Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpM
You see, there is an element amongst those who follow Tolkien that is somewhat crazed. There are those who use what Tolkien wrote to justify their own agendas. We know this from the existence of that abhorrent Stormfront website. And there are others who use his works in support their extremist or fundamentalist ideologies (whether they be religious, political or whatever). These people may be searching in the dark, but they are also searching for something very dark indeed. Something quite different from the shiny sixpence (whatever that may be).
|
The thing is that many, if not most, of the cultural products in our world can easily be misinterpreted (whether deliberately or not) and then used to support an agenda. We all know how this has happened with religious texts. But I would say that it is wrong to assume that just because some who interpret in a certain way are proponents of hatred, that it follows that the product is in itself intrinsically
wrong. There have been multitudes of Christians who have interpreted the Bible in such a way that their subsequent behaviour has been infused with hatred, but it does not mean that the Bible itself is wrong. It's a familiar argument used by many (not just critics or journalists) - to blame a thing rather than the sociopathic tendencies of those who access it.
However, I do agree that it is important to address those elements within a community who choose to bring down the reputation of the majority. One way of doing this is to not shy away from discussing and addressing questions of whether Tolkien's work has any hidden agendas. Unfortunately there are very few forums like this where serious discussion of that nature can take place, and all that critics see is our lighter side.
I think essentially the problem with so many of these commentators is that they wilfully stereotype people and use sweeping statements, both those who choose to attack Tolkien via the fans
and those who take a more textual approach. Of course, stereotyping is a mainstay of journalism, as using a sleight of hand to describe a type of people, a type of reader, takes up many less words and valuable column inches. Had Tolkien been alive today I am quite sure that he would have been more than capable of taking on such journalists, as from his Letters he clearly had an acid tongue and a way with the 'soundbite' himself.
In his article Hari actually betrays himself quite early on by writing: "The success of his dire trilogy obviously cannot be attributed to literary merit." He then goes on without justifying this statement with any kind of analysis of what 'literary merit' may or may not be. The 'obviously' is a nod to the cognoscenti before he plunges into his invective. Thus it is clear almost from the start of the article that he had already decided that Lord of the Rings was bad, and had decided to find some arguments to support his view. He finishes off with another little 'nod': "Yes, it might seem absurd to take Tolkien so seriously", as though he feels assured that the reader agrees with him, which
of course, any reader of the Independent
would do. After all, Tolkien fans are probably too away with the fairies to ever read a broadsheet newspaper.
