Active Users:192 Time:18/05/2024 01:28:47 PM
I <3 you, but there are several very key things we are not going to agree on. nossy Send a noteboard - 31/01/2012 10:02:22 PM
What are we really arguing about, then? I have zero interest in trying to "prove" mathematically that Tolkien was a racist, for one because I don't even believe that. I don't think there's an objectively correct answer to the question of whether LotR as a book is racist or not - you can make a good case that it is, but you can't prove that it is or isn't, because it's all about interpretations.

I don't know, you're the one who decided to play devil's advocate! I'll summarize basic comments I've made previously: I don't think Tolkien is racist, I CAN see why people call racism/sexism, but I DON'T agree that it's entirely fair. I maintain (and will, even if we argue this for a year) that if the author doesn't intend racism, and even tries to point out that people can be corrupted no matter their color, he does deserve some benefit of the doubt. There are bad people in the books that are white, including some of the most powerful. Is it fair to assume that he believes alllll people of color are bad, just because we only see those who have come to war? Possibly, if Sam had never made his statement re: the Southron.

Allow me to show off my Tolkien fanboy-hood by pointing out that at least one of the Nazgul (and the only one whose origin we know, afaik) was not, in fact, a white man, but is explicitly called an Easterling. And the Witch-King of Angmar was already a Nazgul at the time he ruled Angmar, so it's not a given that he's actually from that area, either. About the rest, I think we just don't know.

You may have me there. I'm not that geeky. :P

Anyway, like I said, I have no interest in "proving" that Tolkien was a racist, because I don't think he was. All I'm saying is that there's a lot in the books that suggests sexism and racism, and one has to give Tolkien the benefit of the doubt on a considerable amount of points to clear him of all charges. When someone reads the work as sexist or racist, odds are it'll be futile for his defenders to try to convince that person otherwise.

And I said I can see how they can think that, and I agree that there isn't much I can do to fix it. I simply don't think it's intended as racism/sexism, and I don't think it's fair to hate him/his books on that basis. That's it.

When you get right down to it, orcs and to a lesser extention other non-human races in fantasy, when they are written in such absolute terms as they are in Tolkien, can be seen in two ways. Either they're supposed to represent humans in the real world, and then it's hard to avoid racism. Or they're not supposed to represent anything at all in the real world, and then one is justified to ask what the point is, other than escapism.

Sooo... he can't couch it in mythology and religious "history?" I don't understand why it has to be "real world" anything when he was writing from myths and fairy tales. I admit that it gets harder when he talks about dwarves/jews, but why do we believe him there and NOT where he says that orcs are based on demons/devils (something beautiful and good, corrupted by evil into something else)? Isn't that, in fact, where the word came from?

Yeah, and so were Muslims. In some times and places in the Christian medieval west, the problem was exacerbated by the guilds refusing Jews as members, making it effectively impossible for them to practice most other professions (if I'm still allowed to use that word after the discussion on the Comm board...).

I doubt Tom is reading this. :D

The problem here is that Tolkien's Dwarves are obviously a *race*, and one that is shown to have a number of characteristics that all members of that race have in lesser or greater amounts - applying such a view to human races really is very close to the literal definition of racism. When he then says that he associates his Dwarves with Jews in the real world, it seems obvious to me that the natural conclusion is going to be an ugly one. Once again, defending Tolkien on this requires giving him the benefit of the doubt, and it's hard to blame people for refusing to do that.

Yet again, I can see the point in your last sentence. I can't argue against that. I don't agree, again, because I'm looking at it from the angle that he's a historian using medieval concepts to frame a race for a novel. My main objection is that nobody seems to want to look into WHY he said the dwarves remind him of Jews. They seem to simply assume it's re: money. This is part of what I read on wiki:

The representation of Dwarves as evil changed dramatically with The Hobbit. Here the Dwarves became occasionally comedic and bumbling, but largely seen as honourable, serious-minded, but still portraying some negative characteristics such as being gold-hungry, overly proud and occasionally officious. According to the 2007 book The History of the Hobbit, Tolkien was now influenced by his own selective reading of medieval texts regarding the Jewish people and their history.[5] The dwarves' characteristics of being dispossessed of their homeland (the Lonely Mountain, their ancestral home, is the goal the exiled Dwarves seek to reclaim), and living among other groups whilst retaining their own culture are all derived from the medieval image of Jews,[5][6] whilst their warlike nature stems from accounts in the Hebrew Bible.[5] Medieval views of Jews also saw them as having a propensity for making well-crafted and beautiful things,[5] a trait shared with Norse dwarves.[4] For The Hobbit almost all dwarf-names are taken from the Dvergatal or "Catalogue of the Dwarves", found in the Poetic Edda.[ 7 ][ 8 ] However, more than just supplying names, the "Catalogue of the Dwarves" appears to have inspired Tolkien to supply meaning and context to the list of names—that they travelled together, and this in turn became the quest told of in The Hobbit.[9] The Dwarves' written language is represented on maps and in illustrations by Anglo-Saxon Runes. The Dwarven calendar invented for The Hobbit reflects the Jewish calendar in beginning in late autumn.[5] The dwarves taking Bilbo out of his complacent existence has been seen as an eloquent metaphor for the "impoverishment of Western society without Jews."[6]

When writing The Lord of the Rings Tolkien continued many of the themes he had set up in The Hobbit. When giving Dwarves their own language (Khuzdûl) Tolkien decided to create an analogue of a Semitic language influenced by Hebrew phonology. Like medieval Jewish groups, the Dwarves use their own language only amongst themselves, and adopted the languages of those they live amongst for the most part, for example taking public names from the cultures they lived within, whilst keeping their "true-names" and true language a secret.[10] Along with a few words in Khuzdûl, Tolkien also developed runes of his own invention (the Cirth), said to have been invented by Elves and later adopted by the Dwarves. Tolkien further underlines the diaspora of the Dwarves with the lost stronghold of the Mines of Moria. In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien uses the main dwarf character Gimli to finally reconcile the conflict between Elves and Dwarves through showing great courtesy to Galadriel and forming a deep friendship with Legolas. The Gimli-Legolas relationship has been seen as Tolkien's reply toward "Gentile anti-Semitism and Jewish exclusiveness".[6]
Tolkien also elaborated on Jewish influence on his Dwarves in a letter: "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue..."[11]

I'm not. Some people might (and do), and I'd be hard-pressed to convince them otherwise (though I haven't seen this information that you looked up and that you say makes clear he wasn't anti-semitic).

From wiki:

In letters 29 & 30, it appears that a German translation of The Hobbit was being negotiated in 1938. The German firm enquired whether Tolkien was of Arisch (Aryan) origin. Tolkien was infuriated by this, and wrote two drafts of possible replies for his publisher to choose.[1] The first one is not present - in it Tolkien is assumed to have refused to give any declaration whatsoever of his racial origins. The second, surviving, draft included:
Thank you for your letter ... I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.
—Tolkien, The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, #30 (Emphasis in original)

Put Eowyn's storyline in a book that is teeming with strong women, and it becomes rather far-fetched to call it sexist. But it being where it is, it very much seems sexist, and to argue otherwise, as you noted, feels like searching excuses. Again a question of benefit of the doubt and how much of it you're willing to give.

I rarely think you're being silly, but I really do not agree with you here, or below. I don't think there is much point in continuing. :P

But since you compare to Elrond, yes, that's precisely my point, the difference between Elrond and Galadriel. Elrond talks of war, fighting the Enemy, he takes decisions in the war and tells people what to do. Galadriel, who was active in war and politics before most of Elrond's grandparents were even born, talks of comfort, of gifts, and very little of the war or her role in it (there's more than a single exception, granted, she does make a comment once about having seen Nargothrond and Gondolin). Her status as the only player in the LotR besides Sauron to have been a player in the Silm makes her a special case, which doesn't really help in arguing that she's a good choice to judge Tolkien's women on - but it's easy to argue that when even a woman of that stature mostly just talks of comfort and protecting nature (and when that fits into an existing pattern), Tolkien must have had some views on men and women's natural abilities and inclinations that wouldn't really stroke with today's prevalent views in the West.

Yeahhh, and she changes the whole function of the fellowship by allowing Frodo to see what he had started to suspect. What good is Elrond's advice and aid if it isn't going to work? I just disagree that she is in a traditional or lame-ish female role. Period.
Reply to message
The racist elements in Tolkien's writing - 29/01/2012 01:31:02 PM 2436 Views
She has some points, of course. - 29/01/2012 02:25:32 PM 1224 Views
Quite a few points - 29/01/2012 02:40:45 PM 1318 Views
Re: Quite a few points - 29/01/2012 04:59:11 PM 1085 Views
Mostly agreed with the article, but thought she undermined herself with her own racism. - 29/01/2012 02:50:11 PM 1287 Views
I wish I could agree with you, but I can't in full - 29/01/2012 02:58:05 PM 1286 Views
I'm not bothered by the tone. Annoyance is justified. - 29/01/2012 03:03:07 PM 1231 Views
Re: I wish I could agree with you, but I can't in full - 30/01/2012 02:11:07 PM 1230 Views
Do you really believe that? - 30/01/2012 02:44:19 PM 1293 Views
Just read your Twitter convo... nice try, but looks like wasted effort. *NM* - 29/01/2012 10:37:08 PM 554 Views
Yes. - 29/01/2012 10:41:15 PM 973 Views
Oh, also: - 29/01/2012 03:07:03 PM 1033 Views
Well, I'll be honest. - 29/01/2012 10:34:46 PM 1163 Views
Let me try to summarize some of her points with the invective filtered out, then. - 29/01/2012 10:48:24 PM 1360 Views
Thank you. - 29/01/2012 11:10:13 PM 1393 Views
What the hell, might as well go and play devil's advocate, right? - 30/01/2012 04:50:30 PM 1294 Views
I expected that. - 30/01/2012 05:39:59 PM 1199 Views
Of course you did. I'm predictable that way. - 30/01/2012 10:28:10 PM 1190 Views
Re: Of course you did. I'm predictable that way. - 31/01/2012 12:39:46 AM 1081 Views
Re: Of course you did. I'm predictable that way. - 31/01/2012 08:38:46 PM 1126 Views
I <3 you, but there are several very key things we are not going to agree on. - 31/01/2012 10:02:22 PM 1544 Views
Oh. - 31/01/2012 11:07:52 PM 1190 Views
- 01/02/2012 12:17:59 AM 1289 Views
Hmm? - 31/01/2012 10:10:22 PM 1112 Views
Yeah. I got to reading Encyclopedia of Arda just now, and it told me the same thing. - 31/01/2012 10:35:54 PM 1037 Views
As a sort of group answer (I've been mostly absent from forums the past two days) - 31/01/2012 10:45:55 PM 1381 Views
I don't mind if you tell me I'm out of line here, but - 31/01/2012 11:55:04 PM 1205 Views
I'm rarely ever offended - 01/02/2012 01:54:58 AM 1394 Views
She was referring specifically to the Twitter "conversation" I had with the blogger. - 01/02/2012 09:05:28 AM 1185 Views
Yes. - 01/02/2012 10:47:22 AM 1319 Views
It makes me wonder what she thinks is happening in Zimbabwe, for example. - 01/02/2012 11:13:11 AM 1345 Views
I've been thinking about that. - 01/02/2012 11:29:18 AM 1147 Views
Re: I've been thinking about that. - 01/02/2012 11:40:11 AM 1408 Views
We're nuts. - 01/02/2012 03:09:15 PM 1146 Views
I know that - 01/02/2012 11:15:48 AM 1204 Views
That blog post was mostly good, but the exception is a rather large one. - 01/02/2012 08:35:57 PM 1067 Views
Do you mean exception*S*? - 02/02/2012 04:27:03 AM 1136 Views
The Hobbit came out in 1937. - 30/01/2012 01:35:45 AM 1109 Views
She hates Tolkien's writings to begin with ... - 30/01/2012 06:34:29 AM 1254 Views
The tone of the article is massively annoying - 30/01/2012 06:45:19 AM 1294 Views
I laughed while reading it - 30/01/2012 04:30:50 PM 1159 Views

Reply to Message