From: mbs@zycor.lgc.com (Matt Shostak)
Subject: Re: Tolkien a Racist?
Organization: Landmark/Zycor   Austin, Texas
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:55:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.214815.20461@leland.Stanford.EDU> jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.145951.26044@lgc.com> mbs@zycor.lgc.com (Matt Shostak) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.015308.15707@leland.Stanford.EDU> jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
>>>
>>
>>Neither.
>>
>>It's a work of fantasy, Jim.
>>
>
>	
>	Now what does that explain, Matt?   Are you saying that because this 
>is a work of "fantasy" that it is somehow impossible to discuss it on 
>anything but a superficial level--  the level at which we say, "Hey, let's 
>pretend Middle-earth's real" and quiz each other on Middle-earth trivia?  
>Or are you saying that such focus on racial distinctions are somehow 
>explained by the fact that this is a work of "fantasy"?  If so, that seems to 
>me to be a very naive, unreflective, and untenable position.  
>
>	LOTR _is_ a work of fantasy.  In fact, it has probably had more
>influence in shaping the modern genre of "fantasy" than any other single
>work.  Many, if not most, of the standard and now-cliched themes of fantasy 
>were in fact invented by Tolkien.  The forms and tropes which Tolkien 
>pioneered are now so common that it is easy to lose track of their radical
>newness.  You can't assume that just because most works of fantasy now
>have racial hierarchies of good and evil that that is in any way a _necessary_
>convention that Tolkien had to adhere to.  Tolkien _formed_ these generic
>(meaning pertaining to the genre) conventions--  they didn't just appear 
>out of nowhere.  In fact, I don't think it's really possible to talk about the
>genre of "fantasy" before Tolkien wrote--  it didn't really exist yet.

I'm not saying any of that.  What I'm saying is that to try to impose 
current PC dogma on a work done 50 years ago is nonsense, especially since
it's a fantasy, for cryin' out loud.  It's not meant to make a political
statement.

>
>	One of the more significant tropes in LOTR (and one that has been
>adapted by countless cureent writers of fantasy lit) is the division and
>hierarchization of races into gradations of moral, cultural, and physical 
>superiority.  I think it's interesting and that Tolkien adopted such a racial 
>structure--  we can't just assume that it's an inevitable part of any work
>of fantasy.  I thus think it's worthwhile to reflect upon _why_ that racial 
>hierarchy is there in LOTR.  To say that it's just "a work of fantasy" 
>explains nothing; it's a way of evading the question rather than answering it.
>
>	Some posters (and people who have contacted me through e-mail) have
>pointed out that LOTR uses the moral dualism of good/evil and, as is commonly
>done, combines it with the dualisms of light/darkness and white/black. The
>use of this combinations of opposition, they have suggested, has an inherent 
>racist potential.  It is this dualist system rather than Tolkien himself
>that dictates the racial hierarchy of LOTR, or so the argument goes.
>	I think this is at least partly true-- but I think there's more to
>it than that.  I agree that the conflating of the themes good/evil, light/
>darkness, and white/black does have an inherent _potential_ to be used in
>a way that we would consider racist.  But, that potential is only a potential.
>An author can make the choice to downplay it, to ignore it, to emphasize it,
>to subvert it or some combination thereof.  Tolkien may not have _consciously_
>chosen to play up the racial dimension of the white/black moral opposition,
>but it certainly commands a noticeable presence in his work nonetheless. 
>Deliberately or indeliberately, Tolkien did indeed emphasize the racial
>potential of the good/evil and black/white pairing.
>
>	So the question remains--  why this great concern with race and with
>the superiority of some races over others in LOTR?

And the answer is: why not?  As you pointed out, Tolkien pioneered this
genre in many ways.  He had to choose some way to structure things.  Why
not use archetypes common to his culture?  It enhances the "believability"
of the story, if you will.  By that I mean that by using familiar forms,
the reader is more easily taken into the story.

>
>


-- 
Matthew B. Shostak              Landmark/Zycor
mbs@zycor.lgc.com               (512) 292-2357
"So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions.
 Well, we shall see." -- Cardinal Ximinez