From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: Tolkien a Racist?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 20:53:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.135547.14456@lgc.com> mbs@zycor.lgc.com (Matt Shostak) writes:

>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.

	But it _does_ make a political statement--  in fact, it makes many! .
Just because a work falls in into the category of "fantasy" doesn't mean that 
it has no ideological underpinnings.  In the case of LOTR, I think these 
underpinnings embed themselves quite deeply and noticeably into the narrative.
LotR, like all great works of literature, is a marvelous story--  but I don't
see how we could somehow pretend that, unlike other works of literature, the
story is not, at least in part, shaped by and imbued with political concerns.
I'm not saying that LOTR is all politics and ideology or that that's the only
level on which the work operates--  but it certainly seems to be an interesting
one to think about, judging from the traffic that this thread has generated.

	BTW, I haven't seen anybody on this newsgroup trying to "impose PC 
dogma" on LOTR or on Tolkien's other works.  This thread has consisted, almost
solely of discussion of the way races are represented in LOTR and some 
speculation on the reasons for that system of racial representations--  I've
seen no condemnations of Tolkien or his works, no demands that we bring up
our children on works that are more "ideologically pure, no insistences that 
we focus only on questions of race, gender, class, etc., when talking about 
Tolkien. The fact of the matter is that issues of race _are_ an integral part
of LOTR, and that makes them worth discussing.  Just because people are 
talking about race doesn't mean they are trying to impose a PC dogma on the 
world.  Don't be so quick to grind that axe.


[much comment from my last posting deleted]:
>>	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.

	I think you're right about his choosing themes and motifs (I have 
some problems using the word "archetype" in this sense) common to his time 
and culture as a way of making the work seem familiar.  But I still think
you're avoiding the question rather than answering it.  How can an author
use tropes or archetypes (all right, I'll use the word) that aren't part of
his or her culture?  Besides, there aren't just one set of cultural themes 
and motifs that an author has to take as a package deal--all or none.  There
are a whole host of culturally-available forms, myths, motifs, etc. that 
Tolkien could have used.  He didn't _have_ to make race such a central concern 
of LOTR, but he did--  and I think that's just as signficant as the fact that
he could have made religion a fundamental part of LOTR, but didn't.  At the
risk of slipping into a jargon where nouns are used as verbs, I think it's 
fair to say that Tolkien "privileges" the issue of race in LOTR.  I think
that's significant and not something that can just be taken for granted.

	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>

Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien