It's not a perfect term, but the etymology of "dwarf" is from mythology. So I think it carries more unfortunate baggage with it than "little person".I suppose it does carry some baggage, as you've said, and that is indeed unfortunate. However, I doubt most people are aware of the etymological history of the term.It's probably not so much the mythological origins of the term "dwarf", but the historical usage as an insulting/condescending term. It's got baggage.
"Little person" doesn't.
The same is true of a lot of insulting terms for various minorities. There's nothing particularly offensive about the term, but if it's been used offensively long enough, it picks up connotations.
To add to the point, the offensive baggage of the term "dwarf" comes in large part from the Middle Ages, when dwarfs were treated effectively as pets in several european courts. Several kings and other high-ranking nobles used to keep a dwarf for entertainment; they were allowed to openly insult their masters and perform all manners of absurd activities (often dressed in ridiculous costumes), because they were not considered to be entirely developed humans.
That said, I don't think halflings, gnomes, or dwarfs (of the ale & gold kind) are offensive. Not more than gelatinous cubes are to people with excessively defined jaws, at least.
Dinklage is talking about stereotyping in Hollywood, PERIOD.
What he said has nothing to do with whether it is okay for small creatures to exist in myth or folktales.
If you feel a real need to get rid of halflings in your games because you misunderstand a REAL person's REAL LIFE issue with being stereotyped AT HIS JOB, then I would suggest you have a much larger issue to deal with.
Also, you'll need to get rid of leprechauns, gnomes, dwarves, derro, kobolds, goblins, and however many creatures.
Personally, I have a hard time finding Hobbits insulting. They are the ultimate little guys who can. It's hard to imagine a better analogy for the greatness that common people, underestimated by everyone around them, can achieve.
Dark sun had cannibalistic, psycho jungle halflings. That is pretty awesome.
I can't believe no one fixed that for you, yet.
Why would they? It is awesome...Dark sun had cannibalistic, psycho jungle halflings. That is pretty awesome.I can't believe no one fixed that for you, yet.
Reread the original post I quoted. ;)
Removed a post flagged as offensive. Please be careful with your language use.
Jamming on the "new weapon: gnome" thread:
When used as a piercing weapon it helps to induce ultra high pitch for a truly piercing scream. Ripping out feethair or toenails usually helps.
Fill with plenty of water if you want a slash-ing weapon.
Just grab by both legs and swing for a good bludgeon.
Really though, the best use for a halfling is as catapult ammunition. Caparisoning them in spiked armor helps.
Now that's Offensive. Just like the thought that halflings are any good. For anything. Except perhaps furniture. ;p
Same goes for dwarves and gnomes. But strangely, not vegepygmies or derro. I am terribly biased.
I've yet to play o play with a dwarf, halfling or gnome I can think back on and like, except where played as an intelligent "human", by an equally intelligent human (never me...) And then what was the point? The point about halflings being small as
"...a better analogy for the greatness that common people, underestimated by everyone around them, can achieve."
did make me think momentarily - it's a beautiful sentiment - but what about all the ignoble halflings and evil halflings? I guess the same sentiment still applies. Still, too trite for this heightist-in-fantasy-except-vegepygmy-and-derro-and-other-as-yet-and-ad-hoc ly-determined-cases-bigot. Catapults. 24/7.
Oh, and Pathfinder goblins are waaaay cool. Stereotyped to the hilt, Offensive, and too fun to play.
Vegepygmies is more offensive than halflings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What, i can't insult myself even?
Not using that sort of language, no. At least, not here.
Folks, a thing:
"Little person" is the term that has replaced "midget," because "midget" has been deemed offensive. Either term applies primarily (primarily) to people who are just very short (there are differing height restrictions) or possess "proportionate dwarfism."
"Dwarfism" is the name of an actual medical condition, and people who suffer from it--particularly the ones who suffer from "disproportionate dwarfism"--are known as "dwarves," and yes, they're named after the folklore, and yes, that's problematic, but it's still the medical term for now.
Now, I am very tall, so I do not claim to have a personal understanding of these things, but I do have a friend (yeah yeah here we go) who is a dwarf, and according to her, while the overall "little people" community contains dwarves, the Venn Diagram of "little people" and "those with dwarfism" overlaps, but is not one big circle.
Anyway, I'm spouting all this so I can tell you that Dinklage is a dwarf, in that he suffers form disproportionate dwarfism, so the term "little person" doesn't really apply. 'Midget,' meanwhile, does not really apply and is also somewhat offensive.
Side note, because I'm sure it's going to come up: Spare me the "I don't think 'midget' is offensive!" arguments, please, unless you are, in fact, a little person, because otherwise it's not really your call.
HTH HAND etc
Out of curiosity... does anyone have any insight why 'Little Person' is NOT considered offensive??
IF I was shorter then average... I don't think I'd like that term at ALL... Your not so much a person... your a 'little' person. It focuses more on your 'size' than any other term.
I always hated the term 'halfling'. What are they 'half' of? In Tolkien, they call themselves Hobbits, and the tall folk derogatively refer to them as 'halfling' in a 'you are half the man I am' kind of way... It's one of the big issues I have with Forgotten Realms and WoTC in general... they don't use Hobbit, they have an independent race refering to themselves as 'half'...
In my mind 'Little Person' has the same kind of negative connotation. Little = lesser and all that.
I always hated the term 'halfling'. What are they 'half' of? In Tolkien, they call themselves Hobbits, and the tall folk derogatively refer to them as 'halfling' in a 'you are half the man I am' kind of way... It's one of the big issues I have with Forgotten Realms and WoTC in general... they don't use Hobbit, they have an independent race refering to themselves as 'half'...
Iirc, the word "hobbit" was invented by Tolkien (unlike elf, dwarf, orc, etc.) and thus couldn't be used because it was someone else's Intellectual Property.
That said, I had a tribe of nomadic barbarian halflings in my homebrew world that had been separated from human society for several centuries. They referred to humans as "Twice-Talls" and had a saying: "The bigger the warrior, the fainter the heart." :)
|
Talk about overreacting and taking something out of context. There is nothing wrong with the smaller races in Pathfinder if they are not used as caricatures. Next we are going to discuss banning anything that is green because Kermit sang a song once. Present and play these races with maturity and there should be no problem.
Out of curiosity... does anyone have any insight why 'Little Person' is NOT considered offensive??
To the best of my knowledge, it was chosen by one or more coalitions of little people, and lobbied for by various lobbying organizations that represent the aforementioned coalitions.
I always hated the term 'halfling'. What are they 'half' of? In Tolkien, they call themselves Hobbits, and the tall folk derogatively refer to them as 'halfling' in a 'you are half the man I am' kind of way... It's one of the big issues I have with Forgotten Realms and WoTC in general... they don't use Hobbit, they have an independent race refering to themselves as 'half'...Iirc, the word "hobbit" was invented by Tolkien (unlike elf, dwarf, orc, etc.) and thus couldn't be used because it was someone else's Intellectual Property.
Yep! in fact I THOUGHT I heard that the earliest edition DID use hobbit, but were forced to stop...
Regardless if you can't use THAT word... come up with something ELSE. Kender are essentially the Halflings of Krynn... Let the halflings call themselves a name that doesn't require a comparison to something else :-/
Yep! in fact I THOUGHT I heard that the earliest edition DID use hobbit, but were forced to stop...
First-1st Edition D&D (the "three 5x8 pamphlets in a box" set) used "hobbit", "nazgul" and (IIRC) several other terms that the Tolkien folks apparently felt rather strongly about. ;D
Those words disappeared from the 1st Edition hardcover books and haven't been seen since, although we did then get the first-printing Deities and Demigods hardcover with the Cthuhlu and Melnibone sections that subsequently vanished from later printings.
TSR took a while to catch the subtle hint, I guess.... :D
But the Realms halflings did NOT call themselves halflings. They called themselves the hin, meaning "people" if I remember correctly, which I think originally came from Mystara.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Talk about overreacting and taking something out of context. There is nothing wrong with the smaller races in Pathfinder if they are not used as caricatures. Next we are going to discuss banning anything that is green because Kermit sang a song once. Present and play these races with maturity and there should be no problem.
Sums up what I would have said.
I'm surprised at how eager some people are to completely dismiss other peoples' concerns. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but most of the responses here have been less than helpful.
But the Realms halflings did NOT call themselves halflings. They called themselves the hin, meaning "people" if I remember correctly, which I think originally came from Mystara.
Really? I never saw that term before in any of the novels or the book of Halflings and gnomes... (though the latter wasn't realms specific)
|
I can see why Peter finds it offensive. He wants to be taken seriously as an actor (and as a human being), and yet many of the roles available to him are "ewok" or "elf". I'd probably find the fantasy genre a bit offensive, as well.
The fantasy genre tends to assume that if you're below average or above average height you're some sort of mystical creature. Meanwhile it glosses over real-world dwarfism and gigantism (as if they didn't exist at all). That's a bit problematic and worth talking about.
I think we can all agree that our hobby should be as inclusive as possible. Those elements which make people feel excluded ought to be examined carefully.
That said, I'm sure there are little people that play the game and have no problem with it. Peter certainly doesn't speak for everyone.
An Aside: The term "little people" has always seemed to me to be more offensive than "dwarf". I mean, it sounds a bit condescending. Then again, there's nothing wrong with being little. I don't want to get offended on someone else's behalf, and by doing so patronize them, so I reserve judgment. Still, it doesn't sound right to me.
Same applies to obese people. we are almost never portrayed as normal people. The fat goofball or the lazy slob yes but forget that some of us are active and outdoor types. The fat guy roles are just as offensive as the dwarf roles if not worse
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised at how eager some people are to completely dismiss other peoples' concerns. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but most of the responses here have been less than helpful.
Because when you are too touchy to handle life maybe it isn't every one else that has the problem
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Dwarfism" is the name of an actual medical condition, and people who suffer from it--particularly the ones who suffer from "disproportionate dwarfism"--are known as "dwarves," and yes, they're named after the folklore, and yes, that's problematic, but it's still the medical term for now.
This is some grammary nitpickyness, but for what it's worth, "dwarves" is a Tolkienism now used standardly for the fantasy race (tales of which indeed go back millennia before Tolkien). People with dwarfism are "dwarfs."
Regardless of what they are called, our own mythlore is FULL of references to very small people -- gnomes, kobolds, leprechauns, dwarves, manikins, menehune, etc. etc. I think it is clear in context the "small races" in fantasy gaming are based upon these mythical beings. I don't think these myths are offensive, nor our references to them, as long as we don't apply a context where we compare such mythical beings to real life humans. Likewise, I hope people with giantism do not consider themselves targeted by Nordic tales of the Jotun, etc.
I think Dinklage's concerns come from an issue that hits the subject at a slightly different angle -- it's not so much that we shouldn't mention fantasy races that are of small stature, including dwarves -- but that we should not regard real human beings like Dinklage as mythical creatures. Given that little people, dwarfs, and others of small stature tend to be cast most often AS dwarves, elves, goblins, and halflings (and ewoks...) that is where the problem lies. It's a visibility problem for little people.
We can have our fantasy races, we just have to make very clear that they are fantasy races, NOT human beings of small (or large) stature--and also make efforts to make sure real life little people and dwarfs are portrayed in arenas other than as representing fantasy creatures.
God I hope that made sense.
Out of curiosity... does anyone have any insight why 'Little Person' is NOT considered offensive??
To the best of my knowledge, it was a name some persons of small stature chose for themselves. It was a name they took and owned it, that's all there is to it. If you want to know more, I suggest contacting Little People of America.
Perhaps it's my own limitation of imagination, but ... I can't see him as Goliath, Conan, or any other person of a particular size. It certainly doesn't mean he's incompetent ... just, for certain roles ... ahem ... ill-equipped.
Tom Cruise (5'7") as Jack Reacher (6'5")?
And I love author Lee Child's comment: "They could have cast someone a lot bigger, and we'd have 80% Reacher with 100% of the height. With Cruise starring, maybe we only get 80% of the height, but he's 100% Reacher!"
This is some grammary nitpickyness, but for what it's worth, "dwarves" is a Tolkienism now used standardly for the fantasy race (tales of which indeed go back millennia before Tolkien). People with dwarfism are "dwarfs."
Touché.
Perhaps it's my own limitation of imagination, but ... I can't see him as Goliath, Conan, or any other person of a particular size. It certainly doesn't mean he's incompetent ... just, for certain roles ... ahem ... ill-equipped.Tom Cruise (5'7") as Jack Reacher (6'5")?
And I love author Lee Child's comment: "They could have cast someone a lot bigger, and we'd have 80% Reacher with 100% of the height. With Cruise starring, maybe we only get 80% of the height, but he's 100% Reacher!"
...around?
...around?
In the novels, Reacher's biceps are bigger around than Cruise's entire torso.
Of course, he never works out or anything; he's the strongest man in the world (and smartest, and best marksman) just by being naturally awesome. I figure if, as a fan, none of that bothers you, the stretch of casting a pixie-like Cruise shouldn't hurt your brain too much!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...around?In the novels, Reacher's biceps are bigger around than Cruise's entire torso.
Of course, he never works out or anything; he's the strongest man in the world (and smartest, and best marksman) just by being naturally awesome. I figure if, as a fan, none of that bothers you, the stretch of casting a pixie-like Cruise shouldn't hurt your brain too much!
What about casting James Garner as Woodrow Call? That's like casting a Clydesdale to play a Shetland Pony!
I don't know what to say here. I really respect Dinklage as actor, but all this thread has given me reason to do is watch my Time Bandits DVD for the sixty-third time.
Haven't seen the film yet, to judge how effective Cruise is in the role, but he reputedly was dead-set against the use of any digital shenanigans aimed at making him look bigger.
As for Dinklage, he's been so forced into the minds of so many viewers as a charming, scheme-y kind of guy (due to Game of Thrones' huge appeal) that putting him into any sort of tough-guy role would probably fail... Although I should note that the head bad-ass little person in American Pie's Naked Mile was certainly believable in that tough-guy role! And going back to some of the classic tough guys of cinema, Stallone was infamous for his elevator shoes (and steroid-induced bulk!), Chuck Norris for his high-heeled cowboy boots... and Bogey himself was only like 5'8", tops.
I have no idea; I'd have to see it first.
Would you have thought that Brian Cox (drunken Irish cop in "Super Troopers"!) would be a much scarier Hannibal Lector than Anthony Hopkins? But, to my mind, Cox was far and away better in the role than Hopkins -- no contest. Now, that's a visceral thing, not a physical one, but in general it's hard to tell what a good actor can pull off until you see it.
*shrug* One nice thing about Lost Girl is I don't recall anyone making an issue of Trick's height. (Well Kenszi might have, but that's Kenszi).
And he does carry the role well.
Dinklage had the same thing going on with an ABC series called Threshold. Only about 8 episodes were aired, but I'm pretty sure the role wasn't written for a little person. It worked because Dinklage can play a sonuvab~++* of any size at all.
I'm also not sure that Dinklage is complaining about his own lot in life, so much as all the body doubles out there. The actors who played the scale doubles for the hobbits got plenty of attention, but none of their faces were onscreen, right? I think that's what Dinklage is talking about. He's also a good enough actor that he doesn't have that problem.
Earlier on I mentioned Time Bandits. On the one hand, Time Bandits was a movie were you had real life dwarfs playing time-traveling magical dwarves, so that's type casting or something, right? On the other hand, it got Kenny baker out of the R2-D2 tin can suit, and face recognition is a net plus for any actor out there.
Disclaimer: if I was in Dinklage's place, I would probably make an effort not to play any more fantasy little people after Narnia and Game of Thrones.
I'm pretty sure he isn't a fantasy dwarf in Game of Thrones, but the good old normal type (his parents and siblings seem to be all "normal" sized folks).
I'm pretty sure he isn't a fantasy dwarf in Game of Thrones, but the good old normal type (his parents and siblings seem to be all "normal" sized folks).
Yeah, totally, you're absolutely right.
My point was that after Game of Thrones finishes up (if it even ever does) the dude will have enough royalty money rolling in to go back independent-ey movies, set in the real world, such as The Station Agent.
I'm pretty sure he isn't a fantasy dwarf in Game of Thrones, but the good old normal type (his parents and siblings seem to be all "normal" sized folks).Yeah, totally, you're absolutely right.
My point was that after Game of Thrones finishes up (if it even ever does) the dude will have enough royalty money rolling in to go back independent-ey movies, set in the real world, such as The Station Agent.
Good god I hope not. I'd hate to see his talents wasted on films that only 50 people are going to see, no matter how artsy. Keep him in the spotlight!
See, I don't think he wasted his talents, I just wish more people would enjoy the movie. :P
You know, it's funny, because I remembered the scene from Living in Oblivion (link above) from when my old girlfriend showed it to me nigh on a millennium ago, but it wasn't 'til I tracked it down that I even realized it was also Peter Dinklage.