No wizard of Earthsea Ghibli until 2009

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Eric, she decided to withhold judgment on the Ghibli version's skin coloration, because she said she isn't familiar enough with how anime typically presents skin color. She did not herself make a big deal about it, but because it's an important factor when discussing any adaptation of Earthsea, she did mention it:

My purpose in making most of the people of Earthsea colored, and the whites a marginal and rather backward people, was of course a moral one, aimed at young American and European readers. Fantasy heroes of the European tradition were conventionally white — just about universally so in 1968 — and darkness of skin was often associated with evil. By simply subverting an expectation, a novelist can undermine a prejudice.
The makers of the American TV version, while boasting that they were "color blind," reduced the colored population of Earthsea to one and a half. I have blasted them for whitewashing Earthsea, and do not forgive them for it.
The issue is different in Japan. I cannot address the issue of race in Japan because I know too little about it. But I know that an anime film runs smack into the almost immutable conventions of its genre. Most of the people in anime films look — to the American/European eye — white. I am told that the Japanese audience perceives them differently. I am told that they may perceive this Ged as darker than my eye does. I hope so. Most of the characters look white to me, but there is at least a nice variation of tans and beiges. And Tenar's fair hair and blue eyes are right, since she's a minority type from the Kargish islands.

I don't find that inflammatory. She just tells it like she sees it.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I stand by my position.

to my knowledge, "peevish" does not mean "inflamatory." I think she's a little too focused herself on race.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Having written the book in 1968, I think she has every right to want to focus on race. Maybe a lot of the population has left that conflict behind us, but I'm sure it's still relevant to many people.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I'm not saying it's irrelevant. I'm saying that insisting that it be a major interpretation of every adaptation is being obstinate and closed-minded. The *story* was *not* about race. Why should ever interpretation have to include that?

[42]

IMO I feel that LeGuin is whining to much. I apprecate that she tried to create a book that would help enfranchise other ethnicities into the fantasy genre. The end result, however, is only mildly successful. I feel that the SciFi production and Ghibli productions attest to this.

From when I first read the Earthsea books (which I enjoyed), it never even dawned on me that Ged or any of the characters were a different race than my own. In part, I think LeGuin fails to really get outside of her own cultural influences in her writing style in order to accommplish all of her intentions. Furthermore, in LeGuin's writings it is apparent she lacks a complete understanding of mutliculturalism. She knows a lot, but still has more to learn and understand.

So the multicultural purpose of Earthsea is noble, but I don't think it's particularly clear. I feel LeGuin really needs to accept that there are some deficiencies in the Earthsea books that prevent many people from grasping her embracement of races and cultures. I think she should be grateful for what success she has gotten.

[Chimera]

Having written the book in 1968, I think she has every right to want to focus on race. Maybe a lot of the population has left that conflict behind us, but I'm sure it's still relevant to many people.

I have to say I'm siding with Ookla here. Race was much more of an issue in 1968, and she was trying to make a point, and I think that to capture the true "spirit" of the novels this should be taken into consideration in an adaptation.

However, I see E's and 42's point. Multiculturalism is more than just changing skin color. And perhaps the books failed in that respect. However, I think her point was that the skin color shouldn't be so defining--and that she carried this out by varying the races in her Earthsea novels without making them "other". As she pointed out (in the quote Ookla provided), at the time the prevailing archetype in fantasy was black=evil and white-good. Which is a prevailing Western archetype, anyway, and still very much so. And she was trying to subvert it. I don't think it's much to ask that this be carried over into adaptations of her novels.

That's my opinion.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

If that was her point than I'd really have to argue she fails, especially because she keeps insisting that it is a corruption of the book to change their skin color.

I have to poitn out, with 42, that the culture in Earthsea is very, very western european. Castles, a university, etc etc. It's not remotely polynesian or african or eastern or anything else except that because they live on islands they have to sail a lot.

So I don't think it violates the "spirit" of the book in anyway to make their skin white.

The "spirit" of the book you keep mentioning, Chimera, is very, very subjective. It's the height of egotism for anyperson to claim they have definitive understanding of an interpretation of a work, especially if that work is not their own. I would have to say that the skin color in no way influenced my interpretation of the book and has even less to do with why I liked it.

As I said, they are focusing on other interpretations and understandings of the books. the dark skin had nothing to do with it. I suppose that it could be just as easy to color the skin a different shade, then, but at that poitn, they've made it a design issue, rather than a thematic issue.

[Chimera]

If that was her point than I'd really have to argue she fails, especially because she keeps insisting that it is a corruption of the book to change their skin color.

I don't know if that was her point, but it seems like it. However, you are right. It is kind of ironic that she wanted to make skin color not important but has to insist that it is in order to make that point. There's deconstructionalism for you.

I have to poitn out, with 42, that the culture in Earthsea is very, very western european. Castles, a university, etc etc. It's not remotely polynesian or african or eastern or anything else except that because they live on islands they have to sail a lot.

A valid point. Which is why I agree that she has failed according to our modern, present-day standard of Multiculturalism--but I don't know about the standard at the time when it was written.

The "spirit" of the book you keep mentioning, Chimera, is very, very subjective. It's the height of egotism for anyperson to claim they have definitive understanding of an interpretation of a work, especially if that work is not their own.

But this is the author's own work! I'm arguing that she has the right to be upset at the adaptation of her own work--not that my interpretation is best. And can't the author interpret the meaning of the book she wrote? I still maintain that Le Guin has every right, in these cases, to be unhappy with the adaptations--the race of the characters being only one factor that contributed to her unhappiness, though this seems to be the topic we are arguing about now..

Granted, I agree with you that interpreting a work is subjective. And so is the idea of capturing the "spirit" of a work in adaptation. But once we get into subjectivity then anything is possible. There must be some standard. Does the adaptation have the same characters? Not just the names, but people with the same drives, weaknesses, strengths, etc. Does it have the same themes? Does it accomplish the same purpose? I guess these are things I consider when looking at an adaptation. And, if it doesn't, is there a good reason why not? Of course, I guess that is all subjective as well.

In that case, this whole argument is subjective. We're all arguing based on our interpretation of the book and what we think Le Guin meant and whether or not the adaptations were true to that. And I think this argument is just going to go in circles. But it is interesting, nonetheless.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

sure, an artist can interpret her own work. But even the artist can't claim an interpretation so entirely authoritative that it rules out other interpretations. What she is doing is saying that the interpretation of another is invalid on the basis of what is, after all, a relatively insignificant point considering what goes on in the book. If *she* doesn't make anything of the issue, why should she expect others to hold to it?