What breaks the enchantment?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mormegil

How does one go about dropping all of the "baggage"? I just find it improbable that one would be expected to do that. If you know of a way please tell me. I try and supress all of my primary world views but I just don't see that it's entirely feasible. Which leads me to my next question.

I accept that we can't do that completely, my point is that we have to try to do it as far as we possibly can. We need to know ourselves well enough to recognise what baggage we are carrying, so that we are less likely to project it into the text, or worse, onto the author.

If the author's intent is to enchant us, then is it not his or her responsibility to do so with our baggage in mind?

But how could an author know what baggage each of us is carrying & so take steps to deal with that? It doesn't matter how good the book or movie is, we can still break, or have broken for us, the artist's spell if we choose, or if circumstances conspire against us.

The point I was making was that if, say, Tom Bombadil breaks the spell for some readers but not for others, if the style of TH breaks the spell for you but not for me, or the approach taken in JTCR breaks the spell for Bb but not for another reader, then we can't blame Tolkien for failing in his intent to enchant, because the spell has worked on some readers & that proves its efficacy. If it fails with other readers it cannot be because of a failure on Tolkien's part. If every reader had the spell broken by TB, or the style of TH, then it would be a failure of the author.

[mormegil]

The point I was making was that if, say, Tom Bombadil breaks the spell for some readers but not for others, if the style of TH breaks the spell for you but not for me, or the approach taken in JTCR breaks the spell for Bb but not for another reader, then we can't blame Tolkien for failing in his intent to enchant, because the spell has worked on some readers & that proves its efficacy. If it fails with other readers it cannot be because of a failure on Tolkien's part. If every reader had the spell broken by TB, or the style of TH, then it would be a failure of the author.

Just to make sure I understand you view correctly, If even one person is not disenchanted at all then the author did not fail? Or would it be more of a majority of people? But if it's a majority which population is it based on? The people who enjoy the book or the entire population that has ever read the book?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mormegil

Just to make sure I understand you view correctly, If even one person is not disenchanted at all then the author did not fail? Or would it be more of a majority of people? But if it's a majority which population is it based on? The people who enjoy the book or the entire population that has ever read the book?

The author would have succeeded with that one person - which is the important thing - as far as both the author & that reader are concerned. It means that the author/artist has produced a true work of art, which has opened the heart/mind/soul of another human being to another world.

An artist's relationship is not with a 'mass' but with each individual reader/listener/viewer. Its a one to one thing. In Mythopoea Tolkien speaks of 'living shapes that move from mind to mind' - its a two way thing one mind puts out, the other takes in. Tolkien's 'relationship' is not with x million readers but with me as an individual & with you as an individual. Of course, there may be a failure of communication on this level - an artist can only do his/her best, but a reader, equally, must do their best. The artist only has to succeed in enchanting one person with their work to be considered successful, because the artist's intent is to 'enchant' the (generally speaking) unknown/unknowable recipient of their art. Tolkien succeeded in enchanting me, therefore he succeeded totally -in his intent, which was to enchant 'the' reader of his work.

Waits for in evitable argument.......

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Another question would be why we're so prone to disenchanting ourselves? Perhaps we've forgotten how to shut up & listen, or maybe we've simply gotten so used to only listening to ourelves that anything which contradicts or challenges our own 'secondary world' of beliefs, values, concepts & connections can't hold our attention - we simply want to be told what we already know. If an author says something that can't be fitted easily into our own secondary reality then we stop listening & walk away.

Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything which 'broke the spell' - the effect was rather the opposite - I even carried some of the enchantment out of the secondary world with me, which changed the way I experienced the primary world

We should no doubt be thrilled that we have in our midst such a perfect reader as davem who can train us all in his method of reading, so that we all read the same way. I bet he would be as good at identifying our baggage just as he is at psychoanalysing our blind self-interest which is the only thing possible, apparently, that limits our reading the way he does.

Seriously, I think this model of reading is too circular: If you fall out of enchantment, the fault is always yours, because you, nasty reader, bring things in that don't belong. Learn to control your imagination, reader or do penance for bad thoughts. Bad reader. Submit totally to the will of the author!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Submit totally to the will of the author!

We should 'submit' to the art, not the artist, but the artist is the communicator of the art to us, so we should attempt in the first instance, & as far as we are able, to experience the art objectively.

Or, if I take your post for example, would you want me to make an effort - in so far as I can, to try & understand your points, the things you are trying to communicate to me, as objectively as I can, or would you be happy with me simply reading into them whatever I choose?

In other words, is it possible for me to understand what you're saying - if I pay attention & read your words carefully - or must I inevitably interpret what you write in my own, unique, idiosyncratic way?

And if I must do that, how can you object if I misunderstand or misinterpret what you write, or impose my own meaning on it? Shouldn't I have enough respect for you as a person, & for what you have made the effort to write & post here that I try, in so far as I am able, to understand what you intend?

[Lalwendë]

One thing I have struggled with in LotR is the politics, and the underlying political messages which I dislike intensely. I do not like the idea that certain 'classes' of people are somehow more superior than others, and hence am not entirely enraptured with Elves. I also have misgivings about Sam's place in this story. But, while I sometimes ponder these matters, I have to drop them from any serious consideration of the work as they are irrelevant.

Why are they irrelevant? This is a secondary world and such matters do not trouble those who live therein; the Elves are not a snooty upper class, they are benign, and Sam's under-education is not a burden to him, he is not shown to be a buffoon or a village idiot. If I was to have Middle Earth entirely correct to my own political beliefs then it would a sanitised mess. I have the same experience when reading Jane Austen - I wonder to myself where the servants are? I think it's all very well the Bennett sisters bemoaning the lack of rich suitors, but what about the poor girls who serve up their food and sew their gowns? Again, I have to suspend such thoughts in order to enjoy the books.

Writers by necessity focus on a narrow field of vision, they simply cannot take in all of the world or such vital matters as plot and characterisation would fall by the wayside in the pursuit of considering all the potential readers. When I hear critics saying of LotR that it lacks strong female characters I do get cross as this is missing the point. Criticism like that takes the nature of art out of context. If every piece of art must consider every experience of humankind then art would quickly become bland and grey and boring. LotR, like Jane Austen's work, homes in on one vision of a/the world and deals with that. Authors simply cannot take all of our baggage into consideration or what they wrote would become stilted and dull. Either that, or the author who managed to pull off this feat would be incredibly rich, as no author has managed that. The fact that Tolkien is one of the most popular authors in the world must mean that he goes at least part of the way.

If someone fails to be enchanted by a book, then they simply put it down and try a different one. If someone fails to be won over by a particular passage then this might diminish their enjoyment. It isn't the fault of the author unless they are universally seen as a terrible writer (in which case they probably - hopefully? - wouldn't be published). I think what it boils down to is both taste and the fact that we all do carry baggage with us when we open a book. If we can't suspend our 'baggage' then we can't take on board what we are reading.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

we should attempt in the first instance, & as far as we are able, to experience the art objectively.

Or, if I take your post for example, would you want me to make an effort - in so far as I can, to try & understand your points, the things you are trying to communicate to me, as objectively as I can, or would you be happy with me simply reading into them whatever I choose?

In other words, is it possible for me to understand what you're saying - if I pay attention & read your words carefully - or must I inevitably interpret what you write in my own, unique, idiosyncratic way?

And if I must do that, how can you object if I misunderstand or misinterpret what you write, or impose my own meaning on it? Shouldn't I have enough respect for you as a person, & for what you have made the effort to write & post here that I try, in so far as I am able, to understand what you intend?

Is there one, right, unvarying, unchanging way to interpret a text? Has the enchantment of Tolkien always been the same? Were the hippie American university students who adorned their rooms with "Frodo lives!" wrong? Were the first readers who looked aghast at them right? What about the tree huggers? Or are later readers now, who have the benefit of The Silm and HoME, the true standard bearers? Is there one author who, over time, has invariably been understood in the same way? Not the Bible, not Dante, not Cervantes, not Dickens, not Dostoyevski, not Kante, not Kafka, not Joyce, not Woolf. Etc.

I don't disagree with you that we must do our best to try to listen to the "voice" that speaks to us, to respect the "Other." But has this truly been your method here with our posts? As you yourself noted in the current Chapter by Chapter thread, that thread generated far more discussion than the previous one, where people did not have disagreements or differences. In fact, you yourself said you were posting not so much to disagree as to keep the discussion going.

Was this disrespectful? Or was it an effort to stimulate the discussion, to engage in the free intellectual play of words? Frankly, I don't think you *do* respond to what you think I mean. I think you respond in order deliberately to misinterpret, in order to generate futher discussion. It is a playful move, not at all disrespectful, but it represents in fact how humans make meaning. "Misprision." If all we ever posted was, "eh, wow, me too!", well, I don't think there would be a Barrow Downs discussion board.

Some forms of disagreement are far more serious, particularly when there is a deliberate attempt to silence the "other" who thinks differently, responds differently, sees things in a slightly different perspective. To characterise those who don't 'achieve the reading success you do' as people who are blind to other ideas, blind to the ideas of the author and who don't like to be challenged and who impose their will upon a text, moves too closely I think to this negative consequence of disagreement.

As I see your posts here in this thread, your theory of reading has no place for historical change of meaning, has no place for the generation of new awareness, has no place for the future, no explanation for imagination. (Forgive me if I see definite elvish traits here.) It is you, I fear, who would impose on readers, as a text themselves, your own reading, because you think you know how to interpret Tolkien, since the enchantment is always and ever with you. 'I am completely happy and in thrall to the text, therefore I think as Tolkien wants me to think.' There's something solipcistic there that worries me.

Of course, we could just be dancing on the head of a pin.

EDIT: cross posting with Fordim, davem, and Lalwendë. don't have time now to respond to their latest.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Is there one, right, unvarying, unchanging way to interpret a text? Has the enchantment of Tolkien always been the same? Were the hippie American university students who adorned their rooms with "Frodo lives!" wrong? Were the first readers who looked aghast at them right? What about the tree huggers? Or are later readers now, who have the benefit of The Silm and HoME, the true standard bearers?

I'd say all were 'enchanted' by the text, but in different ways. the author (the enchanter) is not responsible for the result of the enchantment, only for the intent.

Frankly, I don't think you *do* respond to what you think I mean. I think you respond in order deliberately to misinterpret, in order to generate futher discussion. It is a playful move, not at all disrespectful, but it represents in fact how humans make meaning.

My point, from the beginning, has been that an attempt to understand what an author intended should be our prime objective - other objectives may, or may not, follow, as we are so inclined - whether to gain a better understanding of the story, the author, or of ourselves. In what way have I 'deliberately' misinterpreted what anyone said? I said in post 51 that I didn't object to your applying ideas about Lilith to Shelob, but that I wasn't convinced they worked. I was arguing about what you were applying to the text, not with your right to apply it.

As I see your posts here in this thread, your theory of reading has no place for historical change of meaning, has no place for the generation of new awareness, has no place for the future, no explanation for imagination. (Forgive me if I see definite elvish traits here.) It is you, I fear, who would impose on readers, as a text themselves, your own reading, because you think you know how to interpret Tolkien, since the enchantment is always and ever with you. 'I am completely happy and in thrall to the text, therefore I think as Tolkien wants me to think.' There's something solipcistic there that worries me.

What I'm saying is not denying a place for 'historical change of meaning', nor does it leave 'no place for the generation of new awareness, no place for the future, no explanation for imagination'. (Perhaps I'm not the only one guilty of reading things into other's post's that they didn't put there?) All I've ever said was that the experience of the art (in as pure a degree as we are capable of) must come first, then we must (again as far as we are capable of doing it) attempt to understand what the artist intended to communicate, what he/she wanted to say to us, then, finally, can come - if we so desire it - our own interpretation of the text/painting/symphony.

My theory - take it or leave it, but please don't think I trying to silence all alternatives. I believe in my position, so I'll defend it, but I wouldn't expect any less from anyone else.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

(I think we may need to rename this the Canonicity Thread part 2 -- where's H-I???)

I have to say that I tend to approach this topic in pretty much exactly the manner described by Bethberry. There are parts of the story in which I find the writing itself to be somewhat stilted (the Professor can get carried away with his high-style at time, particularly in RotK: all those "and lo!" and hyperbolic similes) and these moments tend to shake my immersion in the world, simply because I shift away from the story itself to the manner of its writing.

But there are other things that shake the enchantment even more, and these are really the kinds of things that I think davem and Bb are crossing swords about (both here and in the CbC): there are times in the story when the Professor's rather old world, nineteenth century view of society is one that is so wildly out of whack with my own that I shift and shy away from the tale. I do not begrudge him his views, nor do I take issue with them directly -- he is free to write from one point of view, while I am free to read and interpret from another. But there at moments when he presents his own perspective as a universal.

For example, the fate of Eowyn. Now, don't get me wrong, I adore Faramir and think that he's a wonderful fellow to marry -- but the idea that Eowyn's best (and indeed only) fate is to forsake the martial heroism that has been her watchword throughout the story and to lay it all down so that she can become rather a cliched figure of healing and fertility... Well, let's just say that I tend to skim over that part a bit. Like I said above, the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption: it's not really presented as a choice for Eowyn to continue on as do Merry and Pippin (as people who are not 'really' or 'properly' soldiers, but who continue to act as soldiers and warriors, as martial leaders: they take something away from the War and from their battles). In this case, the Prof's point of view (women aren't naturally or properly warriors) becomes the only point of view.

So it's not that I am disenchanting myself -- quite the reverse, I think. Instead, it is a moment in which the author has attempted to cast a rather possessive spell upon me; he has tried to rope me in to his view of the world. Fortunately, Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation. So taking my cue from figures like Frodo and Aragorn, I turn away from that seductive appeal and hold to my own view of the way things are. In this way, I may move away from the text, but the story is able to draw me back in with the broader appeal of its applicability.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Fordim

but the idea that Eowyn's best (and indeed only) fate is to forsake the martial heroism that has been her watchword throughout the story and to lay it all down so that she can become rather a cliched figure of healing and fertility...

Well, without getting into that too deeply, I think that Tolkien, as someone who had seen the reality of warfare, in effect the wrongness, the immorality, of it (while acknowledging its necessity in certain circumstances), would not see 'martial heroism' as something admirable - after all, neither Merry, Pippin nor Sam follow Aragorn in his continued seek & destroy mission after the end of the War of the Ring. Eowyn chooses peace over war, to be a healer rather than a destroyer, & I think Tolkien is presenting this as a more moral, more grown up thing. Would we rather see her hacked to pieces by orcs, or spending the rest of her best years hacking them to pieces?

The world Tolkien created (or communicated, or made available) to us is self contained. We should first try & experience it for itself. Then we can analyse it & our own feelings towards it. We have to try & experience it before we can judge it, listen to the story we're being told. If we don't make that effort, how can we know whether we've got issues with Tolkien or with ourselves?

[drigel]

there is a greater chance that the spell will remain effective

Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation.

Whether it's in our genes or some kind of shared family history that gets passed down over the generations, Tolkien was able to harness it, and fashion such a compelling invitation that for some (like me), the pull into fairie was as unstoppable as any force of nature.

The cause of its success was that Tolkien was able to tap into such a huge, diverse population's internal imagination. It's within us, after all. There was no magic wand that caused it. The genious of it was that -as repeated here so many times and in so many ways - in the kernal of the myth lies a Truth that transends cultures. Beth I do agree with you - it begins with awareness, or cognizance. Then if one can steer his/her own ship right, there is also willingness
and of course humility. This goes back to how some people are more "imaginative" than others, and why. This could also be considered a state of perception, or even by some as a psychological condition ('63 acid tests, anyone?). I wonder that sometimes when I find myself in my boxers, hands outstretched at the sunrise, my dog looking on with bewilderment...

I always viewed that Tolkien is best analyzed in a good Humanities class, not an english class. That being said, any I find the spell broken of course when someone interprets the work. Sometimes it works - "oh yea that was right on", sometimes its "eh, - not really", sometimes it doesnt. Either way, it's my love for the work that makes me appreciate other's views.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

. . .
But there are other things that shake the enchantment even more, and these are really the kinds of things that I think davem and Bb are crossing swords about (both here and in the CbC): there are times in the story when the Professor's rather old world, nineteenth century view of society is one that is so wildly out of whack with my own that I shift and shy away from the tale. I do not begrudge him his views, nor do I take issue with them directly -- he is free to write from one point of view, while I am free to read and interpret from another. But there at moments when he presents his own perspective as a universal.

. . . .
the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption: it's not really presented as a choice for Eowyn to continue on as do Merry and Pippin (as people who are not 'really' or 'properly' soldiers, but who continue to act as soldiers and warriors, as martial leaders: they take something away from the War and from their battles). In this case, the Prof's point of view (women aren't naturally or properly warriors) becomes the only point of view.
. . . .

So it's not that I am disenchanting myself -- quite the reverse, I think. Instead, it is a moment in which the author has attempted to cast a rather possessive spell upon me; he has tried to rope me in to his view of the world. Fortunately, Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation. So taking my cue from figures like Frodo and Aragorn, I turn away from that seductive appeal and hold to my own view of the way things are. In this way, I may move away from the text, but the story is able to draw me back in with the broader appeal of its applicability.

Ah, welcome, Lurker!

I find much to commend in this idea that the text invites readers to share a world perspective which is presented as universal when it is not. It is invitingly but gently presented, yet remains one which is not tenable for some in this century. The issue of Eowyn is a good one, as it appears axiomatic that she must marry someone. She cannot simply choose to become a healer or, more independently and originally, a loremaster, but must, perhaps because she is an aristocrat or perhaps because she is a woman, marry and create part of the new hierarchy in Ithilien. We know that Merry and Pippin marry, but their marriges are marginal to the story and, indeed, their part of the story ends far away from their families. They are given other activities, events after their wartime effort, as leaders in their community: Eowyn has only the dynastic marriage. The cage may be gilded, but it is still a cage.

The idea that one must put aside one's own world view or perspective--especially when it is referred to as 'baggage'-- in order to be enchanted by the text, well, that sounds too much like old time seduction to me, old world marriage of subordination rather than equality.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

The issue of Eowyn is a good one, as it appears axiomatic that she must marry someone. She cannot simply choose to become a healer or, more independently and originally, a loremaster

At the risk of being accused of being argumentative for the sake of it, or deliberately misinterpreting what is being said , I have to say that if something like that had been the outcome of Eowyn's story it would have broken the spell for me, because it would have made that part of the story nothing but an allegory of feminism - & a bad one at that. Eowyn assumes the right & proper role of someone of her rank & station in a world like Middle earth.

She simply would not have thought of doing what you suggest because of the culture she was brought up in. The fact that she was a 'shieldmaiden, daughter of kings' accounts for her decision to take up arms & fight - alongside her despair in her failed hopes for Aragorn - but to take a step against the whole cultural background of the world she inhabited would have come across to me as ridiculous & unbelievable. Things like that didn't happen in Middle earth. This is why I say we must come to the story as free as possible of our own values & pre-conceptions. I think we gain more from accepting that world as it is, the fates of its inhabitants as what they are, & then analysing our reactions to them. Eowyn is not a 21st century woman, with all the options of a 21st century woman. She is (quite convincingly for me) a woman of her time. To feel 'disenchanted' by the fact that she is not something she could never possibly have been seems (to me) to support my argument that if we carry our own baggage with us into the secondary world we'll never have a full experience of it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

At the risk of being accused of being argumentative for the sake of it, or deliberately misinterpreting what is being said , I have to say that if something like that had been the outcome of Eowyn's story it would have broken the spell for me, because it would have made that part of the story nothing but an allegory of feminism - & a bad one at that. Eowyn assumes the right & proper role of someone of her rank & station in a world like Middle earth.

She simply would not have thought of doing what you suggest because of the culture she was brought up in. The fact that she was a 'shieldmaiden, daughter of kings' accounts for her decision to take up arms & fight - alongside her despair in her failed hopes for Aragorn - but to take a step against the whole cultural background of the world she inhabited would have come across to me as ridiculous & unbelievable. Things like that didn't happen in Middle earth. This is why I say we must come to the story as free as possible of our own values & pre-conceptions. I think we gain more from accepting that world as it is, the fates of its inhabitants as what they are, & then analysing our reactions to them. Eowyn is not a 21st century woman, with all the options of a 21st century woman. She is (quite convincingly for me) a woman of her time. To feel 'disenchanted' by the fact that she is not something she could never possibly have been seems (to me) to support my argument that if we carry our own baggage with us into the secondary world we'll never have a full experience of it.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I would not expect Shakespeare or Austen or any other writer to present us with anything other than the world they are presenting us with; they are not presenting us with our world, so I don't expect to see our world.

My disappointment over the lack of choice granted Eowyn has nothing to do with late 20C/early 21C femininism, davem and Lalwendë. (Believe it or not, I'm not one.) It has to do rather with the fact that Tolkien's Middle earth is a construct of late Victorian/early Edwardian culture rather than a universally applicable culture.

In early Medieval Europe, women were as educated as men in monasteries and nunneries. And sometimes noble women inherited vast estates and managed them in their own name and right. Julian of Norwich, Hildegard von Bingen, St. Bridget (Sweden) were all learned and highly respected women. The French poet Christine de Pizan earned her living as a writing. St. John's College, Oxford, owes its (initial) wealth to its founding patroness. There is much evidence for the equality of women in Viking cultures. I could go on.

Austen did not presume to present a culture of universal significance. Her novels are thoroughly and completely grounded in her early 19C culture.

In short, my disenchantment has to do not with my purported baggage from my own time, but with the "baggage" (I use this word simply because you have chosen to continue to use it) of his own time which Tolkien brought to Middle earth. There were other choices available to women like Eowyn in early culture but Tolkien choose the one most predictable according to his own cultural viewpoint. Eowyn, in short, is a late Victorian/ Edwardian imposition upon the kind of early culture whose history/mythology Tolkien was trying to create. I grant that all kinds of narrative imperative makes the marriage with Faramir attractive, but it still represents a perspective limited to Tolkien's own time rather than the universal world view which he tries to create in Middle earth.

Do I still enjoy reading him? Yes, of course. Do I think he was one of the best? Yes, of course.

[the phantom]

Davem is right about many readers who break the enchantment themselves when it isn't necessary.

A lot of people, not just when they read but in the real world as well, walk around with a lot of chips on their shoulder, and they seem to want people to knock them off. They are always ready to be shocked or insulted by something that doesn't chime with them. They love to be offended, and will go over a book, a movie, or a conversation with a fine toothed comb and try to find things that make them mad.

These people obviously are going to have an impossible time being entirely enchanted with Tolkien's books like Davem. The Eowyn thing that people have mentioned, the issue of some people or species (elves) being better than others- there are some people that are just never going to get past things like that if they don't entirely agree with them. These people either don't want to (or are incapable of) doing what I call "glossing over".

When I am watching a movie, I always try as hard as I can to be sucked in and be enchanted. Whenever a character expresses some opinion that I think is stupid, I don't think about it. I bat it aside. I sort of ignore it. As long as the enchantment-breaker is something minor (in other words, as long as it is not the primary focus or theme of the movie/book), I do not allow it to break my enchantment.

Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything which 'broke the spell' - the effect was rather the opposite - I even carried some of the enchantment out of the secondary world with me, which changed the way I experienced the primary world.....

Me too.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

The idea that one must put aside one's own world view or perspective--especially when it is referred to as 'baggage'-- in order to be enchanted by the text, well, that sounds too much like old time seduction to me, old world marriage of subordination rather than equality.

Originally Posted by Fordim

Well, let's just say that I tend to skim over that part a bit. Like I said above, the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption

But what are we to do in order to become enchanted and immerse into the world which is being presented to us? As Fordim says, he has to skim the part about Eowyn accepting marriage as a happy outcome. I too have had to skim parts of the text which make comments about Hobbits being 'unlettered' as though it makes some kind of statement about their status in The Shire, but as I prefer not to rankle at what is being said about this world (which is most definitely not our world), I have to suspend my beliefs. Nowhere does Tolkien make statements which could be said to be outrageously racist, sexist or anything else, he merely presents us with how the world is in this other place. I would not expect Shakespeare or Austen or any other writer to present us with anything other than the world they are presenting us with; they are not presenting us with our world, so I don't expect to see our world.

To do otherwise is like reading a Bible with a magic marker. Fine if you want to look for examples of things which do not concur with our experiences, beliefs or politics, but not so fine if we want to simply experience the world as seen through the eyes of the characters.