tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post5605845018492063481..comments2024-03-29T07:58:31.156-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: TwelvetyJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger144125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-75411036810815373902012-01-12T20:57:28.574-05:002012-01-12T20:57:28.574-05:00that should say 1000, not 1000 years after he got ...that should say 1000, not 1000 years after he got his arse handed to him.Sir Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538417181412075663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-27985534682792519082012-01-12T20:56:29.759-05:002012-01-12T20:56:29.759-05:00Noisms, I think the amount of froth you're cre...Noisms, I think the amount of froth you're creating is interfering with your reading comprehension. You haven't understood anything I've written, and you're getting your panties in a bunch over things you imagine I've said. Here, let me help.<br /><br /><i><br />Did you just ignore the 12,000 comments about orcs?<br /></i><br />Brian Murphy, Jan 6: "Orcs are a fictional race with no real world parallel." Your entire substantive text on Orcs in this whole comment thread is this:<br /><i><br />My own view is that in Tolkien's world, some 'races' - orcs, trolls, dragons - do have inherited (im)moral traits. This is portrayed as the worst thing that their creator did: damning them and their descendants to being evil for all eternity.<br /></i><br />Plus a sentence in response to the Beyonder about the Silmarillion, which essentially repeats the same thing. Is this your "12,000 comments"? This debate has been dominated by debate about Easterlings and Southrons. <br /><br /><i><br />Make a howler, try to paint your opponent as making the same mistake as a smokescreen. I get the idea. <br /></i><br />I didn't quote this extract from Tolkien; Michael did. No howlers here. You've lost track of the quote we're talking about and now think it's originally me who raised it. The outrage is cute given it's misplaced, but that's a common problem for you.<br /><br /><i><br />Are you getting that off wikipedia? It's just that the wikipedia article says something about the Valar too, here. <br /></i><br />My timeline is exactly right. I raised the Valar's unwillingness to confront Sauron directly as evidence of his power at that time. He arrived in Mirkwood in 1050 TA, that is 1000 years after the end of the Second Age, i.e. 10000 years after he got his arse handed to him. My statement is 100% correct, yet you have the temerity to pretend I don't know the basic history? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the froth interfering with your reading skills, not one of your juvenile gotchas.<br /><br /><i><br />menoreans were "king's men" who still loved Sauron and practiced black arts. After the fall of Numenor they fled South;<br /></i><br />No. Wrong.<br /><br />You've changed the major thrust of your argument signficantly. Before, you were sure that all the evil Numenoreans died in Numenor; now you dispute this, and would have us believe the Corsairs are survivors of that catastrophe (they're not). Previously, Sauron was so powerful that he could corrupt a forest "the size of fucking Mordor" (your words). Now he was "just a shadow of fear" and couldn't corrupt anything until he fled a second time (contradicting Michael's theories about how the Easterlings could have been corrupted, incidentally).<br /><br />You're twisting and turning, changing your arguments every couple of comments, and making increasingly spit-flecked attacks on my veracity and motives in order to defend your point. You've misinterpreted fairly basic writing and lost the train of the argument - even of who said what - and you've even used the terms "Tolkien Politics 101" and "Tolkien History 101" in condescending ways. <br /><br />I really think you need to revisit the text and give a little more reasoned thought to the interpretation of the stories. Tolkien deserves mature and reasoned analysis of his work, not the juvenile fanboy adulation that people like you have to offer.Sir Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538417181412075663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77633045803753996492012-01-12T15:55:34.760-05:002012-01-12T15:55:34.760-05:00@The Beyonder: Yes, they're stories. But if st...@The Beyonder: Yes, they're stories. But if stories didn't shape our world, why care about them? I have no real beef with the Lord of the Rings, but I do get tired of some of its themes. I get tired of stories where it's all about the True King and Blood Will Tell; I get tired of stories where the good guys are beautiful and the bad guys are ugly; and I think they can build up to be pernicious to our society.Prosfilaeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08567819936724569257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-16934056694619580242012-01-11T03:38:04.123-05:002012-01-11T03:38:04.123-05:00[cont'd]
We do. There is no evidence of any c...[cont'd]<br /><br /><i>We do. There is no evidence of any corruption amongst the High Men of Eriador ...We also know that some of the Dunedain settled in Gondor before the fall of Numenor (they became the princes of Del Amroth) and were never corrupted by Sauron either.</i><br /><br />So your point is what, exactly? During the period of time when Sauron was at his weakest, a mere shadow of fear in Mirkwood who not even the elves living there recognised, he wasn't able to corrupt people living thousands of miles away in Dol Amroth? Or that when he was in Mordor he wasn't able to do that? Have you looked at a map of Middle Earth to see where Dol Amroth is?<br /><br /><i>The Black Numenoreans are not descendants of those who were corrupted by Sauron in Numenor. They are explorers who came independently to Middle Earth and submitted to Sauron. The implication is that they merged with the haradrim and began to diminish... So they follow the standard High Men/Men of Darkness pattern, in which settlers from the West lose their superior culture and gifts as they merge with the lower men around them.</i><br /><br />Nope. Look again at the text. The Black Numenoreans were "king's men" who still loved Sauron and practiced black arts. After the fall of Numenor they fled South; some of them actually became kings in Harad. Like all evil things in Tolkien's work, their power gradually diminished - Tolkien writes of them giving themselves over to idleness, and fighting among themselves, until they were so weak they were conquered by "wild men" (whoever they are; we don't know). If anything I suppose the spin you could put on their story is that, being of great power, these Black Numenoreans were able to dominate the Haradrim and manipulate them into Sauron-worship, though that's just implied.<br /><br />I'm not going to comment here again. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on.noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-66047533578795442222012-01-11T03:37:42.589-05:002012-01-11T03:37:42.589-05:00"Originally I wanted to talk about the orcs a..."Originally I wanted to talk about the orcs and elves, but you didn't want to go there?" I mean, really? Did you just ignore the 12,000 comments about orcs? I suppose that <i>would</i> explain your utter failure to deal substantively with the arguments they contained. (As for elves, I suppose yes, I haven't talked about them, because what's the point? Elves have the most freedom of the lot. If you're looking for evidence of racial essentialism there, you just won't find it.) This really is evasiveness of the highest quality.<br /><br />But of all your eel-like debating tactics, this takes the cake for me: <i>You also are carefully ignoring the particular phrasing of the quote, which makes clear through careful use of English that only a few tribes rebelled. Not a lot. If you aren't willing to engage with the text at even this basic level, you probably ought not to patronize me.</i><br /><br />I mean, well, it's a nice try. Make a howler, try to paint your opponent as making the same mistake as a smokescreen. I get the idea. <br /><br /><i>Sauron hand't "just had his arse handed to him." It was at least 1000 years earlier that his arse was handed to him, and the Valar didn't want to interfere with him again in order to avoid another rain of destruction. </i><br /><br />History of Middle-Earth 101: Sauron had his arse handed to him at the end of the Second Age after the War of the Last Alliance, after the Ring was taken by Isildur. Nothing to do with the Valar. That was Morgoth, at the end of the First Age. Are you getting that off wikipedia? It's just that the wikipedia article says something about the Valar too, here. The only reason the Valar are relevant is because they are the ones who sent the five wizards to Middle Earth at around this stage.<br /><br />From 1050 all the way through to 2460, nobody even knew Sauron was in Mirkwood, because he was hiding. His presence was a "shadow of fear" there. Not even the elves living in the forest recognised him. A far cry from what he was in either Numenor or Mordor, when he was able to corrupt the peoples around him. You'll have to give up on this line of argument: there is no evidence for you here.<br /><br />[tbc]noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80448917286603188572012-01-11T01:44:22.046-05:002012-01-11T01:44:22.046-05:00Beyonder, I think the Valar and maiar have been st...Beyonder, I think the Valar and maiar have been statted up already in MERP, which (Despite my being a Tolkien-hating bastard who knows nothing about the world, I owned and played for years).<br /><br />Noisms, your patronizing tone would work better if you weren't so wrong. It isn't me who has narrowed the focus to the Numenoreans and a few tribes of Southrons[sic], it's you and Michael. Originally I was also talking about Orcs and Elves, and you didn't want to go there; then you were talking about pardoning the Easterlings, but you've dropped that; now we have Michael's sole quote in defense of the Easterlings.<br /><br />Which brings us to our next point: you have done what you often do (I presume, subconsciously) and completely changed the content of what was being debated to suit your own (fallacious) point. Michael gave a quote about how a few tribes of Easterlings rebelled; you've turned this into a discussion about Haradrim and Easterlings, through a not-so-careful misreading and elision. By doing so you've implied more rebellion, more widely than the text implies. You also are carefully ignoring the particular phrasing of the quote, which makes clear through careful use of English that only a few tribes rebelled. Not a lot. If you aren't willing to engage with the text at even this basic level, you probably ought not to patronize me.<br /><br /><i><br />You still haven't answered the point about Mirkwood, by the way: how during his time there Sauron was weak and in hiding, because he'd just had his arse handed to him and was scared to reveal himself, and yet even so he was able to corrupt the biggest and most ancient forest in Middle Earth<br /></i><br />Sauron hand't "just had his arse handed to him." It was at least 1000 years earlier that his arse was handed to him, and the Valar didn't want to interfere with him again in order to avoid another rain of destruction. He may have been weakened but he wasn't weak. Your task is to explain how he could corrupt the forest but not the nearby peoples (which included the Rohirrim). While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why, if the people of Gondor are as weak and vulnerable as the Easterlings, Sauron had to raise an army of Easterlings to capture Gondor. Why didn't he just corrupt the people of Gondor?<br /><br /><i><br />We have no idea how they would have reacted to Sauron's reappareance in the Third Age. <br /></i><br />We do. There is no evidence of any corruption amongst the High Men of Eriador during this 3000 years, except 1) the Witch-King (who was corrupted through a magic item) and 2) the King of Gondor (who was corrupted through a magic item). We also know that some of the Dunedain settled in Gondor before the fall of Numenor (they became the princes of Del Amroth) and were never corrupted by Sauron either.<br /><br /><i><br />Some of their few descendants - the Black Numenoreans and Corsairs - do get involved, of course<br /></i><br />The Black Numenoreans are not descendants of those who were corrupted by Sauron in Numenor. They are explorers who came independently to Middle Earth and submitted to Sauron. The implication is that they merged with the haradrim and began to diminish (see e.g. the encyclopaedia of Arda). So they follow the standard High Men/Men of Darkness pattern, in which settlers from the West lose their superior culture and gifts as they merge with the lower men around them.<br /><br />If you're going to patronize others for shifting the argument and not understanding the text, you could try and polish your own efforts in these areas ...Sir Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538417181412075663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-11335373402025941312012-01-10T20:11:59.558-05:002012-01-10T20:11:59.558-05:00Thanks for the nice words, Sir S.
But it's ac...Thanks for the nice words, Sir S.<br /><br />But it's actually a good idea to talk about something else than ridiculous non-starters like "Tolkien was racist" (I know he was far less "racist" than C.S.Lewis, and if I can look beyond HIS attitude toward so-called (by him!) "Negroes", I certainly can look beyond Tolkien's obsession with "undilluted" blood), or, worse yet, "Tolkien's LotR has racist and anti-semitic themes" (I mean, really. Do I have to comment about that particular topic? Nah, probably not. Better, too, since I'm just not as polite as James.)<br /><br />THE LORD OF THE RINGS is *not* a political book, not anymore than THE SILMARILLION or THE HOBBIT was. You can twist those 3 books to your bidding, pretend that they say what you *want* them to say; but it's wrong. Those books weren't written to comment on politics and they were even less written to *suggest* new political ways. <br /><br />They're stories. It's as simple as that.<br /><br />Why don't we start to debate the things we *like* about Tolkien's mythos? For instance, the Artifical being origin vs the warped Avari origin of the Orcs was a good beginning. <br /><br />Or, we could discuss the Fall of Numenor. Or we could stat upp the Valar, Maiar and Heroes of Arda.<br /><br />I suppose I can't interest anybody here in that?Andreas Kraußhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03561423946501346693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-89438289234380995322012-01-10T08:01:33.952-05:002012-01-10T08:01:33.952-05:00I'm replying to this on my blog.I'm replying to this on <a href="http://www.apolitical.info/teleleli" rel="nofollow">my blog</a>.anarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546197561922726279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-5457279250030138032012-01-10T05:42:09.997-05:002012-01-10T05:42:09.997-05:00Sir S: Michael gave you a nice 'out' earli...<b>Sir S</b>: Michael gave you a nice 'out' earlier on to save you embarrassing yourself further, but since you persist, I'll offer another response.<br /><br />I think it's notable that you're doing what you always (presumably subconsciously) do in a debate which you're losing, which is to narrow your focus as you gradually conveniently let the issues you've been proved wrong about drop. Your entire argument now has just three legs:<br /><br />1. Only "a few" southrons rebelled against Sauron.<br />2. Blah blah Mirkwood blah blah.<br />3. The descendants of the Numenoreans were not corrupted.<br /><br />Rather weak, but let's deal with them anyway.<br /><br />1. First, Tolkien didn't say "a few" Southrons, Easterlings, Haradrim etc. rebelled against Sauron. He says <i>a few tribes</i> did. Rather different, don't you think? It says something about your argumentative standards that you misquote something so key to your own position.<br /><br />Seondly, we don't know a great deal about the East or the South, but what we do know is that the Blue Wizards went there and played a 'pivotal' role in the War of the Ring. They seem to have been rather like Gandalf, wandering around and organising Sauron's enemies against him. This heavily implies that the Haradrim et al were not unified in being corrupted, and what we see in the battle at Minas Tirith is hardly representative.<br /><br />We also know that, to Sam at least, the issue was not black and white (no pun intended). The only time we actually see a Haradrim up-close-and-personal, as it were, we find Sam thinking the following: "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 if he was really evil at heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace." According to Tolkien, Sam was the hero of the Lord of the Rings, and is in many ways the conscience of the author and the reader within the work. This would suggest that Tolkien's own thoughts on the matter hewed far more closely to the notion that the people of Harad, at least the ones allied with Sauron, had been tricked, and the majority were probably compelled to do his bidding and would much rather just live ordinary peaceful lives.<br /><br />2. I didn't belittle Sauron's period in Mirkwood as corrupting just a few spiders, as you misquote me as saying. (A pattern emerges.) I talked about how he corrupted all the life in Mirkwood, even down to the squirrels. You still haven't answered the point about Mirkwood, by the way: how during his time there Sauron was weak and in hiding, because he'd just had his arse handed to him and was scared to reveal himself, and yet even so he was able to corrupt the biggest and most ancient forest in Middle Earth (which if you look at it on a map is almost the same size as fucking Gondor). <br /><br />3. This is the weakest point of all. Has it occurred to you that after the fall of Numenor PRACTICALLY ALL THE NUMENOREANS WHO SAURON CORRUPTED ARE DEAD? We have no idea how they would have reacted to Sauron's reappareance in the Third Age. It could be that they would have had exactly the same reaction as you think (wrongly) the Southrons did - all coming back in unison to Sauron's fold. But <i>they're not there</i> to do so. Some of their few descendants - the Black Numenoreans and Corsairs - do get involved, of course... But in any case, nothing about the Numenoreans proves your position either way. <br /><br />Now let's draw a line under this increasingly ridiculous debate, shall we?noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-13181888419824868662012-01-10T04:49:01.027-05:002012-01-10T04:49:01.027-05:00Michael, if it's not going to have a direct st...Michael, if it's not going to have a direct statement of racial essentialism, how else is any racial theory to be inferred except through circumstantial evidence? You say you don't expect a race theory screed, but you deny anything else can be interpreted that way - no vagueness there, is there?<br /><br />You then go on with this:<br /><i><br />Tolkien flat-out says tribes in the East had rebelled against Sauron -- before the Blue Wizards arrived. Pretty strange if (as you say) they inherit evil as their racial essence. <br /></i><br />He states "a few" rebelled. See my point 2. Your defense here depends on the assumption that any theory of racial essentialism must be deterministic. Do you understand how these theories work?<br /><br />You follow with:<br /><i><br />The corruption of Greenwood the Great into Mirkwood you belittle as "just a few evil spiders". <br /></i><br />No, actually, Noisms did this first as a snarky aside. My point is that for all his time in Greenwood Sauron couldn't corrupt the surrounding peoples, whereas with just 70 years in Mordor he could corrupt multiple nations. And he never went South - just sent an emissary or something and up they came, still corrupt ("thoroughly depraved" is how you describe Melkor-worship) after 1900 years of his absence.<br /><br /><i><br />If Sauron could so thoroughly deprave the highest human race, who were given their land by Eru, in a single generation, what could he do to men of the East who had never known Valinor except through Morgoth propaganda?<br /></i><br />As I keep saying, this was done to a single generation of Numenoreans, but <i>not to their descendants</i>. Numenoreans did not inherit the racial taint of the society that Sauron corrupted. Whereas Tolkien himself states that whole peoples in the east were servants of evil.<br /><br />You keep trying to avoid this fact: Numenoreans don't corrupt intergenerationally, but Tolkien openly states that the peoples of the east do. Not only that, there is no evidence that the people of the South ever needed re-corruption. Unless you want to come up with an alternative history from whole cloth, the Southrons were untouched by Sauron's magic directly in the Third Age: they just responded to his call.<br /><br />Now, your alternative to this racial essentialism is, as you have implied above, to fall back on some kind of non-biological vulnerability to evil that is strong enough to last thousands of years in the absence of the main corrupting animus. Without it being obviously racist. Have at it.<br /><br />S'mon, given your main contribution to this debate on racism has been to drive off the only non-native English speaker who was participating, I don't think you have too many high claims to "good faith argument."Sir Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538417181412075663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-51304334704069523322012-01-10T03:18:54.714-05:002012-01-10T03:18:54.714-05:00"Sir S, you go on at length about rhetorical ..."Sir S, you go on at length about rhetorical devices, but it's all cover for the gaping hole at the center of your case. You never give any proof for your thesis. Instead of evidence, you substitute innuendo and conspiracy-theory-style "parallels", and dismiss clear textual and extra-textual counter-evidence whenever it contradicts your thesis. As Searle once said of Derrida, this is the sort of stuff that gives bullshit a bad name. "<br /><br />Excellent post, Michael.<br /><br />I spent many years engaging in good faith argument with the likes of Faustus/Sir S, and eventually realised it was pointless, since they use words as weapons, not for understanding. That is the essence of Deconstructionism.<br />Still, I have very much enjoyed your & noisms' counters and explanations, they have increased my understanding and appreciation of Tolkien considerably. And I salute your stamina and perseverance.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-73327415222081290202012-01-10T02:50:25.411-05:002012-01-10T02:50:25.411-05:00If your condition for "racist text" is t...<i>If your condition for "racist text" is that it contain a screed clearly defining every aspect of its theory</i><br /><br />I didn't say that. All I have asked for, repeatedly, is evidence for your thesis that there are human races in Middle-Earth that are genetically evil. Thus my flexibility on the phraseology, since (as I already noted) it is absurd to expect the vocabulary of genetics in Tolkien's imaginary world. But it's been about a dozen good-sized posts from you now, and you still have yet to produce any specific textual support saying that Easterlings or Haradrim have bad blood or depraved essence or evil on them and their children forever, or whatever. Nothing even close. <br /><br />What you do offer is: "<i>we have a lot of historical development and parallels that match the theory of racial essentialism</i>". As I said before, your case is entirely circumstantial. By any standards of forensic or rational proof, this is exceedingly weak. The real history of Earth has a lot of historical development and parallels that "match" the theory of racial essentialism -- IQ differences, the development of science and technology in Europe, the stunted economic and political development of Africa -- but that doesn't demonstrate that racial essentialism is correct. But that is exactly the argument you are offering to convict Tolkien's work of racial essentialism.<br /><br /><br /><i>Once again Tolkien is directly stating that he sees these races as servants of evil.</i><br /><br />You keep using those words, "directly stating". I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Tolkien flat-out says tribes in the East <i>had</i> rebelled against Sauron -- <i>before</i> the Blue Wizards arrived. Pretty strange if (as you say) they inherit evil as their racial essence. Noisms put it well: "Their servancy is not eternal, not willing, and not complete." It's Tolkien's word against your thesis, but you stick to your preconceptions.<br /><br />Not surprising -- here I'll note in passing two other wilful distortions of the text to show your low standards of "textual analysis":<br /><br />- The corruption of Greenwood the Great into Mirkwood you belittle as "just a few evil spiders". But it's clear to any reader of <i>The Hobbit</i> that Mirkwood is a nasty piece of work. A vast, habitable forest became an impassable, frightening darkness. ("Don't go off the path!") <br /><br />- It wasn't just "some Numenoreans" who turned to evil, but the vast majority of the entire "master race", at the military-technological zenith of their civilization, who converted to human sacrifice in Melkor-worship. (If Sauron could so thoroughly deprave the highest human race, who were given their land by Eru, in a single generation, what could he do to men of the East who had never known Valinor except through Morgoth propaganda?)<br /><br />Sir S, you go on at length about rhetorical devices, but it's all cover for the gaping hole at the center of your case. You never give any proof for your thesis. Instead of evidence, you substitute innuendo and conspiracy-theory-style "parallels", and dismiss clear textual and extra-textual counter-evidence whenever it contradicts your thesis. As Searle once said of Derrida, this is the sort of stuff that gives bullshit a bad name. I rest my case.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08868302412533031659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-53626715049254744192012-01-09T22:13:28.768-05:002012-01-09T22:13:28.768-05:00This brings me to my final comment in this round, ...This brings me to my final comment in this round, in which I want to talk about the rhetorical roundabout that Noisms and Michael have had to engage in to defend LoTR from the racism claim. I see it a lot, and it's worth noting some of its properties. I think they're accidental, btw, I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately arguing in bad faith. The roundabout works like this:<br /><br />1. Deny the relevance of the non-human races to the racial theory of the books; even though the non-human races are an essential element of the central plot and a defining element of this style of fantasy, the first step in defending LoTR is to deny their relevance because they aren't real or something.<br /><br />2. Redefine racial essentialism as a deterministic model. That is, if even one member of [good race A] was bad, or even one member of [bad race B] was good, then there can be no underlying racial theory. This is ahistorical: all racial essentialism stumbles on the fact that <i>it doesn't work</i>, and so has to come up with elaborate explanations for why actually white people can be bad and black people can be good. The core of racial essentialism is not that one's race turns one into a robot, but that in general certain characteristics obtain. A key part of the defense Michael and Noisms have mounted is that <i>some</i> Numenoreans were bad in <i>one</i> generation and <i>a few</i> Easterlings were good, so there can be no racial essentialism at play. This is false.<br /><br />3. Zero the racism on essentialism: even if there is no racial essentialism or scientific racism in the text, there is still an obvious racist model that fits in with many other real life extinct theories (e.g. 19th century christian anti-semitism, which was not biological; colonialist "white man's burden" type racism which was a cheerful mixture of vague theories). Michael's defense of Tolkien now comes down to saying that he "only" believes they're culturally evil due to their religion. This defense is wrong, but even if it were right, you've hardly come up with a good statement about LoTR have you?<br /><br />4. Define away racism in textual analysis: this tactic involves demanding unrealistic levels of evidence for any racism. i.e. if Tolkien didn't state "it's genetically inherited" then it isn't. This basically requires that the only way to infer racism from the text is to find a screed equivalent to something from Mein Kampf or a Nazi race hygiene pamphlet. This is not how literary criticism works. Think of all the books ever written that would be completely free of any racist cloud if the only way they could be judged racist was if the author basically said so through a screed in the work itself. <br /><br />Basically, you are using the real life problems of racial essentialism to identify reasons why it couldn't possibly hold in a novel. But the real life problems of the theory didn't stop it being popular in the inter-war era (and with Stormfront now) and don't mean it can't be expressed coherently in a novel. Even if Tolkien had been hell-bent on a nazi theory of race, he couldn't have made a coherent one in his story because it's impossible. Using this fact to deny its presence shows an ignorance of the nature and limits of racial essentialism as a real life theory.Sir Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538417181412075663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-61396163821346717802012-01-09T21:56:04.097-05:002012-01-09T21:56:04.097-05:00Noisms, again you're being disingenuous in you...Noisms, again you're being disingenuous in your assertion of motives I don't have:<br /><i><br />But then on the other hand you keep saying that these theories were popular at the time he was writing, so he must have believed them too,<br /></i><br />I only do this <i>because you ask</i>. Every time - every single time - I write a post on my blog about this you pop up to accuse me of calling Tolkien a racist. You do it every time. So every time I say the same thing: I don't know if he was racist or not, I find it credible that, like most men of his time, he believed scientific racism was true, and this may have affected his books. But I <i>only say this because you ask</i>. My argument is about the books and you continually drag it away to being about Tolkien: to which I give a reasonable and limited answer, that you then use to accuse me of incoherence.<br /><br />Which is not only disingenuous but incoherent, because we have written evidence, in a letter from Tolkien, that he considers Jews to be genetically superior in intellect to non-Jews, i.e. he openly admits subscribing to a theory of racial difference in mental traits. A fact that you originally raised in his defence and now refuse to accept as evidence of his beliefs.<br /><br />Your next three points are again, either wrong or wilfully optimistic. In order.<br /><br /><br /><i><br />Their [Men of Darkness] servancy is not eternal, not willing, and not complete, as Michael shows.<br /></i><br />Michael shows that there are exceptions, and that they need help from the West in order to complete even a partial rebellion against evil. I'll come back to this in my next comment - this trick is a common one, and it shows a lack of understanding of how scientific racist theories are conceived and executed.<br /><br /><i>The [Numenoreans] who lived in the West and North were destroyed by the Witch-King, who was one of their own number, and it seems clear that some of the Dunedain in the North remained resistant while others turned to darkness.</i><br /><br />Here you conveniently elide the relative numbers, which is useful for you but slippery: there was only one evil Numenorean (the Witch-King), who had to rely on non-Numenorean servants - barbarians from the North (again, Men of Darkness...) and Orcs and goblins (corrupt and irredeemable races). The failing Dunedain resistance was due to their weakening moral and physical state, brought about by interbreeding. he didn't destroy the Dunedain utterly and those whose racial purity was least muddied by interbreeding over the ensuing years were able to find from amongst them someone who could become King and reunite the lesser men. After the Witch-king was destroyed, no great evil persisted amongst the men of the west - we see this often in LoTR, just as we see it in WW2 propaganda about Japan vs. Germany. In the East, whole peoples are corrupted. In the West, single leaders are corrupted, and often only partially or by deception rather than directly. This distinction also exists in real life racial theories.<br /><br /><i><br />In the period Sauron was in Mirkwood he was hiding. After his defeat at the end of the Second Age almost his entire power had vanished. He spent most of his time as a "dormant evil". It was only after he left Dol Guldur that he really regained his power. That's why he was able to corrupt the peoples around Mordor so easily.<br /></i><br /><br />In your earlier snark you seemed happy with teh idea that he had the power to corrupt in Mirkwood. Certainly his power was great enough that he had to be confronted directly, and even Gandalf took multiple tries to penetrate his fortress and find out who he was. Yet, the people of Bree and the Rohirrim remained untouched. You're splitting hairs here and trying to rewrite the story in order to avoid the obvious conclusion.<br /><br />Your last point about the lights ... I'll get to that if I can.Sir Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538417181412075663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-31086516936901043532012-01-09T21:41:55.185-05:002012-01-09T21:41:55.185-05:00This thread is getting away from itself, with too ...This thread is getting away from itself, with too many different aspects of the debate going on at once to easily keep track of, but I'll try and answer Michael and Noisms (in separate comments) and give a comment on a common theme of both their responses. First, Michael.<br /><br />Point 1:<br /><i><br />Nothing about genetic inheritance (or "tainted blood", or anything) in the text.<br /></i><br /><br />LoTR is not a text <i>about</i> racial theory, is it? So it's hardly suprising that there's nothing specific about genetic inheritance. If your condition for "racist text" is that it contain a screed clearly defining every aspect of its theory, then no novel is ever going to be eligible for a racist subtext or theme. With almost every text ever written, these themes have to be drawn out and identified, they aren't there, cut from whole cloth in the book. In this case we have a lot of historical development and parallels that match the theory of racial essentialism: we have races with defined characteristics (the Orcs and Elves); we have a clearly stated theory of racial mixing (the qualities of the Numenoreans declined as they mixed with Men), we have a theory of divine right of kings based on racial inheritance (embodied in Aragorn), and we have a group of human races that are defined as serving evil, and a group that aren't. Saying this is not a model of racism because Tolkien didn't write it all out in one sentence is a kind of obscurantism, and it's not how textual analysis works.<br /><br />Especially when in your very next comment you quote Tolkien thus:<br /><i><br />Their task was to circumvent Sauron: to bring help to the <b>few tribes of Men that had rebelled from Melkor-worship</b>, to stir up rebellion<br /></i><br /><br />Once again Tolkien is <i>directly stating</i> that he sees these races as servants of evil. Your entire argument has now reduced to this: it's not racially inherited, these people are culturally evil, therefore the text is not racist.<br /><br />Do you think that any of these statements are not racist:<br /><br />- it's not biological, but jeez, Muslims are evil aren't they? I blame their religion<br /><br />- If Jews convert to christianity, they can be redeemed, but until they do they remain untrustworthy and committed only to their own religion over the greater needs of society<br /><br />- The men of the East were sunk in barbarism and evil until we sent two missionaries, M and R, who were successful in converting many of them to civilization<br /><br />None of these statements contains a single element of scientific racism, all of them come directly from real life theories of racial inferiority, and all of them map directly to your <i>defense</i> of Tolkien against claims of racially-inherited evil.<br /><br />Even if I were to concede that the "evil" of the human races was not racially heritable (which I don't), can you not see that the alternative interpretations of the role of Men of Darkness in the story are just as racist?Sir Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538417181412075663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-50486887104975525242012-01-09T18:46:56.826-05:002012-01-09T18:46:56.826-05:00Let me preface this with saying that this will be ...Let me preface this with saying that this will be my only post in direct answer to these questions. If anyone wants to continue this specific discussion with me, you know where you can find my email address. The last thing I want to do is clutter up my blog with religious and/or political discussions.<br /><br /><i>Rick Santorum (for example) says he's against abortion because of his religious views.<br /><br />The Pope (for example) says his religion forbids abortion.<br /><br />You seem to arguing that the first is a politicial position, whereas the second is a religious one, and that the two things are quite distinct.<br /><br />If so, how are they distinct?</i><br /><br>Politics is about means. Ends come to us from morality/ethics/religion (or its secular doppelganger, ideology). So, religion can <i>inform</i> one's political decisions (and ought to), but the two aren't identical. For example, many 19th century abolitionists were inspired by their religious beliefs to oppose slavery. Were there beliefs in the divine equality of all men political in nature?<br /><br /><i>Yet you seem to regard "Tolkien put his political views in his work" as a silly idea that Michael Moorcock made up out of spite and jealousy.</i><br /><br>"Tolkien put his political views in his work" makes it seem as if he were advocating a particular political platform, which he was not. He advanced certain <i>ideas</i> that perhaps have political application/ramifications, but that's not quite the same thing as, say, Ayn Rand's writing of <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>, is it? Again, maybe that's a distinction without a difference to you, but it's not to me or, I think, Tolkien.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-15614944533925088822012-01-09T13:17:54.251-05:002012-01-09T13:17:54.251-05:001) I'm a fan of Tolkien
2) I've never rea...1) I'm a fan of Tolkien<br /><br />2) I've never read Moorcock's fictional works (neither I'm interested in doing so)<br /><br />3) "Epic Pooh" contains too many and too long quotes from authors I don't read. Besides of this, I didn't find it to be neither controversical nor insulting, but pretty enlighting. <br /><br />Is LotR a "nursery epic" of sorts? Sure, and I love it because of this. From Moorcock's assay: "It is the predominant tone of The Lord of the Rings and Watership Down and it is the main reason why these books, like many similar ones in the past, are successful."<br /><br />It's a pity that he doesn't enjoy Tolkien's prose, but I can't blame Moorcock for this. And he's not alone, anyway: shame on Peter Jackson, who drop the "nursery" part (I want Bombadil back!).<br /><br />Talking about Bombadil, most of the fans -myself included- barely can't see beyond plot, characters and world-building. At least Moorcock has the wits to note that old-fashioned <b>style</b> and socio-political <b>subtext</b> also play an important part in LotR appeal. I wish that Moorcock had made the movies instead of Jackson. <br /><br />Unlike Moorcock, I like Tolkien's works, but this doen't make Moorcock's essay to be rubbish or nonsense or lacking of substance. <br /><br />About Monarchism, Racism, Classism and whatever: LotR is pro-monarchic, pro-racist and pro-classist, etc. at some points and anti-monarchic, anti-racist, anti-class et al. at some other. There's a number of unsolved controversies and unanswered questions within the books, and this is what makes them great: they provide food for though. The writings of C.S. Lewis and Phillip Pullman and the Pope of Rome are too one-sided for my taste. I agree in that the best anti-Tolkien is reading more Tolkien.anonimous, emperador en el exiliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13204169087393199959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-48214768296454600462012-01-09T07:03:38.143-05:002012-01-09T07:03:38.143-05:00Sir S: I'm not implying anything. I'm sayi...<b>Sir S</b>: I'm not implying anything. I'm saying that I think you, quite naturally, dislike racial essentialism, and want to take a stand against it, and this leads you to find it even where it doesn't exist.<br /><br />This leaves you to flail around clutching at straws, and adopting all kind of self-contradictory positions. For instance: you keep going on about how what Tolkien says or thought aren't important, because you're just talking about the book... But then on the other hand you keep saying that these theories were popular at the time he was writing, so he must have believed them too, etc. I mean, it's really incoherent stuff. Which is it? Does Tolkien's own belief matter or not? Either way you lose, because as we've shown by his letters he certainly didn't believe in racial essentialism, and as we've shown from the text, it's not there either. But which one do you actually believe?<br /><br />That said, you have started to engage with the text a little bit more, which is good. Let's take a look a why you're wrong, though:<br /><br />-The men of the East and South are not "eternal servants of evil". Their servancy is not eternal, not willing, and not complete, as Michael shows.<br /><br />-The Numenoreans did not "redeem themselves" by fleeing to the West and becoming a bulwark against Sauron. Most actually joined him. The ones who fled South became the Black Numenoreans and Corsairs. The ones who lived in the West and North were destroyed by the Witch-King, who was one of their own number, and it seems clear that some of the Dunedain in the North remained resistant while others turned to darkness.<br /><br />-In the period Sauron was in Mirkwood he was hiding. After his defeat at the end of the Second Age almost his entire power had vanished. He spent most of his time as a "dormant evil". It was only after he left Dol Guldur that he really regained his power. That's why he was able to corrupt the peoples around Mordor so easily.<br /><br />I'd just like to elaborate on a point I made earlier, which is that the important thing, for Tolkien, was not what race you belonged to, but whether or not you had seen the lights of Valinor. This is the difference between "Dark" and "Light" elves, and also the difference between various kinds of men (the men of Gondor, for instance, have the White Tree, which is descended from Nimloth, which can in turn trace its ancestry back to Valinor). <br /><br />The point is that if you're lucky enough to have had contact with Valinor the chances are you have more going for you in resisting the corruption of Sauron. Doesn't work all the time as Numenor got corrupted anyway, and it isn't definitive, as the people of the South and East clearly rebelled against and resisted Sauron.noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-34715345746787002342012-01-09T05:38:05.550-05:002012-01-09T05:38:05.550-05:00Goodbye Beyonder, and God Save The Queen! :DGoodbye Beyonder, and God Save The Queen! :DSimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-28859847556580190072012-01-09T05:30:06.717-05:002012-01-09T05:30:06.717-05:00Well, I was using the terms "fascist"/&q...Well, I was using the terms "fascist"/"fascistic"/"fascistoid" in the moral, rather than the political sense. After all, I'm not part of those fools that run around in packs, err, in parties I mean, and endlessly spout empty phrases.<br /><br />And from a *moral* point of view, there *is* little difference to whether one tinks he needs to put all power, all responsibility into a heriary monarchy for his world to be all right or some demagogue. In both cases, they surrender all responsibilies for the well-being of a people to some ultimate political power.<br /><br />As I implied before, everything going into the meaningless details (such as whether it's a monarchy or some partie regime) is merely useless hair-splitting.<br /><br />But all the same: I have now read all your comments and am not interested in debating with you anymore. Bye.Andreas Kraußhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03561423946501346693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-70062864839626469782012-01-09T05:09:08.601-05:002012-01-09T05:09:08.601-05:00The Beyonder:
"Sigh. I'm a German. Englis...The Beyonder:<br />"Sigh. I'm a German. English is my second language. Sue me.<br /><br />But if you want to be a jerk, let's just terminate our debate. Ciao."<br /><br />I certainly disagree strongly with you, even if you don't appear to be a fully paid up member of the Forces of Evil. Your definition of Fascism is appallingly inaccurate and seems derived from some really crappy sub-Frankfurt School indoctrination on Authoritarian Personalities and the like. <br /><br />Actual Fascism is a modernist, radical ideology that originally glorified State power, imperialism, and violence. It's different from National Socialism which glorifies the Race, and in German Nazism's case demonises other races, Jews in particular. Neither Fascism nor Nazism approve of Divine Right of Kings. When you mix Fascism and traditionalist Monarchism you get something like Franco's Spain - Franco claimed to be a monarchist, yet in 35 years he never actually restored the monarchy!Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-21304473374378860112012-01-09T04:41:15.749-05:002012-01-09T04:41:15.749-05:00In order to rescue the story from the obvious impl...<i>In order to rescue the story from the obvious implications of this, you are left fabricating a history of the East - "they could've been fighting against Sauron's tyranny for all we can tell ..."</i><br /><br />No. Rather than "fabricating", I was faintly remembering this:<br /><br />"But the other two Istari were sent for a different purpose. Morinehtar and Rómestámo. Darkness-slayer and East-helper. Their task was to circumvent Sauron: to bring help to the few tribes of Men that had rebelled from Melkor-worship, to stir up rebellion ... and after his first fall to search out his hiding (in which they failed) and to cause [?dissension and disarray] among the dark East ... They must have had very great influence on the history of the Second Age and Third Age in weakening and disarraying the force of East ... who would both in the Second Age and Third Age otherwise have ... outnumbered the West." <br /><br />—<i>The Peoples of Middle-Earth</i> (pp. 384-385, ellipses in original)<br /><br />N.b. also that Tolkien mentions here a non-genetic means of maintaining long-term allegiance to Sauron: religion. (And before you bring up the Haradrim, I'll point out they were geo-political rivals of the Numenorean kingdoms, as the battles over Umbar demonstrate.) No need to invoke a biological explanation that appears nowhere in the text.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08868302412533031659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-4049203693402007912012-01-08T23:02:05.469-05:002012-01-08T23:02:05.469-05:00My argument on racial essentialism is based on the...<i>My argument on racial essentialism is based on the clear textual evidence that the Men of Darkness's evil was too robust to be anything but inherited.</i><br /><br />The paucity of your case is clear. Nothing about genetic inheritance (or "tainted blood", or anything) in the text. All you have is the circumstantial evidence that the Southrons and Easterlings were, in the times they are seen in the LotR, ruled by Sauron. As I've pointed out, the nature of Sauron's rule could easily be political or cultural. You have offered no evidence that it is racially inherited. There is clear evidence against: the missions of the Blue Wizards; the repeated references to their liberation after Sauron's overthrow; Tolkien's sharp opposition to any racial moral determinism.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08868302412533031659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-68752390339835921742012-01-08T22:40:38.352-05:002012-01-08T22:40:38.352-05:00Noisms, what are you trying to imply when you say ...Noisms, what are you trying to imply when you say <br /><i><br />You have a set of preconceptions that you're applying to the 'liberated' text of the LOTR<br /></i><br />?<br /><br />I think most of your comment is another kind of extended sneer: you think I don't like LoTR and am looking for weak pretexts to dump on it. <br /><br />As for "going around in circles"... you raised the issue of the pardoning of the Southrons, and I've pointed out to you that it only adds to the argument if you ascribe to Aragorn the morality of an exterminationist racist. I note both you and Michael have backed well away from that now. Doesn't seem very circular to me. <br /><br />Your sole defense of Tolkien - that you've stuck to across months of this debate - is his assertion (outside the text) that the corruption of the Orcs was Melkor's greatest crime. This is a really weak defense:<br /><br />- it doesn't change the nature of the model racial theory described in the books, just gives an authorial judgment (though this is external to the text, I note)<br />- it says nothing about the corruption of the Men of Darkness, and their all-too-close association with real world equivalents in Africa and Asia<br />- adding an air of tragedy to the corrupted races can serve to add to the sense that they are morally lesser, and doesn't change their moral role in the story<br /><br />Compared, for example, to a narrative in which the Orcs rescue themselves from Sauron, this moral condemnation of Melkor is a very weak authorial intervention. And as I pointed out above (with a comparison to Nazi ideas about a biological body politic) it's not inconsistent with standard scientific racist tropes about the relative moral value of the races. It doesn't really do anything to save the legendarium from this criticism.<br /><br />You could, for example, read this authorial condemnation of Melkor as analogous to a voice of sadness from an enlightened colonial leader about the sad moral state of the inferior peoples under his power. Maybe this leader would even blame it on the fracturing of the tribes of Israel or something (the "worst thing" that ever happened to men, etc. blah blah). But it doesn't change the fact of this colonial leader's view of his basest subjects, does it?Sir Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538417181412075663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-78383866677711671782012-01-08T22:26:35.762-05:002012-01-08T22:26:35.762-05:00Wow, you toddle off to a gothic lolita rock event ...Wow, you toddle off to a gothic lolita rock event for a day and the comements pile on.<br /><br />Beyonder, I think it's pretty clear that S'mon doesn't have anything to add except fatuous insults, and isn't worth engaging with.<br /><br />Michael, Tolkien's created world is not "very short of textual evidence." He makes it very clear that the Easterlings and Southrons have always been servants of evil. Try replacing the word "Easterlings" with "Jews" and ask yourself - is that statement slightly racist? And does it matter one whit what the cause is? You can drop the racial essentialism and you still get a world dripping in racist stereotypes, in which the people of the east and south are eternal servants of evil. My argument on racial essentialism is based on the clear textual evidence that the Men of Darkness's evil was too robust to be anything but inherited.<br /><br />You say,<br /><i><br />The Easterlings "retained their vulnerability to Sauron" in the same way the Numenoreans retained it -- because it is corrupt human nature, not racial essence that makes mortals vulnerable to evil.<br /></i><br />but this is not true. It's a complete fabrication. The Numenoreans were corrupted once, in one generation, but the survivors fled east and redeemed themselves through their actions in setting up a superior culture - bulwark against Morgoth and then Sauron - in Middle Earth. The Men of Darkness were corrupted almost at the instant of their creation and retained that corruption through three Ages, regardless of the presence or absence of the evil forces that originally animated their evil nature. You cannot reasonably claim that the Numenoreans and Men of Darkness had the same racial traits vis a vis evil.<br /><br />You say<br /><i><br />Sauron didn't dwell openly in Mordor for much of the history of Gondor. He was in hiding after the Ring was lost, either incorporeal, or in his strongholds in the East.<br /></i><br />and that exactly proves my point. We don't know where he was, and we know that after the battle in which the ring was lost he was weakened and disappeared. Yet when he returned, he had to begin his work afresh to corrupt the men of the West, and it largely failed (at the time of the war of the ring they were ready to go to war with him, and actively seeking ways around him). Even the corruption of the King through the Palantir was only partial and only affected him, not his people. Yet in the same time period, Sauron was able to reawaken the allegiances of whole nations and peoples to the South and East.<br /><br />In order to rescue the story from the obvious implications of this, you are left fabricating a history of the East - "they could've been fighting against Sauron's tyranny for all we can tell ..."<br /><br />Sauron was in Mirkwood between 1050 and 2940TA. He spent 1900 years in Mirkwood and all he could do was corrupt a couple of spiders. But then he returned to Mordor after being driven out of Mirkwood, and lo! just 70 years later several nations of the East and South are at his beck and call for a war against (geographically much nearer) Gondor. How is it that the elves, Rohirrim and Men of the West can resist his corrupting influence for 2000 years, but the Southrons - though much further away - sign up en masse within 70 years to a guy they haven't seen for 2000 years?<br /><br />You're basically having to look outside the text for reasons to explain away the obvious conclusions inside the text.Sir Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538417181412075663noreply@blogger.com