Is Lord of the Rings Racist?

[Evie]

While you are entitled to be insulted about whatever you will, you're also entitled to be insulted over a statement that the grass is green. Just because you're entitled to be insulted about something doesn't make it any less wrong.

And what right, exactly, do you have to decide what I'm telling in my story?

My interpretation (of my own story) is the right one. No one, no two about it. I know what's going on in it, and all the little bits you may or may not have missed or misunderstood. You, on the other hand, don't. Your interpretation may be very interesting (and may be worth studying in and of itself, for deeper insight in your mind), but it's interesting fanfiction. No more, no less.

(For that matter, since when is it wrong to be insulted - sickened - by people who grant themselves the right to put words in your mouth?)

 

[Lone Wolf]

And what right, exactly, do you have to decide what I'm telling in my story?

The same right as you.

MY interpretation (of my own story) is true, because I'm the one writing it.

Here's my story:

"Mr. Vopley was a great and honourable man. He devoted his life to killing members of lesser races such as Jews, Blacks and others. Unfortunately, the corrupt prosecutors sentenced him to rot in prison for his lifetime. Mr. Vopley was a truly great, saint-like person and we all should strive to be like him".

Is my interpretation that my story is about Mr. Vopley, a great, saint-like person correct because I was the one who wrote about him and your interpretation that my story is about a disgusting racist killer who was justly punished by the authorities is wrong because it doesn't match mine?

Returning to the story about a bandaged girl, what if the author of it confirmed that the teacher's far-fetched interpretation is right? Would that make the teacher right and the students who were against that interpretation wrong?

 

[Evie]

If (hypothetical) you say the story is meant to present Mr Vorpey as a saintly person, then yes, that intepretation of the meaning of the story and the nature of the character within the context of the story is correct. Of course, then my interpretation would not be that the author is wrong about the novel; it would be that the novel at least and the (hypothetical, again) author possibly are highly repugnant and quite possibly need to be investigated for hate crime and inciting to violence under such applicable laws as exist.

And you have the same right as I do to decide what I am saying? I'm sorry, but that's "Me, Myself and I" taken to ridiculous levels. How can you know what I'm saying better than I do? Under what condition, exactly, can you claim to have an equally complete, if not more complete, understanding of my own words?

You know what? I'm going to call it quit at that between you and I. It's obvious you are dead-set in your attitude, and it's obvious that attitude sickens me, so about the only likely outcome of continuing at this point is a pointless exchange of insults.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Of course, then my interpretation would not be that the character is repugnant and not at all a saint; it would be that the novel at least and the author possibly are highly repugnant..

So the author of such a story would be repugnant, but the character wouldn't be? That's a strange way of looking at things. Personally, I'd say that they both are repugnant, and that the story is repugnant exactly because it glorifies an objectively repugnant character.

Also, I repeat my question about the bandaged girl story:

Returning to the story about a bandaged girl, what if the author of it confirmed that the teacher's far-fetched interpretation is right? Would that make the teacher right and the students who were against that interpretation wrong?

How far-fetched and at odds with the text can an author's interpretation be before you start considering it as wrong?

(For that matter, since when is it wrong to be insulted - sickened - by people who grant themselves the right to put words in your mouth?)

No one is putting words into your mouth. Putting words into your mouth would be spreading lies about your own interpretation.

 

[Squonk]

burn the books!!!

 

[Winner]

These races you speak of are species. So if anything, Lord of the Rings is specieist.

Really? Different species don't mix, but humans and elves can produce offsprings in this fantasy world, am I right?

 

[holy king]

are half elves like mules?

 

[Winner]

are half elves like mules?

You mean sterile? I don't know - how advanced was genetics by the time Tolkien finished to book?

 

[aelf]

Hrm. I can see that, actually. I suppose I'll have to concede defeat on that one - there is a point to arguing interpretations even if multiple interpretations are legitimate.

However, as to the core point that Authorial Will doesn't matter...frankly, I'm going to speak a bit plainly here. As someone who is working toward being an author, and writing stories, the idea that literary critics and other people get to decide what I actually said is so deeply, personally *insulting* that it's the chief reason I'm not sure I want to go through with trying to get published. The thought of so-called intellectuals waiting in the wings to tell me (and others) what I actually wrote (should I have the success to warrant it) makes me want to puke. "Glorified fanfiction" or "Intelectual Property Hijacking" is about as nice as I can get in my description of such things.

I presume you're replying to me? Well, I think it's a fair deal since readers sometimes see wonderful meanings or connections that you did not exactly intend (except on a subconscious level, maybe) but that help to make your work great. And for every detractor, if your work is worth any salt, there should be at least one fan. Eventually anyway.

There is a difference between someone putting words in your mouth and someone interpreting your text differently. As long as it can be substantiated with good evidence from the text, I'd say that an interpretation is valid. Putting words in your mouth would be to insinuate that the text says something it doesn't or to draw weak connections in order to see an agenda that isn't substantiated by solid evidence.

When it comes to facts about the plot, the author's stated intentions are usually regarded as canon anyway, for reasons of convenience. Otherwise it might be hard to follow the story after that if you interpret the current plot differently from the author. When it comes to meaning, though, it's not so clear. People do end up saying things unconsciously and we always read into them daily, whether through body language, tone or context, and I think it's fair to infer such things from an author as well.

It's my story (or, in the case of the Lord's, Tolkien's story). It's not your story, and while you are entitled to believing whatever you will about hidden meanings in it, you're also entitled to believing the Earth is flat. Just because you're entitled to believe something doesn't make it any less wrong.

Well, I do think that not all opinions are equally valid or even worth considering. Hey, I'm a liberal

However, there are often opinions that are equally valid. They have to be judged based on their merit in terms of having good evidence and being well-reasoned. That's how it is with life, and that's how it is with literature as well. When you write something for people to read, even on this forum, you have to be prepared for any reaction. I do get annoyed by some responses too (I just hate stupidity in general), but it doesn't stop me from doing anything.

 

[Evie]

Actually, Tolkien himself acknowledged in one of the letters that Elves and Humans, being able to mate and produce offsprings who can in turn reproduce, must be the same species as a genetic level.

aelf - yeah, I suppose I'll have to get used to it. Though even on meaning...I mean, consider the whole Endor Holocaust theory (if you haven't heard of it). Is it a question of meaning or a question of plot? The same goes with the incident I reported way back when about the lit class teacher (college level, roughly. No, I wasn't in lit proper, that's just how the Quebec system ads up). Plot, or meaning? The line between the two is pretty hazy.

 

[Squonk]

elves are hot :nod:

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Really? Different species don't mix, but humans and elves can produce offsprings in this fantasy world, am I right?

In general, no. There were only three exceptions, the first involving semi-divine fiat, and the other two descending from the first.
In detail: Luthien, daughter of Thingol the Elf and Melian the Maia, counted among the elves, married Beren the Man. Elrond, Elros, and the much later Eldarion (kid of Aragorn and Arwen) are all descendants of this pair.
(IIRC.)

 

[Verbose]

You mean sterile? I don't know - how advanced was genetics by the time Tolkien finished to book?

Doesn't matter. Animal breeding had been well developed for centuries. Darwin learned heaps from pigeon breeders about artificial selection.

And no, half-elves aren't sterile. Otherwise there would be no Numenoreans, Arwen would be impossible since Elrond is half-elven etc.

 

[aelf]

And no, half-elves aren't sterile. Otherwise there would be no Numenoreans, Arwen would be impossible since Elrond is half-elven etc.

My understanding is he's fully elvish. Elrond and Elros had to choose once and for all whether to be elves or men. Elrond chose to be an elf and hence his immortality. Elros chose to be a man (but a powerful one) and died.

This is an indication that men and elves could mix, but that it was not something that was allowed to go on for long each time. Eventually their descendants would have to choose. A bit like dual-nationality in some countries.

 

[Verbose]

My understanding is he's fully elvish. Elrond and Elros had to choose once and for all whether to be elves or men. Elrond chose to be an elf and hence his immortality. Elros chose to be a man (but a powerful one) and died.

This is an indication that men and elves could mix, but that it was not something that was allowed to go on for long each time. Eventually their descendants would have to choose. A bit like dual-nationality in some countries.

Yes, well, it's Tolkien. No reason to expect it to obey the rules our own world does.

 

[Evie]

At the risk of repeating myself:

Elves and Men are evidently in biological terms one race, or they could not breed and produce fertile offspring...

Obviously he mis-used race, but the meaning is pretty clear.

 

[Dragonlord]

No, I don't see LOTR as racist.

Others have posted good arguments, so I'll just make it short:

- The black vs. white = evil vs. good thing is derived from light vs. darkness, not skin color. A staple in fantasy, before and after Tolkien
- Haradrim are swarthy for geographical reasons: they come from the south from hot countries, so what do you expect? Also, they are explicitly not depicted as evil, just deceived by Sauron
- Numenoreans becoming weaker by mingling with 'lesser' races is specifically linked to their losing or weakening their powers (especially their longevity). Which is only logical and normal biology.

The races (or species) in LOTR actually do have different strengths and powers, and some, like Orcs, are universally bad (though I think Tolkien portrays them more as pitiable than evil - they are victims too) - no wonder, since they were created/twisted by Sauron.
You might say there is racism/speciesm in the context of Middle Earth, but it has nothing to do with the races in our world.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Others have posted good arguments, so I'll just make it short:

- The black vs. white = evil vs. good thing is derived from light vs. darkness, not skin color. A staple in fantasy, before and after Tolkien
- Haradrim are swarthy for geographical reasons: they come from the south from hot countries, so what do you expect? Also, they are explicitly not depicted as evil, just deceived by Sauron
- Numenoreans becoming weaker by mingling with 'lesser' races is specifically linked to their losing or weakening their powers (especially their longevity). Which is only logical and normal biology.

Now, these are good arguments against it being racist, instead of "Tolkien didn't intend it to be so".

 

[Angst]

Well, there were plenty of bad white guys (especially in The Silmarillion and other First Age works).

Well, technically, that's not how racism works tbh. Racism is about prejudices, that is, expectations of people in general, not how people act individually. Like the way "I have a friend who's black, therefore I'm not a racist" doesn't work as an argument, saying "I have an enemy who's white, therefore I'm not a racist" doesn't work; in the books, the dark-skinned are evil in general, while of course there are a number of evil whites, you don't expect white people to be evil, while you expect black people to - therefore you have racial prejudices. The reason, at least, why the white evil men were so dangerous in LotR was because they were betrayers, like dissenters; therefore they were unexpectedly evil. You know all this though.

But I haven't read Silmarillion, so I don't know exactly how that story went.

 

[Dragonlord]

Well, technically, that's not how racism works tbh. Racism is about prejudices, that is, expectations of people in general, not how people act individually. Like the way "I have a friend who's black, therefore I'm not a racist" doesn't work as an argument, saying "I have an enemy who's white, therefore I'm not a racist" doesn't work; in the books, the dark-skinned are evil in general, while of course there are a number of evil whites, you don't expect white people to be evil, while you expect black people to - therefore you have racial prejudices. The reason, at least, why the white evil men were so dangerous in LotR was because they were betrayers, like dissenters; therefore they were unexpectedly evil. You know all this though.

But I haven't read Silmarillion, so I don't know exactly how that story went.

True about racism - but I repeat: black vs. white in LOTR doesn't stem from parallels with Negro/Caucasian in our world, but from the dichotomy of light vs. darkness. Also, there are no black people in LOTR - there are Orcs, a race specifically created as evil tools of Sauron. Sure, you can link them to black people in our world, but it's a stretch at best.