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

I've been thinking a lot about the responses on the Ask H2G2 thread on this subject as well as the short discussion I've been having with the young man who's starting the H2G2 Tolkien Project (interestingly, he's not yet read the books.)

Part of what has surprised me is that much of the discussion has involved a denial of any racist elements in the book. While most did acknowledge these elements, whether they were uncomfortable or could simply accept them, a very vocal few denied (some agressively) that there was any such thing to be found in Tolkien. Frankly, the denial is ridiculous, as would the denial of racist elements in, for example, Poe's Arthur Gordon Pym, or the speeches of George W. Bush.

To be honest, I was a little surprised. While my own experience was to overlook these elements for decades, I did not expect the sometimes violent reaction my question received. Clearly, the vast majority of people now acknowledge the sexist elements (there is still debate about how much is accidental and how much intentional). I suppose I expected a similar reaction to my question about what I described as specifically accidental racist elements.

I find it sad and disturbing that there seems to be in some quarters a habit of the reactionary when certain subjects are raised.

I am, in fact, quite disturbed by the racist elements that creep into Tolkien's scholarly work. I wonder if anyone would start yelling at me about being a racist if I asked how people reacted to those elements. Or would I just be ignored because nobody actually reads that body of work. I hope I would be ignored. It would be quite frightening if the reactionary habit kicked in to defend works never read by the person making the defense. (I find it telling that this type of defense usually involves describing the questioner as somehow "attacking" the work or the author in question.)

I really do regret asking the question on Ask H2G2. I feel that any potential good discussion was largely buried by the reactionary. I feel that my clearly emphasised respect and admiration for Tolkien and his work was completely ignored by the reactionary elements and a rather nasty straw man was raised in my place. It is one thing to remain steadfastly uncritical of a favourite author; it is quite another to attack someone for using their critical faculties when approaching that same author.

Again, I apologise for asking the question.

oh anhaga!

You are, if I may say so, perhaps being too over-sensitive. I think the recent Tolkien discussion you started on 'Ask' has turned out to be quite interesting. The only person I saw making perhaps a personal comment about your question was Hoo, but he just does that, so you have to always take him with a (huge) grain of salt.

<>

I disagree. You opened up a very good discussion. And as ever on hootoo you always have to allow for 'thread drift' which always happens. But it is only because people are interested in the thread to begin with.

If I were you I'd actually feel quite proud as to how that thread has taken off with people wanting to comment about all sorts of things. You made them think! You made them want to contribute. Okay, it's drifted here and there. But as the person who started the thread you *can* actually step in from time to time and say - 'hey guys, thanks, but we're getting a bit off-topic here'. I've done this many times with threads I have started on 'Ask'. And usually people will go - 'oh oops, sorry' - and get back on topic.

I get the feeling you sometimes take things too much to heart - take things too personally. And trust me, I'm about as over-sensitive as they come! (just ask anybody) But I've had to learn to distance myself a bit if I throw out a point of discussion for all to take part in.

I'm not sure which bit upset you in the Tolkien discussion. If it was Hoo, as I say, you have to know that he never means it personally, though he has a lot to learn about being tactful. Still, he also quite good at livening a thread up perhaps by just being outrageous. He does push people. I don't see that as a particularly bad thing at all, but sometimes his methods could be a bit softer. Maybe. But then it wouldn't be Hoo, would it?

Anyhow, we are talking about personalities on hootoo, of which there are many.

I quite like your hootoo personality which is thoughtful and caring and inquisitive. You care so much about so many things. And it goes without saying that you are also very intelligent.

Perhaps once you have given birth to a thread you need to do what all parents have to do - stand back and watch it develop in its own natural way with you stepping in here and there to keep it going in the way you wish it would. Offering some guidance here and there. And if it does piss you off that people are running away with your thread then just say so - tell them to get back on topic. God knows I've had to do this more than once.

It's a debate forum, after all. You posed a question. People have responded big time. Their responses are not about or against you for asking the question - it's just about the question. You know?

Anyhow, hope to see you back on your own thread. It's been drifting quite a bit recently but still remains very interesting.

az

I think there are two things to consider here]:
first - it is important to remember that this is a work of fiction that takes place in fictional universe. As such, it does not have to conform to any rule but its own. Therefore, the idea that within Tolkien's work that certain imaginary races have certain traits,does not necessary mean that JRRT himself was a racist. Myself, I wouldn't trust an Orc any further than I could fling a pipe organ, but I don't know if distrust of a fictional race makes one racist.

second: The notion that something is a product of its time, when that time was one when overt racism was more acceptable within the mainstream is a difficult concept for our politically correct time. I love Hemingway, but there is no question that "the sun also rises" is antisemetic. The fact that one of the main character is a jew, is dwelt on and clearly considered a negative. There are a number of his short stories that are clearly racist in their treatment of blacks. Does that mean that Hemingway was a racist? Maybe, but if so he certainly was not outside the mainstream of his time. And it does not diminish his artistic accomplishments. While we may dislike his depicition of jews and blacks, we must acknowledge the artistry of his work within the context that it was produced.
Nowhere in his forewards, afterword, addendums or author's notes does Tolkein say anything nasty about non-british people. He was a scholar of Norse epic poetry, in which the outsider was usually the bad guy and by reason of geography, was usually from the south or east. That does not make JRRT a klansman but any stretch of the imagination.

Az:

I have stepped back. And I'm actually quite content to do so.

Rev:

Pretty much exactly what I was trying to say, except that now the Lord of the Rings seems set to follow Star Wars into the stratosphere of pop culture religious icon. First I had mild discomfort with the extremely tiny racist bits that slipped in, but it wasn't a big deal. Then I felt more discomfort because of where the Lord of the Rings seems headed, and that is a slightly bigger deal. That's all. No huge deal.

Personally, I think it is very important to separate the films from the books. It is not possible to over-emphasise the American influence on Jackson and on NZ - and the films are products of *their* time - and the general American paranoia about hordes of dark races, especially Arab or North African looking!
I am sorry, I truly do not see *any* racism in the books I have read (The Hobbit, LotR and Silmarillion.) It's possible it is there in the scholarly works, but I have not read them, and probably won't - I am interested in linguistics, but not that extent.) I am glad you began the discussion, anhaga.

Adelaide:

the subtext that Blicky mentioned is the most subtle bit in the books: the idea that a race is somehow destined to rule. In the Lord of the Rings it is the descendents of the Numenoreans represented by Aragorn. Of course, if that aspect were eliminated, there would be no story, and I, for one, think the story is definitely worthwhile, for a number of reasons.

the smaller details are the bits about the Haradrim and the Southrons being depicted as what they must be: Asians and Africans; and as what they perhaps need not be: simple evil minions of Sauron. But, again, it's a small detail and of little concern in the books.

The greater (but not too great) disturbance for me comes from the elevation of the idea of the Lord of the Rings, with all its warts, to the status of pop culture icon. If the Lord of the Rings were just a book that a few geeks and University students read, there would be little concern: but when it's at the heart of what might be termed a global movement (as Star Wars arguably is but the Lord of the Rings isn't yet), I think the little details become problematic in a larger context. The problem is accentuated by the power and quality of Tolkien's creation, to which Star Wars, puerile pastiche that it is, could never be compared.

Perhaps I'm jumping the gun, but that's whence the original question came.

Msr. Anhaga, I'm deeply disturbed by this. First and formost it seems to be at the very ephemeral edge of revisionism or perhaps better discribed as PCism. So there are faint hints of what might be construed as racism in a book written over half a century ago? You're surprised? I'm amazed there isn't a more tenuous thread to some kind of overt racial stereotypes. I know you are a fan of Beowolf, would you like me to dissect it for traces of anti-femininism? Absolute tripe. Secondly, the fact that the *pop* version has gained general acceptance and even emulation and fandom doesn't mean that whatever subtext you see is being seen by or is affecting subtly or othrwise by a 10 year old who is going to dress up as Gandalf this Halloween.

Please excuse the spelling errors, it's been a long day in the sun working fairly hard. I am currently frying dinner on my forehead.

(I think.)

I just checked the origninal thread - sweet and fancy Christ on a moped! Talk about dropping lit matches in the refinery. Honestly, I think Trekkies, LOTR addicts and sf-fantasy fans in general get more upset about someone's perceived slighting of their all consuming bit of pop culture than they do about real events in the real world. There is some appalingly hysterical reactionary caterwaulling in that thread.

Thanks for the reality check, Rev. Where's the smiley?

I have to disagree Zoomer we do need to dissect these works.

Im not saying we discredit or stop enjoying them, but dissecting them is important for telling us about ourselves.

PC Revisionism.

I say great more of it please. Do you really have a problem with revising our attitudes so that we treat people correctly, because I dont.

PC Revisionism

I think what you fear and I too would dislike is retroactive censorship. Fair play to a government who bans religiously or gender bashing overly biased material from publication. Yet Id hate to see us doing what the Victorians did and censoring the works of ancient Rome< greece and Egypt to suit our modern sensibilityies.

one love

I agree that there was some pretty reactionary posting, especially earlier in the thread, and not just from Hoo (his seemed a bit more considered or maybe I'm just getting used to his style ).


anhaga, thanks for your post on my PS - will reply soon. I just wanted to say also that the Ask thread has gone off in all sorts of directions as they tend to do, and like az I have quite enjoyed it, but I do acknowledge that we could have had quite a different conversation there if the reactionary postings hadn't happened, and that it feels like something was lost.

I do notice this in RL - that the more in depth examinations of racism get lost because so many people are still having to deal with their emotional reactions to it (well in my experience in NZ anyway).

It's good to hear you clarifying that a large part of your concern was about the impact of the films.

I've just been watching an Arts show on TV reporting on a NZ artist Daniel Malone who has a series of exhibitions on the LOTR. One involves the merchandising of the film and the recreation of NZ as a fake Middle Earth (you might have to be here to understand how bad this is, although I know this has been sold strongly overseas too). Malone described it as creating false culture and that it is undermining our real relationship with our own culture and land. Not so relevant to this convo I guess but interesting for me because I don't think I've seen a serious critique of the LOTR film phenomenon in public in NZ before.

He dosen't have much a presence online, but here are a couple of brief descriptions of his work:

http://www.telecomprospect2004.org.nz/artist/malonedaniel.asp

http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/news/pr_040706_DanielMalone.html

anhaga, please accept my apologies if I was one of the reactionary elements who upset you.

neither i nor my much darker cousins have ever noticed anything offensive in any of Tolkein's books that we have read, but perhaps that is just the result of having been brought up without chips on our shoulders.

I think i assumed you were being terribly patronising. It gets extremely wearing sometimes to have people who *think* they're being broad-minded practising their PC skills on one.

There are a vast number people who don't notice insignificant details like colour. Children certainly don't - till it's brought to their attention. Unfortunately too many people seem to be trying to bring it to everyone's attention these days.

Again, apologies if it was said too forcefully.

Tefkat:

I'm sorry I came across as patronising. I'm not going to belabour what a small issue the elements I have described as problematic in Tolkien's work are for me. I will mention again, however, that I am concerned about what will become of these small problematic elements with the elevation of the Lord of the Rings, largely thanks to Jackson, to the scripture of a pop-religion. I hope that critical faculties will survive intact, but I have my doubts.

Oh dear Tefkat

I was brought up by two white people. They did not politicise my outlook. They did not try to give me a chip on my shoulder and I hope I never get one.

The colour of peoples skin ought to be insignificant and it is to some degree. This is not the full story though. if you look at treands in health, employment, and custodial sentences you will see that there are *significant* social trends and differences that are linked to ethnicity.

I really ressent people saying that ethnic minorities in Western countries bring racism on them selves by higlighting "minor" or "frivilous" differences and things such as the racism exhibited in LOTR.

None of my ancestors asked or deserved to be captured and sold as slaves. Treated inhumanely and stripped of their language and culture. Restricted in their movements, access to education and denied basic human rights.

Today we have an allegedly level playing feild for advancement and opportunity.

We also certainly have cetain groups who latch onto the racism inherent in a great deal of literature. Not least LOTR currently being used by the BNP to back up their campaign for racisl segregation and the return to stripping black people of their assets dignity and diplacing them from their homes.

From a BNP leaflet: 'Whether you think of yourself as a Rider of Rohan, as an Elf or as a simple, fun-loving Hobbit, the dark days that Tolkien foresaw are almost upon us, and your duty is clear: Join the British National Party and our great real-life battle to save the West!'

I ACCEPT THAT TOLKIEN MAY NOT HAB+VE SET OUT TO RIGHT A RACIST BOOK, BUT HE *HAS*.


This is not a chip on my shoulder. It is reality. It is not something I would scare and dellude children with it is something they need to be educated and forewarned against. That goes for all children, you cant judge people by skin colour, gender or even hieght. Yet this is what happens time and agin. Characters personal attributes are controlled determined by physical differences.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/lordoftherings/news/0%2C11016%2C852217%2C00.html
Scratch the surface of Tolkien's world and you'll find a curiously 20th-century myth. Begun in the 1930s, published in the 1950s, it's shot through with the preoccupations and prejudices of its time. This is no clash of noble adversaries like the Iliad, no story of our common humanity like the Epic of Gilgamesh. It's a fake, a forgery, a dodgy copy. Strip away the archaic turns of phrase and you find a set of basic assumptions that are frankly unacceptable in 21st-century Britain.

one love

and, to add a little bit to my post #15, I wouldn't disagree with anything Blicky said in post #16 (except maybe the choice of words, but not the sentiment, of "It's a fake, a forgery, a dodgy copy". It is certainly based on a fake mythology which is pretty much a pastiche [dodgy copy?] and it is certainly not really a Mediaeval heroic tale although it appears to be such on the surface[a forgery?])

Oh, look. That was a quote from the Guardian link.

I take it back. I wouldn't disaggree with anything at all that Blicky said in post #16.

After liberal applications of Noxema and cold showers I have regained some composure and some semblance of sanity.

I'd like to point out that as incomprehensible as I may have seemed I wasn't trying to say that disection of literary works was wrong and neither was I saying that critiques of modern interpretations was unacceptable. I was merely trying to imply that the times and social conditions of the work's date of original creation should be taken into context. And that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I think it's largely a matter of the climate in which that 'dissection' takes place. If someone presents a provocative reading of a particular book, it always deserves consideration, as long as there's textual evidence to back it up (as there definitely is in this case) and you can weigh it up and agree with it or disagree with it and then argue and refine your own case - all the time remembering that it is a book and there is no one correct way in which to read it.

I think the problem with *this* book is that it means and has meant something so intimate and personal to so many people that to identify it as racist invites the inference: "Well X says this book is racist, I've always loved it (and haven't ever analysed it in this way), does that mean that I'm being accused of racism? Or that the author of the book is being categorised as a racist?"

For me, it doesn't have to mean either of those things. Even having read all three threads now raging about this topic, I still don't think of LOTR as 'racist' as such, because I don't think Tolkien really thought in those terms, that the races he describes in the books had real-life counterparts or any kind of significance in the contemporary world (that Orcs, for instance, had any more objective reality as symbols than do flying horses or dragons), which is the main reason, I suspect, why he always rejected the idea of the books being read as an allegory about the Second World War (and if he rejected that, he'd presumably reject the 'racist' reading for the same reasons). Whether he *should* have thought in those terms or not seems anachronistic.

(I'm a great deal more convinced about what has been said about the film, which is itself only 'one' reading of the books - maybe Jackson should have thought about this rather harder: the review from which Blicky quoted is certainly quite harsh, but there's more than a little truth to it, I think).

But none of that means that the original reading which kicked this all off wasn't entirely valid - and the thread was entitled (as I recall) 'Does anyone else ... ?' rather than 'Shouldn't everyone else ... ?' Indeed, it seems a shame that such an interesting reading of LOTR shouldn't have been treated as just that, 'an' interesting reading (and an awful lot of people did treat it in this way, I think).