Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nogrod
Yes, I know I’m “accusing” Tolkien of sins that were thought of as sins only after he wrote his stories (or parallel to his writing them). And I do love the stories and I do love Tolkien.
But when you love something you must be ready to challenge your love as well to see the problems. Like a parent loves his children despite the defects of the child he sees – although the parallel fails in that it’s hard to figure oneself as a “father” of Tolkien. 
PS. I will not post like this further on. It's just that the Concerning Hobbits is a general description of a folk bringing forwards an social and political ideal and thence it requires a social-political thought to try and understand it - in my opinion. |
Great post,
Nogrod.
Obviously you are not the first to raise these concerns regarding Tolkien's works and you won't be the last either. That "The Scourge of the Dark Side"-thread immediately springs to mind, along with a few lectures I've received from friends. I suppose that the "sin" Tolkien committed (according to our modern sensibilities) is generalising about different groups of people and comparing them to each other. This, of course, is a common theme throughout his works and all peoples and races have an elite group greater than their kin-folk. The Elves have their Noldor, the Men the Dunedain or Numenorians, the Dwarves the Longbeards, the Hobbits the Fallohides, even the Goblins have a master race in the Uruk Hai.
So the Fallohides were a northern branch of Hobbits; taller, blonder, bolder and generally greater than the others. The Dunedain also share many of these characteristics and are also found in the North-west. You are intimating that there is an analogy between these fictional master-peoples of the North-west and the English or perhaps rather the people of Western Europe and I tend to agree. This analogy can't have been unintentional. Did Tolkien feel that the peoples of Western Europe were greater and more noble than the invading hoards of the far East and the dark savages of the South? Possibly. Perhaps he took a Euro-centric perspective because it would feel more authentic that way as a genuine mythology but I find it hard to believe he didn't mix up his personal feelings into it too.
More to the point: should we condemn Tolkien if he thought the tall and noble peoples of North-western Europe were "greater" than other peoples in the world. I'm not so sure of this. To express this view today (ie my people is better than other people) is not politically correct to say the very least and I'm becoming nervous just discussing it here. In light of the heinous crimes committed against humanity by Hitler and many others who were not Caucasians from North-western Europe who justified their actions with ideas of racial or cultural supremacy this is very understandable.
What pardons Tolkien in my mind is that he never wrote a single line that justifies one person's or people's right to take
anything away from another person or people because of relative "greatness". Great or small, all are within the law in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Sure, the Numenorians or Gondorians fex. had colonial tendencies, but this is never condoned by the authors voice in any way, only described factually. I'm reminded of
Legate's thread about power: even if a character is mighty beyond comprehension like Gandalf he has no right to use that power to take what he wants, however benign he might be.
Greatness does not give one the right to dominate the lesser against their will.
Edit: A thing I'd like to add or expand on rather is that being great or mighty isn't necessarily connected to being good. Throughout the stories the one thing that determines a character's true value if you wish is the moral choices he or she makes. Although the Noldor or the Dunedain are the greatest of the Elves and Men respectively, they often do rash and unjust deeds that in no way is justified by their "greatness". While Feanor is the greatest of the Noldor he is certainly not the best. Samwise on the other hand is a common gardener and not mighty or great at all, but still he is one of the biggest heroes of the story.
I think this is a nice point actually. Although our modern enlightened society forbids us to discuss it, the truth is that some are endowed with more than others, and no amount or socialism or progressive politics can change that fact. Some are born into rich, well-educated families and grow up good looking and intelligent. Life offers these lucky individuals many opportunities and treats. Others draw a blank in the genetic lottery and grow up somewhat dim-witted and ugly. If they also lack the benefits of a supportive family or society life will often treat them hard. But I think that it's important to remember that they still can be good people. The dim-witted, ugly and poor fellow can easily be a "better" person than the beautiful, smart and rich if he/she makes better moral choices and lives a life respecting and helping others.
But maybe I'm making too much of this...