Quote:
|
What does it mean for black readers to constantly see the words 'dark' and 'black' used for the evil side?
|
But surely 'evil side' is rather defined by what it does, not how it looks. Or rather, it looks 'dark' (as in creepy cold black starless foggy night, not brownish warm chocolate colour) following what it does (clouds fogging both Orodruin and Thangorodrim expressing Sauron/Morgoth's brooding)
Than there is Sam reflecting upon fate, war and nature of evil over the dead body of the Southerner.
I don't suppose the employement of word 'dark' should be that repelling. Whatever the skin colour, people generally prefer bright day to the dead of night (despite what we down here play at, being skeletons and wights)
Most virtues are the same across cultures (courage, justice, mercy, kindness (even japanese 'obligation' incororates those) are good things, cowardice, threachery etc - bad things)
It should appeal therefore, on moral plane, even if it does not appeal on, per instance, with nature description (indeed, what if I prefer deserts, starry skies and the wind to rooks and hills? But my preferences are irrelevant, as if Aragorn and Co were Bedouins, Sauron would be Iblis/Shaitan trying to defile the silence of the desert itself, and there would be no quesiton which side should I be on)
Epic is an epic everywhere
Indeed, in this respect hobbits should be the major drawback for the 'cross-cultural appeal' (or at least, hobbits in the beginning of the book). If they serve the purpose of connecting modern (presumably, European) reader with the epic heroes of the past, for some cultures (Japanese, for hobbits have no obligations and seem lazing more often than not, Bedouins or Afghanis, for hobbits are gentle, not warlike at all etc) they may prove an entity, contrary to intention, reader is unable to feel for or associate himself with at all
But once we are on to High Epic, LoTR is less unlike any other national epos. Why should not it appeal?