LOTR: Racist?

[j. d. worthington]

Well, I'd prefer not taking the thread off-topic; briefly, it is on the subject of a family that have tiny flaws, in the midst of a society of "beautiful people" who do not tolerate such. Their offspring has "eyes of dust", and is raised in secret, though with love, until found after the death of his parents. Their intolerance of his ugliness brings out their own. It can be found in the collection I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.

[Frontierzone]

LOTR Isn't racist. J.R.R. Tolkien's memory is done a great disservice with such absurd, anachronistic, and outrageous claims. Tolkien was a linguist. He was also very familiar with Anglo Saxon culture and languages. The fact that the main heroes are of European stock is due to the fact that Tolkien drew largely from Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian sagas for his writings.

There is also a great deal of metaphor used throughout his works. Tolkien was keenly aware of the fact that there is a spiritual battle going on. The fact that, not only do Sauron's forces have dark skin, but the orcs, Uruk-hai, and other monsters have black blood, is not a racist observation. It is simply a metaphor for the darkness of sin. The consequences of sin are spiritual death. Black blood equals dead inside.

Also, let's not forget, there were the Druadain, or Woses. They weren't white, yet they played an important role in Return Of The King. And, lest we forget, what about the Ents? Or the Hourns? Did they not play an important role in The Two Towers? So, I say again. Tolkien was not a racist, and neither was LOTR.

[Commonmind]

Originally Posted by dwndrgn

I think it wasn't purposefully racist - he made the bad guys all dark, hairy and warty and in the final battle the bulk of the defenders are from the same culture group so they would naturally all look similar. In the book, the only skin colors I remember being discussed are those of specific royal families and the bad guys themselves. The Hobbits are never described as white - that, I think, is a factor of the collective readers' conciousness and the original artists. If you look hard enough almost anything can be considered racist.

I think he just took the common 'look' of the people around him as a basis for the good guys. He was creating a mythos for the Brits after all.

This is akin to how we view Christ in mainstream society, as he was portrayed by majority of renaissance artists, a white man of European build with delicate hair, sometimes with blue eyes and arguably fair of skin. We've taken what images are presented to us and embedded that appearance in our heads for so long that as a society we accept it without question and to think of him looking any differently is impossible for some.

I don't think Tolkien made a great effort to discern between the good and bad guys' skin color. And I think we all assume the heroes are of the same color because, as above, we've taken the images that have been presented to us and accepted them as truth instead of developing our own opinions of what they might look like.

[j. d. worthington]

On the Hobbits... they are often described as "fair", whether it be dealing with their complexion or their hair, some are described as "sallow"; but largely the indications in the books are that they are indeed light-skinned. This is true of the majority of Tolkien's "good guys" (though some dwarves, as I recall, are given a somewhat swarthy appearance). I'd reiterate that Tolkien's work does indeed have elements that we today would consider "racist", though they were not seen that way at the time; and his views on blacks supports the idea that he did indeed have such prejudices, at least to the level of ambivalence and/or distaste toward some ethnoi.

Was it intentionally built into the work -- that is, aimed at any particular group? No, I don't see anything in any of his published writings to indicate that. And that, I think, is what it takes to make a work truly "racist"; not a reflection of the views one inherits from one's society and surroundings and which remain generally passive, but rather the overt expression of hostility toward an ethnic group (or members of that group because they are of that group, rather than as individuals who may be deserving of hostility themselves). On that level, Tolkien cannot be called a racist.

[Frontierzone]

As to the description of hobbits, and others, as "fair". I think that many today take that description out of context. Within the context of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, and indeed, any of Professor Tolkien's works, the word fair simply means that the person in question reflects an inner light, that is to say, truth and beauty. It's a reflection of their general demeanor, not necessarily skin tone.

As an example of this, in The Fellowship Of The Ring, during the hobbits' first meeting with Strider, after Barliman Butterbur brings the note from Gandalf, Sam is suspicious of Strider. He doubts that this is the Strider mentioned in the note, sighting the man's outward appearance. Frodo points out that a servant of Sauron would look fair, but seem foul. Strider then quips, "I see...I look foul and feel fair. Is that it? All that is gold does not glitter. All that wander are not lost."

Clearly, Professor Tolkien is referring to matters that go deeper than the skin.
He's referring to the spirit, not the outer appearance. After all, if the mere appearance, i.e., the skin tone of the "good guys" vs. the "bad guys'' was his point, then what of Galadriel?

She's tall, beautiful, blond, and, as an Nolder, fair skinned. But, she is also guilty of a dark secret. She's not all together good. Oh, she finds redemption, after rejecting the Ring. But, lest we forget, she was in exile. She did take part in the kin-slaying, after all.

Also, there are plenty of light skinned villains. Isuldur claimed the One Ring. Smeagal, a Stoor hobbit, murdered his cousin, Dheagal, for the One Ring. Saruman coveted the One Ring. There was Ted Sandyman, a hobbit bully. There were the Sackville-Bagginses, and, in Bree, ther was Bill Ferny. There were also the Dunlendings. The list goes on and on.

Fair isn't, for Professor Tolkien, a person's skin tone. It's the person's very being. They are fair in the Eyes of Eru Illuvitar. After all, only Eru can judge the hearts of elves, men, and all free folk.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Frontierzone

Fair isn't, for Professor Tolkien, a person's skin tone. It's the person's very being. They are fair in the Eyes of Eru Illuvitar. After all, only Eru can judge the hearts of elves, men, and all free folk.

I would argue that, in the descriptive passages (giving a character's physical appearance), it is. Again, it depends on context. And, reading as much of Tolkien's work as I have, that interpretation seems to have quite a lot to support it.

However, in other passages, where there is more than (or the main thrust is not centered on) such physical description, then it tends to apply more broadly. Yes, Tolkien was also using symbols, but not exclusively. As he himself made known, he had a distaste for allegory, and intended a great deal of what he wrote to be taken on a more literal level within the story (as opposed to the "primary world"). And the description he gives of Aragorn when the hobbits first meet him emphasizes his grimness and sternness, as well as his unkemptness; things which, given not only their somewhat sheltered lives in the Shire, but their recent experiences, would tend to make them (Sam most of all, who was especially protective of Frodo) more than a bit suspicious.

But, as I said before, I don't see any intentional racism within the work; and even that which is (again, by our contemporary standards) there, is rather minimal; nor is it at all surprising (nor to be held against anyone), as this is true of the vast majority of European and American literature until at least the last 25 years. To deny these unconscious assumptions underlying these aspects of so much literature is, I'm afraid, to deny history.

[Frontierzone]

Originally Posted by Frontierzone

As to the description of hobbits, and others, as "fair". I think that many today take that description out of context. Within the context of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, and indeed, any of Professor Tolkien's works, the word fair simply means that the person in question reflects an inner light, that is to say, truth and beauty. It's a reflection of their general demeanor, not necessarily skin tone.

While I agree with the main body of your post, I am submitting a quote from the opening paragraph of my previous post to make a point, so bear with me. The opening paragraph in my earlier post contains the word necessarily. While fair may mean, in a given context, fair of complexion, this description doesn't always go hand in hand with fair of heart, and that was the main point I was trying to make.

I was in error in not reiterating that statement in the quote you used. What I meant to say was that, even when the word fair is used for a physical description of a person, Professor Tolkien didn't nessessarily equate either beauty or lightness of skin with goodness.

As for allegory, I realize that Professor Tolkien detested allegory, especially for it's own sake, but there is still, interwoven into the fabric of his stories, a certain amount of religious imagery. It's subtle, but it's there, nonetheless.

Please understand, when I'm posting, it's after work, and my brain isn't altogether awake, so my posts aren't up to standards. My apologies for any misunderstandings.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Frontierzone

Please understand, when I'm posting, it's after work, and my brain isn't altogether awake, so my posts aren't up to standards. My apologies for any misunderstandings.

LOL. Apologies not necessary... certainly not in this case. And yes, symbolism certainly enters in, and I'd say there's always inevitably several layers of metaphorical meaning to any fiction worth the paper it's printed on. And yes, the religious imagery (and ideas) are permeative, I'd say. In some ways, that's one of the strengths of his work, because he put such a great deal of thought into these issues, and it shows in the way it works within his fairy-story (to use his phrase, nor is that at all meant derogatively, as I tend to agree with him on their value and importance).

Essentially, the point I was adressing was that it is almost impossible for the (often unspoken) assumptions of whatever society any writer lives in, either as a child or an adult, to not be reflected in their work, including some of the things we, from our current perspective, would call racist. But, unlike Lovecraft (whom I greatly admire, by the way), I don't feel Tolkien's was overt, studied, or intentional. It was incidental and very minor, where it exists at all. But (again, from a modern reader's perspective) it is possible to see such elements and not be entirely mistaken; I just think that the case is far too often overstated and based upon our own current biases (which, in their turn, will look every bit as awkward to generations to come), rather than any truly objective criteria -- this is not always the case, but I think it tends to be a common problem in dealing with nearly all older literature, nonetheless.

However, as I said earlier, in Tolkien's case, I think it's something one may note as existing, but it certainly isn't worth more than a brief glance ... especially in comparison to so many writers of his generation (and no few after) who have not been accused of such.

[Frontierzone]

Well, as I've said, I agree with the main body of your argument. I've also learned a lot in this forum. This group is helping me to grow in many different ways. So, we agree basically on all points. I rather enjoyed going over this, point by point, and clearing the air. So many have chimed in on this topic, many more learned than I. But, learning, for me at any rate, is fun. We learn, we think, we grow. (Of course, one way that I need, especially at 43, is to stop growing sideways. There's one area of growth I can do without.)

Seriously, thanks for the replies. you've given me much food for thought. And thought is where ideas begin.

[j. d. worthington]

I enjoyed reading your posts as well; they showed considerable thought and a willingness to argue the points of discussion; and that is the best way to have a debate that helps each party to expand their views. I believe I've done so elsewhere but, if not, welcome aboard! Glad to have you here.

[Frontierzone]

Thanks. That means a lot. i have to admit, I haven't read all of the many, many works by Professor Tolkien. I've Read the Silmarillion, The Hobbit, LOTR Trilogy, and much, but not all, of Unfinished Tales. I've also read the old I.C.E. RPG supplements, since I also GM. I've recently switched from RM to LOTR RPG. But, that's off topic. The discussions here have helped me in my formation as a writer. as well as expanding my ability to expand my capacity for critical thought, which is sorely lacking these days. The feedback is deeply appreciated. Thanks again.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by Brys

I think that point comes across in the Silmarillion a lot more than in LotR, but while perhaps Sauron and Melkor aren't portrayed as pure evil, they're close enough to (and their actions motiveless enough) to make it seem as if they were, and their underlings were as well. I think Tolkien, as many fantasy writers still do, used racial determinism - the race someone belonged to determined most of their characteristics. There was little or no variation between members of a race, particularly on the evil side. Every orc, without exception, is bad by definition. Every hobbit was good. Most elves were as well, and men, the most developed race of them all, were generally good or were misguided or corrupted when they were evil - this of course stemming from Tolkien's Christianity or from his ideology.

This bit struck a cord with me in regards to something I have been struggling with as a budding fantasy fan. Recently, I have been pouring over my husbands D&D manuals in an effort to acquaint myself with all things familiar (cliche?) to the fantasy genre. This bugs me, as a modern liberal woman -- Tolkien's racial determinism and its shaping of the entire fantasy genre. Tolkien invites us to engage in a very un-PC exercise of stereotyping a character based solely on race. Race determines not only a character's appearance, but also his personality and values. Elves are not only tall with pointy ears, they are also graceful, literate, refined, and cultured. Dwarves are not only stalky, they are secretive and greedy. Orcs are not just ugly, they are violent, illiterate, and unthinking.

This attitude spills beyond the borders of Middle Earth onto real Earth. Tolkien may have hated allegory, but that hasn't stopped countless comparisons between between his work and the real world. We have recited many of them here. Rohan is Scandinavian, for example. The Haradrim are African, Middle Eastern, or maybe Mediteranean -- take your pick. Many people view Hobbits as a metaphor for Tolkien himself, a middle-class Englishman. To be sure, Hobbits might not be the most flattering of Middle Earth's races: short, simple, child-like. But is it any coincidence the Hobbits are the heroes of the story?

In D&D your race might determine something called your "alignment," which determines whether or not you like to follow rules. It also might determine whether you are "good," "neutral," or "evil."

Based on the admittedly small amount of Tolkien scholarship I've read, it's my understanding that Tokien was attempting to base his story on ancient myths that are so entrenched in our collective psyches that they have become imprinted in our language itself. That is why these archetypes -- elves, dwarves, and hobbits -- are so familiar to us. As the theory goes, Tolkien hardly had to tell us that elves are tall and graceful and that orcs are ugly and evil. We all know that as surely as we know, from the time we are three years old, that the phrase "big, bad wolf" is redundant. As Tolkien was a linguistic genius, I'm going to assume that he was absolutely correct on this point and that his work was an unqualified success.

Tolkien may not have invented "good elves" and "bad orcs." But he did, for better or worse, institutionalize them into this genre we call "fantasy."

I know that a lot of you despise the PC movement. (Certainly, I'm not suggesting that Tolkien can be blamed for not following its principles, as the movement didn't even exist when he was writing.) My opinion of the movement is that, even if it is occasionally misapplied -- with annoying or even dangerous consequences --on the whole, it's a good thing. The PC movement's heart is in the right place. It encourages us never to judge an individual based on anything superficial: skin color, accent, disability, education level, income level, pointy ears, or number of hit points. Can I strive for this ideal and still be a fan of fantasy?

Was Tolkien a racist? I don't know. For the purposes of this post, I don't care. My concern at the moment is the lingering effect his work might have on the fantasy genre in the year 2007.

Something else struck a cord with me on another thread. On the "Harry Potter Sucks" thread, J.D. posted a snippet from an interview with Rowling. It said that fantasy as a genre is "deeply conservative, politically, culturally, psycologically. It looks back to an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world." To my chagrin - as a modern, liberal, godless, feminist, commie -- I must admit this is true. I find myself experiencing some cognitive dissidence with my modern mind and my love for fantasy. Afterall, the good elves and bad orcs are as engrained in my psyche as anyone elses'. I love to play this game too.

My point is (finally) maybe it's time to re-evaluate the racial determinism convention of the fantasy genre. Not only because it might not be PC anymore, but also because it's old fashioned and oh-so-cliche.

[Urien]

"good elves and bad orcs" Pel Arg.

Hmm, are you worrying about racism being applied to non-existent races? Actually they are well on their way to different species.

If one invents a world and says on this world all Orcs are bad. Or all Jargofraks are bad. Then surely it is so.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Originally Posted by andrew.v.spencer

"good elves and bad orcs" Pel Arg.

Hmm, are you worrying about racism being applied to non-existent races? Actually they are well on their way to different species.

If one invents a world and says on this world all Orcs are bad. Or all Jargofraks are bad. Then surely it is so.

I'm concerned that the imaginary racism that Tolkien engaged in might be a reflection of antiquated real-life attitudes toward race.

I'm concerned that some writers continue to emulate it, not only because it might be a relic of past racism, but also because it's becoming cliche.

I think that more modern attitudes toward race (or class, gender, and anything else) might open interesting avenues for fantasy writers, if we can learn to question the "good elf bad orc" paradigm.

[Sapheron]

If you actually read about many of the 'bad men' in LoTR, you find they are not that bad. The hill men who work for Sauron are lighter skinned than the men of Rohan or Gondor. The pukel men who guide the Rohirrim to Minas Tirith by the secret paths are meant to be brownish, and they're good. The men of Rhun, the Easterlings, are not really black. They are arabic. The Corsairs of Umbar are also white, being of the same stock as the Dunedain and men of Gondor. If anyone is black it is the haradrim, and yes they are evil.

Overall, the colour isn't so racist as you might think. I think the idea of 'ism', if anyting, is more 'countryism'. The good people live in the nice places (the shire, Lothlorien, Rohan, Gondor), all nice places with balanced whether, water supply, trees a plenty, farmland and the like. The bad guys live in the Desert, the Mountains and Mordor. The hard places, in other words.

As Tolkien placed the bad guys in the bad environments he couldn't make them all North Europeans, or they'd die of sunstroke and sunburn before the battles started. Likewise, why would black people live in the Shire?

Tolkien isn't racist, he just placed the bad guys/good guys in their stereotypical environments.