Pratchett, Terry - Men at Arms

[oyceter]

Vimes is about to retire from the Guard, only before he can, he and Carrot have to solve a series of mysteries regarding a strange weapon that fires lead projectiles really, really fast. And we find out a wee bit more about that birthmark Carrot has...

I liked this, but I didn't like it quite as much as Guards! Guards. Part of this was because Vimes isn't in it very much; the book's most on Carrot. And I like Carrot, I do, but he verges a little too close to perfect in this book. Pratchett handwaves it a little by chalking it up to his heritage, but it means he can solve problems a little too quickly and a little too well. There wasn't this problem in GG because Carrot was a newbie. I sort of miss the newbie-ness; it gave him room to stumble.

Things I liked: The Carrot-Vetinari talk at the end. Dr. Whiteface (creepy!). Leonard of Quirm and Nanny Ogg. The mystery itself, which was nicely twisty and interesting. Cuddy and Detritus and the silicon brain (I geeked out at this). Angua as a general concept. Carrot as TCK.

Things I am ok about: Angua as she was executed... to me, she felt a little more like a collection of "cool woman" traits than an actual personality. Part of this may be because I am comparing her with other Pratchett women, who are bursting to the brim with personality. But I wanted some more -- I can't quite think of what she likes and dislikes right now, except that she was amused by Carrot's reading of the oath (as was I). I am guessing she'll get fleshed out more later though.

Things I didn't like: the racism/speciesism thing.

Now, before anyone comments defending Pratchett, let me say this. I think his portrayal of race and racism is wrong. That said, I think he's well-intentioned and somewhat clueless, but his cluelessness goes more toward institutional racism. And putting this in his book(s) means he's at least willing to think about it, which I appreciate. Also, I didn't throw this book against a wall. I know that sounds like I'm damning it with faint praise, but honestly, if I hadn't been giving Pratchett the benefit of the doubt, I would have thrown this book against a wall and probably left a frothing post here. (eta: fixed link)

So: I'm not actually offended or pissed off, I don't think Pratchett is a racist except in the sense that we are all products of institutional racism, and I still like and enjoy the Discworld books and this book. I just think he gets it wrong.

Minor spoilers!

1. I don't like the analogy he draws between racism and speciesism. It's a faulty analogy (and I get that all analogies are flawed), and the part that I find the most flawed is that species != race. As in, species are biologically different. Troll brains just do not operate the same way as dwarf brains. Dwarf brains have that sense of direction underground, and they are by nature short. Race, on the other hand, is not a biological concept, no matter how much 19th century colonialism apologists wanted it to be one. It's a social and cultural artifact. And while I think Pratchett avoids biological determinism in most cases, just using species as an analogy for race has the potential for that pitfall.



2. I don't like how Pratchett's analogy fits in with how SF/F deals with race issues. SF/F is a pretty white genre to begin with, in terms of creators, publishers, characters, and settings. When I see SF/F tackle the issue of racism, it's usually in the form of speciesism like Pratchett does. I think SF does this most often with the use of aliens as POC, though X-Men uses mutants, Kit Whitfield's Bareback uses werewolves, and etc. The point is, they all use things that are biologically different from people as POC. I don't need to point out the problem with that, right? This goes with my first point about species != race.
   
   The other reason why I dislike this is because it gives creators the ability to say that they talk about race and racism without ever having actual POC. Yes, X-Men has POC, but they are the minority. Ditto with Star Trek and Stargate and all the other alien-as-minority metaphor shows. They also allow the creators to have their cake and eat it too in that they usually don't even include POC cultures. So much as I appreciate Pratchett dealing with the subject, I'd be much less skeptical if the human cast of characters we've met were more racially diverse (werewolves and vampires and dwarfs do not count unless they are described as being black or brown).



3. I think Pratchett gets the power dynamics completely wrong. The main species conflict in this book is between the dwarfs and the trolls. True, we get to see a lot of human prejudice against them, but when it actually comes to fistfights and violence, it's the dwarfs and the trolls. Neither of them are the species in power in Ankh-Morpork, but instead of focusing on human supremacy, they're focusing on each other. Furthermore, Pratchett shows that the majority of damage done to dwarfs and trolls have been by other dwarfs and trolls (at least from what I can tell -- the mobs, the story of the ambush, etc.). And, well... if you're using that as an analogy for racism, it's like saying black people and Chinese people have been each other's worse enemies. Which goes to...



4. The humans are shown being prejudiced. And denying dwarfs and trolls opportunities. But this seems to be a fairly recent problem, given that the dwarf and troll population in A-M is increasing. Also, there's not a lot of history to this. There hasn't been a century of colonialism and attempted genocide, no humans taking over dwarf and troll cities or nations, no economic exploitation of dwarfs and trolls like slavery or forced trade, attempts to extinguish dwarf or troll cultures. So we basically get to see the humans as being ignorant and prejudiced, but the ones who aren't spouting ignorant, speciest stuff are then blameless and fine. They aren't profitting from a system based on centuries of exploitation.

The last point is my biggest beef with the [species]-as-POC version of racism in SF/F. A lot of them feel like they're taking place in the days of the first days of colonialism, in which two peoples meet, both sides don't know each other, and one side slaughters the other. It's easy to point fingers at this point. It's really easy to say "Yeah, that was wrong."

What's a lot harder is looking at the effects of centuries of institutionalized racism and saying, "Yeah, that person threatening someone with nooses is wrong, but I benefit from white supremacy as well, no matter how little I want to admit it." It's harder saying, "I'll change my lifestyle and my hobbies and my habits and what I learn and what I read and what I watch to be actively anti-racist and combat white supremacy." That's what bugs me the most.

Er, well, POC as other species and using other species in lieu of actual POC bug me a lot as well. But not acknowledging institutional racism while trying to do the racism analogy completely destroys any attempt at the analogy.

Comments

[telophase.livejournal.com]

After reading this, I'm interested to see what your take on Jingo will be.

[coraa.livejournal.com]

I agree.

I'd also recommend you skip Interesting Times; it made me sporky even when I was not paying as much attention to race-related issues.

[oyceter]

Huh ok. Am curious now...

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Just as a warning in case you want to keep your blood pressure low, Thud focuses on the dwarf-troll issues without a colonialism analogue, and Feet of Clay is about a different oppressed non-human group (golems).

[kate_nepveu]

_Thud!_ is still rather simplistic, in a very well-meaning optimistic heartening-but-deck-stacked kind of way. I really like the additional developing of dwarf & troll cultures, though.

I'm now thinking about _The Fifth Elephant_ and _Carpe Jugulum_ as an imperialism analogue but am not sure it makes sense, and anyways it's still speciesism.

[kate_nepveu]

Also, I keep wanting to say something about golems and slavery and not finding the proper words. So I'm tossing it out there in case it makes sense to someone else and crawling back to my Tylenol.

[oyceter]

Hrm, ok, I'll remember that. I mean, I don't think every battling species has to have colonialism analogues. I just think nearly every species-racism analogy I've seen (or a lot of them, at least) does the easy bits (being prejudiced is bad!) and leaves out the hard bits.

[mollydot.livejournal.com]

The benefit of the doubt link is broken.

[oyceter]

Thanks! I think I found the right one this time...

[sajia.livejournal.com]

I've been meaning to write a post for the longest time on the "white neutrality" problem with Thud!, i.e. how whites cast themselves as a disinterested party in both international and inter-minority conflict. Looks like you'll do a better job of it.
And oh, "Interesting Times". I could not believe that Pratchett was actually justifying imperialism. Oh sure, Western barbarians didn't bind women's feet, but enlightened Westerners regularly and risking their health put silicon in women's breasts to make them look bigger.

[shewhohashope.livejournal.com]

I wanted to stab someone at the foot-binding part.

And I have some particular issues with Jingo and Small Gods for their representation of pseudo-Muslim cultures.

[oyceter]

Oohhh, that would be an awesome post!

Heh, ok, sounds like my blood pressure would be waaay better off skipping Interesting Times. I hate hate hate the foot binding thing.

[marzipan-pig.livejournal.com]

It's harder saying, "I'll change my lifestyle and my hobbies and my habits and what I learn and what I read and what I watch to be actively anti-racist and combat white supremacy."

I immediately felt all protective of my quilting (hobbies) and then remembered the quilters of Gee's Bend (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=970364).

[smillaraaq.livejournal.com]

There are also rich quilting traditions among Indians and Hawaiians (http://museum.msu.edu/museum/tes/thc/thc.htm); you might find the post-Annexation Hawaiian tradition (http://www.bishopmuseum.org/exhibits/pastExhibits/1997/treasures/html/FLAGQULT.html) of quilts honoring the flag, coat-of-arms, and mottoes (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Feb/28/il/FP602280302.html) of the overthrown monarchy particularly interesting.

[oyceter]

Hee!

I know what you mean though -- I keep looking around the knitting blogosphere and wondering why so white? There's more of an Asian presence, but still. And that is not even touching the cultural appropriation issues with lindy hop.

[chomiji]

Angue will improve. I quite like her these days. Carrot, also. He begins to get a sort of steeliness underneath his seemingly naive goodheartedness that is really impressive.

Actually, a small bit what's going on with the trolls and the dwarves reminds me all too much of some of the stuff that has happened with African-American and Hispanic youth gangs in this neck of the woods, but you're absolutely correct that this in no way reflects the complications and details of any real-world racial situation. I sometimes think that Pratchett knows this, and it's only meant to be cartoon or parable of the basic idea that it's unfair to pre-judge intelligent beings.

Night Watch still has my vote as the best of the Watch books.

[oyceter]

Yeah... I think the bits that bug me are how I can't tell how "real" the situations or analogies are supposed to be. Like, either they should have been even more removed, or else they should have been more detailed. Or something. Or, you know, just have POC in the cast.

[smillaraaq.livejournal.com]

And I like Carrot, I do, but he verges a little too close to perfect in this book.

That's a bit of a recurring problem with Carrot, sad to say: and if this time around you found it a little frustrating, I suspect the LawrenceCarrot-of-Not-Arabia bits in Jingo will really drive you batty. I've got mixed feelings about the paragon thing myself; on the one hand the Disc is full of plenty of other larger-than-life characters, like Vetinari; but on the other hand, he can veer dangerously close to Marty Stu-ness at points. I still wind up liking him more than not, though, as I've got something of a weakness for characters who have hidden depths and darknesses under sunny, overgrown-Boy-Scout-veneers. (See also, Hakkai in Saiyuki and Fraser in Due South.)

Angua gets fleshed out more as the series goes on, particularly in The Fifth Elephant, but while I like her well enough she never seems quite as vivid a personality as some of his other female characters. Then again, she does spend a fair bit of time trying to hide her light under a bushel, so perhaps at least a little of that flatness is deliberate?

[oyceter]

Hrm, ok, will keep that in mind. I don't think I mind the larger-than-life-ness (though that's why I love Vimes), but it's a little odd having one as a viewpoint character. Because Granny and Death and such are totally larger than life (or completely beyond life! ok you can whap me for bad puns), but there's this grounding human-ness to them that makes them accessible -- Death's confusion and attempts to get it right, Granny's ego and stubbornness.

Oh, looking forward to more Angua!

[seraphcelene]

Like a couple of others, I'm also interested to see your take on Interesting Times and Jingo. Interesting Times, in general, is one of the weaker books.

I'm always conflicted with Pratchett as too how much is unintentional and how much is slick parody. Sometimes, it's a toss up, so I think that I write a lot off. Once I get through Sense and Sensibility, I think that it might be fun to start through my Pratchett's again.

[oyceter]

Oh, I'd be interested to see what you think, now that I've actually read some!

The race/species thing here strikes me more as unintentional, though that's because it's a trope that I've seen used often and because he doesn't put in the usual commentary. At least, I think.

[azdak.livejournal.com]

Jingo does have actual human-on-human racism in it, but I don't think it's particularly well-handled. It's flawed in other respects, as well. Actually, I think one could probably use Jingo to make a case that Pratchett's satire works much better when he allows his "world and mirror of worlds" analogies to be more distant from the real world source (in other words, the "trolls and dwarfs" more oblique approach to racism works better, because the trolls and dwarfs can also be much more than just a way of discussing aspects of racism, whereas the Klatchians are just a way of discussing racism, and that gets very heavy-handed) It's certainly my least favourite of the Watch books.

[oyceter]

*nods* Will try and remember that. I feel he's much better at satire when he's really satirizing -- the dwarf/troll thing just isn't very funny or very true in that close-to-the-bone satire way (unlike, frex, his satire of genre tropes, which have me howling).

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

Good point about the lack of responsibility in Practhett's humans-versus-dwarves-versus-trolls material. On the more general imperialism subject, I think you'd be interested in not merely Jingo but Monstrous Regiment since the latter book hints at the possibility that A-M is moving into a fully nineteenth-century-Britain imperialistic period or in danger of doing so.

[oyceter]

Oh imperialism! That will be interesting to read, though my reactions to discussions of imperialism and colonialism usually veer to "THROW AT WALL!" or "LOVE."

[oracne.livejournal.com]

Very good points about the handling of racism via speciesism in sf/f. I agree, it doesn't work on many levels. (Also, it drives me bugfuck from a physical anthropology pov.) However, I worry if drawing too close an analogy between race and species would make the story seem heavy handed--"OH, it's a story about immigrant gangs!" To a reader not thinking directly of race issues, the species method could be a useful stealth approach to at least initiating thoughts on racism.

Also, there's the difficulty for the writer, if he doesn't want to equate real human beings with fantasy creatures. He might be trying to address the issue without insulting PoC by saying, "you're like a troll." I think this will always be an issue in fantasy or sf in which imagined races and cultures appear; must the characters reflect and provide commentary on their real-life analogies? The story can have more thematic depth if they do, but it's a difficult path to walk, and I think many writers either don't try or don't realize it's possible.

[oyceter]

Yeah... I mean, I think drawing too close an analogy would make it too heavy handed, unless of course he was poking at it or flipping tropes. I dunno... I was thinking maybe having lots of human and dwarf POC (can trolls be POC? obsidian trolls? different rocks?) would help, along with maybe doing stuff like Gaiman does in Anansi Boys. That's why I really liked the Detritus semiconductor thing; it was a cool little reversal of expectations.

Or something like the Chinese doctor in Knocked Up which I cringed a little at out of habit but ended up loving how he was just "Look. This is what we're going to do." and a flip of the usual quiet Asian or loud Asian who doesn't speak English without even making a point of it.

[heavenscalyx.livejournal.com]

In general, I like Terry Pratchett, but he does do some things... badly. I think there are times when he's just trying way too hard (like, "I must do a book about X! I must do it now!"), and it doesn't come off. Monstrous Regiment was like that for me -- the book, among its other major issues, contained crazy lesbians, which made me want to throw the book against the wall. I can see your point about the racism/speciesism as non-equal mettyfor. Using species in place of race is such a flippin' copout. (Kind of like using lycanthropy in place of queerness -- cough cough Rowling cough cough.)

Like you, I give him the benefit of the doubt -- maybe someday he'll do a decent queer character and actually approach racism from the race standpoint, rather from biological determinism.

[oyceter]

Yeah... I think he's just trying too much, and so it's not funny. Also, he's not quite familiar enough with it to lampoon it. Like, there's none of the "HEE!" coupled with "Oh man, yes, it's totally like that!" that I got from the Phantom of the Opera satire in Maskerade.

Oh dear. Crazy lesbians.... *sigh*

[shati.livejournal.com]

Alas, this does not surprise me. It's been a while since I actually read Discworld; I've been wondering how they'd hold up re: race and gender. (I'm inclined to feel a lot more positive about his feminism, since he's written female protagonists I really love -- but I can't think of any CoC comparable to the witches, and only a few protagonists at all.)

There hasn't been a century of colonialism and attempted genocide

*nods* Which could be very interesting if it was intentional -- and explored -- in a less . . . analogy-full series, but erasing it in Discworld doesn't work.

Angua gets fleshed out some in The Fifth Element, but I'm not sure what to make of her actual role in it. (Or of the way it deals with race and class, though IIRC I don't think it's different from what you've read so far, except in setting.)

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

I was a little icked by the extent to which it seemed to me that dwarf culture in TFE was overtly inspired by Jewish diaspora culture, and the implications of that with the way the werewolves were done.

[confluence.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

I thought about this yesterday, and I think that the speciesism/racism analogy is a lot less flawed in the Discworldverse than it would be in a serious fantasy setting.

In a serious setting, the non-human races are supposed to be non-human. If a serious fantasy writer's dwarves are just short pseudo-norse people with beards, that's bad writing. But the Discworldverse isn't a serious fantasy setting; it's glued together out of bits of parodies -- initially they were parodies of the fantasy genre, and now they're almost always parodies of concepts from modern society. That is the whole point of the Discworld books, and what makes them unique and amusing (they're not *just* parodies; they're also good stories -- but they wouldn't be what they are without the parody/analogy element).

So, while in a serious setting creatures made of stone would inevitably be alien (or badly written), in the Discworld trolls are really just stone humans. And dwarves are just short humans with beards. They have little quirks based on their physical characteristics, but nothing that makes them truly inhuman when it counts. Just about every living creature that exists in the Discworld has been shown to have human-like thoughts and emotions, including the gods and Death! It wouldn't make any sense in a serious setting, but neither would the clacks, or Hex, or a lot of other stuff.

The speciesism in the Discworld books is meant to be a direct mapping of racism in modern-day society to the Discworld. It's not a perfect analogy, because in real life I don't think we could find an analogue of the vampire who keeps working in places obviously hazardous to vampires. That's completely over the top, and played for laughs. But the central idea that is presented is that all these people can get on with each other and work together, and that discrimination against any of them is wrong and stupid, because they're all the same deep down inside.

I've occasionally experienced cognitive dissonance when reading the Discworld novels, when certain elements introduced as throwaway parodies became serious parts of the setting (I can think of the guilds and the clacks right now). Pratchett could completely invalidate his broad speciesism/racism analogy by suddenly playing the mental differences between his species straight, but I don't think this has ever happened -- from what I can remember, members of other species are consistently shown to be "just like us after all", characters who believe this are rewarded, and characters who support speciesist ideas are punished.

I haven't read most of the books in a long time, though, so I could be forgetting something important.

[oyceter]

I guess my problem with this is that even though the Discworld species are based on fantasy pastiche, they're still clearly non-human. Like, the trolls are made of stone. And vampires drink blood. I'm not saying that Pratchett doesn't treat them as human, because I think he generally does, but it's the essential biological difference that bugs me when he maps species to race.

The other thing is just that even though he tries to show us that members of other species are "just like us after all," that's the easy way out. It basically paints racists as people who don't realize that people of other races are just like them and it sets up an easy dichotomy to counter. But what it doesn't do is look at privilege and how that's the counter of racism.

Frex, in Discworld, the solution to the end of speciesism is for everyone to treat everyone else like people. And I suspect Pratchett is saying that that's the real-world solution to racism as well. And I think that's completely wrong. Because if you ask most people point-blank, they'll say they think I'm just as normal as they are. But if you look at how they treat me, they still treat me differently because of internalized racism. And it's usually very subtle and not in-your-face (except, of course, when it is, and even then people find ways to justify it).