Julia

I wouldn’t even go that far. I don’t believe Scar thinks he’s a hero- I think he’s just doing what he has to do. He’s hurt and angry, but he’s also cast away his name and made himself an outcast. He’s fighting a fight he feels is righteous, but I don’t think he thinks much of himself beyond that.

I firmly believe that all writers should own a copy of Strunk and White’s “The Elements of Style”, and should read it- it’s the essential grammar text. I’m also fond of Jack Hodgins’s “A Passion for Narrative”, and have found a number of other, less general writing reference books useful from time to time. Writer’s Digest publishes a number of writer’s references, including the “Character Naming Sourcebook”, which I love.

This is an interesting comment on science vs. religion, which is definitely an important aspect of FMA, and particularly of FMA:B.

I find it interesting that you chose to compare the Ishvalans to the Muslim people, not because it’s a totally inaccurate comparison, but because I’ve always considered them a closer analogue to the Jews. Given the WWII-esque setting of FMA, their extermination by a literal Fuhrer, their demonization all scream Holocaust to me. However, you’re right that Scar more closely echoes the religious extremism of Jihadi Muslims, and that he’s a comment on hypocrisy. That being said, he also considers himself an outcast of his own people, and believes himself a traitor to both them and to his God, so while he hates alchemy and believes it’s a scourge, his quest is as much personal as it is religious. He’s a very complicated character, just as much as all the others, and I don’t think he should be taken purely as a parallel to Islamic terrorism, particularly given when and where the manga was written and conceived (the first volume was published early in 2001, and it’s Japanese, so probably lacking the American terrorism panic, but it’s possible).

I’ll admit freely: I skimmed parts of this article. It’s very long, and I was having a hard enough time marshalling my thoughts on the parts I did read. Your analysis is interesting, and shows a good grasp of the creative process, but I feel like you’re not giving enough weight to certain aspects. In particular, prejudice. You talk about Lord of the Rings, etc. as being an objection to absolute power, and I certainly agree with that, but I think that as a whole creation it’s too charged with Tolkien’s own biases and understandings to be apolitical even a little bit. He does offer insight into values rather than institutions, but that insight is coloured by his own world view, and that needs to be taken into account when considering the politics of his writing. He had a lot of very interesting ideas, and he created an incredible thing, but in a lot of ways it’s not a diverse creation, and because of how influential it was mainstream fantasy has become a much more narrow genre- or perhaps it was narrow before, and Tolkien only encouraged it. It’s hard to say where the beginnings and endings of genre mutation are, because it’s so organic, and everything affects everything else.

Tolkien created an amazing thing, and he said many things therein that are very positive. All of his overt messages and the general impression of his art and his writing is a progressive, evolutionary one that has for good reason captures thousands of minds. But every writer is trapped by their own world view, and Tolkien’s does seep through. This is a good article and a good exploration of some aspects of his creativity and the sum of his work, but it might have been deeper and better still if you’d looked a little more at the more subliminal and subconscious politics of the writing.