Hacker News Reader

I certainly agree that Tolkein, along with quite a lot of other fantasy, has the concept of "good" and "evil" peoples, which is rather simplistic. That said, I have a hard time seeing "all orcs/trolls are evil" as an analogue for real-world racism, especially since not all humans/dwarves/hobbits/elves are good. You could perhaps make a case for such stories encouraging such simplistic thinking and classification elsewhere, though. It's certainly not subtle by any means.

To your other point, though: in various parts of the stories, there are good and evil humans, good and evil hobbits, good and evil dwarves, good and evil Ainur (Wizards), and good and evil elves. Also look at Gollum's backstory, and look at the rather gray morality of various self-serving folks towards the end of The Hobbit. As for "dark and ugly", there are plenty of evils throughout Tolkein that contradict one or both of those: Saruman, Denethor, Grima, Lotho, Smaug, Gollum, the Balrog, to some extent the Wood Elves, the Nazgul.

By comparison, if you want to see what racism in fantasy looks like, look at Tolkein's contemporary, Lewis, and his Calormene, or Lovecraft's...well, everything.

> By comparison, if you want to see what racism in fantasy looks like, look at Tolkein's contemporary, Lewis, and his Calormene…

I don't believe that there was anything racist in Lewis's attitude to the Calormenes. They weren't inherently evil people, although their culture was in most parts bad and in some parts evil. Note the young Calormene Emeth who is saved in The Last Battle.

I agree with your analysis. I think a lot of people in this thread have objected to my comments on the assumption that I am making a strong claim of racism against Tolkein. I really meant it when I said casual undertones. Would that Tolkein existed in a vacuum, this would be largely inconsequential, it's just that his blueprint has become the prototype for the whole genre.

There are certainly characters in Tolkein who have less black-and-white moralities, but you very quickly see that "goodness" varies as a spectrum along "race" in LOTR.

I certainly agree that other authors are more racist.

Of course you have a point - the books were written in different times when very enlightened people held beliefs that would earn them approbrium today. In Tolkein's defence though orcs and elves are actually the same race. Orcs are elves who have been perverted and warped by Morgoth; it's all rebel angels (Tolkein said that elves were meant to be angels) and war in heaven. Orcs have to hate elves and men and there is no prospect of redemption or reconcilliation for them, only victory will allow them to claim an endless life and other dubious rewards.

LOTR is framed by the ideas of original sin and free will. Frodo is able to master and relinquish the ultimate power of the ring; Sam (the true lord) is never even touched by it. Both go back to accepting and being obedient to their destiny. It is not a clash of peoples or philosophies; Tolkein assumes that there is no battle of ideas because he is right. I think that where it is racist is in that it simply does not include people or things external to the European mythos, they are seen as irrelevant and external, no one cares about them and whatever happens just doesn't include them.

I agree - it's based on the less known parts of Catholic mythology (the riot of angels, origins of devil, "I won't go on my knees" etc). Elves and orcs are spirits more than people - they don't go to heaven, they can return from death, they don't get their sins forgotten (unlike people).

> I think that where it is racist is in that it simply does not include people or things external to the European mythos, they are seen as irrelevant and external, no one cares about them and whatever happens just doesn't include them.

I don't understand this POV, and I encounter it very often, regarding different works of art.

It's a world based on Catholic mythology (the riot of angels and origin of devil stuff), middle ages and celtic influences. It's already broad base to take ideas from. Diluting it further with influences from every other culture would make the setting less coherent, and author should be allowed to set the atmosphere of his book as he pleases.

Sometimes I think people expect every story to use the exact proportions of cultures that modern USA has. This isn't what diversity is about - if every story is set in modern USA under different disguise you won't have diversity - you will have a monoculture. Diversity is only possible when different things are missing from different stories.

EDIT: Well, Tolkien did started a monoculture, but this is not his fault - it is fault of his followers. He was original, he was just followed by carbon copies that used his works with almost no changes, repeating his choices over and over.

> Elves and orcs are spirits more than people - they don't go to heaven

There is no concept of heaven in tolkin. Elves go into the halls of mandos, its simular to the north religion.

But its not eternal as heaven, in chrisitanity, they all wait in the halls of mandos for the next great song.

> they can return from death

Only one human and one elve has ever returned from death. Gandalf is neither.

> they don't get their sins forgotten (unlike people)

That is not clear at all. Humans go out of arda but its not known where they will go and its not known if there sins will be gone. The not knowning what happens after death was a gift from elu.

Also if I recall correctly, even the humans will be brought in for the last great song.

By "not going to heaven" I meant they don't go to where people go after death, which is presented as "gift of Iluvatar".

Regarding "elves returning from death" - it was stated in Silmarillion that they can go from Mandos halls back to life and that it happened many times, not just once. Most of them returned to Aman, but some did to Middleearth.

> Regarding "elves returning from death"

Could you tell me where this is written?

I don't remember the exact place, but I remember reading it, and I've only read silmarillion, Hobbit and LOTR, so it must have been in Silmarillion.

I googled for a while, the best thing I found is this: http://valarguild.org/varda/Tolkien/encyc/papers/Amaranth/De...

> Thus, Eru found a means to amend the situation. After a time of waiting in Mandos's halls, the Elvish fëa may, if it chooses, be reincarnated in a hröa identical to the one in which the fëa was formerly housed. The Valar were given permission and power by Eru to see to the construction of a new hröa for the 'houseless' fëa, and they can judge that a fëa may not be reimbodied, or at least not yet, in certain situations. Normally, the reincarnated Elf remains in Aman. Only in special cases is the Elf sent back to Middle-earth, generally because he has some task yet to complete there

I think that it's about interpretation; you can say "this doesn't include me or my friends -> it is racist" or you can say "this is a book written in a place and time where people didn't think about and confront these issues in the way we do now". If I was to write a book like LOTR (which would take a long time because doing potato printing is hard work, and crayons are quite poor media too) then I would be being racist because it would be an act of specific exclusion wrt. the people I meet every day. Dear old JRR was not in that context and given the context he was in it's a pretty enlighted tome (I think).

I have problems with both interpretations :)

Second-guessing authors by their works and atrtibuting various -isms to them just because they created world without representing some parts of reality as they know it (or as we know it) still seems mean and unjustified to me.

Was "7 samurais" racist? Would it be racist if it was created by Nigerians and still only featured Japanese people? According to your definition - yes. According to me - not at all. It's part of setting, people of all backgrounds may be interested in whatever cultures they please and they shouldn't need to explain themselves about it.

Thank you for your respectful and well framed reply.

It's nice to be able to carry on a civilized debate :)

I think it's like the school yard. When I was a kid we excluded some kids in my class. We didn't talk to them or invite them to things, by this I mean that if one of these kids had approached me I would have smiled and chatted, but I would never have approached him/her because they weren't "in".

This group didn't have any impact or involvement in most of what went on in high school. I am pretty sure that they really didn't want to be part of things after a short while. I don't blame them. Nowadays I feel a bit sick when I think about these kids, it was terrible, at the time I felt relieved that I was allowed to be "in", although I was not "cool", so I went along with what happened.

I think this kind of exclusion is what I am referring to. JRR was not doing this; his world (I mean the world he was allowed to live in by his culture and society) did not include people from other races. So he did not exclude or fail to consider a group of the people around him, if I were writing and I did not acknowledge people from other ethnic groups then that would be different.

> Sam (the true lord) is never even touched by it.

This isn't accurate, FYI. Sam has himself a Ringbearer moment when he imagines himself as a great warrior. Sam's untouchability was more a function of the brevity of his exposure. Nothing escapes the Ring's corruption (however that mechanism actually works): this is what Gandalf and Galadriel both knew well enough to avoid the temptation in the first place.

> all the bad guys in LOTR are basically dark and ugly.

Actually the worst of Sauron's evil was done when he was beautiful and charismatic (the forging of the rings). Sauron's current form is a corruption by the ring of power.

Most evil in Tolkien is brought on by corruption of self by selfish desire for power over others. So I really take exception to "all the bad guys in LOTR are basically dark and ugly." I'd even argue that some elves are portrayed as quite vain, selfish, power-hungry and downright evil (Feanor and the kinslaying?).

> To put the argument for racist undertones in Tolkein succinctly - all the bad guys in LOTR are basically dark and ugly.

Ugly, perhaps (though even that seems far from universal in any physical sense), but definitely not all dark in any racial sense; see, e.g., Saruman, Grima Wormtongue, Lotho Sackville-Baggins, and others.

> There are no even slightly good orcs, and if there are any bad elves, they are mostly good elves who have been tempted to some sin.

Orcs are elves who have been corrupted -- so "good orcs" are just uncorrupted elves, and, among the bad elves, are all orcs.

The usual (and stronger, though even here I think its a stretch) case for racism in Tolkien is focussed more on the treatment of the Easterlings and Haradrim.

Regarding the Southrons or Haradrim:

> Then suddenly straight over the rim of their sheltering bank, a man fell, crashing through the slender trees, nearly on top of them. He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hands still clutched the hilt of a broken sword.

> It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and he was really evil of heart, or what lies and threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace.

That doesn't read as racist at all; rather, it reads like an appreciation of the humanity in one's foes. Given Tolkien's experience at the Somme, I imagine that he was writing from experience.

> all the bad guys in LOTR are basically dark and ugly.

It's like saying Star Wars is racist because the Siths represent the dark side.

In the western culture , the color black has a certain meaning.We could debate whether it's a source of racism or not,but you could make the exact same case for the bible,or other myths.

> It's tricky in fantasy, because of how race-based a lot of the plot is.

Well,obviously in fantasy, even dwarfs are not humans. I'm all for social criticism but I don't think one can read Tolkien and just say there is something blatantly racist in his books. Tolkien didn't invent orcs,trolls,elves or dwarfs,or dragons. He invented little, he mostly tried to aggregate different myths into a single one.

I think sometimes people are trying to hard seeing racism where the is none.

However studying dark/light black/white symbolism and how it affects choices in life(in advertising for instance) in western cultures is definitely a great subject.

> Tolkien didn't invent orcs,trolls,elves or dwarfs,or dragons

I think he actually invented orcs, before him it was a synonym for ogre, IIRC (in fact this was puzzling for me as an young reader in italian, where both words translate to "Orco", either for Little Thumbling's enemy and Tolkien's orcs).

(I agree with your comment anyway)

It originally derives from the Latin Orcus "Hell"[1] but if you refer to Tolkien's own dictionaries it is cast as an Elvish word meaning "monster", generally the same meaning it had in Old English, and used in place of and interchangeably with Goblin. There isn't supposed to be any kind of physical difference between a Goblin and an Orc in Tolkien's books but there are physical differences among subgroups within the larger Orc/Goblin species. I think this is the source of confusion that has led to there being a distinction between Orcs and Goblins in later fantasy series that derive from Tolkien's work. In his books, Orc and Goblin are simply two words for the same thing. [2]

If you dig even deeper into Tolkien's history of Middle Earth, you'll find that the Orc species or 'race' is actually derived from Elvish predecessors who were 'corrupted' and transformed by Morgoth (fka Melkor)[3] and so we have a literal statement that their 'evilness' is not a product of their biology but was deliberately inflicted on them.

[1] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc#Etymology

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_%28Middle-earth%29#The_orig...

Eh…

“…and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes.”

Tolkien saying that they were bred to be this way indicates it is a part of their biology, as does the fact that Tolkien calls their race hideous.

Nice selective quoting, how about the whole thing?

"But of those unhappy ones who were ensnared by Melkor little is known of a certainty. For who of the living has descended into the pits of Utumno, or has explored the darkness of the counsels of Melkor? Yet this is held true by the wise of Eressëa, that all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes."

The word 'breed' does not only mean to cause an animal to produce offspring and considering Tolkien's knowledge and use of the English language I doubt he solely meant it in that sense. Especially if you consider the sentence preceeding your selection. "Slow arts of cruelty" would seem to encompass a vast range of influences and considering the larger background of war, industry, and nationalism that these novels were written against I would say that indoctrination and compulsion would be the stronger influences on the Orc's character. Reading some of the Orc dialogue in the books supports this as they are not presented as mentally incompetent but moreso as possessing a ruthless, limited, subjugated, and intolerant worldview. Hence the corruption and enslavement.

> It's like saying Star Wars is racist because the Siths represent the dark side.

I would say that, if I were inclined to spare Star Wars serious critical thought.

I understand that blackness is a Western cultural symbol. I also understand that Tolkein did not invent dragons.

That doesn't mean he isn't responsible for the content of his work. When you make an entire sentient race (species?) of people in a work both ugly from a human perspective AND evil, what are you saying? Certainly you are saying some things that have roots in a lot of Western mythology, but you are also probably being at least just a wee bit racist.

That's far from accurate. As I have pointed out previously elsewhere (but will expand on here), light meaning illumination and dark meaning darkness are universal proxies for good and evil or life and death around the world, including many and quite possibly all African mythologies. It's there in Voodoo in spades, and in Hinduism. It's got nothing to do with skin colour.

I'm not aware of Tolkien says anything about other races of human being either more or less likely to be corrupted and pleanty of 'white guys' get corrupted into evil.

Orcs aren't human, nor are elves and their metaphysical natures are different from those of humans. By casting Orcs the way he does Tolkien isn't saying anything about the corruptability or otherwise of humanity or any race of it. He's just borrowing elements of otherness and alienness from real world myths about fairytale creatures some of which are inimical to humans and conventional morality.

As a counterpoint: Saruman the White and his horde of orcs were about as evil as they come, there were evil humans of both light and dark skin, and that applies to many of the "good" races. That said, yes, the evil parties tended to be of dark complexion, but I think of that as less a racial undertone, and more likely a literal illustration of the classic good == light, evil == dark parallel (for instance, Sauron being called the "Dark Lord", many references to "the darkness", etc.). Who knows though, perhaps Tolkein was racist, I just never felt that his writings came across that way.

Light meaning illumination and dark meaning darkness are universal proxies for good and evil or life and death around the world, including many and quite possibly all African mythologies. It's there in Voodoo in spades. It's got nothing to do with skin colour.

Personaly I think the idea of shining cities holding out (and some falling) against the forces of evil is an echo of Byzantium succumbing to the Turkish invasion and subsequently Vienna standing against further Turkish encroachment. However the Haradrim are not really Turks, and it's not as if discovering that LoTR is largely inspired by European history is a shocking revelation. Plently of 'white guys' are seduced by evil as well and Tolkien never suggests there's anything fundamental about Haradrim or other 'furriners' that make them any more susceptible to corruption.

I always assumed that those fantasy light/dark associations came from much older (as in, pre-language and pre-sentience) human feelings of "day/light/warm/safe/good/life" and "dark/night/cold/fear/bad/death".

I'd agree, it seems like an almost primal comparison, rather than something deliberately conceived. The way some places in the books are described take that quite literally: Rivendell, the bastion of good, is described in terms of safety and light (even at night, with the moonlight), and Mordor, the bastion of evil, is described in terms of danger and darkness.

Skin color choice of good/evil fantasy characters does not provide enough of a cue for me that the author is racist. There has to be additional data points like speech pattern or descriptions of the homeland of the character for me to tie them to real world stereotypes.

The Asian-stereotyped (Japanese?) trade syndicate characters from Star Wars episode 1 seemed especially racist portrayals to me.

You know, I had never noticed how the Neimodians in Episode 1 spoke in that Asian-stereotyped speech pattern before, but now I can't unhear it when I think of their scenes from that movie. Seems obvious in retrospect.

I was so excited to see Book I before it came out and I remember distinctly that (to me, obvious) speech pattern being the first real, big disappointment. Of many, sadly.

I would disagree with this.

> all the bad guys in LOTR are basically dark and ugly

That is false. Sauron for most of his life was a nice to look at and he was "the bringer of gifts". Simularly his master Morgoth had a period of time where he was a pretty elf like thing.

> and if there are any bad elves, they are mostly good elves who have been tempted to some sin

You have not really read most of tolkins work, right? There are tons of bad fucking elves, elves that kill there extended familly, elves that are arogant and lead there people into desaster, elves that force the most of their 'tribe'/'clan' to a deathmarch threw a ice desert.

Also, contrary to the movies, in the books it does not seam that the elves are better at everything. I just reread the silmarilion, and its not clear to me at least that elves are stronger and better fighers in general for example.

Edit: When orks talks, for example when frodo gets captured and sam listens to them with the ring, it seams the orks are pretty normal people in a dark situation.

That has a lot to do with Western philosophy: beauty, good, truth and being are all "the same" from a metaphysical point of view. Also light=god=goodness. Saying that it is racist misses the point so much.

> all the bad guys in LOTR are basically dark and ugly

An alternate view of why this is the case (rehashed from http://www.salon.com/2002/12/17/tolkien_brin/) is that LotR was a propagandist history written by the victors.