|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tolkienreborn
Bree
Dec 13 2008, 7:29am
Post #1 of 44
(911 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien Reborn - Why Tolkien Destroyed Fantasy for Me (Questions and Opinion)
|
Can't Post
|
|
Why Tolkien Destroyed Fantasy for me.
I ask Questions.. I never stopped asking them and so I am here to ask you a Question.
I believe as a Artist and someone who views things differently from humans. I will be honest with you and the people on these forums. But for now I wish to bring something up which disturbed me about Tolkien and most of Humanity’s writing in general…when I read your books. First off the races in his book make no sense and in my opinion can be seen as being a bit racist. (This guy has to be joking I am sure most of you are thinking this.) Sadly I am not... (Sorry for my bad English) I kind of refused to speak it when I was little..)
Let me explain. First I’ll ask you all a simple question.
How can one race be all evil or totally EVIL!
Tolkien in my eyes wasn’t bright in this area and this breaks the illusion for me. Not every species of a creature is evil. Even if one is big and looks more powerful in appearance. I am sure you know which Races I am talking about... so I’d rather cut this short for all you fanboys.
Being an artist I’ve been working on a Fantasy book since 1991 not like any of this matters. When Tolkien finished his book it wasn’t really considered good. Not till far later on people thought it was good.
So frankly I’d rather just wait till I am dead before putting my book out. Because I don’t think humanity would understand a Dragons point of view since Tolkien ruined most fantasy for me and some others I am sure who are tired of reading dragon slayer books or creatures being bad guys all the time. You see I am not human and so I have a different viewpoint. Now If Tolkien made races in his books not all evil... I would say this instead... “This is possibly one of the best books ever”. Sadly Tolkien didn’t do this and so I hopefully... I will get some writers and people to think differently about Tolkien on this issue.
That is my opinion and I’ll stick to it unless someone can tell me differently, but most people I have very nice conversation with do agree with me on the Race issue. So I am not saying the books are not well written or have a crappy plot. If anyone would like to discuss this or good books in general please send me a PM.
|
|
|
Alcarcalime
Tol Eressea
Dec 13 2008, 9:54am
Post #2 of 44
(692 views)
Shortcut
|
I am sure you could get a more reasoned response from the Reading Room crowd, but . . .
Tolkien wasn't trying to write a realistic novel with "real" people. He was writing a mythology for England using the ideas and attitudes from a much earlier time when people saw each other in more black and white terms: You were either friend or foe; you were either good or you were evil; you were one of us, or you were not. He really didn't make any of his races totally good, but the Orcs were totally evil because in his universe that is the way they were created. They couldn't be anything else; they didn't have free will. The rest of his races had free will, so sometimes they were good and sometimes they were not-so-good.
I don't try to over-analyze the books I read. I just enjoy. I try really hard not to project my world vision into what I read, but rather to take into myself what the author has written -- to inhabit his world.
Movie Technical Discussion -- Index
|
|
|
tolkienreborn
Bree
Dec 13 2008, 10:13am
Post #3 of 44
(681 views)
Shortcut
|
I know it is just a story.. but story have meanings and values that people get out of them. But what makes a story really interesting is if the characters are belieavable and have wants and needs and arn't all evil. This just kills it in my opinion and your are definatly right he saw things in black and white and in my opinion morals and values like that shouldn't be spread. Just like some religious books *hint hint* If you spread hate you shouldn't have it in your mythology or books. Imagine if someone wrote a book about mankind being evil.. and nothing but evil. I highly doubt it would have sold millions. Also It wasn't just Orcs it was Dragons too.. and most the creatures in his books.
|
|
|
Alcarcalime
Tol Eressea
Dec 13 2008, 10:33am
Post #4 of 44
(661 views)
Shortcut
|
I will concede that the beings that were "created" by Morgoth were pure evil, because Morgoth created them to be "evil" and created them out of evil.
I think that when one is reading a book or story, one has to take into account what the author's intent is. If one is writing about good and evil, what better way to make evil stand out than to create characters who are totally evil?
The Valar weren't completely evil or completely good, nor were the Maier, the Elves, the Men (of whatever race of men), the Dwarves, the Hobbits, the Ents.
He was trying to show that evil exists in our world and it is something that we have to resist all the time because it can take over your life -- no matter what your intentions are. Look at Saruman, Denethor, or Boromir. They tried to do good, but they chose less than *good* means and were shown to succumb to evil. This is a mythology.
Movie Technical Discussion -- Index
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Dec 13 2008, 3:24pm
Post #5 of 44
(656 views)
Shortcut
|
a note of dragon-longing in your thoughts!
In the LotR mythology, dragons are a creation of Morgoth, and hence carry his "taint".
But for a different perspective of dragons, I recommend you read Tolkien's "Farmer Giles of Ham" (which you have not yet done, else your opinion of him would not be so harsh!  ) Indeed, it would be interesting to hear your opinion of that story.
The question of the supposed evil nature of orcs I leave to others here, some of whom can make very strong arguments pro and con. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
almas_sparks
Rohan
Dec 13 2008, 3:33pm
Post #6 of 44
(636 views)
Shortcut
|
Every piece of art (literature, movies, etc) is a product of its time and place and reflects the times and places it was created in. LOTR is no exception. You bet that, if the books were written few years ago or if there was a sequel also from recent years, the Universe would be different. But it isn`t a case so you have to put them in the context which is that, as others pointed out, Tolkien was creating a mythology for England. Therefore, having the good guys physically resemble Englishmen ( blue eyes, pale skin, blond and dark hair) and good girls looking like most beautiful English Roses ( again, blue eyes, pale skin, blond or dark hair) is logical and shouldn`t come as a surprise. It`s also very monarchy oriented. Prince marries a Princess, commoners (in this case Hobbits) marry commoners. Prince does not marry a commoner, princess doesn`t marry a commoner, noble lineage defines a person, if you are born a king you are automatically deserving of a trone and predisposed for greatness and so fort. It`s King/Queen`s England`s mythology right there. OTOH, America created another great fantasy which is very very American in its heart - Star Wars. It glorifies Republic (good) and villifies monarchy (Empire = bad), commoners and nobility mix (Han and Leia), everyone can rise to the occasion and become a hero ( smugglers, gamblers, even the token bad guy). It`s one true American myth reflecting American views that no matter what you were at your birth, you can succeed against odds and democracy rules. Again, it`s a product of its time and place it was created in and therefore defers from LOTR in social and political messages. Finally, Harry Potter`s Dumbledore, an iconic mentor, wise man figure, is gay. The book was written in 2007 thus reflecting times and place (Brittain) it was created in.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Dec 13 2008, 5:11pm
Post #7 of 44
(655 views)
Shortcut
|
I am not certain but think you are talking about Tolkien's making the dragons evil. I don't have a problem with Tolkien dragons, in the same way I don't have a problem with Tolkien giant spiders. They can be evil from the inception, as far as I'm concerned, because they are not human (or Elvish/Hobbitish/Dwarvish). They are "animals", per se. Or let us say, if not evil, they can be "anti-people" in some deep way--because they are completely "Other". Maybe they aren't evil when viewed from their own perspective, although I think dernwyn has already answered as to why Tolkien's dragons (in LOTR) are the way they are (Morgoth's taint).
I have a sincere problem reconciling the orcs, which are "devolved" people, either Elves or Humans. This has been discussed many times, in our Reading Room and on many other Tolkien boards and other places and media where Tolkien is discussed.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Some say once you're gone, you're gone forever, and some say you're gonna come back.
Some say you'll rest in the arms of the Savior, if sinful ways you lack.
Some say that they're coming back in a garden: bunch of carrots and little sweet peas.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.
Iris DeMent
Call Her Emily
|
|
|
Varda Lady Of The Stars
The Shire
Dec 13 2008, 8:37pm
Post #8 of 44
(645 views)
Shortcut
|
Surely orcs are inherently evil because they chose (as one time elves) to follow the path of Morgoth, and so were tortured and maimed. In their greed they wished to overrun Middle Earth, hence the pure 'evilness'?
'When Manwe there ascends his throne and looks forth, if Varda is beside him, he sees further than all other eyes, through mist, and through darkness, and over all the leagues of the sea.'
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Dec 13 2008, 8:41pm
Post #9 of 44
(610 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Do little baby orcs choose to be evil? //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Dec. 8-15 for "The Steward and the King".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Dec 13 2008, 9:07pm
Post #10 of 44
(615 views)
Shortcut
|
the problem isn't the original orcs.
The problem is that each new generation of orcs is "born evil" and does not have the ability (or, apparently does not have the ability) to choose freely. They are evil when they are born, apparently, and that can't be right.
How can the devil (Morgoth) remove free will, a gift of Iluvatar, from a race of beings who have this gift by right of being born?
I find the concept of an entire race of monsters devolved from an initial cohort of men/elves a very disquieting one, too close to eugenics to feel comfortable.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
Some say once you're gone, you're gone forever, and some say you're gonna come back.
Some say you'll rest in the arms of the Savior, if sinful ways you lack.
Some say that they're coming back in a garden: bunch of carrots and little sweet peas.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.
Iris DeMent
Call Her Emily
|
|
|
Jazmine
Tol Eressea
Dec 13 2008, 10:18pm
Post #12 of 44
(604 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If each new generation of orcs is raised by the last...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
surely the evil is conditioned into them? It is how they behave and think because it's all they've ever known... but then, I guess even if that were the case free will would break through in some places and you'd have the odd orc choosing to shun the path that has been set for them.
*Jazminatar the Brown*
|
|
|
Ghan-Buri-Ghan
The Shire
Dec 13 2008, 10:28pm
Post #13 of 44
(609 views)
Shortcut
|
I think that possibly the most "offensive" race in Tolkien's writings are the Haradrim. They seem to be Arabs or Asians, and are undeniably wicked. However, they do go to show that even though most Men you encounter in Middle-Earth are good, not all are resisting Sauron.
The Dark fire will NOT avail you, so you might as well give up, Flame of Udun!
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Dec 13 2008, 10:33pm
Post #14 of 44
(610 views)
Shortcut
|
He [Sam] wondered what the [Southron] man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace...
--LotR, IV.iv, "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit".
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Dec. 8-15 for "The Steward and the King".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Dec 13 2008, 10:33pm
Post #15 of 44
(659 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Here is my theory about the Orcs
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
On the one hand, it is absolutely imperative that the Orcs do not have redeemable souls. The whole moral structure of LOTR and indeed all of Tolkien's work collapses like a house of cards if they did.
On the other hand, the only possible conclusion that one can reach from the full body of Tolkien's work is that the Orcs came from beings that did have souls (fëa), possibly men but also undoubtedly including Elves corrupted and twisted by Melkor, in addition to some Maian spirits that also were subverted by Melkor.
How then can these two seemingly contradictory points be reconciled? I find the answer in, of all places, the Athrabeth.
As I have discussed elsewhere, one of the key concepts discussed in the commentary and notes that follow the Athrabeth is the idea that "the separation of fëa and hröa is 'unnatural', and proceeds not from the original design but from the 'Marring of Arda', which is due to the operations of Melkor."
So here is my answer to the dilemma. The Orcs originated from the hröar of originally incarnate beings (whether Elves or Men or both, and even from some Maian spirits as well) that Melkor managed to separate from their fëar. They then had no wills of their own, but rather were animated by Melkor's own will, and later by Sauron's as Melkor's proxy. They were similar in that way to the beings created by Aulë before Eru took pity on him and them and gave them their own independent wills. Even the Orcs that were born subsequently did not have fëar of their own; they continued to consist purely of hröar that were animated by Melkor and/or by Sauron. As Tolkien himself stated in one of the Myths Transformed texts "would Eru provide fëar for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs." Tolkien even has an explanation for situations where they seem to be exhibiting their own wills (such as Shagrat and Gorbag's talking about setting up shop themselves): "Their 'talking was really reeling off' records set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellious critical words -- he knew about them. Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much independence as have, say dogs or horses of their human masters."
This theory would even explain why the Orcs "magically" died when Sauron was destroyed; with no will of their own there was nothing to animate them once Melkor's proxy was destroyed.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Dec 13 2008, 10:49pm
Post #16 of 44
(629 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They didn't all die at Sauron's destruction.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some "fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope".
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Dec. 8-15 for "The Steward and the King".
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Dec 13 2008, 11:05pm
Post #17 of 44
(613 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't think that contradicts my theory
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some "fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope".
True enough (Brigandpedia is always correct!). But I think if you look at the full quote, it rather supports my theory:
As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and purposeless and then feebly die, the creatures of Sauron, orc or troll, or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope.
I think it is reasonable to assume that under my theory the ones who hid in the holes and dark lightless places were simply waiting "mindlessly" for the return of Melkor or some other proxy to reanimate them.
I can see some other potential problems with my theory, but this one doesn't really bother me.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Dec 13 2008, 11:27pm
Post #18 of 44
(649 views)
Shortcut
|
I remember the passage you quoted from HoMe X (Myths Transformed, essay VIII, p. 408) about the Orcs "parroting" back "recorded" speeches of rebellion against Morgoth and Sauron. It is most unsatisfactory to this reader. In The Lord of the Rings, the orcs are clearly speaking for themselves, however self-deceptively, about their desire to run away and stop serving the Dark Lord. As so often, Tolkien wrote a fine story first, then desperately tried to rationalize it later.
Generally, Tolkien in his notes to himself tends to muse in the declarative mode, rather than the speculative. That is, he writes tentative theories and possible solutions, for his own contemplation and working out of conflicts, in language that sounds definite. As readers of HoMe know, Christopher Tolkien will present several texts in sequence on some detail of Middle-earth, wherein each sounds absolutely certain of itself but each contradicts the others to a greater or lesser extent. In debates that cite Tolkien's HoME texts, the biggest failing is not remembering that Tolkien is never definitive, no matter how much he sounds like he is.
That is the case in this section of notes on the Orcs, for instance. Right after note VIII, with its Orcs' "recorded" speech that simulates free will, comes a second note IX, in which common orcs are mindless, but are led by evil Maiar spirits who have assumed "orc-like" bodies. These leaders, therefore, have an independence of thought and will that is not shared by all the orcs whose speech we never hear! Finally, in note X (which C. Tolkien calls "a very finished essay" to remind us that the preceding scrawls are not) Tolkien settles on the idea that Orcs are corrupted Men, despite the contradictions this poses in the Silmarillion regarding the dates of the appearance of the respective races. The advantage of this plan is spelled out here:
"[The Orcs] were certainly dominated by their Master, but his dominion was by fear, and they were aware of this fear and hated him. They were indeed so corrupted that they were pitiless, and there was no cruelty or wickedness that they would not commit; but this was the corruption of independent wills, and they took pleasure in their deeds. They were capable of acting on their own, doing evil deeds unbidden for their own sport; or if Morgoth and his agents were far away, they might neglect his commands." (HoME X, p. 417-18)
This fine piece goes on to explain away or justify many of the other "problems" of the Orcs as moral beings. For instance, it insists that Elves recognized that Orcs were theoretically redeemable and so must not be slain or tortured once captured - adding parenthetically that "in the horror of the War" this was not always the case.
Now, does this essay contain all the answers about how Orcs can be totally Evil? No. And as with all HoME texts, we cannot say whether 1) it represents Tolkien's settled thinking in its own time or 2) it applies retroactively to all his stories written so many years before. Clearly he was trying to write something that made sense, was ethical according to his Catholic lights, and was consistent with his fantasy universe in all its manifestations. But no one can say that he actually succeeded in doing so.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Dec 13 2008, 11:45pm
Post #19 of 44
(613 views)
Shortcut
|
You've identified a number of the "problems" with my theory that I mentioned in my response to N.E.B. I agree with you that the note about the Orcs' speech is unsatisfying and doesn't really stand up well to scrutiny. But I don't think the comment about the Elves recognizing that the Orcs are redeemable is any more satisfying (even if it is from a more finished text). I continue to assert that the irredeemability of the Orcs is too critical to the moral fabric of Tolkien's tales to be wiped away like that.
The bottom line is that Tolkien really never did decide exactly what the resolution to the problem of the Orcs was. But I do find the idea of them being pure hröar that have been separated from the original fëar of the Elves or Men captured and corrupted by Morgoth to be a satisfying -- though very disturbing -- answer to the problem.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
Anorien
Rohan
Dec 14 2008, 12:43am
Post #20 of 44
(583 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I understand what you are saying
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was just thinking this morning of why dragons are almost always protrayed in a bad light. Their intentions could be seen as good to them, and I am sure that not all dragons are evil.
But you have to remember that authors have some bias slip into their writing. They can also draw upon different cultures and mythologies where they can use the traditional views, such as dragons are bad. If you think that Tolkien made a mistake in doing so, then didn't medieval cultures and myths? Where knights slew dragons because they were considered evil.
Perhaps there are different views to be discovered by the individual reader. What ever sense of good and evil they get out of the book, that is what it means to them. But even the "good" races weren't perfect. Elves had been corrupted, dwarves had been considered greedy which was how they released the Balrog (I think), men were seen as weak and greedy for power, etc. But you have to agree that big scary creatures (including Sauron) that want to take over the world and destroy everything for their own benefit is pretty evil. Most people think Hitler was evil, and he kinda tried to do the same thing.
As far as the racist thing, think of the audience intended, the time period it was written in, and the effect that Tolkien was looking for. Perhaps it was a contrast. Though I do agree that it is strange that the southrons (Haradrim) were considered evil, and have a middle-eastern influence, at least in the movies. But based off of Tolkien's strong christian faith, perhaps that was where some of his bias slipped in.
Many books have some bias, and ultimately it is the choice of the reader to determine what they think is good or evil. But don't let one story ruin something you like.
|
|
|
grammaboodawg
Immortal
Dec 14 2008, 12:48am
Post #21 of 44
(609 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sorry you Fantasy has been destroyed
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
because of Tolkien's story. For me, it's pure escapism; the characters are as real as I want them to be. The world of Middle-earth has beings who see the beauty of life, love, friends, and home (Hobbits/Gandalf/Faramir); and others who only perceive things through their own interpretation (Denethor/Sauron/Saruman). That's why I love the story and Tolkien; because he cherishes the good things in life in his story... and understands how negativity or evil can destroy them. For me, Orcs represent the evil or destructiveness just as Hobbits represent (for the most part) good or simplicity/innocence.
I hope you find the answers you need to give you closure... or vindication.
And Welcome to TORn! You've definitely come to the right place for thoughts and answers. Cheers :)
"Barney Snow was here." ~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."
I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.
TORn's Observations Lists
|
|
|
tolkienreborn
Bree
Dec 14 2008, 7:56am
Post #22 of 44
(607 views)
Shortcut
|
If you know any good dragon books I can escape too which don't deal with this human biased towards dragons, i'd love to hear your recommendations.
|
|
|
Kelvarhin
Half-elven
Dec 14 2008, 8:08am
Post #23 of 44
(585 views)
Shortcut
|
you've never read any of the Pern novels?
Love the dragons in them
Valinor, O Valinor
Andavë yányë hyarya
Tumna yá nyèna minya fëa
An Valinor, lissë Eldamar
Kelvarhin's Universe~~~~~~~Laerasea's Travelling TORn Journal
One book to rule them all
One book to find them
One book to bring them all
And in TORn bind them
In the land of TORnadoes...where the brilliant play
|
|
|
tolkienreborn
Bree
Dec 14 2008, 8:35am
Post #24 of 44
(596 views)
Shortcut
|
I didn't like pern  - unless you like a book where humans are horses being used by some race.
|
|
|
grammaboodawg
Immortal
Dec 14 2008, 1:50pm
Post #25 of 44
(575 views)
Shortcut
|
of anything I've read that would meet your criteria... but I'll admit to not being a hearty book-reader. I tend to re-visit those I enjoy. :)
"Barney Snow was here." ~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."
I really need these new films to take me back to, and not re-introduce me to, that magical world.
TORn's Observations Lists
|
|
|
|
|
1
