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

>> (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.

Anhaga's point appeared to be not about the book, but about use made of the book by racists. Unfortunately the title of the thread does not make this clear.



>> It does say that you can judge individuals by their race.

Hmmm. Species, surely, rather than race.

That aside, one of the things that I took very strongly from the book, (which I have read two, maybe three times, most recently in 2001), is a sense of co-operation and mutual respect between the different groups within the fellowship.

Given the context of the time, that is an anti-racist idea rather than a racist one.



>> >> 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.

Not 'the old uppity n****r argument' but a valid point.

Some time ago I was in a situation where I was responsible for vetting material for public distribution. I had specific remit regarding material relating to children which could be used for sexual titilation. I lost a surprising amount of innocence during that time, and the effect of treating references to children as potentially sexual was to sexualise them.

Another example - a recent tv show about family life on the box where a two year old boy's willie was pixilated out. That is probably the right thing to do, (if you *must* show bathtime at all), but it explicitly sexualises children - even to those people for whom children are not sexual.

So I think Tefkat has a point, that people who keep harping on potential problems are part of the problem, themselves.



>> Without the sufferagettes would women have got the vote?

NO. But Suffragettes were very specific and focused in their feminism. They didn't attack sexism all around them, they attacked it in the most important area first, political access. Then their daughters took up the fight for access to the professions, their grand-daughters fought for equal pay, and their great-grand-daughters are fighting the glass ceiling. They had the wisdom not to sweat the small stuff.



>> I just asked a question. Sorry. I'll not do it again (here).

Do. It is a heated debate because it is an important one, and though I have picked out specific items in blickybadger's post to disagree with, there is a lot there which has given me pause for thought.



ltp - good point about discrimination against people on benefits. The invisible prejudice of our times.

B

I shall venture a tentative and expendable toe in the water.

Are we looking at symmetry here?

Tolkien was inspired to write what he wrote because he thought it appropriate after consideration of what he had read.

Anhaga was moved to write what (s)he wrote because (s)he thought it appropriate after consideration of what (s)he had read.

Everyone else wrote what they wrote because they thought it appropriate after consideration of what they had read.

We travelled a long way from the shire and what an interesting quest. Some walking wounded, but no fatalities, I trust.

"You can't please everyone, so you gotta please yourself."

If we are going to try to usse a gender neutral pronoun, can we at least NOT put the female element of it in brackets?

'S/he' is legible, it communicates effectively, it does not parenthesise women, and it is very nearly pronouncable.

(B)en

Yeah, if we're being politically correct, the last thing we want to do is parenthesise women.



H.

Oh, don't be a pig, Hoo.

B

<>

I think there are few (if any) right wing fundamentalists on h2g2!
I too, have issues with some of the OT and I am a Christian. (neither right wing or fundamentalist, BTW.)

>>>

<>

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, my understanding of what Tolkein was referring to is that he disapproved of _allegory_. He didn't believe that one should write fiction to preach about real life (unlike his colleague C.S. Lewis). So that is why he rejected all the interpretations of his work that went along the line of oh it's about WW1 or WW2 etc.

I don't think there is any disputing (including from Tolkein himself) that his personal experiences of the war influenced him though. But that is different than writing allegory.

In the same way I don't think that he was intending to write a novel about race. But I do think his own experiences (personal and cultural) about race influenced his thinking as he wrote.



I was interested in what you said about his female characters being a result of him not understanding women very well. That makes sense too. He was married, but I guess his class and profession, as well as his own personality, kept him from a broader perspective on women.

However I do think that is a form of sexism because of how it portrays women. If the culture had a wide range of works that portrayed women meaningfully, then LotR on it's own wouldn't be a problem.



>>>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?<<<

Tefkat, I read LotR for the first time when I was 13, and totally fell in love with the story. I read it again many times, but it wasn't until my early 20s I guess that I noticed the racial bias. I would have to say also that there was no internet then and I had no other access to the idea that there might be bias in the book. So I wasn't going 'looking for it'. In fact I remember being surprised, and then wondering how could I have read it all those years and not noticed.

I felt uncomfortable about that particular aspect the next few times I read it, but it hasn't ruined the book for me. On the contrary, understanding how the bias in it came to be there helps me to forgive Tolkein his moments of "nodding".

>>>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.<<<

Incognitas, if that is what you want to do that is great. I love the escapism aspect too. However I want to escape into a world that isn't sexist and racist etc, and there aren't that many around in SF/Fantasy.


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

I quite like Star Trek, but I agree it's to our detriment to have it as the ideal SF.

Personally I think the most offensive appropriation of Tolkeins work was by the hippies. Bunch of fey, long haired stoners prancing about and banging on about Tom Bombadil.

Appropriation of Tolkein (specifically by the killers at Columbine, who had set up a racist RPG based on his works) is a bit far fetched. Yes, racist overtones can be read into it, but is is quite tenuous, especially with the multi racial aspects of the Fellowship.

I also think that it is worthwhile remembering that with this, and with the absence of strong female characters, this is a product of the times. Personally I think that in that context some racism in literature can be overlooked. Lovecraft had a real bee in his bonnet about miscegenation, and there is repeated use of 'mulattos' as low level evil characters in his work. As long as people are aware of how ludicrous this is, I fail to see the problem.

Where I do have a problem is where racism creeps into modern works. Archetypes of racist figures have featured prominently in the later Star Wars films, Jar-jar binks being the classic steppin'-fetchit character, and the snad people being clearly based on settlers beliefs about the behaviours of native Americans. Unlike Lovecraft there is no saving grace of these being either, a) historical in origin, or, b) any good.

Some interesting perspective from Le Guin:

>>>
Some assumptions are commonly made about fantasy that bother me. These assumptions may be made by the author, or by the packagers of the book, or both, and they bother me both as a writer and as a reader of fantasy. They involve who the characters are, when and where they are, and what they do. Put crudely, it's like this: in fantasy, 1) the characters are white, 2) they live sort of in the Middle Ages, and 3) they're fighting in a Battle Between Good and Evil.

Assumption 1: The characters are white. Even when they aren’t white in the text, they are white on the cover. I know, you don't have to tell me about sales! I have fought many cover departments on this issue, and mostly lost. But please consider that "what sells" or "doesn't sell" can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If black kids, Hispanics, Indians both Eastern and Western, don't buy fantasy—which they mostly don't—could it be because they never see themselves on the cover?

I have received letters that broke my heart, from adolescents of color in this country and in England, telling me that when they realized that Ged and the other Archipelagans in the Earthsea books are not white people, they felt included in the world of literary and movie fantasy for the first time. Worth thinking about?
<<<


And more as an aside really, but still pertinent:

>>>Assumption 3: Fantasy by definition concerns a Battle Between Good and Evil. This is the one where the cover copywriters shine. There are lots of fantasies about the Battle Between Good and Evil, the BBGE, sure. In them, you can tell the good guys from the evil guys by their white hats, or their white teeth, but not by what they do. They all behave exactly alike, with mindless and incessant violence, until the Problem of Evil is solved in a final orgy of savagery and a win for the good team.

Many fantasy movies and most interactive games go in for the BBGE, which partly explains the assumption about books. And it's true that in fantasy, character is often less important than role (also true of Greek tragedy and much of Shakespeare, where role and character can be the same thing). Carelessly read, such stark stuff may appear to be morally simplistic, black-and-white. Carelessly written, that's what it is. But careless reading of genuine fantasy will not only miss nuance, it will miss the whole nature and quality of the work.

This is what's happened over and over to The Lord of the Rings—even in the film version, where, though Tolkien's plot is followed faithfully and the Ring is destroyed, the focus on violent action and the interminable battle scenes overshadow, and perhaps fatally reduce, the moral complexity and originality of the book, the mystery at its heart.
<<<

from http://www.harcourtbooks.com/AuthorInterviews/LeGuinBEASpech.asp

>> his class and profession, as well as his own personality, kept him from a broader perspective on women.

>> However I do think that is a form of sexism because of how it portrays women.

Which raises an interesting question, namely: to what extent is the sexism in LoTR, (and indeed Swallows and Amazons) unwitting reportage?



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

It should not be forgotten that Star Trek broke ground in the 1960s for its (comparatively) non-sexist and non-racist stance, a stance that Gene Roddenberry held fast to in the teeth of considerable opposition from the Networks, which contributed to the show being dropped after 3 seasons. The fact that the females are 'only' communications officers and nurses is once again witness or unwitting reportage.


Finally it is important that these relics remain and are not expunged from the record, or the fight against racism and sexism will not be seen to have been necessary, and the historical victims of both will cease to be acknowledged - which is yet another layer of discrimination against them.

B

I really do admire Le Guin. It is humbling to note that though I have read all the Earthsea books including the lastest ones several times, I had not noticed that the Archipellagans are not white. The people of Karego At are explicitly Nordic, however.

Hmmmm.

Shame to me.

B

<>

I think you do Tolkien quite a disservice, kea. He was not only married, he had a daughter and his *mother* (not the father who died when he was a baby) was his formative influence. Neither was he 'upper class'. Far from it.
There are more females in the book(s) than Jackson or New Line will allow - I am so annoyed with Jackson for claiming credit for Eowyn! (as the media, especially the Sunday Star Times kept saying.)
And for the cheesy 'love triangle' they tried to heavy handedly emphasise - it's very subtle in the book. An example would be the purely-created-for-the-film incident that has Aragorn go missing on the journey to Helm's Deep, just so that he can have a romantic vision of Arwen the drip (as she is in the film.) Oh, and so Eowyn can angst about him! Sappy.

You are not alone there Ben. I'm not sure if I eventually picked it up from the book itself or from something Le Guin said. But I have found it somewhat difficult to change the image I have when I read it now. That has been a very educational experience.

I found the same thing with some of Octavia Butler's work. She doesn't mention skin pigmentation until some way into the book. When she does I was immediately confronted with my unconscious assumptions.

Someone had mentioned earlier in the thread something about readers assuming that characters are white unless it is spelled out. I think that this is true, at least for white readers. Mostly we don't think about it until we have to

It's similar in a way for gender although not so much with character because the gender is usually revealed by the name. I think that there has been research done that shows when the words 'he', 'his', mankind' etc are used to refer to a person of indeterminate gender, people usually see the person as male.

I will just stick out my neck here, and say, Ursula le Guin is *boring!* There are some worthy authors who are considered sacred. Janet Frame for one - after the hagiographical writings that followed her death this year, I got one of her books from the library, although I have to say, I *was* warned - and it was to ! Ursula le Guin is another of the "worthy". As Pam Corkery (NZ TV/radio/print commentator said in a book review - "God has given us each only so many heartbeats, and I wasted too many on this.")
I don't remember what she was referring to - but it took me years to realise that (aside from the Eng Lit courses I did in the 1980s) I was, and am, under no obligation to, and don't have time to, read anything, especially fantasy and sf which should be fun, that I don't want to!

Bear in mind however, that the orginal draft/pilot 'The Cage' featured Majel Barrett as 'Number One', a role that would end up as Spock's. It was only pressure from NBC that led to the change, Roddenberry had wanted to give a woman a much stonger role than receptionist and nurse.

Boring?

I found the Earthsea book fascinating.

BTW

Isnt it quite explicit that the people of Geds island have brown skin. Also in the third book (my vague memory of the story might be a bit out here) but didnt the priciple charater comment on ged having brown skin?

Boring?

I found the Earthsea books fascinating.

BTW

Isnt it quite explicit that the people of Geds island have brown skin. Also in the third book (my vague memory of the story might be a bit out here) but didnt the priciple charater comment on ged having brown skin?

>>I think you do Tolkien quite a disservice, kea. He was not only married, he had a daughter and his *mother* (not the father who died when he was a baby) was his formative influence. Neither was he 'upper class'. Far from it. <<

Oh well he had no excuse then

Just kidding. Actually I thought he had a daughter but I couldn't remember. I agree that he had positive formative female influences, and I think that this is reflected in his work (his work is certainly not misogynistic).

It does beg the question then of the gender bias in the book. From what I remember of the biography I read, Tolkein had deep affection for his wife, but they also lived within some fairly rigid gender roles. I think this is in the books too. If the only women you can see are housewives it makes sense to either write about housewives (the women hobbits) or to elevate them to queens or warriors (you can see them in literature).

Perhaps I am being too unkind, but it would have been so amazing if he had been able to extend the range of character to the women that he did with the men.


I don't remember Tolkein's class background - what was it? I was referring more to his days at Oxford (which was a class specific environment)


Fortunately I haven't seen the films What did Jackson do with Eowyn that he could claim credit for?