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

I suppose there is a certain misunderstanding of which traits are heritable and an overstatement of the extent to which heritable traits are shared across a group of people with a common ancestry. But this was before DNA was discovered so that's not terribly surprising.

A curious and interesting thread, anhaga.

I first read The Hobbit and the LOTR when I was about fifteen. Since then I have read all the books seven or eight times (have lost count).

Sexism? Well, aside from the fact that I always found the women in the books to be rather two-dimensional and not very interesting (other than Eowyn) I always put this down to the author's inexperience with women and inability to portray them better. Not sexist per se.

As for racism, or even racialism - to be quite honest, this never crossed my mind even once.

Hoo put it quite succinctly earlier on that we can all read whatever we want into novels and especially quite complex and compelling ones as the LOTR.

I recall reading something (gosh, perhaps twenty-five years ago?) Tolkien wrote in reply to all these critiques on his work and his simple 'defense' was that he was basically just telling a story. A basic 'good vs evil' tale, with mythological stuff happening. He seemed quite puzzled that people were trying to make so much of his simple tales of 'there and back again', which was the theme of both The Hobbit and the LOTR. I can't remember this article very clearly now but it seems he did try to say that it wasn't particularly influenced by the events of the second world war and he outright scoffed at attempts to equate Sauron and Gandalf with Satan and God just because they had the same first initials.

As for the films, I quite liked the first one as it had more character deveopment in it. The last two were too full of battle scenes and special effects to really hold my interest.

One good thing about the films though, in my opinion, is that (as in the books) it is Sam who is shown to be the true hero of the tale.


az

ben, I have to agree with you about the 3rd movie, and indigestible chunks of battle! IMO, the elephant sequences were too long, and the rivalry (counting enemy kills), between Legolas and Gimli seemed very juvenile!
That's mainly why, although some people say the 3rd movie is their favourite, it isn't mine. That being said, it has some moments.

<>

It was in the book, Della. They both set up a friendly rivalry between them about how many enemies either of them could kill. To show which was the better warrior - an elf or a dwarf. As I recall, in the book they embraced each other as equals in the end.


az

I've been thinking about some of the reactions on this thread. I should point out that most posts on both side have been quite fitting with the tone of my initial post, whether they support or question my reactions to the book and the film. Most responses on both sides have been appreciative of Tolkien's work and positive, which is what I would have hoped for. Some reactions, however . . .

In my initial post, I described my feelings which prompted the thread with these terms:

troubled
discomfort
frightening

I find some of the reactions to the post read as if I had written

Horrified
agony
driving me to terror in fear for my life and the lives of those I love

I said I've been troubled by some bits that seem problematic either morally or in the present political context.

I didn't have my knickers in a bunch. I wasn't all in a tizzy. I was expressing a considered critical response to a work of literature, the type of response that is expressed every day all over the world about all sorts of works of literature.

I'm not really sure why a few people became so defensive. What are they defending? Tolkien certainly doesn't need to be defended against me. What is the "politically correct" defense trying to protect?

If I had started a thread suggesting that there where parts of the Old Testament that made me troubled, that caused me discomfort, or that I found frightening, would people have responded with "It's a STORY" or "PC!" or "Mythology doesn't need a social conscience"?

I suspect there would have been a chorus of agreement and a few questions of why it had taken so long for me to notice. Perhaps there would be a few right wing fundamentalist who would try to shout me down with the PC label. And there would, I hope, be a number who would point out to me the wonderful poetry of the Psalms and Ecclesiastes, the tenderness of the Song of Solomon, and the wisdom of Proverbs.

Would people feel more comfortable if I'd said what I said about the Bible rather than about the Lord of the Rings? If so, why would that be?

<>

Huh? Connection?

How does a popular novel compare to THE HOLY BIBLE?

<>

Well,no, especially cos he's dead. But you raised questions inferring that the man *possibly* meant things in his writings that you have imagined.

>

Were you? Why? Why has this book made you want to make so many suppositions about what it *actually* meant, etc?

Why can't it just be a very interesting, well-written, quite complex and entertaining hero tale? What would be wrong with it being just that?


az

Bible came up because some were arguing Tolkien made Myth.

"Why has this book made you want to make so many suppositions about what it *actually* meant, etc? "

Have I denied anyone else's interpretation of the meaning of the book? Have I said at any point that the book "actually" means one thing as opposed to another? If so, I'm sorry for that, because I've certainly never been one to hold that any work of art has only one meaning. I've always approached the Lord of the Rings the same way I approach any work of literature. It is the focus of this thread at this time because I happened to watch the third film the night before I started the thread. I've not made suppositions about what the book "actually" means if by that you mean I feel that I have the one and only true meaning. In fact, I think it is "a very interesting, well-written, quite complex and entertaining hero tale". What is wrong with discussing it more deeply than that? Surely there is more that can be said about it than that.

I've tried to be clear that I didn't think Tolkien meant anything racist. I guess an assumption I've made that has been missed is that in any moderately complex work of art, there will be more meaning than the author was aware of or even intended. Based on things Tolkien said himself about the writing of the Lord of the Rings, it is clear that Tolkien felt this way at times about his own work. It is certain that he felt this way about the works on which he modelled his own fiction.

"Why can't it just be a very interesting, well-written, quite complex and entertaining hero tale? "

I never said it wasn't just that. I find myself a little perplexed about what exactly people think the reading process is. To me, reading is about understanding, considering, questioning, entering into a dialogue with the work. If we're not supposed to do all that, then to me, there's no point in reading and certainly no point in writing. When I write, I write in the hope that someone somewhere will actually read what I write with some attention to detail. If Tolkien was writing Myth I suspect (but I don't know) that because he was such a careful philologist he would hope that some readers would be interested in reading his work in the way that he read Mythic works himself (we can know how he read Mythic works because he wrote extensively about his reading of those works). And I suspect, but can't know, that he would be interested to find that there were things in his story that he hadn't intended to be there.

For me, anyway, if a work isn't permitted to be read closely, then it is not 'a very interesting, well-written, quite complex and entertaining hero tale'. It isn't even advertising copy.

I would argue that LoTR is not myth. I cannot be bothered to re-type the entry from Chambers, but www.yourdictionary.com gives the following:

myth [ mth ]
n.


1. a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth. b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).


The first meaning is the most important. The others are metaphors using the applying the first meaning to other situations.

A myth is a traditional story. In other words it cannot have a single author. Tolkein wrote myth-like stories, (especially in the writings about Middle Earth other than LoTR and the Hobbit), but no-one can 'write' a myth. Urban legends are modern myths, in the way that LoTR is not. I sometimes think that myths perform for a group of people the same function that dreams do for an individual.

A myth also uses archetypes, and Tolkein does that in abundance. For most of the characters what is important is their big-picture character traits and what they do. The characters which are *characters* rather than functions of the plot or archetypical construcsts are the minor ones, like Perry and the other hobbit.

One of the key things about a myth is that retelling it is a valid exercisse, there is no cannonical version. For that reason Homer in its entirety and much of the Old Testament are simply the best known surviving forms of the myths they are retelling.

Anhaga knows all of this far better than I do, because she has done it for a living.

<>

You mean sometimes a wonderful story doesn't just wash all over you and completely through you while you read it so that you feel such a part of it all without, perhaps, feeling a need to 'understand' or 'consider' it in the critical and cerebral manner as we are perhaps expected to read books?

<>

Oh well . . .

I will probably read LOTR several more times before I die. To be honest, it always stands up to close reading. After seven or eight readings I think I have read it closely enough by now. Often it feels like going home to visit an old friend.

<>

Well, perhaps therin lies the difference. When I write I just hope someone will enjoy the story within their own interpretation of it.

<>

Well, according to that article I read years ago, he thought all those wacky interpretations of his work were just a load of b*ll*cks.


az




az

What I find extremely disturbing is the way so many of you seem to have racism/racialism in the forefront of your minds for so much of the time.
Do you really look at every book you read or film/play/TV programme you watch with the intention of checking that they have the requisite number of ethnic minorities in them?
Why does it matter so much to you? Why do you have to insist on it mattering to everyone else? Can't you see that by making a fuss about it YOU are being racialist? If people who look different or act differently make you feel uncomfortable that is your problem, not theirs. If Tolkien had been Indian, Chinese, African, Martian would you be complaining about the dearth of "white" heroes in his writing? Do you expect the Bollywood producers to employ token "whites"?

If not, why not? Is there a difference?

Read. Lose yourself in the world conjured up by the words, or in the words themselves if that's what turns you on, but don't try to turn them into socially divisive tools.

I first read The Hobbit at 10 and LOTR at 11 or 12, as did dozens of my cousins. WE didn't see any racialism in it. Neither did we watch the films and think "Oh my goodness gracious me there are no brown elves, oh-ho-ho-ho, I must be running straight to the Race Relations Board, oh-ho-ho-ho". It just isn't the first thing that comes to mind - or even the 2nd, 3rd or 17th. Why are you trying to make it seem important?

What I find extremely disturbing is the way so many of you seem to have racism/racialism in the forefront of your minds for so much of the time.

Have you ever been cut-up by a car that could have killed you if you didnt break so sharply you nearly went over the handle bars and were nearly hit by a car from behind that also didnt expect the other car to pull out when it did. Then when you catch the car up at the lights a few yards on you "Say have you ever thought of looking before you pull out"
And go the response "well it would be one less n*****r on the roads!"?

Or has your girlfriend ever turned up at your house crying and with spit all down her back because some local lads didnt think a white girl should be going out with someone who wasnt white?

Police ever beat you up in an alley for no reason but the colour of your skin?

Any of these things ever happen to you?

If they have and you dont carry around some baggage because of it that is your business but dont slate those who might have done for being a little preoccupied with the problem of racism.


Do you really look at every book you read or film/play/TV programme you watch with the intention of checking that they have the requisite number of ethnic minorities in them?

Well no, but when the issue is as manifestly obvious as it is LOTR it takes some over-looking its not such an issue in your life so you wouldnt notice, but it is there none the less. Its like this:

How many steps did you walk up today? If I were asked I couldnt tell you how many steps or different flights of steps I walked up today because Im in decent health and have full use of my legs. Now if you asked someone who is wheel chair bound the same question they would have been much more aware of the numbers of stairs they encountered.


Why does it matter so much to you? Why do you have to insist on it mattering to everyone else?

These are short questions, but the only answers I have are long and complex, but to shorten them down into unsatisfactory answers. It does matter it is linked to someof the above incidents in ways you may not understand but can quite easily look up as you have access to the internet. It should and does matter to everyone in ways you may not know or understand, but......


Can't you see that by making a fuss about it YOU are being racialist?

No, I cant.

No there is no way that adressing the issue is me or anyone else being "racialist". Looking at and trying to understand racism does not make me or anyone else the cause.

I have given this subject a lot of thought and time studying it and no matter how I look at it I have never seen a way in which I was to blame. I have *felt* I was to blame and sat crying in the bath trying to scrub my self white with a bleach based powder but I got over that

I know that some people would like me and others to keep quite and not dare disturb the universe but those days are long gone. People with the temerity to point out problems are not the problem and if they are to you Im sorry, but this aint going to go away if we all just bury our heads in the sand.


If Tolkien had been Indian, Chinese, African, Martian would you be complaining about the dearth of "white" heroes in his writing?

Yes.


Do you expect the Bollywood producers to employ token "whites"?
If not, why not? Is there a difference?


Thats not really what we're talking about, but I'll answer anyway. I would react in the exact same way if white people were being portrayed as one dimesional minions of evil. If you are making a love story in Mumbai and no white faces in the film, fair enough. Notting Hill was a big joke if you have seen the "actual" racial diversity of the area.


Read. Lose yourself in the world conjured up by the words, or in the words themselves if that's what turns you on, but don't try to turn them into socially divisive tools.

Well Im not trying to turn LOTR into a socially divisive tool. That is though exactly whatthe BNP (neo nazis) have done.



I first read The Hobbit at 10 and LOTR at 11 or 12, as did dozens of my cousins. WE didn't see any racialism in it. Neither did we watch the films and think "Oh my goodness gracious me there are no brown elves, oh-ho-ho-ho, I must be running straight to the Race Relations Board, oh-ho-ho-ho". It just isn't the first thing that comes to mind - or even the 2nd, 3rd or 17th. Why are you trying to make it seem important?

Well it is important in the space of a thread I cant convince you of that but you could google for the "effects of racism" and see for your self what I mean. THe ideas in art affect us at a deep level and it would be nice if artists thought about their output with this in mind. I dont want the book censored and Tolkein is dead we are not slamming the book we are simply discussing an element of it. No one here is running to the race relations board.

one love

There are, as always, several tracks here.

-- Was Tolkien racist?

-- Are the books racist?

-- Can the standards of one generation usefully be applied to another generation?

-- Has LoTR been picked up by racict groups?

-- Has it been picked up by liberal groups?

-- Do either of these things matter?

-- Is the film racist?

-- Is the film being used by racist groups?

What is happening here is that the answers to one question are being applied to another, and so on.

On a different but allied matter - I am a woman, and am aware of and have been subject to sexism. However I do not *look* for sexism. I find Tolkein and Dickens irritating because, either as a result of their temprament, their times or a mixture of them both, they create dull uninteresing and presominantly two dimensional women.

Ben

Or they write the woman behaving like a man (Eowyin in LOTR and Gladriel, but generally way back in her past)

Anything I was going to add when I saw this thread earlier on has already been said.

My immediate thought now is: oh look, another one of those circular LOTR threads. Must subscribe.

blickybadger, I'm not saying racism isn't a problem. What I'm saying is the patronising attitude of the bleeding hearts who make it their mission to search out racialism in places wherein its existence really wouldn't occur to anyone who wasn't looking for it probably does more harm than good.

And can you honestly say you're comfortable with all that squirming and apologising they get up to when someone makes an accidental remark that might possibly be construed as a reference to colour?

As Ben has just said "I am a woman, and am aware of and have been subject to sexism. However I do not *look* for sexism."

Also I am a "coloured" woman, and am aware of and have been subject to racism. However I do not *look* for racism.

In the early 1960s there were not many of us around. You could guarantee that any brown face you saw would belong to a member of the extended family, so yes, of course I've been spat at in the streets by the ignorant types but any trouble I've encountered from ignorant males in cars has been due to the fact that I'm a "woman driver" rather than a colour issue - and brown males are just as chauvinistic as pink and beige ones (if not more so). (And can you honestly say you didn't play on the fact (even once) that we all look the same to the police?)

So you read Tolkein's books in your early teens and saw racialism in them did you? Really? Having approached them without preconceived ideas?

>> Or has your girlfriend ever turned up at your house crying and with spit all down her back because some local lads didnt think a white girl should be going out with someone who wasnt white? <<

Well I do have to admit that my first boyfriend's grandmother was horrified when she heard her grandson was going to marry a "Paki" but she was even more upset when his little brother married an Irish girl - and that entire generation went ballistic when his sister married a nice blond, blue-eyed, English NON-CATHOLIC.

>> Police ever beat you up in an alley for no reason but the colour of your skin? <<

I was beaten up for having the wrong accent, for coming from the "posh" part of town, for going to the wrong school and for being too clever. Oddly enough I was once even beaten up for having read LOTR. However I have to admit that I've only ever been spat at for having the wrong skin-colour.

It's human nature to be afraid of the unfamiliar, but encouraging them to be continually thinking about the differences is really not the best route to tolerance.

>> How many steps did you walk up today? ...if you asked someone who is wheel chair bound the same question they would have been much more aware of the numbers of stairs they encountered. <<

Really? Which wheelchair bound people would those be? I'm always too busy trying to make it up the stairs without falling/making a spectacle of myself/taking so long that everyone else gets held up to be aware of the numbers.

>> It does matter it is linked to someof the above incidents <<

But she(?) wasn't linking anything to any incidents. (S)he was going out and searching for racialism in a work of fiction written by an old academic from an earlier generation. That's the kind of thing I'm taking issue with.

In London in the early 80s "Baa baa black sheep" was banned. My 2 year old daughter was suspended from the council day nursery amid accusations of racism because the (pink) staff took exception to her singing to her little (black) friend. She just happened to be the wrong colour - pale porcelain skin, strawberry blonde hair and blue-eyes. When my mother turned up to collect her the nursery staff were mortified. They couldn't stop apologising and their whole attitude to me changed in an instant.

>> Looking at and trying to understand racism does not make me or anyone else the cause. <<

Of course it doesn't, but scrutinising everything you come across with a fine-toothed comb, determined to find a speck of racism, does make the person that does it racialist (if I correctly understood the definition that was given earlier in the thread).

People with the temerity to point out problems are indeed not the problem but people that keep harping on potential "problems" ARE.

Is "race" or "colour" really the first thing you see about a person? I'm afraid I find that hard to believe (and very sad if it's true).

<>

It isn't myth at all, it's a popular 20th century novel. Though Tolkien did borrow heavily from various other myths and folktales.


az

I read fantasy to escape from the real world.I'm not looking for sexist or racist interpretations.I just want to escape from the world for a few hours.I want to be the sword wielding hero/heroine not the poor slob waiting in the rain for the bus to arrive.

Leave my favourite pleasure alone.Don't force the authors to start second guessing please.

It's bad enough to have the sterile world of Star Trek become the ideal of SF without fantasy going the same way.

Give me China Mieville's incorrect and wonderful literature any day.It's miles better than LOTR and thus far the PC brigade haven't truly affected his brand of fantasy.Anne MacCaffery it isn't and thank goodness.She is the example that should terrify anyone that PC may get the upper hand in the genre.

When I wrote my response to you I wondered if you had any conception of racism as a thing you had personally suffered. It seems you have. A very different one I now have now, even though we suffer the same thing.

I read a lot in your posts that I recognise in myself a few years ago.

Back in a time when I would have setteld for toleration, but not any longer I want no I demand acceptance as a bare minimum and would like to think understanding is possible.

I think it is necessary to point out things that are apparent to those that can see them. I have no problem with those who cant see the important part racist thinking plays in LOTR. It does not say burn synagouges or kill c****ks. It does say that you can judge individuals by their race.

I cant think of a more racist idea.

It does not promote racial segregation and even makes a tiny nod at things that are in all of the races in the book, but these do not change the central view on race the book uses.

blickybadger, I'm not saying [mercury] isn't a problem. What I'm saying is the patronising attitude of the bleedin [scientists] who make it their mission to search out [mercury] in places wherein its existence really wouldn't occur to anyone who wasn't looking for it probably does more harm than good.

I have taken the liberty of changing three words from your original

Racism is a poison and Im not saying we need to irradicate past examples but we need to identify and think of ways of avoiding it in future but by ignoring it nothing will change.


but scrutinising everything you come across with a fine-toothed comb, determined to find a speck of racism, does make the person that does it racialist (if I correctly understood the definition that was given earlier in the thread).

No it does not (we call them firemen but they dont start fires) race awareness training is not meant to turn me into a racist. Its meant to help me spot blocks to engagement for certain parts of the community and help people feel at ease with each other and to help some see how to treat others with the respect they deserve.


People with the temerity to point out problems are indeed not the problem but people that keep harping on potential "problems" ARE.

Ahh. The old uppity n****r argunent. Without the sufferagettes would women have got the vote? Should Ghandi have packed in after the British first refused independence? Should Rosa Parks just have got up and gone to the back of the bus? Should a barmaid stand around while a comedian makes sexist jokes at her expense? Should schools have to have books that reflect true ethnic diversity?

I think that the answers to these questions should be fairly straight forward.






(And can you honestly say you didn't play on the fact (even once) that we all look the same to the police?)

No never. Havent ever really had the need to. The only time I ever needed to get the police of my case it wouldnt have made any difference anyway


one love

"What I find extremely disturbing is the way so many of you seem to have racism/racialism in the forefront of your minds for so much of the time.
Do you really look at every book you read or film/play/TV programme you watch with the intention of checking that they have the requisite number of ethnic minorities in them?"

Tefkat:

How did you get the impression that I spend anything more than a moment every forty years doing anything of the sort you describe? As a matter of fact, most of my time reading is spent having a ripping good time. You've made a really rather ridiculously huge leap from me asking about a small bit of a huge and complex book to me spending all my time counting ethnic minorities.
I'm sorry you've misunderstood what I was asking. I did say in the opening post that I had read all of Tolkien's works countless times and had never noticed or been disturbed by this tiny aspect that I did finally notice the most recent time through. I didn't go looking for racism; I went looking to enjoy the Lord of the Rings yet again (admittedly in my own particular way). The reason the racial thing is so prominent in this thread is because I was asking if anyone else had noticed this small aspect and how they felt about it. I don't go looking for sexism either, but if I notice it, I notice it. Is that bad? Is it bad to ask people whether they have noticed it? Is it bad to discuss it? If we see Blicky's girlfriend being spat on, should we not notice it? If Blicky starts a thread asking if anyone else has noticed this type of thing happening is he doing it because he is looking for racism everywhere or because it is a legitimately disturbing thing?

I've described the troubling aspects of Tolkien as moments when he has nodded. He does nod at times, you know, and he forgets for a moment the actual noble ideals that he is usually presenting in the forefront of his work. For example, in his exceptionally influential scholarly article "Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics" he manages to praise irrellevantly the "English temper", tip his hat at the "inquisitive and less severe Celtic learning," and pointlessly make fun of the French several times. For the life of me, I don't know what these national stereotypes mean. I find it disappointing that he nods and strays from his own point. I don't go looking for racism and I generally try to look past it when there is something of more particular moment in the work.



As far as losing myself in a work: I don't particularly want to lose myself. I'd like to enjoy and take part in the work and then remember it afterwards. And I'd like to be able to discuss it and ask questions without being accused of all the crap that I have very specifically not accused anyone of being.

I didn't "insist on it mattering to everyone else". I didn't "make a fuss" about it. I just asked a question. Sorry. I'll not do it again (here).

Hi blicky not a reply to your posting but not said hi to you for a while,but haveing skipped through the thread thought i'd hang this here,not that many readers check the this is a reply to button.

plus i think the last bit might be close to your heart

Accuseing tolkein of racesism is just as daft as accuseing tennyson or any other of the great poets
of predidice against men as most poetry(love) is composed to the female of the species,i last read LOTR
over ten years ago,and did not untill now realise the lack of females,or even associate colour with any of the hobits elves ect
Had toilken been of african or asian i dare say the elves ect would have been portrayed differently, Roots would have not worked so well
had it been filmed useing european actors,Societys views are and always will be everchangeing, in thirty years time the big thing
as to predjudice i dare say will be aimed at something else,history is littered with examples of such, some group will always be at the bottem of the pile so to speak.


Europeans,as a whole tend to see the world from a biased perspective,caste system in India,or ethnic minorities in many countries
spring to mind,we as a nation i feel are blind to what goes on outside "our four walls so to speak" The sooner we widen our perspective
the better.
dureing the early seventies i spent several months in Morrocco and i was on several occassions pulled up by the police
and told to stop hassleing the tourists,as i looked like a native,this opened my eyes as to the ways of the world,okay all i had to do was carry my passport with me
but what of those who did not have the protection of such a luxory.



What i find more disturbing is the blatent predudice aimed at those who through no fault of there own that are liveing on benifits
take a look at the small adds for rooms to rent ect count tha no of adds saying no dhss, now if they said no coloured, all hell would break out,and why is this
happening,as a result of the chaos brouhjt about by the system in place where everyone regardless of circumstances are treated a spongers
and the delays in administration and constent changes in working out allowences, along with the fact that descisions are often taken without
a thought for the poor person who will often be forced to break the law,this then will result in extra costs in criminal procedings,and in some cases
a downward spiral from which it is hard for the person to return.