|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ghills
The Shire
Feb 5 2009, 4:11pm
Post #101 of 183
(3254 views)
Shortcut
|
Everything I've accomplished, I've done as a result of my own abilties and work ethic. Not really - you also have the advantages your parents were able to give you, the societal approval/disapproval of your activities, etc. No one is an island. That's the whole point behind a lot of race tensions in my country; some people are simply unable to make it because of where they started from and because of the views some people hold about their skin color/religion/political leanings.
I was far from spoiled growing up, as you seem to imply.
No one here is talking about you. We are talking about how tensions and morals in our world influenced Tolkien's world. I'm sorry if you feel that we are somehow talking about you, but I have not seen any attempt to refer to anything other than LoTR and general history in this discussion.
I still fail to see what is wrong with Tolkien focusing on the Numenoreans Nothing - but that's not what we are discussing. Tolkien is depicting the fairer-skinned races as inherently nobler and more powerful, with Elves as the fairest, noblest and most powerful of them all. Take a look at the story of Helm Hammerhand, who killed a Dunlending noble for proposing a marriage alliance between their houses. All of the Rohirrim thought this was a great story that showed those Dunlendings what for. That's obviously racist. There are other, more subtle examples, like the reward-by-marriage, right-to-rule by birth, the way Tolkien consistently describes even obviously evil Elves as noble, etc. That's what we are discussing.
If someone reads LOTR and focuses solely on the fact that orcs...I don't see that as being Tolkien's fault. That's been my point all along, and the point of many people in this thread. Tolkien is not at 'fault' for things that we object to in his writings. The racially-prejudiced overtones were not objectionable. But refusing to examine something because it makes us uncomfortable or because we don't see the point doesn't mean it goes away, and doesn't mean that other people can't have a productive discussion about it.
If a book like LoTR were written in modern times, it would, rightfully, be denounced as racist, because a modern author would be aware of what kind of effect his presentation of different the different races would have.
That's why I see it as pissing on Tolkien's grave when the finger is pointed at him. No one here is pointing a finger at Tolkien, or accusing him of a crime, or any of the other dire things you seem to be imagining. We are here because we love Tolkien's works and want to try and understand them better. This includes taking a look at the not-so-pretty parts.
|
|
|
simplyaven
Grey Havens
Feb 5 2009, 4:34pm
Post #102 of 183
(3264 views)
Shortcut
|
I don`t know where you live or come from but please don`t generalize. I can assure you that LOTR would have been published without a second thought today in my country, for example and no, it wouldn`t be considered racist or sexist, or anything similar. Just like we keep publishing tales where part of the bad guys are dark skinned (which I realised only after I read all these assumptions here) and no one considers it wrong. Simply because part of the fair skinned guys are also far from being perfect. Same with Tolkien writings - don`t you notice the mistakes and failures of fair skinned characters in his books? Have you forgotten the failure of the Eldar themselves? And let's be honest: Tolkien wrote LOTR about the hobbits who are by all modern criteria different - halflings, in many senses even marginal. How many books by modern authors can you point where the main character is a "little person" as we call them? I can point none. LOTR is not a writing of a racist. I find many of your qualifications of Tolkien and his works quite radical but I haven't seen any proof of such radicalism.
And to comment on another post of yours, who is the extremist you are talking about? I hope it is not Tolkien 
Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Join us on January 30 on the Main board for a visit at the "Prancing pony"!
I believe
|
|
|
Ghills
The Shire
Feb 5 2009, 5:03pm
Post #103 of 183
(3262 views)
Shortcut
|
I am perfectly aware of the failures by members of Tolkien's light-skinned characters. That doesn't mean LoTR isn't doesn't evince mild racial prejudices, it just means the racial prejudices are mild, especially for the time period. 'Heart of Darkness', for example, was published 50 years earlier and depicts non-Brits badly, with Africans being the local wildlife. That's some pretty amazing progress in terms of recognizing and avoiding prejudices.
Even when a member of a Tolkien's nobler race sins, check out his descriptions; he's still 'nobler' and more powerful than members of other races. And sometimes even worthy of respect, complete with followers, kingdoms, etc, despite the fact that he's commited incredible evil (ex: sons of Feanor). Tolkien's ability to depict a multi-racial world complete with realistic tensions and characters is amazing, but doesn't mean that those realistic tensions don't exist. Tolkien definitely acknowledges that racial tensions exist in a few of the multi-racial interactions we see.
I can point to lots of books where a main character is a halfling of some sort. I can even point to many books where the main character has a common sense, down-to-earth personality. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
The extremists I was talking about were those who head for the far ends of a spectrum and stay there. I'm not singling anyone out, I didn't even have anyone specific in mind.
My entire argument has been trying to make the point that while many peope now regard Tolkien as biased, and by Western standards he is, he is not extremist and is in fact a good deal less prejudiced than many of his generation across the globe (ex: World War II). This does not change the fact that his is biased by the standards of my country (I don't know about your's, and you're right, I shouldn't generalize).
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 5 2009, 5:03pm
Post #104 of 183
(3279 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Since LotR is already denounced
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
by many as racist (I'm not one of them, mind you, nor is anyone on this board), I don't think it is a stretch to suppose that it would be denounced far more vigorously, and more justifiably, if it had been written by a contemporary author. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be published. Many books are published then denounced, often with a positive impact on sales.
As for other media, I can assure you that there are many people protesting Hollywood's depiction of Arabs, for example, or even their depiction of white-collar criminals, as well as the roles they commonly assign to African-American actors or women. Those protests and criticisms go back at least as far as the civil rights era in the 1960s, but perhaps not as far back as the 1950s, when Tolkien published LotR.
Yes, many of the villains in LotR come from the superior races -- indeed, almost all of the evil leaders comes from one of those races! It's not that the superior races can't turn to evil -- they can and do. It's that even when they turn to evil, they are still superior to the other races in every way except for morals.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Feb 5 2009, 5:14pm
Post #105 of 183
(3300 views)
Shortcut
|
|
possibly. Remember, I don't read the appendices much. :-)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Just about the swarthy Haradrim - don't a lot of them have in fact Numenorean blood? King's Men's blood, of course - but Numenorean nontheless?
They might, and if they do, this would point to the "fallen" nature of all men (elves, hobbits, dwarves and every rational creature except the orcs) which Tolkien is at pains to show us.
I think Tolkien was in sympathy with individual people, such as the Southron soldier that Sam observes and wonders about. I don't think he is of the opinion that Eru created one race of men to be better than another race of men (Eru did not create the Numereans in order that they rule over the entire earth and all other men as some kind of Eru-given right), nor that Eru created one race of elves to be better than another race of elves. That's why (perhaps) he shows us the long, long view of history as it changes rational creatures who migrate here, there and beyond. Men and elves change, as social groups, as they migrate here and there and as their circumstances change. Just like in the real world.
So that the Hardrim and the Easterlings are judged by their actions (cruel) or state (wild), and not simply by outward appearance of their skin color.
And yet, the skin color of all the dominant rulers and heroes in LOTR is white. What is, is.
If Tolkien had been Asian, and if at the time in history in which LOTR was written the Asian races had been the world's conquerers and had been the leading figures (self-defined or generally accepted) in arts, humanities, and culture for generations, he might perhaps have made ME resemble the Asian continent, put Mordor out west of the Urals, and the Blessed Realm somewhere near where the Pacific is in our current world. He might have been Asian-centric, and then we would be able to discuss how that affected his writing and his portrayals of the dominant races in LOTR.
I just don't think it's possible to examine LOTR without recognizing that there is a racist element underlying some of the assumptions about people: look at the orcs, and look at all this talk about "Numenorean bloodlines" and etc.
But it's not a "racist" book, it's a pseudo-history and it's about the long, long fall of rational God-created creatures who all have to fight the long defeat, however that fight appears in their lifetimes. That's what it's about, and all the races in the entire span of the history of ME have to partake of that fall until the end of Arda, regardless of who the dominant race is or is not in the Fourth Age of Man in ME.
We don't get to see what has happened by the Fifth Age, when perhaps all the world's people are a lovely cream color and are then forced to (and able to) find other ways to dislike each other than skin color.
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
|
|
|
simplyaven
Grey Havens
Feb 5 2009, 5:31pm
Post #106 of 183
(3272 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We'll have to agree to disagree
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
First, because I don't think we see simply interracial conflicts in LOTR but we rather see conflicts between good and evil which by all means, in all art, have always been different from each other. If both were white or black would it make the plot better? I doubt it as I doubt Tolkien chose to make them this way deliberately expressing his feelings towards dark skinned people. By the way, the category "black versus white" is far older than all racial talk and is quite well explained by both semiotics and mythology studies. That's how people think and it's an archetype.
Second, I still can't think of a modern author who chose to turn "different" people into major heroes, I will appreciate if you share such titles as I'd like to read them. And I'm not talking about "common sense" or "down to earth personality" but physical differences, people who differ from the "norm" due to illness or genetic impact. LOTR's main character is also down to earth, isn't Frodo? Where I'm going with that is pointing Tolkien's tolerance which is far more obvious than the tolerance of so called "modern" reader. I haven't even watched a movie with such character to play the leading role. Pity for today's society but admirable for Tolkien's broad view and understanding.
And last, because I really don't see racial prejudice but only regular writing tools used such as clearly defining different groups of characters. It makes the writing of tales and fantasy better for the reader, IMHO. Readers of fantasy and fairy tales are a special kind of creatures who, I believe, would like to dive deep into a world full of imaginative forms of life and not walk on the edge between real life and writing.
Even when a member of a Tolkien's nobler race sins, check out his descriptions; he's still 'nobler' and more powerful than members of other races. And sometimes even worthy of respect, complete with followers, kingdoms, etc, despite the fact that he's commited incredible evil (ex: sons of Feanor).
I strongly disagree with this. If you consider material belongings a gift, then it would be true but Tolkien didn't think so. He stressed on the spiritual price all these Elves and Men were going to pay early in the Sil. And despite all wealth they may have possessed, who of them were happy? Who of them escaped the foretold fate? I can't think of such character. At the end they all paid the price.
Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Join us on January 30 on the Main board for a visit at the "Prancing pony"!
I believe
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 5 2009, 5:38pm
Post #107 of 183
(3285 views)
Shortcut
|
In Beowulf Heremond was better, but because he wasn't virtuous (i.e., he was greedy and didn't give out rings) he was acknowledged as a being a bad king. As a result he didn't rule very long. Being "better" can make you king, but you need to be "virtuous" to remain king. Beowulf's character arc is learning that being a great warrior and being a great king are two entirely different things.
All the "better" Numenoreans ended up on the bottom of the sea. The lesser kingdom of Gondor outlasted the better kingdom of Numenor. Slow and virtuous wins the race.
Tolkien finds his finest heroes among the humble, his truest kings as tramps in the wilderness, his highest nobility sprung from the ashes, and his mightiest warriors in virgins' bowers.
In the end the character of a man is known more by what he does than by what he says. Tolkien grew up when class distinctions were rigid, and legitimate bloodlines were very important. He defied both by marrying Edith. It's perhaps difficult for us today to understand how totally courageous, how utterly defiant of the concepts of class and blood that action was. (And yes, he and Edith did pay for it later with social ostracism at Oxford.)
I find it difficult to believe that such a man was either a classist or a racist.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Feb 5 2009, 5:44pm
Post #108 of 183
(3374 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Farther back than you know. Which is a point.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As for other media, I can assure you that there are many people protesting Hollywood's...roles they commonly assign to African-American actors or women. Those protests and criticisms go back at least as far as the civil rights era in the 1960s, but perhaps not as far back as the 1950s, when Tolkien published LotR.
I have a gentle point to make, it's a point for all of us and not directed at you, Curious. But thanks for giving me an opening.
Protests about the depiction of "The American Negro" in Hollywood films go back to the beginning of Hollywood films, and probably intensified after the deplorable, despicable "Birth of a Nation" with it's paean to the Ku Klux Klan.
What is apparent in your response (and again, I am using it for illustration and this is not any kind of attack mode) is that you don't know that automatically.
Which is, of course, a function of racism: the lack of knowledge of the dominant culture about affairs that deeply and richly concern the less dominant, because we don't see that POV represented until it reaches a point at which we must pay attention because it begins to impact us. We don't (by and large) read minority newspapers and are not privy to conversations among minority members unless they call our attention to them.
We ignore them as of little consequence, and we don't do this out of meanness or ill intent, but just because we do. What is, is.
It is possible to be the benficiary of racism regardless of our personal racial views, and even when we ourselves are not actively racist! This is the hard lesson of racism, this is the hard conversation to have and the hard conclusion to get to, and it's the benefit of talking calmly and without undue emotion about how racial attitudes and assumptions confer class and value in American society.
The fact that we don't know what African-Americans were discussing in 1917 in the same way we know what middle-and-upper-class European-Americans were discussing (at least, let me speak for my generation, who had American history books that mentioned G.W. Carver and Eli Whitney and that was ALL) is a result of racism, and we should be calm about that and just be open to thinking about how we see the world through a miasma of racial assumptions (in America) because when we are not calm and forgiving to each other we run to polar corners and radicalize and progess stops.
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
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Feb 5 2009, 5:55pm
Post #109 of 183
(3254 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But the tortoise is secretly a hare.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
All the "better" Numenoreans ended up on the bottom of the sea.
Except that Tolkien is explicit that the Faithful, and thus Aragorn, descend from the most senior line of Elros' successors. Why does Tolkien not have some other, non-royal, Númenórean family prove so virtuous as to become the kings of the Faithful in exile? Or why does he not have some other humble but hardworking Ranger, one not descended from Isildur, rise to be the hero of the War of the Ring and the new king of Gondor and Arnor?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 2-8 for The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Feb 5 2009, 5:56pm
Post #110 of 183
(3309 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Being denounced is no indicator of anything...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... except the unconscious prejudices of the people doing the denouncing.
Galileo was denounced for claiming that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. Darwin was denounced for suggesting that we humans are a part of the animal kingdom, rather than the rulers of it.
Joyce was denounced in Ireland for his rejection of Catholicism, and Proust in France and elsewhere for his willingness to talk about homosexuality. There were court cases in England about D.H. Lawrence's sexually explicit novels.
All denunciation usually means is that a work has challenged the inbred prejudices of the populace. But that's what works of art and literature are supposed to do.
It's not that the superior races can't turn to evil -- they can and do. It's that even when they turn to evil, they are still superior to the other races in every way except for morals.
I suspect that this is a particularly American prejudice, based on the way democracy is taught, as not merely "the worst system of government except for all the others", but as something ideologically pure that can hardly be questioned at all. A result of this seems to be a kind of instinctive horror at any suggestion that birth can bestow leadership. Yet many countries in Europe still retain the link between birth and leadership and (except for radical socialists) mostly don't find it bothers them much at all. It's just the way the world has always been. And, as you point out, it has nothing to do with moral superiority at all. The highborn and the humble are equally able to rise to greatness, or fall to disgrace, according to how they carry out the responsibilities that have been given to them.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Feb 5 2009, 6:05pm)
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 5 2009, 6:03pm
Post #111 of 183
(3266 views)
Shortcut
|
"...they must cease to exaggerate the exaggerations of our enemies..."
-Frederick Douglass on minstrel shows
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/...nstrel/miar03at.html
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Feb 5 2009, 6:06pm
Post #112 of 183
(3243 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Another unconscious prejudice?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Being denounced is no indicator of anything... except the unconscious prejudices of the people doing the denouncing.
I'm sure you don't mean that the African-Americans who were horrified by D.W. Griffith's landmark but racist film, The Birth of a Nation (1915), that a.s. cites just above, were merely prejudiced against his film, which extols the virtues of the Ku Klux Klan at keeping the freed slaves at bay.
Yet many countries in Europe still retain the link between birth and leadership and ... mostly don't find it bothers them much at all. It's just the way the world has always been.
Isn't that assumption just as much an unthinking prejudice as the opinion of some Americans that democracy is "something ideologically pure that can hardly be questioned at all"?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 2-8 for The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 5 2009, 6:15pm
Post #113 of 183
(3264 views)
Shortcut
|
Why did not Tolkien have Valandil, Amlaith, Beleg, Arvedui, or any of Aragorn's other forebears rise to defeat Sauron and become High King? By their nearer proximity in time to Numenor their blood was stronger and purer. But Aragorn was more virtuous, and more humble. He reversed the decline that his "better" forebears had ruled over!
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Feb 5 2009, 6:18pm
Post #114 of 183
(3263 views)
Shortcut
|
which only appeared on my screen when it refreshed after I posted. I don't know anything about that film, I'm afraid, so can't comment on it. Of course prejudice that turns to actual harming of others is far more than prejudice and must be opposed.
Yet many countries in Europe still retain the link between birth and leadership and ... mostly don't find it bothers them much at all. It's just the way the world has always been. Isn't that assumption just as much an unthinking prejudice as the opinion of some Americans that democracy is "something ideologically pure that can hardly be questioned at all"?
Certainly it's prejudice. Prejudice is the way our brains make sense of the world. The trick is to try to see that one's own prejudices are no more valid than other people's. I'm not making any kind of defence of the European view, I'm just pointing out the the American view is not the only valid one, and that discussing Tolkien from the point of view of racism actually reflects one's own biases at least as much as Tolkien's.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Feb 5 2009, 6:19pm
Post #115 of 183
(3287 views)
Shortcut
|
|
when one race alone *benefits* from "blood line", that is racism at work.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I suspect that this is a particularly American prejudice, based on the way democracy is taught, as not merely "the worst system of government except for all the others", but as something ideologically pure that can hardly be questioned at all. A result of this seems to be a kind of instinctive horror at any suggestion that birth can bestow leadership. Yet many countries in Europe still retain the link between birth and leadership and (except for radical socialists) mostly don't find it bothers them much at all. It's just the way the world has always been.
Perhaps Americans (or any other country that has never had a monarchy) have had a particular emphasis on rising to the top of leadership by merit alone, but this is, in reality, just a figment of our imagination (or has been until lately!!)--a dream we profess to hold. In reality, in the "real world" of how things have always been, white upper-and-middle-class men have ruled America.
Period.
Perhaps not being bothered by the monarchies (or by the theory of "nobility") is a reflection of the lack of absolute power that monarchies and nobles have today, rather than an acceptance of the theory that bloodlines confer leadership by anointed right, or that there is something mysterious in specific white Euopean bloodlines that confers leadership ability. In other words, not every peasant can be king, but every peasant has at least the hope of being prime minister.
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
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 5 2009, 6:24pm
Post #116 of 183
(3250 views)
Shortcut
|
give Tolkien a break by pointing out that he published LotR before the peak of the civil rights era, when protests against racism were in the news every day. But perhaps I shouldn't be so easy on him. People had, as you note, been protesting racism and classism and sexism during Tolkien's entire lifetime, and before. It was still different in the 1950s, let alone when Tolkien began his mythos in the 1920s, but I judge that Tolkien still demonstrated a measurable degree of insensitivity to these issues by the standards of his own time.
By the way, I recommend Roger Ebert's review of "Birth of a Nation." It has some relevance to this discussion, although I am certainly not accusing Tolkien of anything approaching that degree of racism. But there is no question that "Birth of a Nation" was a breakthrough in filmmaking, even though there is also no question that it was racist even by the standards of its own time. Yet "Birth of a Nation" was also, for a long time, the most popular movie ever made, and expressed views held by many, many whites in America and around the world at that time. So yes, people have been protesting racism at least since the beginning of the anti-slavery movement in the early days of the 1800s, but at the same time we should realize that when "Birth of a Nation" became the most popular movie in the world in 1915, Tolkien was thirteen years old. That's the world in which he grew up, and it was different from our own.
|
|
|
a.s.
Valinor
Feb 5 2009, 6:33pm
Post #117 of 183
(3262 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, And Gone With The Wind was popular, too.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And yet I think that two Americans in 1937 (or so) viewing that film--one white American and one black American--would have literally seen two different films. It was "popular" at the time--based on ticket sales and reviews to and by white Americans. Change your POV, you change the facts or, if not the "facts", then the interpretation of the facts.
My point wasn't that Tolkien was an active racist, I would highly protest that portrayal. He wasn't.
My point is that it is entirely possible to benefit from racism or hold racist beliefs unintentionally and in an unexamined way. Not just possible--if we are of the dominant race in a given time, it is probable that we do. Even those of us with good intentions. Even those of us trying to tell a story about the meek and mild and unimportant who save the world.
Even me.
Even some of the rest of us.
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
|
|
|
simplyaven
Grey Havens
Feb 5 2009, 6:44pm
Post #119 of 183
(3247 views)
Shortcut
|
I second all of it but especially that:
In the end the character of a man is known more by what he does than by what he says. Tolkien grew up when class distinctions were rigid, and legitimate bloodlines were very important. He defied both by marrying Edith. It's perhaps difficult for us today to understand how totally courageous, how utterly defiant of the concepts of class and blood that action was. (And yes, he and Edith did pay for it later with social ostracism at Oxford.)
Culinary journey through Middle Earth continues! Join us on January 30 on the Main board for a visit at the "Prancing pony"!
I believe
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 5 2009, 6:45pm
Post #120 of 183
(3268 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Beowulf's an interesting comparison.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I must say I liked Beowulf better at the beginning of the poem, when he seems to be a nobody, than later, when we find out his close relationship to the king of the Geats. On a personal level, Beowulf's accomplishments seemed to have nothing to do with his bloodlines. But in the end we discover that in fact his bloodlines were some of the very best, and made him a king for 50 years.
In the time Beowulf was written it may have been too radical to write a story in which a real nobody could become a king -- even though in the real world it did happen. But at that time when nobodies became kings, they usually invented a bloodline, or married into a bloodline, or created a mythical bloodline, or did something to justify their claim to an aristocratic bloodline, because that was the fiction on which kingdoms were based, and to question that fiction might encourage rebellion.
Similarly, one of the reasons I like Aragorn is that he has not led a life of wealth and privilege. He has the common touch because he has, for most of his 88 years, lived as a commoner. As you say, he seems to be a "tramp in the wilderness." Of course, everywhere he goes his quality shows, and as Thorongil it threatened to reveal his true identity. Apparently no true commoner could be so accomplished, in Beowulf's world or in Aragorn's.
I find it difficult to believe that such a man was either a classist or a racist.
Okay, we must be using different definitions here. I find it difficult to believe that you could deny the effect of classism and racism on Tolkien and his fantasy. Tolkien may have been enlightened by the standards of his time, but it seems obvious to me that his fantasy is insensitive by the standards of our time. As a fan of LotR, I respond to such criticism by pointing out that Tolkien was a man of his time and our standards have changed; I don't think it helps to simply deny the accusation.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 5 2009, 7:38pm
Post #121 of 183
(3259 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I am a troublemaker, it seems.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I notice that back then I hesitated to call Tolkien a racist. I still do, preferring to say LotR is affected or tinged by the racism of Tolkien's day. Perhaps that is the cause of much of the disagreement in this thread. If I had made it clear that I do not consider Tolkien a racist, at least in the perjorative sense, perhaps it would have made a difference, although I doubt it, because it didn't make much difference in the older thread.
At any rate, I always appreciate your blasts from the past.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 5 2009, 7:45pm
Post #122 of 183
(3330 views)
Shortcut
|
I must say I liked Beowulf better at the beginning of the poem, when he seems to be a nobody, than later, when we find out his close relationship to the king of the Geats. On a personal level, Beowulf's accomplishments seemed to have nothing to do with his bloodlines. But in the end we discover that in fact his bloodlines were some of the very best, and made him a king for 50 years.
It was amazing how he went from shiftless "stick at naught" to the very model of a modern Anglo-Saxon.
In the time Beowulf was written it may have been too radical to write a story in which a real nobody could become a king -- even though in the real world it did happen. But at that time when nobodies became kings, they usually invented a bloodline, or married into a bloodline, or created a mythical bloodline, or did something to justify their claim to an aristocratic bloodline, because that was the fiction on which kingdoms were based, and to question that fiction might encourage rebellion.
Or how when nobodies became mayor people invented a mythical connection to the Fallohides.
And all of Shakespeare's Histories are revisionist propaganda to strengthen the legitimacy of Elizabeth's rule.
Similarly, one of the reasons I like Aragorn is that he has not led a life of wealth and privilege. He has the common touch because he has, for most of his 88 years, lived as a commoner. As you say, he seems to be a "tramp in the wilderness." Of course, everywhere he goes his quality shows, and as Thorongil it threatened to reveal his true identity. Apparently no true commoner could be so accomplished, in Beowulf's world or in Aragorn's.
But many others didn't see his quality, such as Barliman. Even the hobbits didn't at first.
Okay, we must be using different definitions here. I find it difficult to believe that you could deny the effect of classism and racism on Tolkien and his fantasy. Tolkien may have been enlightened by the standards of his time, but it seems obvious to me that his fantasy is insensitive by the standards of our time. As a fan of LotR, I respond to such criticism by pointing out that Tolkien was a man of his time and our standards have changed;
Actually I find his appendices wonderfully subversive. And throughout his fantasy I see Tolkien having a deep admiration for the quality and character of the "lower" classes and races of Middle-earth. As for the real world, it was the "better" classes and races that were destroying his England.
I don't think it helps to simply deny the accusation.
You consider my post a "simple" denial? I'm crushed.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Feb 5 2009, 7:52pm
Post #123 of 183
(3257 views)
Shortcut
|
I've been enjoying this lively discussion, even the thread has gone in directions its originator did not foresee.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 2-8 for The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 5 2009, 8:19pm
Post #124 of 183
(3264 views)
Shortcut
|
Actually I find his appendices wonderfully subversive.
Can you give me any examples? As I mentioned to N.E.B., perhaps we agree that Tolkien is not a racist, if by racist you mean something pejorative, implying contempt, and if you would agree that Tolkien's fantasy is insensitive by the standards of our time. But apparently you don't agree to the latter, but instead find Tolkien's appendices "wonderfully subversive," perhaps implying that Tolkien was subverting the very hierarchy he himself had created, and the whole idea of hierarchy, whether based on race or sex or class or any other factor.
How so? Are you arguing that the appendices are a parody of self-serving mostly-fictional histories that legitimize the status quo, like Shakespeare's histories? That's a subversive idea, and a fun one, but I don't see any evidence for it in what Tolkien wrote. It seems to me that you are the subversive one, not Tolkien.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 5 2009, 8:42pm
Post #125 of 183
(3273 views)
Shortcut
|
Can you give me any examples?
Er....I already have.
As I mentioned to N.E.B., perhaps we agree that Tolkien is not a racist, if by racist you mean something pejorative, implying contempt, and if you would agree that Tolkien's fantasy is insensitive by the standards of our time.
I could argue Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin is insensitve to the standards of our time, but Ms. Stowe was most definitely not a racist.
But apparently you don't agree to the latter,but instead find Tolkien's appendices "wonderfully subversive," perhaps implying that Tolkien was subverting the very hierarchy he himself had created, and the whole idea of hierarchy, whether based on race or sex or class or any other factor.
Kind of like Huckleberry Finn, which many condemn as extremely racist, but I find as wonderfully subversive as Tolkien's appendices.
How so? Are you arguing that the appendices are a parody of self-serving mostly-fictional histories that legitimize the status quo, like Shakespeare's histories? That's a subversive idea, and a fun one, but I don't see any evidence for it in what Tolkien wrote.
I see a lot of it.
It seems to me that you are the subversive one, not Tolkien.
And with that our discussion is over.
******************************************
The audacious proposal stirred his heart. And the stirring became a song, and it mingled with the songs of Gil-galad and Celebrian, and with those of Feanor and Fingon. The song-weaving created a larger song, and then another, until suddenly it was as if a long forgotten memory woke and for one breathtaking moment the Music of the Ainur revealed itself in all glory. He opened his lips to sing and share this song. Then he realized that the others would not understand. Not even Mithrandir given his current state of mind. So he smiled and simply said "A diversion.”
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Feb 5 2009, 8:48pm)
|
|
|
|
|
