h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I started this thread F19585?thread=448394 a few days ago and, while most have agreed that my discomfort was valid and that my question was worthwhile, a number seemed to think that the idea of doing anything other than "losing oneself" in the story (whatever that means for a rational being) was somehow horrible and a more frightening number closed ranks against any suggestion that there was anything at all in Tolkien that might be questionable and, indeed, I ended up being called a racist for even bringing it up.

I'm afraid that while I am a scholar of Anglo-Saxon literature by trade (like Tolkien) and while I have some small knowledge of his work (both Middle-Earthly and otherwise), I am not particularly interested in exposing myself once more to the ill-mannered, ill-considered, and ill-tempered reactions I received in response to a simple, well-founded question about a small aspect of Tolkien's work.

If, however, anything of usefullness may be found on the above thread (which continues at a somewhat lower temperature), I would feel somewhat relieved of the disappointment starting it caused me.

(Before i continue i obviously appologise for any section that may appear racist inadvertantly)

I had a look at the post and decided to ignore it. It started getting a bit silly and whilst i could see the merit in what they were saying they werent going about it in the correct manner.

I would recommend reading the backlog for the what does tolkien mean thread. The issue of racism came up.

One of the main things i found wrong with your arguement came from my own personal speciality which is the films. You mentioned how all the evil guys were from the east and looked either arabic or african.

Whilst this is fully correct you've missed the point a bit im afraid. Firstly go off the Mumakil themselves. Elephants are traditionally from africa and india, so it therefore makes sence stylistically to present them with arabic/african riders. Having an new zealander riding one doesnt make much sense (although i think the main rider is Mowri <sp&gt

Secondly, the riders are Haradrim. Again geographically they came from the east to the west, so using the earth as a basis like tolkien, arabic looking riders and stylistics were used. Plus it came up about the word swarthy (tolkiens description) which was a description of skin color iirc.

When looking at lord of the rings as a racist film you must bear in mind a classic line from the director of Dungeons and Dragons:
"In a world of fantasy creatures, racism cant exist, because everyones different and people see you for who you are rather than what you skin color is" which he then aptly demonstartes with an illustration of various races in various colors (a blue elf for instance)
With Tolkien its the same. The Dwarfs and Elfs hate each other because of war rather then cultural differences (although its debateable whether that led to war).
I think its fasinating to look at the make-up of the fellowship itself. The most common species is hobbit - a diminutive, child-like people. The rest are all totally different races

Boromir - Human, dies at Rauros
Legolas - elf
Gimli - dwarf
Aragorn - (dunedian/half-elf, my memorys bad)
Gandalf - Wizard (think hes mirar <sp&gt

Even the two polar opposites, who should hate each other because of there opposing races form a close friendship, resulting in gimli gaining the title of elf-friend

Just a quick note on the aryan thing i remembered in my browsing. The only think you could directly link is the elfs. The ultimate beings who have evolved to the point of being immortal (and theres plenty of blue eyes blonde hair in there). Yet there the dying race - not the supreme race. In fact the most powerful single race thats man size is the uruk-hai who from there on screen appearance are the polar opposite or aryan.

To be honest i dont think LOTR's racist. I think the skill of Tolkiens writing has been to create a world large enough for people to dive in and get lost in a world with maps and languages that are as complete as our own. Yet in doing so hes invited anyone and everyone to dive in and be critical. Sure if you wanted to you could say the uruk-hai is racist because they lose to the white men of the west. Or you could say that Saruman is racist because he goes from Saruman the white (good guy) to Saruman of many colors (bad guy).

I think you may have a good idea for a guide entery actually. You up for heading the racism guide entery (although bear in mind you have to leave it completely open - no saying yes it is, as thatd cause whole lot of problems)

I do not want to revisit this ridiculous debate, however, I find it absolutely amazing that the response to this post has been a defense of the film from a non-existent charge of racism. I never argued the film was racist, I never suggested that Tolkien was racist, I never said anything of the sort. I'm saddened that so many have felt the need to jump to the defense of what was never attacked.

No, I am not interested in having anything to do with a "racism entry". whatever that would mean. If the discussion of the subject I raised cannot fail to be anything above the juvenilia that now seems innevitable, what's the point? Clearly the aspect of Tolkien's work that I raised is not acceptable for discussion here and would sadly be better left ignored. It truly is sad, because it is a subject that a great many have been equally or more troubled by than I have been.

My speciality is the film as ive said.

"Last night I finally got around to watching the DVD version of Jackson's Return of the King (I'd not seen it in the cinema). My discomfort was magnified."
"Later in the movie, the evil characters are inexplicably replaced by evil humans, all of whom are either African or Arabic looking."
"With the appearance of the elephants a long segment begins of human warriors in the evil role. I was describing how a moviegoer unfamiliar with the books might see the film."

I assumed through these statements you were refering to the Mumakil and the Haradrim.

What i meant was an article questioning whether lotr was racist or not. Theres plenty of material questioning the books.

Ive re-read your initial post and think you should too. Theres plenty there to suggest you do think its racist (You use the word disturbed quite liberally through the peice). Plus the actual name of the thread suggest you opinion is that it is racist at the core.

I think one of the great tradegys of our society is books like lord of the rings, that dont seem to have been purposefully directed in a white supremacy way because of when they were written (1950's) are quite happily attacked in todays society - which is why most people do jump on any questions of racism by people.

I mean you only have to look at your postings to see your questioning LOTR in a PC way, which has invited a whole lot of attention. You go into mythology's for instance. Would you say that King Arthur is a racist story? The white man and his white men conquer all..

I think you have to be very careful of how you post and what you say. The point in an debate over racism has to be totally clear, and unfortunately with you it doesnt seem to be from your two initial postings.

Tolkien is so complete that nearly anybody can choose there own meaning from it. Now political climate has dictated that people on our screens, due to war images, are arabic-lookiong. In turn, similar clothing to the Haradrim is shown. What this has meant is that as people re-read a few books they apply it to there own lives at the moment and subcontiously ideas about the current war in iraq are combined with LOTR. I mean, isnt the war in iraq basically the white man killing the arab? Just think really carefully about this. Trust me ive had similar discussions with less then nice replies

My "specialty" is Anglo-Saxon literature. If I mention to someone moderately familiar with Anglo-Saxon literature that I find it personally disturbing that there seems to be a certain joy in masochism in some bits of Anglo-Saxon literature, I won't be met with a litany of comments about how I'm being PC, about how I'm projecting modern values onto the past, about how I should just shut up and enjoy the story.

Another specialty I have is the works of Tolkien. The majority of the people posting to the other thread understood my question and agreed with me. A few, like you here, seem to have felt, despite my careful denials and clarification, that I was saying Tolkien was a racist or that the Lord of the Rings was racist, or that my little parable about the latest of Jackson's films was my own reaction to the film.

I asked whether any others were uncomfortable with the nasty bits of Tolkien's own culture that slipped in at a very limited number of places in the Lord of the Rings. Most acknowledged they were there, some said they were uncomfortable, some said they were not.

A few became quite vociferous in their denials that Tolkien was what I never had said he was; in short, those few absolutely missed the point of my question, demonstrating that they had little deep or broad familiarity with the writings of Tolkien or that they really hadn't read what I wrote. A few later re-read what I wrote and apologised to me.

I understand that you are mostly familiar with the films. That's fine. I actually said remarkable little about the films. I merely described how they brought into focus something I had noticed in the books and that the final film, which I had watched the night before had prompted me to post the question. My discussion of the final film was a description of how it had focused my attention on what I had noticed in the book.

Again, I did not say the Lord of the Rings was racist. I said that I was personally uncomfortable with certain bits of Tolkien's quietly racist real world that had crept into his fiction (and every other bit of writing he ever did, by the way) and that I find it further troubling that these problematic bits will now be part of the celebrated and perhaps worshipped popular culture icon that the Lord of the Rings has become.

To deny that bits of racism from Tolkien's social milieu crept into his work is ridiculous both in theory and in fact: why would the racism be excluded when so much else of his world was reproduced? and examples abound of Tolkien making mildly racist statements in his other writings.

I think you would do well to get reading his words. All of his words. And you should think carefully about them.

Now, again, I,like many others, find the bits of racism that crept into the Lord of the Rings disturbing. It matters not how liberally I use the term "disturbing", it is descriptive of my feelings on reading and considering the bits, not an indication that I feel the entire work is racist. Surely the positive statements I make about Tolkien and his work carry some weight? And the actual title of the thread was a concise statement of the question I could have made it a little longer to clarify that I was talking about bits, but I figured that was what the initial post was for. Again, most understood.

I think it is a minor tragedy of our society that reactionary attempts to stifle legitimate discussion of legitimate concerns have become so habitual that it is now considered somehow an "attack" when one expresses discomfort with attitudes expressed in old books. An expression of discomfort gets labelled as PC, as a call for censorship. I find it a tragedy that a body of work such as Tolkien's is being dismissed as not worthy of careful reading by shallow readers who have gotten really excited by the superficial.

I did an essay for my A-level regarding ROTK, where Eomer finds Eowyn and Theoden dead, and from that i was able to look a bit at anglo-saxon styles of writting.

Im not entirely sure what your trying to say exactly. To put it blunt, whats your point?
If it is that parts of Tolkiens writing have disturbingly racist undertones, or that racist elements have slid into his work, then i beleive the only reply i can give is one that might at first shock you. So what?
The life of any writter influences the work greatly. Its why so many try and draw comparisons with World War 2, and comparing helms deep to the trenches. Look at the world around the time of Tolkiens adolesence - not long after the Boer war (roukes drift is slowly becoming the legend it now is), segregation pretty much everwhere. Yet when you think about it are black people ever serving white people as slaves?
I think from what many have said, that the vast majority or this negative feeling towards the charecters that could be described as arabic/african and in the same breath evil, are those fighting against our heros. Yet all warfare is similar. When the good side is fighting that bad side, then the bad side is made out to be utterly monstrous no matter what.

Back to the original point though, surely as a scholar of anglo-saxon literature you must acknowledge the sheer vastness of the lord of the rings. It could be said to be the only true english myth (arthur as you know is french in origin; an anglo-saxon story mixed with the fabilaux style) and as such, Tolkien has created a huge world, that has various languages and writtings all to itself, as well as its own creation stories and myths.

I have no doubt that until the day i die people will debate Tolkien. As you quite rightly say people will defend it with much ferocity, and i dont blame them.
Whilst i say debate it at will, you cannot deny the fact that people will interperate it as they so choose. Some may regard it as white supremacy (like the links you supplied), some may regard it as sexist, some may regard it as pro-drug (lots of things been smoked in hobbitan..).

Yet this is not like any other work of literature. A single book could be picked at in a similar manner and disturbing elements of racism could be found. With Tolkien, its harder. Racial issues are lost under the various species.

I read a comment saying you were over analysising and i tend to agree. I would quite happily give lotr to a child and let them read it without any racial undertones or remarks advertantly influencing the child, whilst its most poignent message of loyalty and friendship are related to the child instead.

"I read a comment saying you were over analysising and i tend to agree. I would quite happily give lotr to a child and let them read it without any racial undertones or remarks advertantly influencing the child, whilst its most poignent message of loyalty and friendship are related to the child instead."

With the second part I agree unreservedly; I've been reading The Hobbit to my daughter.

I would like to offer a modification to the first bit. I suspect a lot of people, including you, have been over analysing my statements. I didn't make any great earthshaking statement. I merely said some little bits caused me some disturbance and asked if anyone else felt the same way. That's all. I didn't do any great analysis of Tolkien as a racist, of Orcs as whatevers, or Sauron as Aslan. I honestly expected answers such as "no, it doesn't bother me" or "yes, it makes me a little uncomfortable, but I still love the book". The second is my own answer to my question.

I asked a small question about a small thing and a few people started accusing me of being obsessive, racist, etc. I've asked questions before, for example, whether anyone else had noticed that the shape of Barbie dolls had become slightly more realistic lately, and nobody suggested I was obsessing about fashion dolls, that I was a fetishist, etc.

I have a temptation to ask why some insisted on overanalysing me on the subject of the Lord of the Rings, but I will resist the temptation as this discussion has once more gone on far too long.

Your original statement wasnt clear. You never said which sections exactly (if they were so small, it wouldnt have been to hard ot give chapter/paragragh referances for people to look) which suggests great swaths appear disturbing; which wasnt your intention.

Because the issue of racism in LOTR has been discussed a lot, people are quite able to leap in and pull things out that they've written before. It doesnt matter whether you want yes or no answers. Most people will choice read sections then fire at will in defence or offence.

"I asked a small question about a small thing"
My dear friend you did not. The small question was racisim - a hefty topic by anyones standards. And the small thing - the lord of the rings, argueably the most complete work of fiction ever written.
So if someone says i think parts of it sound disturbingly racist, without actually specifiying which sections so people can check, your simply just asking for the more vitriolic replies.

I mean if you wanted you could say little red riding hood is racist and age-ist:
Little red riding hood (usually portrayed as blonde hair blue eyes) goes to see her grandmother, who is eaten by a wolf (and dark colored evil charecter - due to the fur color of wolves) who then tries to eat little red riding hood. He fails and a local wood cutter kills the wolf.
The person who ordered the death of the wolf is someone usually portrayed as aryan.

You see what i mean? i choose to portray it like that, and made my own reading.

I so agree with you Anhaga. I tried bringing up the slight questionability of some of Tolkien's text once and got my head bitten off so bad.

And AD - this here's a great link. It's got absolutely everything on Tolkien's world in it. http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?FrontPage

Thanks, Werekitty.