Reading books by bigots.

[Masada]

Except that it does appear rational to some, including Mouthwash. For instance, the way Western European governments spin crime statistics, it seems like a good idea to deport all Arabs (who are mostly Muslim) from Europe! Except of course, that the problem is in the statistics as it generates an us vs. them mentality which is then perpetuated by the media. Calling for boycotts against an entire country that doesn't threaten you(r nation) does exactly the same.

You've essentially conflated deporting Muslims with opposing Apartheid.

The reality is that Anti-Islam and Anti-Israel sentiment are very alike: Both use a vague appeal to human rights issues (but look away when those think who think the alike commit atrocities), portray those targets as innately evil and ultimately target Muslims and Israelis instead of Islam and Israel.

Yeah, bigotry is universal and reflexive but so what?

It also applies on decisions made by governments, but on a more significant magnitude.

You argument really seems to boil down to something like this: governments shouldn't do anything because they're actions might not be perfectly proportional to the nature of the problem. That's a dumb standard and one I doubt you adhere to in any other circumstance.

 

[Masada]

Double post.

 

[Dachs]

Tolkien got some of his ideas from Germanic mythology and dwarves are portrayed as good craftsmen and very greedy for gold in the original mythology. I think any similarities to Jewish stereotypes are coincidental.

Also, Welsh mythology. Between the Eddas and the Mabinogion, very little of The Lord of the Rings' plot is new.

But even though Tolkien hated allegory with a fiery, almost unreasoning passion, and even though Tolkien can't have been writing allegory because allegory requires authorial intent and he claimed he wasn't doing an allegory so there...even though those things are true, it's also not unreasonable to see reflections of the way Tolkien viewed real-world analogs to the characters and peoples in his settings in the manner in which he discussed and portrayed those characters and peoples.

It all leaks in. I mean, how exactly are we supposed to view the Haradrim, for instance? They just happen to be dark-skinned humans from a bit south and east of here with a penchant for allying with the Avatar of Evil and invading the bulwarks of lily-white Freedom? And how are the Shire and its inhabitants anything but a fairly blatant and not-that-altered version of the English country squireocracy? And as for plot, the Scouring of the Shire reads so much like Vidal Sassoon fanfiction (or, perhaps less flatteringly, Ernst Jünger fanfiction) that it's difficult to see why else it was shoe-horned into the story. The Fall of Gondolin, his first Middle-Earth story, was scribbled on the backs of military march sheet music in 1917 while he was serving on the Western Front; if World War analogies didn't come through in his writing I'd have been shocked. (And they did, so there.)

Even if it was not Tolkien's authorial intent to employ such things as allegories, he was, as a writer, responsible for the words he used and the way in which they can reasonably be interpreted. They speak to unconscious assumptions about the stories he wrote and the archetypes he employed. Hell, as PhroX noted, some of those assumptions weren't even unconscious at all, given Tolkien's attention to blood purity. None of this stuff was all that unusual for his time; it's not even that unusual for ours. But I think it's not unreasonable to call it racist - or, if you like, "underpinned by racist assumptions" - all the same.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Are we to take this to mean that anybody who stereotypes the good guys wearing white hats and the bad guys wearing black ones is also bigoted? That anybody who uses the allusion of light versus darkness to describe good and evil is likewise racially intolerant?

Tolkien has been unjustly accused of being bigoted and racist ever since the books first appeared. While they clearly do discuss the matter of racism and how people reacted to it in Middle Earth, as the second article I posted makes quite clear, it is a giant leap to assume that Tolkien himself must be a racist for merely writing about it.

Yes, it is true there is racism in The Lord of the Rings. However, many people who ask this question may really mean to ask, “Is The Lord of the Rings a racist work of fiction?” Although some people claim that is the case they are mistaken for J.R.R. Tolkien embedded numerous examples of the folly of racism in The Lord of the Rings. In other words, it would be difficult for any other modern work of fiction to be as anti-racist as The Lord of the Rings.

And where have we heard that same tired nonsense before? That merely discussing racism means the person doing so is likely a racist?

Like any good author, Tolkien was writing about topics which were of interest to the people at the time he wrote his epic fantasies about the forces of good finally triumphing over the real racists: The ones who thought they were superior to others and hated them.

 

[Kyriakos]

Are we to take this to mean that anybody who stereotypes the good guys wearing white hats and the bad guys wearing black ones are also bigoted? That anybody who uses the allusion of light versus darkness to describe good and evil is likewise racially intolerant?

Tolkien has been unjustly accused of being bigoted and racist ever since the books first appeared. While they clearly do discuss the matter of racism and how people reacted to it in Middle Earth as the second article I posted makes quite clear, it is a giant leap to assume that Tolkien himself must be a racist for merely writing about it.



And where have we heard that same tired nonsense before? That merely discussing racism means the person doing so is a racist? Like any good author, Tolkien was writing about topics which were of interest to the people at the time he wrote his epic fantasies about the forces of good finally triumphing against the powers of darkness.

Two issues there:

a) Tolkien is a crap author.

b) Tolkien's depiction of negative race as being of dark colors would be highly unlikely to start any discussion during the time he wrote. The first English-speaking Nobel winner was Rudyard Kipling

In 1907 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. The prize citation said: "In consideration of the power of observation, originality of imagination, virility of ideas and remarkable talent for narration which characterize the creations of this world-famous author." Nobel prizes had been established in 1901 and Kipling was the first English-language recipient.

 

[NovaKart]

I was talking about the dwarves specifically, I think the idea that they were inspired by anti-semitism is weak.

 

[NovaKart]

I thought Vidal Sassoon made hair care products.

 

[Formaldehyde]

a) Tolkien is a crap author.

Suffice to say that likely hundreds of millions of people from a multitude of different countries disagree. That this is nothing more than you own personal opinion.

The Lord of the Rings is an epic high fantasy novel written by English philologist and University of Oxford professor J. R. R. Tolkien. The story began as a sequel to Tolkien's 1937 children's fantasy novel The Hobbit, but eventually developed into a much larger work. It was written in stages between 1937 and 1949, much of it during World War II.[1] It is the second best-selling novel ever written, with over 150 million copies sold.[2]

b) Tolkien's depiction of negative race as being of dark colors would be highly unlikely to start any discussion during the time he wrote. The first English-speaking Nobel winner was Rudyard Kipling

Is this supposed to make sense? That people couldn't discuss race until the recently created Nobel committee picked an English-speaking author six years after the inception of the award for literature? Not to mention that LOTR was published in 1954...

Tolkien didn't write a "depiction of negative race". Instead, he wrote an epic fantasy where various light and dark-skinned people were negatively influenced by an evil power. And they eventually fell under its control. Are you sure you have even read LOTR?

 

[Kyriakos]

Suffice to say that likely hundreds of millions of people from a multitude of different countries disagree. That this is nothing more than you own personal opinion.

The view about a work of art, and moreso one in literature, is always a personal opinion (for better or worse, and despite some degree of relative common ground in the overall view of that work, which again can go both ways). King's novels sold more copies than Tolkien, does that mean Stephen King is the greatest author? Rowling also sold a huge amount of books, should this mean she is a great writer?
Poor Kafka never sold more than a couple thousand copies of any of the few books by him printed during his lifetime, including small collections of fiction. I suppose this means he was nothing next to Rowling anyway (given that she outsells him even now in many countries ).

Is this supposed to make sense? That people couldn't discuss race until the recently created Nobel committee picked an English-speaking author six years after the inception of the award for literature? Not to mention that LOTR was published in 1954...

Tolkien didn't write a "depiction of negative race". Are you sure you have even read LOTR?

I don't see what in my own post couldn't make sense. Kipling was rather fond of using race as a large backdrop of his work. He even wrote the poem "White man's burden", urging the west to keep taking control of the "half-demon, half-child" natives. And Tolkien was working on his famous books even before ww2, and surely lotr was there long before 1954.
So again your post is on the strange side of things. What does my own self reading Lotr would have to do with anything? No one is likely to read a full novel by a writer he had a bad view of (i read the hobbit and that was enough...). The discussion on his racial undertones is a very common one in many forums online.

Tolkien assisted Sir Mortimer Wheeler in the unearthing of a Roman Asclepieion at Lydney Park, Gloucestershire, in 1928.[26] During his time at Pembroke, Tolkien wrote The Hobbit and the first two volumes of The Lord of the Rings. Of Tolkien's academic publications, the 1936 lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" had a lasting influence on Beowulf research.[27] Lewis E. Nicholson noted that the article Tolkien wrote about Beowulf is "widely recognized as a turning point in Beowulfian criticism", noting that Tolkien established the primacy of the poetic nature of the work as opposed to the purely linguistic elements.[28] He also revealed in his famous article how highly he regarded Beowulf; "Beowulf is among my most valued sources ..." And indeed, there are many influences of Beowulf found in the Lord of the Rings.[29]

In 1945, he moved to Merton College, Oxford, becoming the Merton Professor of English Language and Literature, in which post he remained until his retirement in 1959. Tolkien completed The Lord of the Rings in 1948, close to a decade after the first sketches

 

[Traitorfish]

Except that it does appear rational to some, including Mouthwash.

Does it actually appear rational to them? Or do they just insist that it is rational, because it is understood in contemporary Western culture that rationality is something you want to have? (Look at all the American conservative who prattle about their superior "rationality" while actively propounding an anti-rationalist, and in its evangelical irrationalist, form of politics.) Reason is more than just "good-thinking", you understand, so it doesn't follow that just because a person holds a particular body of opinion, that opinion appears even to them as rational- even if they, mistakenly subscribing to such a definition of "reason", insist that it does.

Not sure how politicized Iain Banks was, but even if he cared so much so as to boycott the israeli market for his books, it has virtually nothing to do with whether his books are decent art or not.

It depends. Most of his work published under the name "Iain M. Banks" was part of the "Culture" series, whose central hero is a society of far-future anarchists. For somebody as deeply committed to militarised ethno-nationalism as Mouthwash- or, for that matter, yourself, it might be difficult to properly empathise with such Volk-less degenerates.

 

[NovaKart]

Not trying to be rude here but it is kind of funny to see form say something is not racist.

 

[Kyriakos]

It depends. Most of his work published under the name "Iain M. Banks" was part of the "Culture" series, whose central hero is a society of far-future anarchists. For somebody as deeply committed to militarised ethno-nationalism as Mouthwash- or, for that matter, yourself, it might be difficult to properly empathise with such Volk-less degenerates.

Oh so that's why i did not like the Wasp Factory...
It all makes perfect sense now

 

[Masada]

Edit.

Most of his work published under the name "Iain M. Banks" was part of the "Culture" series, whose central hero is a society of far-future anarchists.

I thought they were meant to be neo-cons?

 

[JollyRoger]

Haven't read Lotr or other such works (only a bit of the hobbit, which i disliked, but it was a children's tale anyway).

^Tolkien is just not a good author :/

How did you reach your judgment on Tolkien's work?

 

[Formaldehyde]

What does my own self reading Lotr would have to do with anything?

There is the clear problem. You are trying to discuss a topic which you have no personal experience. You are relying on the opinions of others which were shown to have no real basis long ago.

I guess it is inevitable. If you are willing to discuss racism rationally like Tolkien did in his novels, there seems to invariably be some who think you must be a racist for merely doing so:

Not trying to be rude here but it is kind of funny to see form say something is not racist.

No. Making such utterly false and ludicrous accusations about my opinions isn't "rude" at all.

Again, why do you insist on discussing me, instead of the topic, merely because I occasionally disagree with your own personal opinions?

 

[caketastydelish]

Did form just parody himself?

 

[Traitorfish]

I thought they were meant to be neo-cons?

Contact do have a little bit of that vibe, don't they? Problem with Banks is that his anarchism was utopian, but he wasn't, so he had a bit of a soft spot for the old liberal (or, charitably, socialist) interventionism.

 

[NovaKart]

There is the clear problem. You are trying to discuss a topic which you have no personal experience. You are relying on the opinions of others which were shown to have no real basis long ago.

I guess it is inevitable. If you are willing to discuss racism rationally like Tolkien did in his novels, there seems to invariably be some who think you must be a racist for merely doing so:

No. Making such utterly false and ludicrous accusations about my opinions isn't "rude" at all.

Again, why do you insist on discussing me, instead of the topic, merely because I occasionally disagree with your own personal opinions?

No we agree on this one and that was not not an accusation it was an observation.

 

[BvBPL]

I like the poetry of Pound, the work of Kipling (who I really don't think can be fairly called racist, although you can make an argument to the contrary), Lovecraft, and Ellison.

Kipling aside, relatively few of their works actually touch on their respective bigotries. And, again, I don't think you can really count Kipling.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No we agree on this one and that was not not an accusation it was an observation.

Then I'm sure you won't mind providing even a single example of this so-called "observation", much less try to support the hyperbolic nonsense you posted.