Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
Well I would agree that that Tolkien was not intending to make any statement about race, racism or racial superiority in terms of the real world. So no such analysis is required when one is considering either the story qua story or authorial intention.
However, where the likes of Dr. Shapiro and Jonathan Hari seek to criticise LotR as a racist work or, worse still, where racist groups seek to use it to justify their warped creed (as some do), is it not legitimate to counter those points as Aiwendil has suggested? Particularly since, as Squatter points out, there is material there (Numenorean superiority, for example) which does provide them with some kind of a basis for making the argument (albeit a facile one, in my view).
|
The issue, I think, is whether Tolkien 'intended' the work to have any meaning or relevance to the primary world, or to be any kind of commentary on it. If not, if it was merely an 'entertainment' & the reader supplies the 'meaning' then the work cannot be labelled 'racist', 'sexist' or anything else - because if examples of those things are found in there the reader has himself supplied them, imposed them on the text.
The work itself can only be labelled 'racist' or 'sexist' (or anything else) if we accept that the story was intended to be that by the author. We can't say 'Its just a story' & then argue that it is, or is not,
objectively this or that.
As to the Numenorean example, one could note that this particular 'Master Race' brought about its own downfall as a direct result of its Master Race philosophy. If Tolkien was commenting on 'Master Races' through the Akalllabeth he was presenting them in a very negative way.