Ok....ummmm
I'm going to have cyber-ass kicked for saying this... but

1) The Chronicles of Narnia are usually considered more racist than LOTR.... this is simply because while LOTR mostly just ignores brown people (with a semi-negative reference to black people), Narnia tackles this head on with a place called Calormen and their demon/devil/other-side-of-Aslan called Tash...plus let's not forget the people of Calormen are very Middle-Eastern/Indian, "smelling of garlic and sweat" and all your leads are nice and white. All it does is enforce the stereotypes.... we could argue about this forever, but fact is it comes down to taste. C.S. Lewis's stuff has heavy Christian Influence, and LOTR not so much. As kid, I had the Narnia stuff foisted upon me, and I hated it then (and now). LOTR, I picked up, and decided that it should be the yardstick for any and all fantasy henceforth. Bottom line: Matter of taste/opinion. Both are "racist" by today's politically correct standards, but also reflect the time place and background they were written in. That being said, I still think C.S. Lewis's stuff is a lot more racist (and crappy) than Tolkien's.

And I do believe you fall in the category (currently probably popluated by about 8 people) who think Harry Potter is nonsense)...on the other hand...maybe not.

Thanks for the post. But here's a better link to the movie trailer (one without ads and actually works):

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/thechroniclesofnarnia/

comparing LOTR to the Ramayana huh? nice.

C.S. Lewis's stuff has heavy Christian Influence, and LOTR not so much.

Ironically, Lewis converted to Christianity due to Tolkien's influence.

Heh, the Ramayana is too brown. But it features one underrepresented minority absent from the other books mentioned - blue! Blue pride! Yeah.

What an amazing link. Thanks, Abhi.

CS Lewis and Tolkein were good friends (along with Charles Williams, they made up 'the Inklings'). They were united by a common interest in Christianity, and once made a pact that Lewis would write a Christian centred book about space travel, and Tolkein would do one about time travel. Lewis fulfilled his end of the bargain, writing the Ransom trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, That Hideous Strength, Perelandra). Procrastinating Tolkien never did his bit.

Narnia books are someqwhat race-conscious, and are also somewhat anti-Muslim. The God Tash is worshipped by the scimitar wielding easterners, and in the last book, the decadent Aslan worshippers begin to say that Tash and Aslan are the same god, and start praising 'Tashlan'. The end of the world quickly follows.

Still, I liked the books a lot as a kid, and look forward to the movies.

Nina - S.Asians were all blue once, but the ossification of caste system and religious intolerance made them all very jealous and hateful of each other - all than green envy made them brown.

I'm all for blue pride.

I’m still a little upset that some hypersensitive individuals dared to criticize the Lord of the Rings as being “too white.” In my opinion that is just like saying that the Ramyana is “too brown.”

comparing LOTR to the Ramayana huh? nice.

i admire abhi for having more balls than i did yesterday-- in my comment, i weaseled out and said,

are ______ masterpieces full of prejudice because they don't include other races? no.

In my opinion that is just like saying that the Ramyana is “too brown.”

are ______ masterpieces full of prejudice because they don't include other races? no.

Wait a second. Ramayana is "too brown" and doesn't "include other races"? It does include other races, like LOTR. The Rakshasas and Ravana are all depicted black, possibly representing sudras/dravidians/southies. And there are a lot of people in the south protesting ramayana because of this reason - there is even a version of Ramayana told from Ravana's point of view in Tamil.

Is anyone really complaining about the lack of positive 'ethnic' role models in these books and films - written as they were at a particular time and place?

It is one thing to notice that quite a particular racial ideology exists in such books – but after all, these were the prevalent ideas of that culture at that time - it is another to demand that more black people be included in the lead roles. That would not be faithful to the book and it would be addressing quite profound concepts most movie goers would not want to deal with their popcorn.

For goodness sake, we are talking about a culture (at the time when these books were written) that still had a 'proper' empire. Aren't all empires underpinned by the belief some 'races' are superior to others and these sub-human races should be conquered and bettered and furthermore, this is as exactly how 'god' would have wished?

The important question as to whether having such concepts and ideas - which some might consider out-dated and offensive - detract from the literary and cultural merit of these works have been addressed by a finer and more articulate mind than mine: Edward Said in 'Culture and Imperialism'. (As to why these ideas exist in the first place is dealt with in 'Orientalism'.)

It is really up to the various black peoples to represent themselves in 'western' popular media in anyway more than a stereotype. It is really up to us to write the books, make the movies, paint the pictures and sing the songs.

In my opinion that is just like saying that the Ramyana is “too brown.”

The Ramayana has too much brown on the winning side and way too much genocide on the dark-skinned side. However, Valmiki went one step ahead of Tolkien. He literally dehumanized all the bad guys. Net result, its not too easy to think of the story in race terms, let alone empathizing with the rakshasas/dravidians.

Tolkien should just have stuck with the orcs and not mentioned Sauron's dark-skinned human allies.
:D

You guys do know that Ravana was supposed to be a great devotee of Shiva, a scholar, an accomplished musician and a brahmin too, right? It is ironic that the Dravidian hustlers hold him up to be "their" hero.

Creative writing has no obligation to mirror the diversity (or lack of) in society. It's creative, it's the invention of the writer. JOURNALISM, on the other hand, is sometimes obligated to be non-biased and accurately reflective of society.

So what if Ramayana, LOTR, LWW or the freakin Joy Luck Club don't have enough diversity?!? I don't think it's required that they do...

You guys do know that Ravana was supposed to be a great devotee of Shiva, a scholar, an accomplished musician and a brahmin too, right? It is ironic that the Dravidian hustlers hold him up to be "their" hero.

what on earth? why is it ironic? are you somehow implying that dravidians can't be great devotees of Shiva, scholarly, musically talented and Brahmins? i'd love for you to clarify this.

try and tread carefully with some of that lovely link-free language..."dravidian hustlers"? what did they hustle?

hustle this:

The Dravidians and South Indians have been in some respects the best preservers of ancient Vedic culture and traditions, especially when the north of India was dominated by Buddhism and later was affected by Islam.

Ravana was supposed to be a great devotee of Shiva, a scholar, an accomplished musician and a brahmin too, right?

This was to show that it's not advisable to deal in absolutes: "Good" and erudite people can do bad things. Conversely, seemingly bad people can do or be good.

It was well known to his army that Ravana was such a person. Nothing ironic about a warrior poet.

The hustlers I refer to are the followers of the DK political party and its offshoots and generally those who hold EVR and his ilk as Dravidian heroes. It is ironic because Ravana was a brahmin and yet the Dravidian hustlers, who are ferociously anti-brahmin, claim him as "theirs." In addition, they claim to be unreligious, but prop up a Shiva-bhakta. They denounce the Vedas, but Ravana was known specifically as a Vedic scholar.

Regarding the Wiki entry, they are conflating South Indians with those whom the Dravidian political parties consider Dravidians. It is doubtless true that South Indians are in many ways more authentically Hindu and have helped tremendously in preserving Hindu practices, arts etc. The main problem is that the main people who did this are the upper caste Hindus including many brahmins. The Dravidian parties such as DK and DMK do not consider them to be Dravidian.

JM:

I disagree with the wholesale description of the DK and DMK as wholly anti-Brahmin and atheist. It is my belief that they are more Tamizh-centric than anything. For example, 20 years ago, the DMK renamed our street in Madras (Chennai) from Palace Rd. to Papanasam Sivan Salai, who was a Brahmin composer of keerthanas. Karunanidhi himself is quite a talented and published poet. That his party has attracted certain less-than-ideal members is partly a political maneuver and mostly unfortunate. As for the alternating love and dislike of Brahmins as suits them, it really has to do with the DMK's political posturing required of the moment.

Is it ok if we dispense with the term "Dravidian hustlers?" Even as a TamBrahm, I have problems with that term given the extremely low likelihood of anyone from Tamil Nadu being wholly Dravidian, Aryan (given which migration theory you believe) or any one "race." We are, as my brother often likes to point out, "a cocktail, if you can't tell from our skin color and features."

Maitri:

I disagree with the wholesale description of the DK and DMK as wholly anti-Brahmin and atheist.

It seems that you and I don't actually disagree much at all. You don't have to be wholly anti-Brahmin to actually be anti-Brahmin. You don't disagree that they are anti-brahmin in practice, do you? I personally have not seen their "like" of brahmins at all. Naming a street after Papanasam Sivan or Bharathiyar is not the same as liking brahmins unless it is accompanied by positive lectures about brahmin heritage/brahminism that produced such outstanding individuals. I agree about the atheist stuff. Their ideology is atheist, but as top grade hypocrites, they are not really atheists.

But the truth is that they are anti-Brahmin, pro-Tamil and don't care much about religion except to occasionally bash Hindu scriptures and spew some bilge about vadamozhi.

I once again agree that as South Indians, brahmins or not, we are certainly mongrels to some degree. It would help if the DK/DMK chaps acknowledge that too and stop pretending to be "authentic" and separate Dravidians. It has real costs too. Madras could have been what Bangalore is, if not for the anti-brahmin sentiments that drove many people out of TN. The nicer climate of Bangalore helps, but that is not all.

JM,

In light of your most recent explanation, you and I are in agreement.

(Look, Abhi, harmony of opinion at SM! Rejoice!)

Back to The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe: This 3D geek can't wait!! ImageWorks (which uses Maya), Weta (prosthetics) and ILM are in on this project. Should be good!

it is another to demand that more black people be included in the lead roles. That would not be faithful to the book and it would be addressing quite profound concepts most movie goers would not want to deal with their popcorn.

Good points re: Said, but remember that every representation is a new work of art in of itself. No remake is every truly faithful to the original. (sort of a post-structuralist view)

And since remakes cater themselves to the popcorn-munching present-day society, they must mold themselves accordingly in terms of their representation. Its the reason why Mos Def appears in Hitchhiker's Guide, and The Honeymooners and Kojak have black main characters. Its not a debasement of the original because it IS, in itself, an original.

It is for this reason that I think there is plenty of room for remakes and interpretations, such as LOTR or the LWW, to adapt themselves to modern sensibilities and free themselves of the shackles of racist and classist points of view. As Saurav said earlier, one can't blame Tolkien any more than the rest of British society for being racist back then (note: we CAN blame them all for being racist, but not him more than others I'd say).

BUT, we can and SHOULD blame someone who creates a new work based on an older model, without disabusing the new work of the original's infirmities.

Narnia books are someqwhat race-conscious, and are also somewhat anti-Muslim.

Somewhat is hardly the word. I remember in the second to last book I think, the people used to say something like "peace be unto him" after uttering the emperor's name, but the main character refused to do so, and simply referred to the emperor by his name only. Lewis portrayed this as enlightened and rational. It was a clear and poorly veiled dig against the Prophet Mohammad.

BUT, we can and SHOULD blame someone who creates a new work based on an older model, without disabusing the new work of the original's infirmities.

I disagree. I get pissed off when people F*ck with history books to white-wash atrocities and such. If something was written in a certain way, I want it presented in the same way, whether or not modern day sensebilities judge it good or bad. I don't want to keep double standards. What you call "infirmities" was the factual reality of the time. It's the way the author viewed the world. I don't want that lost in PC translation. Otherwise what do we learn?

I disagree. I get pissed off when people F*ck with history books to white-wash atrocities and such. If something was written in a certain way, I want it presented in the same way, whether or not modern day sensebilities judge it good or bad. I don't want to keep double standards. What you call "infirmities" was the factual reality of the time. It's the way the author viewed the world. I don't want that lost in PC translation. Otherwise what do we learn?

It's not about being p.c. There's a difference between history (which ideally should aim to accurately render what happened--including by revising poorly done or biased histories) and art (which can pretty much do anything). Art can legitimately try to provoke, try to offend, try to inspire, try to subvert, blah blah blah. One of the things to take into account are the artist's sensibilities--which in a remake is going to be contemporary (even if the artist in question is reactionary--the same way Islamists are modern even though they harken back to a past source for authority). It's totally legitimate to strive for a close recreation of the original's intent (like you want), but I think it's also legitimate to try and change the original work and infused it with something of your own--and I think it takes more creativity. As long as the work/author are honest about what they're trying to accomplish.

Seems like an idea we diasporics could comfortably grab onto, given that some argue we're walking remixes.

I also just wanted to reiterate this point:

You guys do know that Ravana was supposed to be a great devotee of Shiva, a scholar, an accomplished musician and a brahmin too, right?

The Ramayan of cheesy movies is not the only Ramayan. There's a point when Hanuman, who was captured in Lanka, is brought to Ravan's court. In the movies, at this point, Ravan is almost always shown as a fat, ridciulously curly mustachioed, grumpy, inarticulate oaf, and this scene is usually depicted as a rough trade of insults. In the Valmiki Ramayan, however, Hanuman acknowledges and sings about Ravan's good qualities and awe-striking personality. The best Ramayan I've ever seen is good partially b/c the Ravan in it is shown in all his dignified, accomplished, evil glory. This is someone that Vishnu himself had to descend to conquer. This is not someone to just sneeze at. Note that his brother Vibhishan is to this day worshipped as a great devotee of Ram.

Ravan is the step-son of Kuvera, the Deva of the treasury. To say that Rakshasas and Asuras are dehumanized ignores the idea that then the Devas are also not human, and that the two are cousins. Prahlad Maharaj and his grandson Bali are also "Asuras" but they are both deeply revered. This is also an epic in which one of the most beloved characters is a monkey.

Not to mention that Ravan is supposed to be the second birth of Hiranyakashipu (Prahlad's father, and a halfbrother to such Devas as Indra), who is killed by Narsimhadev, and his next birth is as Shishupal, who is killed by Krishna. As all three characters he's an extremely nasty person, but behind all that he's actually the gatekeeper of Vishnu's realm Vaikuntha.

However, Valmiki went one step ahead of Tolkien. He literally dehumanized all the bad guys. Net result, its not too easy to think of the story in race terms, let alone empathizing with the rakshasas/dravidians.

Well, easy is subjective. Any good telling of the Ramayan dwells considerably on the wreckage of Lanka, their attempts to get Ravan to give in, the mourning of Ravan's queen Mandodari, etc.

My point is that these things are complicated.

could anyone please tell me who was the son of Inderjeet / Meghnad ( Ravans Son )