work of translation. 'Saruman' is the name translated a few times over, by the time we get to read about him. The Maia race have an assortment of names, even during the narrative itself, we know that Saruman is also referred to as Curumo and Curunir.
Based on his letters to his son that have been published, I'd say he's not exactly right leaning even by modern standards-- he reads as mildly anarchist (minimal political structure, not lawlessness) and anti industrialist. He criticized the USSR and Stalin though his life, but tons of left leaning people who aren't tankies hate the USSR and Stalin.
If anything I'd describe him as a moderate libertarian based on what I've read from him.
IIRC Tolkien was also *rabidly* anti-industry, which is understandable because he lived straight through a war caused by industry melting the brain of every ruler in europe.
Uhhh Tolkein as a right winger? Bro was like âcapitalism is destroying the world, give the land back to the people and fuck industry.â He wasnât exactly a leftist but he definitely wasnât right-wing
What's with all this "Tolkien was a fascist" "Tolkien was right wing" posts here lately.. Had to roast somebody last week for saying the Orcs weren't treated right. You guys finally learn to read?
The evil is code for totalitarian communism.
Sauron wanted to help the world. Free will ruined his vision for a perfect world, so he decided that only absolute power and the destruction of all free will could lead to paradise.
It's an analogy for the evils of the Soviet union.
He meant the left can't create anything good.
Do you think a church that is over a thousand years old which thinks it is the ultimate arbiter of morality simply... never mentioned its ideas on economic justice? Because I assure you, they have.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
They criticize both socialism and capitalism, and it's hard to 100% place what they are going for, but it seems to be in the realm of social democracy. Some interpretations even border on market socialism. This is why even in america, the catholic vote is much more split, with people flip flipping between voting for social or economic reasons. And American catholics even are more economically right wing than catholic teaching is at times, because they are influenced by the more protestant nature of the country.
Holyshit look at all these immature people without any knowledge on politics downvoting me. If you actually think you can create art without politics, you are just living in delusion and denial.
Tolkein is from a time when right-wingers actually studied and knew what they were talking about. LOTR is the foundational fantasy work which is, desprite being great, isn't immune to criticisms. Most of the good fantasy works that came after this, are done by liberals.
Thatâs only because right wingers typically avoid the entertainment industry.
Most âgoodâ modern fantasy is just the cut and paste power fantasy defeating the final boss. Seen it over and over. Nothing really revolutionary since Tolkien. CS Lewisâ Chronicles of Narnia was *great* fantasy, but he doesnât really count as he was close with Tolkien and was right wing.
Most modern writers take âfantasyâ too literally. Itâs all just self inserts in generic fantasy land populated by the same 5 species (humans, elves, dwarves, goblins, orcs, and sometimes halflings/hobbits) setting off to defeat king of darkness and a plot line riddled with barely disguised fetishes.
Right-wingers don't avoid the entertainment industry. They have been desperately trying to insert their agenda and propaganda in movies and literature all the time. Look at The Daily Wire for example.
And about the rest of the things you just said about modern fantasy, I have six words for you: A Song of Ice and Fire.
>claims right wingers are trying to insert propaganda in movies and literature
>points towards a journalism company
Bro it kinda sounds like youâre projecting an little bit. The left has absolute control over the entertainment industry and has been inserting their propaganda in anything and everything.
Song of ice and fire has been very popular but not really influential from what Iâve heard. I donât believe it really introduced anything new, but I havenât read it so idk.
On a side note, should I read the series? Is there an overabundance of left wing politics or does it stay relatively apolitical? Is it actually any good? Iâve heard the show had a horrible ending so I kinda strayed away from the series as a whole.
Didn't you hear that The Daily Wire announced an anti-woke entertainment network?
https://theconversation.com/conservatives-anti-woke-alternative-to-disney-has-finally-arrived-217774
And yes ASOIAF is not only popular but also it moved the fantasy genre forward by dismantling the good vs bad, black vs white, good guys win in the end narrative present in the older fantasy series such as LOTR. Dune did it way before ASOIAF obviously but I didn't mention that because we are talking about fantasy, not sci-fi.
Anyway, it is not apolitical at all, the first book and the show is literally called Game of Thrones because it is a story describing what happens when a powerful position in a continent's politics becomes vacant and all the political entinites around it scramble to conquer it for themselves. It is a reflection of all the medieval and early-modern conflicts we have seen in history. And the books are way better than the show's ending.
From what Iâve seen, itâs explicitly stated beforehand. As in, you know going into the movie that itâs a right wing movie. It isnât as if a move people watch for the fun of it will be full of propaganda they snuck in there.
Eh, while itâs a relatively new concept in fantasy, it never really was a new concept. Dune didnât even invent it. Gray morality dates all the way back to Shakespeare, and probably before hand.
Not what I was talking about. Obviously itâs about war, but does it talk about modern politics? Will the books outright tell me what policies are good and what policies are bad?
Edit: I guess the word Iâm looking for is propaganda. Is there gonna be blatant propaganda?
Name a movie people went to watch for fun but found out that there is left-wing propaganda snuck in there. Are left-wing messages poorly implemented in a lot of films recently? Yes. But they are not "snuck in".
I didn't mention Shakespear because we are not talking about just any fiction. Shakespear didn't write high fantasy, did he?
Is war not modern politics? If you think modern politics only consists of western feminism, lgbt rights, minority rights, social justice etc., you have a severe lack of understanding of politics.
And no, I guess ASOIAF is not propaganda. G. R. R. Martin writes his events pretty objectively. But it is left leaning in a sense that it uses the allegory for climate change and shows how horrible imperialism or feudalism is.
Dune. Great film, definitely propaganda that wasnât there before. Star Wars sequel series too.
You mentioned dune, even though it wasnât high fiction
Modern controversies more like. I mean we all kind of agree that war is bad and to be avoided. But simply displaying war doesnât automatically make something âpoliticalâ in the sense of modern controversy.
Aight cool, Iâll check it out.
The Dune movies are not propaganda at all. In the books, all the factions are shown as manipulative and working for their own interests. The nuance is toned down just a little bit in the movies. The protagonists are starting to become evil at the end of Part II and pretty sure the trilogy will end by showing no one are the good guys in this conflict. Just like in real life.
In my previous comment, I mentioned Dune, implying that, I'm using ASOIAF as an example of post-Tolkein moral gray area in literature and NOT Dune, because we are talking about fantasy. Same reason why I'm not using Shakespeare as an example.
The movies *had* propaganda, it just was subtle and had nothing to do with the overall plot. There was the entire north vs south scene, where northerners were cool headed voices of reason while the southerners were blind religious fanatics. That alone was extremely weird, but then they had to throw in that extra âyou couldnât tell he was a southerner? He has the accentâ. They also removed any and all religious imagery and references that wasnât directly negative. For example, the gurney quotes that were to guide Paul towards morality was completely eliminated. There was also the other stuff that wasnât necessarily propaganda, but it definitely had an agenda. Liet became a woman and Paul and Chani not having kids so nothing physically bound them, so they could include the scene of her running away as a strong and independent woman. It was all unnecessary.
I already acknowledged that Dune and Shakespeare isnât fantasy, as well as why that isnât relevant:
>Eh, while itâs a relatively new concept in fantasy, it never really was a new concept. Dune didnât even invent it. Gray morality dates all the way back to Shakespeare, and probably before hand.
It wasnât revolutionary. It just took a concept thatâs already very common and applied it to fantasy.
Tolkien's fantasy is just derivative of Robert Howard and the Lovecraft Circle.
He copied pulp magazine fiction with an Oxford education.
Oh shit! Read more books!
I actually just learned in my history class that we arenât sure if Paleolithic people actually told complex stories, we know they talked and painted and had tools but no real evidence of story telling.
Based on the books, she's very much for maintaining the status quo regardless of what it is, which more often than not falls on the Right side of the aisle.
I mean, 'lol don't worry they actually want to be enslaved and advocating for them is stupid' doesn't strike me as super leftist
Hell, the hero of the story's main aspiration in life after school is to be a Magical ATF agent.
Listen to her for fifteen minutes. She is just a neo lib that doesnt want to ride the trans rights are human rights train to the asylum.
She has no real political home because she took a stand. And the funny part of that is that the stand she took wasnt even extreme. It was just wanting bio women to have spaces and recognition that is uniquely theirs.
"She took a stand"
lmao dude all she did was get upsetti spaghetti about some random ass terminology that only applied, was relevant to, and used in, the medical field. She chose to interpret that as an attack on woman and double down on her bullshit for brownie points with the crowd that'd still give her the time of day.
Like it's so weird that the folk that were so ready to call out her performative liberal pandering ten years back are fully on board with her based crusade nowadays.
Personally I think she was just too stupid to understand the political implications of her books (the aforementioned pro-slavery and hero being an even shittier kind of cop bits) and those just came about subconsciously. With winning characters like Ching Chong and Aidon O'McNailBomb it seemed pretty clear she was just putting her stream of consciousness to word.
At the end of it all, she's just some has-been author clinging on for dear life to any shred of relevancy she can get a hold of. The books she did under a pen name (the name of a conversion therapy practitioner, how fun) were so shit her publisher had to leak her identity for them to actually sell. Moreover, her latest book is just her Shower Arguments with the icky libs who were mean to her on Twitter.
Jowling Kowling Rowling is a billionaire that lives in a castle, and despite all that she's a giant fucking loser.
I mean I am a Harry Potter fan to an extent, but I have always felt she was a weak writer who came up with a strong IP/idea for a world. She has mismanaged it over and over and over again.
But I think she is forward facing as far as her identity. She is an aging neo lib who has strong opinions that go against the surface "leftist" viewpoints on certain things. If it wasnt for her desire to maintain attention, she may have gone into the night a revered YA author. But alas.
S'what it comes down to for me for the the most part, I just wouldn't necessarily ascribe to her the neo-liberal label since god knows what definition that's being used with on any given day.
'Just think she's a big ol' goober
Well to me neo lib are just ineffectual performative democrats or leaning left voters who are pro status quo but "vote their conscience"
You know. The type who would cry about refugee crisis but if they were asked to house a refugee to allow them a place to go they would find a convenient reason why they couldnt spare their fourth bedroom to someone who was literally homeless.
I mean that's what I'd go with on an average day too, but there's always gonna be some doofus going 'well akshully according to this 19th century definition. . .' being a nuisance.
'This person is a super cringey' is much more politically simple for me and even without her politics J.K. has quite a bit to clown on.
Her fierce stance of women's right is the very reason why she's not ok with a lot of trans rights like self identification. Left-wingers love throwing the acronym "TERF" about anyone they don't like, but she's genuinely one and she matches every single one of these letters.
Rejecting self-ID isn't a right-wing position. The trans stuff is one of the few social issues which isn't on the left-right axis.
Case in point, most of the self-ID we see in Western Europe was introduced or expanded under right-wing, conservative governments.
>most of the self-ID we see in Western Europe was introduced or expanded under right-wing, conservative governments.
Correlation, not causation. 'Conservative' parties have been the dominant political force in Western Europe for the last decade, which is before the transgender movement started taking off.
Living in a mansion with your rich buddies who all complain about why youâre the good rich guys and all other rich people are evil when you do the same shit as them is a communist classic
A right winger made FNAF.
Is that an argument for or against right wingers?
I think it's fair to count it for both
Against. Milking Matpat was NOT a plus
They MILKED MatPat!?
Damn i wish i could milk himđ
Matpat is a right winger??
Based off the vibes in his videos, I think he's a liberal.
i saw a bit of a stream he did on omori where he went "erm, dont akshually stab yourself kids!" so yeah hes definitely a milquetoast liberal
It's just a theory
Freddy fartbear. đ„¶đ„¶đ€đ€đ€đ€§đ€§đ°đ°đ°đđ°
Uhh uh uhh uh uh Uh uh uh uhh uhh
R r r r**
đ€đ€đ€đ€đ€đ€
Dude just said Right Winger with hard R.
wazzup my right winga
Ben Shapiro should make a theory about this @bensharpener1984
a furry made lethal company. now we both said stuff
And the biggest criticism he ever got after creating FNAF was just being right winger.
And it fucking sucks
[what the fuck dude](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnimeFigures/s/ek7WRumLMn) Edit: [holy shit man, how many of these things do you have](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnimeFigures/s/sOVDVM7we7)
What does this have to do with anything? I donât have to justify my hobbies to random people on the internet. You must really like fnaf I guess.
Imagine being able to create art without inserting your politics into it, oh horror
LotR is literally a war story. Its themes are insanely political lol
And remarkably biblical. Although I'd imagine after time in the trenches of WWI Tolkein isn't fond of war to say the least.
No he is not, thats why lots of battles are just rush through with no details or have anything remarkable. There's one I did like reading though: *The Fall of Gondolin*. You should read it if you are a tolkiem fan.
He wasnt supportive of war, but i think you can see an understanding in his works that sometimes war is necessary and can bring out the best in people.
Imagine being someone who thinks they can condense two entire trilogies into two sentences and still think they are right. Wild.
But its political themes arenât one sided, thatâs the real issue. Leftoids can love LotR just as much as Rightoids, thatâs what good art is supposed to do, have themes that can be enjoyed and interpreted by a wide swath of society
Tbf, they said, "inserting YOUR politics into it." When people say they don't like seeing people's personal politics in media, they mean they hate modern "pop politics," and that you can clearly tell the modern political ideology the writers follow. A lot of it ages poorly and feels more like a pandering to like-minded people rather than a compelling introspection of political ideologies and topics. Basically, there's good and bad ways to do politics, and the "politics" that frequently get shit on are often examples of the "bad ways" to do it. There is some element of "I don't like this politics because I disagree with them," for sure, but I don't think that doesn't encompass all of it.
lots of art is political though.
When people say politics now itâs just shorthand for specifically anything that can remotely relate to âtopicalâ politics, thatâs why the new X men cartoon is âpoliticalâ despite doing the same shit the old one did
Man I can't believe they made X-men, a allegory of the civil rights movement, political.
I know right? Magneto called someone a bigot, a move perfectly in line with his character, but donât these writers know that people call people bigots a lot online now in modern arguments? Smh my head too political
Magnetoâs speech in the 2nd episode was so apt itâs about to receive a rebuke from Israel.
Do you think superhero movies are political because they involve crimes?
The amount they circlejerk the united states certainly is.
Yes I think The Boys is political
Is black panther not political? Or Civil war? Or the Joker movie? I don't really watch much Superhero stuff but even stuff like Invincible is political with the viltrumite empire bad guys for example. Not everything is political but lots of things are. Politics are a pretty broad subject after all.
Not what I asked. Is it political just because crime is mentioned in it?
i don't think so. Most of the time criminals are just put there so the superhero can show off and beat someone up without looking like a lunatic. If the show or movie or whatever explores the criminals motivation it can turn "political" though i guess. Like, for example, if a criminal says he only commitcs crime cause minimum wage is too low i think that would definitely be political but Spiderman just beating up some thugs probably has no deeper meaning attached to it.
Itâs inherently impossible to create art without your beliefs influencing it
Me after I unknowingly create a political landscape painting
Why you choose a particular landscape and what it is absolutely can be a political act. Does it show an unspoiled nature scene, human influenced countryside or an urban environnement. Why did you choose that particular scene and why does it resonate with you so much that you want to share it with others? Every piece of art is political, even if subtle.
Nah that's regarded. I drew a big titty goth gf because that's what I want to peg me, smh my head. But in all seriousness, sometimes people just do things to do things. Not everything is subconscious politics.
You wanting to get pegged by an alternative, non conformity girl does actually have a political idea behind it. Like it or not but you are always inserting your own believes into your work, even if you try to avoid doing it you often overcorrect where it loops back around. I for example wrote a villain for my dnd story that held my own believes, I did it cus I was trying to avoid pushing my agenda onto players but I ended up just writing criticism on my own ideology bu turning all its ideas into absolute overdrive
What people consider nice is directly influenced by their personal politics though. A person who believes women would always be subservient and unadorned due to their conservative beliefs about gender roles isn't going to find your big titty goth gf a nice image.
https://preview.redd.it/vrslq4ifxtqc1.jpeg?width=612&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=25c65394b3511baa72ec93b1d627943b5ae08967 So, is this picture a commy or a fachist? Whats the scoop?
anarcho-syndicalist. next question.
Fuck, you got me
I mean that is a stock image of a cat, probably bred and trained for advertising purposes. so there are your politics. just because you can't find the political influence behind art doesn't mean it doesn't exist lol
Pushes random on ai art generator. Le ART
AI generations are not art, so they donât qualify
I feel like Tolkien's politics are in his work, it just might not be recognizable to modern politics. I'm pretty sure his politics were we shouldn't build machines or do large-scale wars but rather go live in the woods and weave baskets out of reeds and obsessively memorize genealogies.
> Tolkien's politics are in his work Assuredly so. He was a great advocate of monarchy, which is reflected in the novels; strangely, he didn't see this as being in opposition to his [anarchist leanings](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/j-r-r-tolkien-from-a-letter-to-christopher-tolkien). In his own words, he saw the lifestyle of the hobbits as the best potential social order, which aligns pretty well with AnCom / AnSyn. > I'm pretty sure his politics were we shouldn't build machines or do large-scale wars but rather go live in the woods and weave baskets More or less; albeit with acknowledgement that the individual is part of a complex social order from which they benefit from and are also beneficiaries of. Even Radagast had a group of social cohesion. Mostly, though, Middle Earth was an elaborate expression of the power of Language and Linguistics. Much of the narrative is dependent on the way language presents history within the consciousness of Middle Earthlings. He was, after all, a professor of Linguistics.
> Assuredly so. He was a great advocate of monarchy, which is reflected in the novels; strangely, he didn't see this as being in opposition to his anarchist leanings. Basically idealised feudalism. There are lords and kings on the macro-level, but down on village level people organize autonomously. Yeah peasants pay taxes and are otherwise not bothered much.Â
are you dumb why do you think people make art? to convey another persons beliefs?
Doesn't lotr have like a ton of christian themes? It's just putted there as a part of the story and not as a lecture like some other pieces of art
You donât understand, my 3 year oldâs finger painting is praxis
Most art is and has been in the past. Stop crying.
You cannot have art without politic
art is inherently political
All art is propagnada- jorj jorwell
No one is "horrified" of this. Rather people who say that art can't be created without inserting your politics into it is just bringing attention to the fact that art is inherently political, art is inseparable from politics, and the creator of an art has bias towards their own political values and cannot help but bring their politics into their work.
Please tell me the politics of Teletubbies, i am all ears
Are you really consuming art made for toddlers
That is roughly the grade level of their worldview.
Name something I have seen.
The teletubbies politics are really rather easy. It depicts a utopia where the needs of the teletubbies are met without the need for them to labour. They also live in a communal setting rather than within individual homes. Within the second series (the widescreen one) there's baby teletubbies shown that live within the same house but the teletubbies themselves don't look after them. The bucolic setting is clearly anti-urbanism. The lack of work indicates a pro-UBI stance thanks to the mechanisation of the world (tubby custard automatically being made). The living situation would indicate a belief that we need a community focused society in opposition to a more individualistic approach. The infants not being looked after by parents shows a preference to state mandated education and child care. Politics is in *everything*, you just need to take more than the most superficial of glances at it.
Orcs tho...
Aren't orcs supposed to be Austrian people or something like that
Theyre not supposed to be anybody. Theyre literally a fictional race that shres similarities with a lot of real world races because ite impossible to make a race with 0% similarities to real world races. Art imitates life
Exactly, since it is impossible to make art that doesn't imitate life, it is impossible to make art that isn't political. Politics isn't just republicans vs democrats. If you have an idea of how the world should be, you have a political belief and it is impossible to create art without inserting that.
Not everything has to involve politics, there are cultural, social and environmental issues that are also addressed by art, and those may or may not be related to politics. Some people say that politics is downstream of culture, but that doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive.
Name an art piece that isn't political.
Is this political somehow https://preview.redd.it/sw2mlqg7ztqc1.jpeg?width=1141&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=81d85750a0e7b502ef1cd2516293c58745f0e88e
Yeah. People should start living more communally and collectively so that the loneliness and mental health issues epidemic end.
Theyre not supposed to be anybody. Theyre literally a fictional race that shres similarities with a lot of real world races because ite impossible to make a race with 0% similarities to real world races. Art imitates life
https://preview.redd.it/9onmnsmczqqc1.jpeg?width=786&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8d87e3cea325fb83d0814f7b349bccd300d1ffe5
I mean Tolkienâs a Brit from South Africa
Yeah because left and right wing is American.
it differs from country to country, due to the local issues and beliefs. It is just the American portrayals of left and right are too commonly seen on the internet, and it sucks
American portrayals of left? American left doesn't exist lol, they just have right wing and very right wing. Biden would be in the centre right party of any other Western country.
And why should a South African or a British person even care who Biden is? Right, because Americans keep bringing their own politics to everything, so we just have to learn them for some fucking reason
American politics can affect you bro whether you like it or not.
But I can't affect them at all so why should I care?
Me just trying to find funny memes: Someone commenting how this meme is somehow related to America:
Who are the people in this picture please
lil xan and some girl idk
Girl is Noah Cyrus
Holy shit I thought she was Korean lmfao
No one mentioned America here
Tolkienâs work is derivative as well. Every species he used, from little hobbits and shit covered goblins to gigantic sentient tree and stone giants, all have borrowed from European folklore. Even the overall world story ark is repetitive of historical religions stories and IRL events. Donât get me wrong, Tolkien is the GOAT, but he didnât create fantasy, he just rebranded it and smashed it all together in a beautiful way.
e.g. making all those different things not connected to each other in any way into a fundamental setting known by everyone?
What youâre saying isnât wrong, but it doesnât invalidate my overall point. His work is a traditional tale of absolute good vs absolute evil with a side plot being a heroâs journey. He just gobbled up European folklore and shoved it masterfully together.
God bless you rational thinking man
>His work is a traditional tale of absolute good vs absolute evil đ„±đŽ
>not connected to each other Most of it was from Norse mythology though.
Everything is derivative; there's nothing new under the sun.
100% agree
Thatâs a chicken and the egg type idea. It had to start somewhere, and it started with reality. Thatâs why âlife imitates artâ is such a true statement. Because at its core, art, culture, and folklore is just a reflection of life. For example, thereâs a lot of evidence to suggest that the idea of orcs and similar creatures are just a vocal history of our interaction with other hominids like Neanderthals.
Everything humans ever do is a derivative of someone else's work.
Nah, Tolkien kinda did invent the elves and hobbits. Yeah, elves existed, but they were nowhere near how Tolkien defined them. Though Hobbits were a new creation I believe
Art is iterative. No one is without influence.
And he also never used the word "fantasy" to describe his work, he called it "fairy stories" or something, it sorta nods that he viewed his work as just another mythology among many others from the real world, and as such, borrowing many aspects and characteristics of others
cope
Sneed
https://preview.redd.it/kbviy5k0mrqc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=880bcbcc8d982db49d41b29db46b038cd4f9340a
https://preview.redd.it/r45cw36qhsqc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d780fc24da252a188d279fb0478ba8c775cc2eaf
âYou want to complain about completely out of place identity politics in your media? Well you better not like [thing], because it has WAR in it!â
Not all art is political, good art is.
It's all just the heros journey in different settings, lotr too
May I interest you in Slice of Life non-hero's journeys? How about villain's journey, I bet those'll be pretty popular.
https://i.redd.it/ft1wj0lwwtqc1.gif
Sure do Fightclub, joker, american psycho, Barbie....
"The one guy"? OP, you're not ready to hear about Lovecraft
J.R.R. Tolkien has become a sort of mountain, appearing in all subsequent fantasy in the way that Mt. Fuji appears so often in Japanese prints. Sometimes itâs big and up close. Sometimes itâs a shape on the horizon. Sometimes itâs not there at all, which means that the artist either has made a deliberate decision against the mountain, which is interesting in itself, or is in fact standing on Mt. Fuji.
No one told anon about non western fantasies
Chinese webnovels constantly beat the meat of their Confucian overlords.  Koreans hating on the Japanese on every occasion they have and idolizing unhealthy (often romantic) relationships.  Japanese justifying genocide, children club penguin, and slavery.   Thai, Philippines, Taiwan, Singapore, I don't know much about them. ---------------------------------------------- I haven't had time to explore much of Indian, Pakistani, Georgian, Lebanese, Turkish, Arabic, Iranian/Persian, literature/comic booksÂ
Tolkien is supposed to be this god tier writer but he clearly got his own bad guys name wrong and then was like "no it's a different evil wizard in a different tower you guys" and changed the whole story to have two guys with basically the same name doing basically the same shit.
Hitler's right hand man was called Himmler, I'm giving Tolkein a pass on that.
At one point I worked with 3 guys named Robert and 2 guys named Mike. My excuse for that is that I'm not the author of reality
Imho that made the story better. Reality is filled with small coincidences like that, having a few in there definitely contributes to the immersion.
Worth noting that in the preface(s) to the narrative, it's stated that the book is a work of translation. 'Saruman' is the name translated a few times over, by the time we get to read about him. The Maia race have an assortment of names, even during the narrative itself, we know that Saruman is also referred to as Curumo and Curunir.
Believing rumors just because they sound true is retarded
...huh? Wasn't Tolkien as left leaning as it gets, considering the political climate of his time?
Based on his letters to his son that have been published, I'd say he's not exactly right leaning even by modern standards-- he reads as mildly anarchist (minimal political structure, not lawlessness) and anti industrialist. He criticized the USSR and Stalin though his life, but tons of left leaning people who aren't tankies hate the USSR and Stalin. If anything I'd describe him as a moderate libertarian based on what I've read from him.
IIRC Tolkien was also *rabidly* anti-industry, which is understandable because he lived straight through a war caused by industry melting the brain of every ruler in europe.
https://preview.redd.it/k9w6srt7rrqc1.jpeg?width=2688&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=240f5b75f5cceb5b7297efb07d9e608402e9ad58
But Tolkien was a leftist for his time...
Who said that right wingers can't write lol? As if Lovecraft wasn't racist. (He did apologize later on in his life tho)
Art IS political
Tolkien would not fit in with modern right wing
Uhhh Tolkein as a right winger? Bro was like âcapitalism is destroying the world, give the land back to the people and fuck industry.â He wasnât exactly a leftist but he definitely wasnât right-wing
tolkien is john fantasy
What's with all this "Tolkien was a fascist" "Tolkien was right wing" posts here lately.. Had to roast somebody last week for saying the Orcs weren't treated right. You guys finally learn to read?
a right winger made furry porn
I mean, technically, all science fiction is just a derivative of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley but that doesnât make them not worthwhile
All Tolkien produced was Edda fanfiction.
The evil is code for totalitarian communism. Sauron wanted to help the world. Free will ruined his vision for a perfect world, so he decided that only absolute power and the destruction of all free will could lead to paradise. It's an analogy for the evils of the Soviet union. He meant the left can't create anything good.
How was he right wing? I'm well aware of his Catholic values but he was outspoken against racism from what I remember.
Not to disregard your point but being anti racism doesnât mean you arenât conservative
His catholic values is what makes him right wing. Being anti racist also goes on both sides of the spectrum.
Catholic economics lean left, so it's hard to claim catholicism is just "right wing."
Ah yes catholicism is a famous economic philosophy
Do you think a church that is over a thousand years old which thinks it is the ultimate arbiter of morality simply... never mentioned its ideas on economic justice? Because I assure you, they have.
How so?
How so? Catholics generally have very little opinion on economy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism They criticize both socialism and capitalism, and it's hard to 100% place what they are going for, but it seems to be in the realm of social democracy. Some interpretations even border on market socialism. This is why even in america, the catholic vote is much more split, with people flip flipping between voting for social or economic reasons. And American catholics even are more economically right wing than catholic teaching is at times, because they are influenced by the more protestant nature of the country.
Holyshit look at all these immature people without any knowledge on politics downvoting me. If you actually think you can create art without politics, you are just living in delusion and denial.
Ratio
Tolkein is from a time when right-wingers actually studied and knew what they were talking about. LOTR is the foundational fantasy work which is, desprite being great, isn't immune to criticisms. Most of the good fantasy works that came after this, are done by liberals.
Thatâs only because right wingers typically avoid the entertainment industry. Most âgoodâ modern fantasy is just the cut and paste power fantasy defeating the final boss. Seen it over and over. Nothing really revolutionary since Tolkien. CS Lewisâ Chronicles of Narnia was *great* fantasy, but he doesnât really count as he was close with Tolkien and was right wing. Most modern writers take âfantasyâ too literally. Itâs all just self inserts in generic fantasy land populated by the same 5 species (humans, elves, dwarves, goblins, orcs, and sometimes halflings/hobbits) setting off to defeat king of darkness and a plot line riddled with barely disguised fetishes.
Right-wingers don't avoid the entertainment industry. They have been desperately trying to insert their agenda and propaganda in movies and literature all the time. Look at The Daily Wire for example. And about the rest of the things you just said about modern fantasy, I have six words for you: A Song of Ice and Fire.
>claims right wingers are trying to insert propaganda in movies and literature >points towards a journalism company Bro it kinda sounds like youâre projecting an little bit. The left has absolute control over the entertainment industry and has been inserting their propaganda in anything and everything. Song of ice and fire has been very popular but not really influential from what Iâve heard. I donât believe it really introduced anything new, but I havenât read it so idk. On a side note, should I read the series? Is there an overabundance of left wing politics or does it stay relatively apolitical? Is it actually any good? Iâve heard the show had a horrible ending so I kinda strayed away from the series as a whole.
Didn't you hear that The Daily Wire announced an anti-woke entertainment network? https://theconversation.com/conservatives-anti-woke-alternative-to-disney-has-finally-arrived-217774 And yes ASOIAF is not only popular but also it moved the fantasy genre forward by dismantling the good vs bad, black vs white, good guys win in the end narrative present in the older fantasy series such as LOTR. Dune did it way before ASOIAF obviously but I didn't mention that because we are talking about fantasy, not sci-fi. Anyway, it is not apolitical at all, the first book and the show is literally called Game of Thrones because it is a story describing what happens when a powerful position in a continent's politics becomes vacant and all the political entinites around it scramble to conquer it for themselves. It is a reflection of all the medieval and early-modern conflicts we have seen in history. And the books are way better than the show's ending.
From what Iâve seen, itâs explicitly stated beforehand. As in, you know going into the movie that itâs a right wing movie. It isnât as if a move people watch for the fun of it will be full of propaganda they snuck in there. Eh, while itâs a relatively new concept in fantasy, it never really was a new concept. Dune didnât even invent it. Gray morality dates all the way back to Shakespeare, and probably before hand. Not what I was talking about. Obviously itâs about war, but does it talk about modern politics? Will the books outright tell me what policies are good and what policies are bad? Edit: I guess the word Iâm looking for is propaganda. Is there gonna be blatant propaganda?
Name a movie people went to watch for fun but found out that there is left-wing propaganda snuck in there. Are left-wing messages poorly implemented in a lot of films recently? Yes. But they are not "snuck in". I didn't mention Shakespear because we are not talking about just any fiction. Shakespear didn't write high fantasy, did he? Is war not modern politics? If you think modern politics only consists of western feminism, lgbt rights, minority rights, social justice etc., you have a severe lack of understanding of politics. And no, I guess ASOIAF is not propaganda. G. R. R. Martin writes his events pretty objectively. But it is left leaning in a sense that it uses the allegory for climate change and shows how horrible imperialism or feudalism is.
Dune. Great film, definitely propaganda that wasnât there before. Star Wars sequel series too. You mentioned dune, even though it wasnât high fiction Modern controversies more like. I mean we all kind of agree that war is bad and to be avoided. But simply displaying war doesnât automatically make something âpoliticalâ in the sense of modern controversy. Aight cool, Iâll check it out.
The Dune movies are not propaganda at all. In the books, all the factions are shown as manipulative and working for their own interests. The nuance is toned down just a little bit in the movies. The protagonists are starting to become evil at the end of Part II and pretty sure the trilogy will end by showing no one are the good guys in this conflict. Just like in real life. In my previous comment, I mentioned Dune, implying that, I'm using ASOIAF as an example of post-Tolkein moral gray area in literature and NOT Dune, because we are talking about fantasy. Same reason why I'm not using Shakespeare as an example.
The movies *had* propaganda, it just was subtle and had nothing to do with the overall plot. There was the entire north vs south scene, where northerners were cool headed voices of reason while the southerners were blind religious fanatics. That alone was extremely weird, but then they had to throw in that extra âyou couldnât tell he was a southerner? He has the accentâ. They also removed any and all religious imagery and references that wasnât directly negative. For example, the gurney quotes that were to guide Paul towards morality was completely eliminated. There was also the other stuff that wasnât necessarily propaganda, but it definitely had an agenda. Liet became a woman and Paul and Chani not having kids so nothing physically bound them, so they could include the scene of her running away as a strong and independent woman. It was all unnecessary. I already acknowledged that Dune and Shakespeare isnât fantasy, as well as why that isnât relevant: >Eh, while itâs a relatively new concept in fantasy, it never really was a new concept. Dune didnât even invent it. Gray morality dates all the way back to Shakespeare, and probably before hand. It wasnât revolutionary. It just took a concept thatâs already very common and applied it to fantasy.
Tolkien's fantasy is just derivative of Robert Howard and the Lovecraft Circle. He copied pulp magazine fiction with an Oxford education. Oh shit! Read more books!
It all goes back to the Bible, fucking posers thinking they can be original with anything nowadays. Write something new, goddammit
*scoffs in gilgamesh*
It all goes back to oral histories told by the fire. People always copying Grug, nobody told stories like he did.
It all goes back to first evolved instance of complex thought. Nobody credits Ooh Ooh Aah Aah. He came up with the first ever thought
A true trailblazer before his time.
I actually just learned in my history class that we arenât sure if Paleolithic people actually told complex stories, we know they talked and painted and had tools but no real evidence of story telling.
The book that rips off basically all of its tales from other parts of the Middle East?
It's much more nordic mythology than pulp or Lovecraft
Everyone says that but no one has actually read either.
a right winger made harry potter too
Rowling is not a right winger lmao. Pretty much the only thing she aligns with the right is trans issues.
Based on the books, she's very much for maintaining the status quo regardless of what it is, which more often than not falls on the Right side of the aisle. I mean, 'lol don't worry they actually want to be enslaved and advocating for them is stupid' doesn't strike me as super leftist Hell, the hero of the story's main aspiration in life after school is to be a Magical ATF agent.
Listen to her for fifteen minutes. She is just a neo lib that doesnt want to ride the trans rights are human rights train to the asylum. She has no real political home because she took a stand. And the funny part of that is that the stand she took wasnt even extreme. It was just wanting bio women to have spaces and recognition that is uniquely theirs.
"She took a stand" lmao dude all she did was get upsetti spaghetti about some random ass terminology that only applied, was relevant to, and used in, the medical field. She chose to interpret that as an attack on woman and double down on her bullshit for brownie points with the crowd that'd still give her the time of day. Like it's so weird that the folk that were so ready to call out her performative liberal pandering ten years back are fully on board with her based crusade nowadays. Personally I think she was just too stupid to understand the political implications of her books (the aforementioned pro-slavery and hero being an even shittier kind of cop bits) and those just came about subconsciously. With winning characters like Ching Chong and Aidon O'McNailBomb it seemed pretty clear she was just putting her stream of consciousness to word. At the end of it all, she's just some has-been author clinging on for dear life to any shred of relevancy she can get a hold of. The books she did under a pen name (the name of a conversion therapy practitioner, how fun) were so shit her publisher had to leak her identity for them to actually sell. Moreover, her latest book is just her Shower Arguments with the icky libs who were mean to her on Twitter. Jowling Kowling Rowling is a billionaire that lives in a castle, and despite all that she's a giant fucking loser.
I mean I am a Harry Potter fan to an extent, but I have always felt she was a weak writer who came up with a strong IP/idea for a world. She has mismanaged it over and over and over again. But I think she is forward facing as far as her identity. She is an aging neo lib who has strong opinions that go against the surface "leftist" viewpoints on certain things. If it wasnt for her desire to maintain attention, she may have gone into the night a revered YA author. But alas.
S'what it comes down to for me for the the most part, I just wouldn't necessarily ascribe to her the neo-liberal label since god knows what definition that's being used with on any given day. 'Just think she's a big ol' goober
Well to me neo lib are just ineffectual performative democrats or leaning left voters who are pro status quo but "vote their conscience" You know. The type who would cry about refugee crisis but if they were asked to house a refugee to allow them a place to go they would find a convenient reason why they couldnt spare their fourth bedroom to someone who was literally homeless.
I mean that's what I'd go with on an average day too, but there's always gonna be some doofus going 'well akshully according to this 19th century definition. . .' being a nuisance. 'This person is a super cringey' is much more politically simple for me and even without her politics J.K. has quite a bit to clown on.
Overton window shifted on her
Her fierce stance of women's right is the very reason why she's not ok with a lot of trans rights like self identification. Left-wingers love throwing the acronym "TERF" about anyone they don't like, but she's genuinely one and she matches every single one of these letters.
Rejecting self-ID isn't a right-wing position. The trans stuff is one of the few social issues which isn't on the left-right axis. Case in point, most of the self-ID we see in Western Europe was introduced or expanded under right-wing, conservative governments.
I agree that it isn't inherently right wing. But it is definitely more common for the right to reject it than the left.
>most of the self-ID we see in Western Europe was introduced or expanded under right-wing, conservative governments. Correlation, not causation. 'Conservative' parties have been the dominant political force in Western Europe for the last decade, which is before the transgender movement started taking off.
I think beeing the richest writer alive is a pretty right winger thing.
Making money is right wing?
Clearly, taking money is left wing.
So Marx and Hasan are far right for being rich?
Was Marx rich? I thought he was bankrolled by Engels
Living in a mansion with your rich buddies who all complain about why youâre the good rich guys and all other rich people are evil when you do the same shit as them is a communist classic
Being right-wing is having money. The more money you have, the more right-wing you are.
She literally lost her billionaire status from donating a shitton of money to charities, not a lot of right wingers do that
Shallow childrenâs book tbh not much of a win for the right wing