Great lecture! I get his point and understand why he connects this to his own personal situation. Myths are a sublimation of the psychological processes in our selves and as a group, so if your part of a suppressed minority ( not being woke here) then if all the stories surrounding you are from a decidedly different group( more or less the dominant majority) then your own , yes then you may not always have the means to voice those psychological forces, and you may have to reinvent them yourself or at least rediscover them.
This is an interesting lecture. I agree on several points, but I think he's wrong on several points. Tolkien didnt just lift an English mythology and write a fantasy novel based on it. He saw that there was no English mythology; we have fragments from the Normans who killed anglo saxon culture off, we have fragments from the Anglo Saxons in the form of beowulf, even thid long before the saxons could be called English, we have fragments from the Norse in the time when they were invaders and couldnt be called English. King Arthur feels, and has always felt, a borrowed story. He was around a culturral millui where the other writers, the modernists, were busy killing our myths insofar we had them, while every myth afforded any respect came from Greek; no one could admit that Beowulf was a poem too. He, like James, had to build upon these fragments to create his mythology. And he was right we needed it, becuase we have no narrative of ourselves anymore;everything and everyone is so fragmented into balkanised identities, everyone is so distracted to notice they have no unified sense of who they are and cant realise that they're fighting each other over a battleground for this unifying story. We have no God anymore. Tolkien's invented mythology truly feels the closest thing we have to an English mythos. James is right when he points out the particularity of this story, and i think he senses, but shys away from embracing, the universality of any people's myth, when that myth is truly profound. But it's so much easier to partake in this universality when you recognise it in the familiar instance of it expressed in a modality, a time and place, that feels your own.
It's not all that bad, it's good-natured if a bit too much of a book promo. It's fashionable in geekworld to decry the notion of JRRT as directly a (Great) war writer. But who is to say the experience did not push him into myth-making -- as a personal escape, to begin with?
I think it's great if black people who feel their mythology has been lost the way Tolkien saw English mythology being lost do what he did and recreate it themselves. Where this impulse goes awry is when it becomes invasive and parasytic; where in adaptions and in criticism you start imposing you own story, where you think Tolkien missed it, on the world and text that Tolkien created
The bottom line is Tolkien took the time and energy to fully flesh out and describe an imaginary world based on European myth and legend. And that effort became the template for what would later emerge as the "high fantasy" genre, where you can imagine all kinds of variations of the theme of elves, orcs, goblins, wizards and so forth. And within High Fantasy there ample opportunity for all kinds of diversity based on the creativity and imagination of those making worlds in that genre. So the idea that Tolkien is somehow stifling diversity in mythology and storytelling is absolutely false. One only needs to look at all the games, books and other media in this genre to see that this is not the case. What is actually the problem is that Africans don't have an entertainment industry of their own that they can use to finance a $1 billion dollar epic fantasy story in live action. So instead of addressing that, they will claim they need to be "represented" in stories not made by them because somehow that is better than making your own.
You're missing a TON of context here. The majority of people asking for representation are probably people of color in the West, because we're the ones more likely consuming the content since the content is in English and we speak English. But Hollywood is still dominated by white people. There certainly are thousands of black storytellers in the US who want to bring their stories to the screen. I'm one of them. But we don't control that. Hollywood for example is dominated by companies that don't like to take risks, and to get onto the big screen you have to sell your soul to them in a sense. In the .1% chance they actually give a black person a platform to tell their stories, the corporations are generally going to try and twist them to appeal to as many people as possible, which results in a watered down version of it. And with people outside the West, they may watch our movies and be inspired, but they have even less of a chance to get big since they live so far away. And especially in so called "3rd world" countries, many of these people don't have access to the money or opportunities to even be able to start learning to make movies or publish books. Because the countries that colonized them robbed them of their potential.
@@thewatcher7940 But that's exactly the point, black people in the west are not asking for black versions of white characters. That is mostly coming from white producers, show runners and executives who are too lazy or uninterested to actually find and develop actual black stories. Not to mention the whole point is that diversity starts with those positions of power within Hollywood, not fictional characters on screen. The assumption being that black producers, executives and show runners would take a chance on original black stories whereas others wouldn't. But hollywood is more concerned with symbolism via fictional characters than actual positions within these corporations. Unfortuantely that leads to a situation where so many black actors are just happy to get a job and will speak and say whatever they need to say to promote it. Even if it doesn't promote actual black culture, history or creativity as opposed to just tokenism.
The guy here sprinkling his lecture on Tolkien and mythology with his own personal take on race, politics and his anti-Trump comment just sours this whole lecture into just some kind of personal diatribe.
@@mjbaggins6533 I'm struggling past sixteen minutes. Shame as his comments on WWI versus WWII were fantastic. Seems to me this whole channel is on the very far left side of the political spectrum. I struggle to believe that Tolkien would be a fan.
Great lecture! I get his point and understand why he connects this to his own personal situation. Myths are a sublimation of the psychological processes in our selves and as a group, so if your part of a suppressed minority ( not being woke here) then if all the stories surrounding you are from a decidedly different group( more or less the dominant majority) then your own , yes then you may not always have the means to voice those psychological forces, and you may have to reinvent them yourself or at least rediscover them.
Lovely video.
I can't read his books because they are to graphic but I could listen to him for hours on end.
Fantastic! Thank you for providing this!
Great lecture, thanks
This is an interesting lecture. I agree on several points, but I think he's wrong on several points. Tolkien didnt just lift an English mythology and write a fantasy novel based on it. He saw that there was no English mythology; we have fragments from the Normans who killed anglo saxon culture off, we have fragments from the Anglo Saxons in the form of beowulf, even thid long before the saxons could be called English, we have fragments from the Norse in the time when they were invaders and couldnt be called English. King Arthur feels, and has always felt, a borrowed story. He was around a culturral millui where the other writers, the modernists, were busy killing our myths insofar we had them, while every myth afforded any respect came from Greek; no one could admit that Beowulf was a poem too. He, like James, had to build upon these fragments to create his mythology. And he was right we needed it, becuase we have no narrative of ourselves anymore;everything and everyone is so fragmented into balkanised identities, everyone is so distracted to notice they have no unified sense of who they are and cant realise that they're fighting each other over a battleground for this unifying story. We have no God anymore. Tolkien's invented mythology truly feels the closest thing we have to an English mythos. James is right when he points out the particularity of this story, and i think he senses, but shys away from embracing, the universality of any people's myth, when that myth is truly profound. But it's so much easier to partake in this universality when you recognise it in the familiar instance of it expressed in a modality, a time and place, that feels your own.
King Arthur should feel like a borrowed story from an English perspective. It is borrowed, and quite the ironic one.
Had to watch some of this for my class.
Let's go, Brandon!
It's not all that bad, it's good-natured if a bit too much of a book promo. It's fashionable in geekworld to decry the notion of JRRT as directly a (Great) war writer. But who is to say the experience did not push him into myth-making -- as a personal escape, to begin with?
from 33:30mins..he is teaching the grammar of Yoruba ooo
How wonderful!
Any of this available in a downloadable audio format?
WWI was great because we 'run out of superlatives to describe it'. I've not come across that idea before. Noice.
I think it's great if black people who feel their mythology has been lost the way Tolkien saw English mythology being lost do what he did and recreate it themselves. Where this impulse goes awry is when it becomes invasive and parasytic; where in adaptions and in criticism you start imposing you own story, where you think Tolkien missed it, on the world and text that Tolkien created
The bottom line is Tolkien took the time and energy to fully flesh out and describe an imaginary world based on European myth and legend. And that effort became the template for what would later emerge as the "high fantasy" genre, where you can imagine all kinds of variations of the theme of elves, orcs, goblins, wizards and so forth. And within High Fantasy there ample opportunity for all kinds of diversity based on the creativity and imagination of those making worlds in that genre. So the idea that Tolkien is somehow stifling diversity in mythology and storytelling is absolutely false. One only needs to look at all the games, books and other media in this genre to see that this is not the case. What is actually the problem is that Africans don't have an entertainment industry of their own that they can use to finance a $1 billion dollar epic fantasy story in live action. So instead of addressing that, they will claim they need to be "represented" in stories not made by them because somehow that is better than making your own.
You're missing a TON of context here.
The majority of people asking for representation are probably people of color in the West, because we're the ones more likely consuming the content since the content is in English and we speak English. But Hollywood is still dominated by white people.
There certainly are thousands of black storytellers in the US who want to bring their stories to the screen. I'm one of them. But we don't control that. Hollywood for example is dominated by companies that don't like to take risks, and to get onto the big screen you have to sell your soul to them in a sense. In the .1% chance they actually give a black person a platform to tell their stories, the corporations are generally going to try and twist them to appeal to as many people as possible, which results in a watered down version of it.
And with people outside the West, they may watch our movies and be inspired, but they have even less of a chance to get big since they live so far away. And especially in so called "3rd world" countries, many of these people don't have access to the money or opportunities to even be able to start learning to make movies or publish books. Because the countries that colonized them robbed them of their potential.
@@thewatcher7940 But that's exactly the point, black people in the west are not asking for black versions of white characters. That is mostly coming from white producers, show runners and executives who are too lazy or uninterested to actually find and develop actual black stories. Not to mention the whole point is that diversity starts with those positions of power within Hollywood, not fictional characters on screen. The assumption being that black producers, executives and show runners would take a chance on original black stories whereas others wouldn't. But hollywood is more concerned with symbolism via fictional characters than actual positions within these corporations.
Unfortuantely that leads to a situation where so many black actors are just happy to get a job and will speak and say whatever they need to say to promote it. Even if it doesn't promote actual black culture, history or creativity as opposed to just tokenism.
What about the 9 black riders,I think they were from the congo
The guy here sprinkling his lecture on Tolkien and mythology with his own personal take on race, politics and his anti-Trump comment just sours this whole lecture into just some kind of personal diatribe.
anyone who truly understands tolkien is anti trump. the dude is literally saruman the un-wise
I was liking what he had to say but I’m turning it of at 22:48 I’m not here for politics
@@mjbaggins6533 I'm struggling past sixteen minutes. Shame as his comments on WWI versus WWII were fantastic. Seems to me this whole channel is on the very far left side of the political spectrum. I struggle to believe that Tolkien would be a fan.
@@charlieday6425 Then you clearly don't understand Tolkien
@@charlieday6425it's Oxford University, so that's par for the course really.