Final Quest #11

Lunakat wrote:

Wasn't the whole point that that claim wasn't true? Neither side left the other alone.

The point of what, of "Wolfrider!"? Yes, I'd say it was, it's just that we were shown that side of the story pretty late in the game. Up to then, it seemed to be heavily implied that the humans were always the real aggressors and elves the victims in their "war" - the worst we were told of Bearclaw doing was snatching a kid and leaving it in a tree. Then Wolfrider! comes along and we find out, no, Bearclaw was a violent abusive alcoholic who instigated and fueled the feud with the tribe of Gotara time and again. But you're right, we've now been shown that "peacefully living our lives" was sort of Wolfrider propaganda.

sun girl wrote:

Then Wolfrider! comes along and we find out, no, Bearclaw was a violent abusive alcoholic who instigated and fueled the feud with the tribe of Gotara time and again.

Testify!

sun girl wrote:

[Wolfrider propaganda.

Bwahaha. I love it. So true.

It's kinda dumb to me story-wise though how long hooooomans can keep holding a freakin' grudge. Does anyone else get as annoyed as I do with the constant hoooman/evil villain threat thing? Shuna and Nona are pretty much told 'you put us too high up, we are either demons or spirits to you' by Cutter/the elves, but it seems like the humans themselves are almost always shown in Elfquest with similar polarity, either as scheming, heavy-handed demons themselves, or spiritually enlightened to the point of preachin' the elven Word. They're never shown as just being whatever they are, inhabitants of the planet.
Maybe that's what's stuck in my craw about the whole thing.

Well, MAYBE there are some neutral ones, like the woodcutter. But that was for like 5 seconds.

There haven't been nearly enough believable human characters. Lehrigen was the best human character to me that was ever written in EQ. He just seemed so much more 'real', gray, he had a full story arc. But even he went from being conflicted to almost being worshipful at the end in FQ, which annoyed me. The way they'd left him in the Recognition  issue was the best, because he was still essentially himself - dying, fascinated by the elves but also holding a heavy conscience in what he'd done in the past.

Zadzi wrote:

It's kinda dumb to me story-wise though how long hooooomans can keep holding a freakin' grudge.

I don't think it was so much the humans holding a grudge - the Djunslanders had pretty much forgotten about the elves during the Long Wait, seeing them as nothing more than a legend. The problem was the the elves were so unfortunate to wake up in a land that was ruled by a power-mad tyrant, who simply hated everybody that stood between him and absolute power.

Zadzi wrote:

Well, MAYBE there are some neutral ones, like the woodcutter. But that was for like 5 seconds.

A better example would probably be Bolli, the Woodcutter's wife, and Adar.
Though I think Hartha seems pretty neutral too.

Zadzi wrote:

It's kinda dumb to me story-wise though how long hooooomans can keep holding a freakin' grudge.

In most cases it was not "a grudge", it was religion. Elves are god-like or devil-like.

How long does religion sticks? Last time I checked it is for some 1,400 respectively 2,000 years.

Ahh, I miss Adar. And that Olabar mountain tall dude too.

Me too!

Btw-- I don't think kidnapping someone's kid is a small thing-- even if you do leave it hanging in a tree somewhere. The way that story was told- by Treestump- served to eulogize Bearclaw and brush off anything negative about him, but also did suggest the trouble he caused was significant. There was a picture of him running away with the baby-- and the mother shouting out in alarm behind him. She was taking it very seriously-- even if he was not. That bit alone communicated that it was not entirely the human's fault that there was conflict.

I don't think it was suggested back in book 1 that the trouble Bearclaw caused was significant. The babysnatching was played off as a harmless prank, something for the tribe to laugh at. The Wolfriders didn't behave as if they thought they shared much blame for the ongoing conflict with the humans.

Well, there WAS Two-Spear who was a complete nightmare to the humans as well. Although the humans were also pretty terrible. Admittedly, they seemed like once they decided on 'the way' during Skyfire's time, they were more focused on being elves and just staying out of the humans' way altogether, although didn't Mantricker have a way with the humans?
I think Bearclaw was pretty much a shit stirrer though.

Baby snatching is never a harmless prank. Who would ever think it's hilarious for a stranger to steal their kid? Of course the Wolfriders played it off as if it was a lark- but you can see from the illustration that the humans are panicked and incensed. It was the Wolfriders who were telling the story-- so of course they told it that way. When the humans came to Sorrow's End and told their version of things back to Cutter-- it was very different. That's the way of story telling- right? It's always from the perspective of the teller. Unless an objective narrator is telling you something in a story-- you are simply getting the character's pov.

Yes, obviously different characters tell things from their own points of view. All I'm saying is the Wolfriders acted like they were the innocent victims in this conflict. "Why must the humans hate us so? We offer them no harm" is virtually the first thing we hear a WR say about them. That's pretty disingenuous considering the way they saw their last chief behave.

They honestly believed they were the innocent victims. Just like the humans honestly believed they were the innocent victims. That was the whole point.

Fine, you win.

Has there ever been an instance, when the Wolfrider (or at least elven) way of live was not shown as something superior to human way of life? And was there ever a situation, when humans had actually every right to hate/fear elves? Well, Two-Spear and Winnowill but they are the evil-ne'er-do-good elves, so they don't count.

Especially in in the first instalments of EQ we don't get to see humans who have a good reason to hate the elves.

So yes, it is the mother, who didn't get Bearclaw's joke

Have you guys ever heard the term "unreliable narrator"? Treestump is telling a story. It's just Treestump's pov. Look at the picture. Bearclaw is running away with the kid, laughing-- the mom is terrified and the father is aiming a spear at him. What parent would ever think it was a harmless prank to steal their baby? No parent anywhere in the animal kingdom, that's who. This is a story being told by Treestump-- who is an unreliable narrator-- and it definitely indicates that the elves were not completely innocent. Because stealing babies is kind of a serious thing. But that's who Bearclaw was. He was a troublemaker.

http://elfquest.com/read/index.php?s=OQ/OQ04&p=9

Later, we see the human pov when the human family stumbles upon Sorrow's End. They tell Cutter their own understanding of events. This guy isn't telling the absolute truth anymore than Treestump was. But he's telling what he understands. And his understanding is that humans were victims of invading elves. That's why Cutter lets him and his family go. Because he sees that they are as much victims as he was... maybe not of the elves, but of their understanding of the elves

http://elfquest.com/read/index.php?s=OQ/OQ06&p=15

That said, I don't really think that anything Bearclaw did to the humans really justified their responses. He pestered them. He tried to scare them and drive them away. But even in Wolfrider, their reactions were much more violent than his actions. That was pretty consistent.

And btw-- the whole reason an author uses an unreliable narrator is to confuse the reader. It's a set up-- so you can make assumptions that get undermined later by more information. The original quest was all about changing perspectives. We start with certain assumptions, but as more information gets revealed, we realize our assumptions were wrong. We start with "humans are bad"-- but they don't turn out to be all bad. We think the trolls are just mean and greedy-- but they were slaves of the high ones and are actually rebels. The Preservers seem like annoyances-- but they prove to be essential. Winnowil seems like she is just trying to keep Voll from his dream-- but she turns out to have a very good reason to prevent him from waking up... as his actions demonstrate. The elves think the Palace is their home-- but for the Wolfriders, it turns out to be just a vessel in which to leave their home (the forest). And so on and so on.

Wow, Luna, your grasp of "the whole point" of Elfquest is clearly much better than mine. Thanks for explaining how unreliable narrators work and why authors use them, I had no idea.

Sure, there are humans who are good, but we never see humans, who hate the elves and have an actual reason to do so. Humans, who are "good" always are also friendly towards the elves.
Angrif at least seems to be a human, who is kinda loved/respected by his people but still a fiend. Normally humans who hate elves are also abusers, liars, tyrants whatever; a "good human" equates with "friend of elves"

sun girl wrote:

Wow, Luna, your grasp of "the whole point" of Elfquest is clearly much better than mine. Thanks for explaining how unreliable narrators work and why authors use them, I had no idea.

Thanks. I sure feel superior now that I realize you were taking this whole discussion as a personal attack. Chill-- I honestly did not mean it that way.

Miss Gillespie wrote:

Sure, there are humans who are good, but we never see humans, who hate the elves and have an actual reason to do so. Humans, who are "good" always are also friendly towards the elves.

That's a good point. But then, if that's the case... how does that statement affect this statement:

sun girl wrote:

All I'm saying is the Wolfriders acted like they were the innocent victims in this conflict. "Why must the humans hate us so? We offer them no harm" is virtually the first thing we hear a WR say about them. That's pretty disingenuous considering the way they saw their last chief behave.

Which is it? Were the humans justified or not? Or is it something in between?

I was just using sarcasm to point out that you were being condescending, Luna. I didn't see it as a personal attack, just sort of rude.

And my point isn't really whether the humans were justified or not, it's more that the Wolfriders are kind of wilfully blind to their own contribution to the humans' hatred of them. Their past share of the blame went largely unacknowledged until Wolfrider!, and most of the current tribe seems to have forgotten the lessons of Bearclaw's chiefdom. Some credit is definitely due to Cutter for leading them away from this path and trying to treat the human point of view with some respect.

sun girl wrote:

I was just using sarcasm to point out that you were being condescending, Luna. I didn't see it as a personal attack, just sort of rude.

I do do that sometimes.

Quote :

And my point isn't really whether the humans were justified or not, it's more that the Wolfriders are kind of wilfully blind to their own contribution to the humans' hatred of them. Their past share of the blame went largely unacknowledged until Wolfrider!, and most of the current tribe seems to have forgotten the lessons of Bearclaw's chiefdom. Some credit is definitely due to Cutter for leading them away from this path and trying to treat the human point of view with some respect.

With this, I fully agree

Well, isn't it possible the humans generally just tend to demonize or worship what they don't understand? It's been mentioned in EQ (I think Hakken, however you spell his name, mentioned it and monopolized on it). Shuna mentioned it too but then she was like a missionary. Humans react strongly in general to the alienness of the elves. That's one part of it, that's the basis...their own perception as a result is going to lean toward god or demon and is rarely simply 'curious'. What the elves in turn have done with that beginning perception has run the gamut from goading, self-defense, hiding, trickery, occasional attempts at befriending, etc.

So is it safe to say that in some cases the human hatred is in some cases justified, and in some cases, not justified at all?

Me, my whole annoyance of the human situation is that story wise it's almost too easy to fall back on, as was the case with Winnowill being relied on consistently as villain. It became ridiculous. I sort of feel the same way about humans in EQ. It's not that they have to stop even being a threat but I find myself becoming increasingly bored with the Djunn Angry Angry Angrif storyline now.

Lunakat wrote:

Miss Gillespie wrote:

Sure, there are humans who are good, but we never see humans, who hate the elves and have an actual reason to do so. Humans, who are "good" always are also friendly towards the elves.

That's a good point. But then, if that's the case... how does that statement affect this statement:

sun girl wrote:

All I'm saying is the Wolfriders acted like they were the innocent victims in this conflict. "Why must the humans hate us so? We offer them no harm" is virtually the first thing we hear a WR say about them. That's pretty disingenuous considering the way they saw their last chief behave.

Which is it? Were the humans justified or not? Or is it something in between?

No, the humans are not justified to hate the elves. They, the High Ones, came as a far more advanced species onto them, when the humans were mere cavemen ("We come in peace")*. Then we have humans killing elves, because they didn't know better (because: primitives) or were mislead (because: Haken).
Hmm, actually, this come a bit into the territorial of colonist's reason: the advanced race, which will bring peace and civilisation to a savage people. This, combined with the enslavement of the trolls, the High Ones were slavers and colonialists

When a Wolfrider, or any elf for the matter, hates a human s/he always has every right to do so, but I'd love to see a human having "the right" to hate an elf (e.g. Wolfriders kill livestock of a herder, he has to sell his kids into slavery... something like that), just to have someone "bad" who isn't black and white :/


*Doesn't that make them an invasive species? But it's the native humans, who are destroying nature (Shards) not the alien elves

Miss Gillespie wrote:

Sure, there are humans who are good, but we never see humans, who hate the elves and have an actual reason to do so. Humans, who are "good" always are also friendly towards the elves.

When a Wolfrider, or any elf for the matter, hates a human s/he always has every right to do so, but I'd love to see a human having "the right" to hate an elf (e.g. Wolfriders kill livestock of a herder, he has to sell his kids into slavery... something like that), just to have someone "bad" who isn't black and white :/

I'd say the "Shaman of Gotara #2" in Wolfrider! had a reason to hate the elves - from his POV the demon-chief murdered his predecessor in cold blood. Also that unnamed mother whose kid got stolen by Bearclaw in Treestump's jolly tale of that "grand old elf." I'd call that totally justifed hatred.