For this topic I’ve chosen to look into the arguments surrounding the recent television adaptation of Wheel of Time, which has sparked an intense and vicious internal debate within the existing book fandom. My reasoning is pretty simple, I am a massive fan of the books and also have an appreciation for the complications of adapting books to screen. While the series premiered last week, contention within the fanbase (represented in numerous discussion threads across many social media platforms) has grown increasingly polarized. Many of the criticisms are objectively valid, but many are deeply embedded in the tribalism of the ongoing US culture war. From complaining about the diversity of the casting, to arguing that the showrunner is injecting “woke” politics into the show, there are many arguments that are highly contentious, subjective and a complete misunderstanding of the source material. Seriously, the Wheel of Time books are one of the most diverse, female empowering narratives in fantasy. The fact that the same representation is being extended to on screen characters is upsetting book purists is highly unsettling. It has gotten so extreme that some show detractors have even proudly self-identified as Whitecloaks, a reference to an antagonistic xenophobic group from the books and show, which are a play on militant fundamentalist organizations like the knights templar or (in a more modern context) the Taliban.
I’ve selected a recent debate from the longstanding fan forum Dragonmount that
illustrates this issue. It's my goal to avoid spoilers for this series as much
as possible, but readers beware, the discussion boards are often full of spoilers.
This is a long thread, so in order to narrow down my critique, I want to focus
on the initial post made by user Elder_Haman. For the positives, he lays out
some of the objections he has with the attitude and logic of some of the shows
detractors. He focuses on the contradictions of readers who accuse the show of
being woke without acknowledging the progressive elements of the original books.
He provides several examples from the texts indicating how progressive it was
when it was written. He argues that the “woke” aspects of the books make it an
excellent choice for a fantasy adaptation in a global world. Finally he
concludes with a general appeal for people to avoid jumping to conclusions
before the show is released (yes, you read that right, the show hadn’t even come
out when this was posted. These debates have been going for over a year before
the show was released).
It’s a well written post, backed by
examples from the text, but it does come off as condescending to the people who
disagree with him. He also makes a mistake in how he approaches his target
audience. He is attempting to refute value-based arguments with logic, which runs
immediately into the obstacle of cognitive bias. If a reader can read a fifteen
book series(4.4 million words) and are still unable to internalize the subtext
that does not validate their political beliefs, it’s unlikely that simply
citing the books as a source will be an effective tactic. Instead, his time
would be better spent targeting a less polarized portion of the fanbase.
Finally, despite attempting to find common ground by referring to the books I
think the post fails to make the point that there is a difference between
objective and subjective criticism. While comparisons between the two mediums
are inevitable, something is not good or bad simply because it is dissimilar or
similar. By engaging with detractors unable to make this distinction, this user
ultimately allows them to dictate the terms of the disagreement.
So what are my five rules for arguing on the internet.
1) Pick your battles. Far too many people will not be swayed regardless of how well structured your argument is. All to often you are arguing with their identity rather than reason.
2) Find a balance between comprehensive arguments and digestible ones. The more nuanced your argument is, the more likely a reader will lose something in translation.
3) Find common ground. Arguments are fundamentally rooted in establishing a mutual understanding. The best way to compensate for bias is to pitch an idea that is consistent with the other persons worldview.
4) Challenge preconceptions. Related to the above point, when you detect a contradiction within somebodies logical framework, you've found a point of levarage.
5) Know when to disengage. At some point, you as an individual need to know when the conversation is going nowhere. There is nothing wrong with disengaging to go do something actually productive with your time.
https://dragonmount.com/forums/topic/110538-on-wokeness-and-the-wheel-of-time-be-thoughtful-in-responding/
