The West's Cultural Narcissism: An Examination of Tolkien's Orcs

[Lexicus]

For the simple reason that the author is not speaking objectively on their own works or intentionality, but is rather speculating on the intentionality of a past version of themself. That speculation will always be distorted - by time, memory, context, hindsight, and so on. In the same way that we can misremember things from the past, or color them differently - take for instance a thing you enjoyed or were proud of in the past which you now view as cringe, or a with a certain nostalgic quaintness. The same applies to an author of a text.

This whole thread has been very silly. The people bringing forward that quote from Tolkien about how he despises allegory and had no intention of any of his work being made into allegory as if to foreclose any metaphorical interpretation of his work is ludicrous. Meaning in language is not fixed. A text's meaning and intention can exist independent of an author's own intent - even in that author's radical absence. Therefore, to hold an author's intent - whether stated or inferred - as sacrosanct, as the final word on a text's absolute meaning, is, I think, a rather sad and myopic way to interact with art and language. Great texts lend themselves to multiple interpretations. Lord of the Rings is no different.

I agree with this point about the death ofthe author, but I would just add that in the particular context of the quoted post, "the man's own words on the subject" were quite unambiguous:
"The dwarves of course are quite obviously, wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic, obviously, constructed to be Semitic."

And again:

JRR Tolkien, letter 176: "I do think of the 'dwarves' like jews".

In any event the point of bringing up this parallel was actually to defend Tolkien against an accusation from the OP of this thread that Sauron was meant to be Jewish, which is an idea I have never encountered before (whereas the Jewish-Dwarf connection is well-known and has been written and commented on by many authors including JRRT himself).

 

[Samson]

I wouldn't call it "going hippie". I would call it "writers developing their vilains at all instead of leaving them cardboard cutout caricatures".

In any event, while they are the archenemy of TOS, I would still argue they do not play the "Evil Empire against whom everyone else is united" role.

The "going hippy" comment was about starfleet's attitude in general in TNG compared to TOS. Its tendency to consider native cultures and to avoid violence and things like that. I have always seen it as reflecting the change in American policy to the world as developing from the 60's to the 90's.

I will certainly agree that there was no "coalition of the willing" in the Galaxy against the Klingons.

 

[Lexicus]

1) I don't think people are making "racist caricatures" out of Russians in a wide scale.

It is easy enough to see this happening in the Ukraine thread on this site; what makes you think our Ukraine threads are so unrepresentstive of the wider discourse on the issue? I think it's pretty clear that people are making racist caricatures of Russians at scale; I reiterate I don't see it as the salient issue in the war or discourse about the war but it is pretty hard to ignore.

Also agree with @Angst that there is clear white supremacist imagery and themes in the work that are not derived from the "source material" since the medieval and classical traditions Tolkien was drawing on predate racism.

 

[Evie]

I've seen the (unsubtle) use of orcs in that light even here, so, yes, it's absolutely a thing. I profoundly dislike it.

Sophie - I brought the "not allegory" quote up explicitly in the context of someone suggesting that Tolkien intentionally wrote the battle of five armies as a reflection of the various sides in World War I, and only as one argument among many against that claim. Tolkien certainly did not write it as such; whether it can be resd that way is a different question but one where I maintain any similarities are superficial and boil down to "there is a war, and the author once fought in a war, so they must be the same war."

(Also, I tend to view allegory as an intentional act of the author, as opposed to interpretation or meaning which I view as something that exist independent thereof).

 

[Chukchi Husky]

(Also, I tend to view allegory as an intentional act of the author, as opposed to interpretation or meaning which I view as something that exist independent thereof).

Tolkien called that "applicability".

 

[Lexicus]

When I think of allegory I don't think of any text that can be interpreted beyond the plain meaning of the words (literally any and every text) but of a more coherent, top-down intention by the author for the meaning of the work as a whole. I don't believe literary analysis of Tolkien's work necessarily entails claiming it is allegorical. Indeed I think there are plenty of contradictory themes in Tolkien's work - that's part of what makes it interesting.

 

[Evie]

Yes, though I think he undersold the importance of applicability, because interpretation can still point to something that really is in the story without conscious intention of the author,

While true that racism and white supremacism postdate the mythological sources of Tolkien, much of their imagery and ideas tap old European legends and mythology just as hard; parallel evolution from similar roots (not to mention coopting of Tolkien's works by white supremacists) are a thing. There still remain some questionable content that the legends poorly explain, notably his description of Orcs as being similar in appearance to the least lovely east Asian (yes, I know he used different then-more common terminology. I'm not using it) figures and the infamous black men "like half trolls" whatever that means, but in general I would tend to say its presence tends more to be overstated than understated.

Additionally much understsnding of the imagery of Tolkien is shaped by later fan artists, commercial artists and (very especially) the Jackson films. Pointy ears are one of the most spectacularly notable case (not racist imagery, but very much an example of common Tolkien imagery that he never actually wrote.)

 

[Lexicus]

Additionally much understsnding of the imagery of Tolkien is shaped by later fan artists, commercial artists and (very especially) the Jackson films. Pointy ears are one of the most spectacularly notable case (not racist imagery, but very much an example of common Tolkien imagery that he never actually wrote.)

Yeah, agree with this quite a bit. It may just be me being weird but I have a particular fondness for/interest in visual depictions of Tolkien's work that don't owe anything to the Jackson films.

 

[Samson]

While true that racism and white supremacism postdate the mythological sources of Tolkien

At what point did in group bias become racism?

 

[Evie]

This is one of those rare topics where I recognize I really only know the very basics and would rather let someone better versed in the history of that particular topic speak.

 

[Ajidica]

Yeah, agree with this quite a bit. It may just be me being weird but I have a particular fondness for/interest in visual depictions of Tolkien's work that don't owe anything to the Jackson films.

For me, that really only holds true for the elves, Mordor, and Gondorian armor. The elves felt a little too fey and swishy, not like those who so love Middle Earth they will stay and endure all the pain and sadness it brings.
I feel Jackson fell into his fondness for spectacle and sentimentality in his depiction of Mordor as a flaming hellscape, while they impression I got from the books was of Mordor as a wasteland. Nothing green, the only thing growing being hardy lichen or weeds. A perpetually clouded sky, filled with choking fumes and dust. The orcs also felt a bit too individualistic and wild, not what I expect from the armies of a Dark Lord who rebelled against god because things weren't organized right!
The rest though....
Try as I might, I literally cannot envision Minas Tirith any other way. Heck, the number of visual depictions showing Minas Tirith as described in the books (with the outer wall made of the same black stone as Orthanc) can be counted on one hand.

 

[sophie]

(Also, I tend to view allegory as an intentional act of the author, as opposed to interpretation or meaning which I view as something that exist independent thereof).

This is itself an interpretation of the text (and the author's intent) based on a subjective reading of the text and relevant paratexts though.

Consider: if someone read The Hobbit and had no knowledge of the relevant paratexts (say, Tolkien's letters, biographical details, or academic research on his life and works) and came to the conclusion that the Battle of the Five Armies was not an allegory for the war based solely on an interpretation of the text itself, then would that be an invalid rejection of the allegory since that reader does not have sufficient knowledge of the relevant details to make the same claim of authorial intent as you do when you arrive at the same conclusion? If we were to find a hidden tranche of long-forgotten letters that show Tolkien did have an allegorical reading in mind when he wrote that battle, would that retroactively render your conclusion, and the relevant components of text and paratext that led you to that conclusion invalid? The dissimilarities in the text for the allegorical interpretation are still there, irrespective of Tolkien's views on the matter, are they not?

 

[Evie]

That would be the line between "not an allegory" and "a poor allegory". If Tolkien's lost letters declared the Five Armies allegorical, I would have to say he did a bad job of it.

Or it may be that the lost letters present an interpretation of the allegory I had hitherto not considered, one that is better than to the ones I have criticized.

Absent other evidence of allegorical intent, though, an interpretation being poor does militate against it being an actual allegory, though.

 

[Lexicus]

At what point did in group bias become racism?

There's no "point" when this happened; it was a longish process.
Here is part 1 of a 2-part essay about it that traces some of the intellectual history:

Race and the Enlightenment part I: From anti-semitism to white supremacy, 1492-1676

American left communist Loren Goldner's history of the origins of race and racism. Part One of Two.

libcom.org

 

[r16]

the Soviet S-300s are exactly what have hold the bad side airpower at bay . But yes , we are shortly to see . Aragorn leads an army on an suicide mission to distract Sauron . Any Eagle of the West would have been spotted early and dealt with . Gandalf scared some Nazguls away but it would have been somewhat more difficult to do it when Sauron was there , right ?

 

[Lexicus]

For me, that really only holds true for the elves, Mordor, and Gondorian armor. The elves felt a little too fey and swishy, not like those who so love Middle Earth they will stay and endure all the pain and sadness it brings.
I feel Jackson fell into his fondness for spectacle and sentimentality in his depiction of Mordor as a flaming hellscape, while they impression I got from the books was of Mordor as a wasteland. Nothing green, the only thing growing being hardy lichen or weeds. A perpetually clouded sky, filled with choking fumes and dust. The orcs also felt a bit too individualistic and wild, not what I expect from the armies of a Dark Lord who rebelled against god because things weren't organized right!
The rest though....
Try as I might, I literally cannot envision Minas Tirith any other way. Heck, the number of visual depictions showing Minas Tirith as described in the books (with the outer wall made of the same black stone as Orthanc) can be counted on one hand.

I agree in general, though I think Jackson's depiction if anything undersells just how hellish that final stretch when Frodo and Sam leave the road and turn south toward the Mountain was. But yeah, i think there are places where Jackson went more "scorched" where it should have looked more like eastern Oregon.
As for Minas Tirith - my mental image is more like Ted Nasmith's, which is quite similar to Jackson's - the main problem with Jackson's depiction is that he's dropped the city in the middle of a barren wasteland of steppe grass rather than the book's "rich townlands."

 

[Samson]

There's no "point" when this happened; it was a longish process.
Here is part 1 of a 2-part essay about it that traces some of the intellectual history:

Race and the Enlightenment part I: From anti-semitism to white supremacy, 1492-1676

American left communist Loren Goldner's history of the origins of race and racism. Part One of Two.

libcom.org

I have only read the first few paragraphs, but my point does not seem related to that. As an example, is the current attitude of many in Japan to any non-Japanese racism? If so, is that so fundamentally different from the attitude in the Edo period that it makes sense to put the current Japanese attitude in the same "class" as the Spanish inquisition, Hitler and Trump but not Edo Japan?

How many other issues around the world can we do the same with? The Tutsis and Hutus? The Muslims and Hindus in Kashmir? Everything that happens in the Balkans? Sure, "the west" has done all it can to inflame these conflicts, but their roots are very old and it seems to me that they either were always racism or they are not now.

 

[Lexicus]

I have only read the first few paragraphs, but my point does not seem related to that. As an example, is the current attitude of many in Japan to any non-Japanese racism? If so, is that so fundamentally different from the attitude in the Edo period that it makes sense to put the current Japanese attitude in the same "class" as the Spanish inquisition, Hitler and Trump but not Edo Japan?

How many other issues around the world can we do the same with? The Tutsis and Hutus? The Muslims and Hindus in Kashmir? Everything that happens in the Balkans? Sure, "the west" has do all it can to inflame these conflicts, but their roots are very old and it seems to me that they either were always racism or they are not now.

I don't know enough about each of these cases to comment, though I will say that imperial Japan certainly got explicitly racist ideas from Europe.
Generally, the degree of racialization going on in a particular example of ethnic strife can be known.

The historical origins of racism lie in early modern Europe, so that essay is an answer in a literal sense to the question "at what point does group bias become racism?"

I haven't read those essays in a while but the basic answer is a combination of a few different ideas was necessary to produce scientific racism. It is inextricably tied up in the development of rational science, the displacement of fundamentally religious worldviews particularly as it relates to humanity and humanity's place in the universe, and crucially the idea of "progress" which allowed Europeans to imagine they were more "advanced" than the other peoples they were encountering around the globe.

 

[Ajidica]

As for Minas Tirith - my mental image is more like Ted Nasmith's, which is quite similar to Jackson's - the main problem with Jackson's depiction is that he's dropped the city in the middle of a barren wasteland of steppe grass rather than the book's "rich townlands."

I ascribe the lack of rich townlands to the limitations of visual effects. The 'miniature' was already mind-bogglingly huge, doing model work to create the rich townlands and compositing it into all the shots of Rohirrim riding around and as orcs marching would have probably have killed the VFX team.
My biggest issue with how the battle* is depicted is how Jackson muddled the 'nadir' of Gondor's fortunes. In the book, the Rohirrim arrive just as the gates and smashed and the Witch King walks through. An unnatural darkness covers the land, broken by a wind from the west letting dawn light through as the Rohirrim arrive. Most of the fighting in the battle happens under an overcast sky, and it is clear the picture was subject to heavy color correction, which makes it look washed out.
I do have a soft spot for how the battle was depicted in the animated version.

*Excluding the ghost army, which is sort of crap but Jackson had to wrap it up and move on.

Spoiler miniature size :

 

[Evie]

People in general really struggle with low medieval population density - they interpret it in in a fundamentally urban prism of cities and emoty wilderness, never accounting for the vast farming country in close proximity needed to support those cities.

Even Tolkien struggled with it in his unrealistically depopulated Eriador (and I know many fans and licensed creators who just quietly ignores Tolkien's claims that the hill-men of Eriador perished because the idea of Bree and the Shire being the only inhabited spots between Rivendell and Mithlond is untenable).