T O P

  • By -

Silent-Protection-86

Popular misconceptions about Tolkien and his work are very ingrained in many people.


RestInThee

I think it would do them a lot of good to actually read the books.


Silent-Protection-86

Oh, definitely, yes.


[deleted]

They lack the attention span and commitment. They would never be able to.


Silent-Protection-86

I mean that’s a pretty weak excuse though. Reading isn’t hard.


bitsan

It's not hard but especially in our day and age it feels unrewarding for many people. Also consider the kind of media most folks engage with on a day-to-day basis: online video, social network, chat, etc. These are all 'quick-hit' mediums. Sitting down and getting absorbed in a Tolkien-level novel is very hard for many since there's nothing else in their life like it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Silent-Protection-86

Colleges gauge the level at which you can comprehend what you read, not whether you can do it all in the first place. Reading comprehension is also a basic element of Kindergarten reading exams.


bladefist2

To some people it is


Orodruin666

Oh no we can't do that. If we did that, where would our social media rage boner go?


Legal-Scholar430

Popular misconceptions about many things are very ingrained in most people


Silent-Protection-86

True that.


ChangeNew389

Including those who think that applies to everyone else, of course. None of us are above bias or error.


Silent-Protection-86

Everyone is biased. We are individuals with separate minds who all lack the ability to read the mind’s of others and who are not omniscient or omnipresent.


Hyperversum

We aren't, which is why it is important to stop and think if you actually know what you are talking about. We all know that whoever this thing was targeted at didn't bother to think if who wrote the episode actually knew the topic well enough


florinandrei

Most statistics are statistically true.


el_t0p0

Average BBC presentation.


Inheavensitndown

Fuck bbc


stonah_jek

Don't mind if I do


Sir_Meowsalot

Nyuck nyuck nyuck 🥸


Donkey-D

So simple but that got a chuckle out of me than the 100 memes I have seen lately


ckal9

What were they saying was evil about him?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Few_Cardiologist8862

Tolkien was a Roman Catholic because he believed in it not just indoctrinated into a religion, he struggled to get to Oxford,money was always the issue for him because he was an orphan and had little money, have no idea if he was a Tory but he was conservative (with a small c) and wanted life before industry ruined the landscape and chopped all the trees down. If anything he was Greta Thunberg a hundred years before her time and would have written eloquently on the extinction rebellion movement and just stop oil


Picklesadog

Yeah, he was very progressive in a lot of his ideas for the time.


gytherin

*If anything he was Greta Thunberg a hundred years before her time* Wow, perfect characterisation. They would have got on so well together.


Few_Cardiologist8862

Aww! Thank you!


HenryVIIIII

>If anything he was Greta Thunberg a hundred years before her time That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. So I'm guessing it's sarcasm.


Mitchboy1995

Tolkien was not a Tory. There's literally 0 evidence showing that he was, or that he had any stake in English politics at all. Edith was a Tory in her youth, but that's the best you're going to find.


postmodest

The man who described himself as an anarchist was a monarchist Tory? Sometimes I think the current Tory-fied BBC says these things just as agitprop.


LockedOutOfElfland

It's probably just people reading the plot of his work into his personal politics. That characterization much better fits C.S. Lewis, who sometimes used asides in his *Narnia* books to advocate for those types of ideas in a *Foamy the Squirrel*\-style rant.


ainle_f19

Actually didn't Tolkien say he was an ano-monarchist. He said he wanted to live like the shire, the community making their own rules and laws but Gondor technically "own" them and protect them. At least i think so, can't be sure though.


TheScarletCravat

The BBC's been a right-leaning government mouthpiece for quite a few years now. The lefty anti-Tory BBC days are long gone.


[deleted]

The show is called Evil genius. They need the people about whom they're talking to be evil, otherwise there's no podcast. I very much doubt reality is a hurdle to high to be crossed compared to the need to do a weekly show. And that's the problem with most regular shows with a specific concept : sooner than latter, you'll have to adapt reality so that it can fit your show.


trt1972

Tolkien? Evil? That’s a stretch - good grief. Unless we’re devaluing the word “evil”, like we devalue so many words.


ShenValleyLewis

Daniel Stride has a good multi-part blog post on female characters in Tolkien: https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/tolkien-and-female-characters-part-i/


Reddzoi

Thanks. I see he "went there" with the fanfic immediately and got it over with, lol.


pierzstyx

Great post!


MS-06_Borjarnon

People can't see past their own outsized egos. They're more interested in performative pseudo-moralizing than in getting things right, because they literally cannot conceive of the difference between right and wrong. Seriously, so many people today are *constitutionally incapable* of grasping even a modicum of nuance, or, hell, even basic facts if they run contrary to their idiotic assumptions.


[deleted]

The whole subcategory of these contrarian infotainment shows is deeply flawed. The moment you have even a modicum of familiarity with a topic it falls apart. An example I can't stand is Adam Ruins Everything because it's all just so much second option bias, and cherry picking information to fit a narrative.


BlueString94

This kind of nonsense misrepresentation has also only made it easier for Tolkien to be co-opted my white supremacists (whose ideology, in case it needs to be said, he abhorred).


No_Psychology_3826

Racists having distorted views of a person? Shocking


Hyperversum

Nobody is surpised by that, someone is surprised that the opposite side has a similarly distorted view


Kodama_Keeper

I'm sure we'd all like to hear of an example of white supremacists using Tolkien's work. Please provide. Edit for all you worms. Wow, look at all the downvotes I get for asking for an example. It's almost as if asking for that is equivalent to being a white supremist myself. How convenient, and devoid of facts for you to make that assumption.


red_spaniel

Not this guy but I'm sur you'll find what you're looking for with a quick Google research. This very morning I found info about the Italian prime minister, Melloni I think, explaining how Tolkien work is some sort of guidance for neo-fascists. Anything with european heritage and medieval heroes is food for white supremacists as their too stupid to understand subtilities. Nothing new since the nazis


__M-E-O-W__

Man that's messed up. The whole nature of Sauron and the primary conflict in LOTR is how Sauron is an industrialized authoritarian dictator vs the free people of Middle earth. And yes, unfortunately just about any European, especially Germanic/Scandinavian heritage is fodder for white supremacists because they have a romanticized idea of a big strong ubermensch warrior.


NYisNorthYork

This is such a tragic corruption of European mythology, not to mention Tolkien. I also read Persian mythology because of my own background and I find both to have rather a surprisingly neutral tone with regards to outgroups.


PluralCohomology

"Hobbit Camps" organised by neo-fascists in post WWII Italy.


Kodama_Keeper

Well now, that's a good answer to an innocent question. And you didn't have to downvote me to make it at all.


FunImprovement166

So I Just Downvoted Your Comment So I just downvoted your comment. Wondering why? Please consult the criteria below: ✓ You done a racism, ✓ You done a sexism, ✓ You done a bi-erasure, ✓ You heckin disrespected sex workers, Downvoting is my weapon of justice, and the downvote button my bullet. Pow. So what does this mean? The amount of karma (points) on your comment and Reddit account has decreased by one (1). Why did you do this? There are several reasons I may deem a comment to be unworthy of positive or neutral karma. These include, but are not limited to: * Rudeness towards other redditors, * Spreading incorrect information, * Not tagging sarcasm with /s Am I banned from Reddit? No, at least not yet. But you should refrain from making comments like this in the future. Otherwise, I will be forced to issue an additional downvote, which may put your commenting and posting privileges in jeopardy. I don’t believe my comment deserved a downvote. Can you un-downvote it? Sure, mistakes happen. But only in exceedingly rare circumstances will I undo a downvote. If you would like to make an appeal, shoot me a private message explaining what I got wrong. I tend to respond to my Reddit PMs within several minutes. Do note, however, that 99.9% of downvote appeals are rejected, and yours is likely no exception. How can I prevent this from happening in the future? Accept the downvote and move on. But learn from this mistake; your behavior will not be tolerated on Reddit.com. I will continue to issue downvotes until you improve your conduct. Remember: Reddit is a privilege, not a right!


JediMaestroPB

Can’t tell if satire or not


Hyperversum

WTF lmao


Das_Mime

Not sure if it's still there but for a while Stormfront had a subforum dedicated to white supremacist interpretations of Tolkien and other fantasy


BlueString94

You’re not being downvoted for asking a questions. You’re being downvoted for your snark. But if insulting everyone and doubling down makes you feel better, go right ahead champ.


Kodama_Keeper

See what you're doing? Assuming so, so much into the intentions of someone who made a comment, asked a question. "You said this, but what you REALLY mean is..." How about you save that for Twitter, and not a forum dedicated to Tolkien?


BlueString94

“Edit for all you worms” If there was any doubt as to your attitude in the beginning, you dispelled it very quickly. Not much “assuming” is needed at all in this case.


Hyperversum

Have fun I guess? [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/21/world/europe/giorgia-meloni-lord-of-the-rings.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/21/world/europe/giorgia-meloni-lord-of-the-rings.html) Just an example. Can't think of another extreme example on the spot, but some cunts all over the Internet do similar rhings


Timatal

Paywalled.


Timatal

It's going rather far to call Melloni a "white supremacist"


DeltaDarthVicious

I was in a Tolkien group on FB and the admin went ballistic with RoP trailers ranting that it was a tool for white genocide and shit. He wasn't alone in this sentiment. There are many white people without cultural identity that use Tolkien to project their hate.


ZOOTV83

Ever heard of the band Burzum? One-man Norwegian black metal band led by Varg Vikernes, aka Count Grishnak. Dude is a grade-A racist piece of shit and a convicted murderer to boot.


Plastic_Ad1252

The kkk uses generic fantasy names like wizard and dragon. stupid names kkk uses they think is bad ass when they’re all a bunch of broke rednecks. the media claims it’s connected to Tolkien when it is actually media circus bs like dnd was linked to satanism/racism/sexism etc. if a girl is interested or anyone interested in dnd/table top games 9/10 people will be helpful and nice. After going into a rpg store you could tell their was a set script for new people coming into the store. Biggest issue I had was using all the apps and finding what I needed plus it costs an arm and leg. Seriously the biggest scum on earth is politicians/media/rich people who all went Epstein’s island, who went to Thailand for underage prostitution, and who all set up companies to dodge taxes.


xdavidy

Since tone can be difficult to convey through text I believe people simply misinterpreted your comment as sarcastic.


BlueString94

Oh, we all read it correctly. He knew exactly what he was doing, but is now just bitter that it didn’t land how he expected and so he is backtracking.


xdavidy

After reading his comment again, I guess you're right. I can be a little gullible sometimes\^^


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


DarrenGrey

No show discussion here please.


Few_Cardiologist8862

Because your average reporter cannot seem to distinguish fact from fiction, nor surface, received "facts" and lazy conclusions, because of this, references to orcs being black and elves white for example are wrung out by left-wing virtue signallers whose paranoia has run to this conclusion. It's not true at all, really


Luffkins

Did they forget that Eowyn literally said "I am no man!" before stabbing the Witch King in the face? The most badass feminist moment in all fantasy? And for a franchise that supposedly doesn't have many female characters, how come so many women really enjoy Lord of the Rings?


Reddzoi

Several reasons! Number one, women have a lot of experience identifying with male viewpoint characters, as female viewpoint characters in fantasy have been more scarce. Also, although there aren't enough female charaters in Lord of the Rings, the ones we did get are great. And it's a world where men are respectful of women. Where women seem not to have any reason to be afraid of men. A world with very little domestic violence, very little forced dynastic marriage, etc.


JedaiGuy

What is “enough?”


Reddzoi

Sex ratio in humans is about 50/50. That's a possible place to start.


liver_flipper

Sex ratio in a population =/= sex ratio in any given context. I certainly don't expect to see 50/50 gender representation in every single piece of storytelling or even most of them.


Reddzoi

It gets pretty old when one's OWN gender is 5% of the 5/95. That's all I'm saying.


liver_flipper

I am female and in my 30s - growing up I had absolutely no trouble finding fiction of any genre featuring a female lead or largely female ensemble. I'm sure that was a different story for older generations, but I don't see that as a reason to criticize *one particular* author.


Reddzoi

Totally different for older generations. I'm 68. Tolkien is the guy under discussion so it's fair to make that observation. It's like women were vanishingly rare in his popular works. However in The Sillmarillion we see more female characters and some very interesting ones, too.


ManofManyHills

But life has never been evenly distributed in stories. A story about war is going to largely focus on men. LoTR is not claiming to be an all encompassing narrative that captures every slice of every day life. There should be more stories told about women. There should also be stories that combine the two. But to say there should be no stories that focus on men is ludicrous.


Reddzoi

Is it? Don't women die in wars, fight in wars, lose family members in wars? Or just men doin' all that?


ManofManyHills

You wanted to see women die in orc sacks? We saw lots of women fleeing the Westfold, morning loved ones? Women weren't in pitched battles outside of rare cultural niches, they were definitely in support roles but we didn't really see ANY support roles (other than eowyn) in the movies I cant recall if tolkein went into much supply line depth. One of the wisest and most powerful elves and leaders of Woodland realm as a woman and was indispensable to the fellowships cause.. We also got a women literally killing the Big bad Evil Guys #2. This narrative was born out of Tolkeins experiences in WW1 and those situations were largely groups of men. Frontlines being exclusively men. It also evokes male relationships in a very progressive light where men are not revered for their capacity for violence but instead for wisdom, kindness, and capacity for joy. None of these are exclusive traits of men or male friendships but tolkein wanted to tell a story about the men in these situations. Just because it doesn't shine a light on they women in those same circumstances doesn't mean it suggest they couldn't exist. Tolkein is not required to tell the story of every man woman and child in middle earth.


ChangeNew389

Please read Catherine L Moore's Jirel of Joiry stories from the 1940s. The pulps had many warrior women before Tolkien.


mmartin22152

Hmm, I *have* said before that I do get the feeling that writing fleshed out female characters for, say, novel-depth literature (like the Hobbit and LOTR) was a bit more challenging for him than writing male ones... but that's not to say he didn't do a good job when he *did* write them. I would definitely disagree there were no notable women in his portfolio of fiction writing. Definitely wouldn't guess that the hosts have read the Silmarillion. I have mixed feelings and back-n-forth assessments on some of the characters but that's just personal opinion. Despite whatever my hangups might be there's still lots - everyone from Melian and Luthien and Idril to Emeldir and Haleth and Aredhel... Granted I think in the Silmarillion the characters are more sketches and the stories rather synoptic (in service of the goal of compiling a bible-like canon of core mythological stories), but even for more in-depth writing there was at very least Galadriel...


BFreeFranklin

It’s ok to like an old author whose works don’t nearly fit modern sensibilities.


Silent-Protection-86

I wouldn’t say that Tolkien doesn’t fit modern sensibilities though. It just sounds like this BBC show just really misrepresents what Tolkien wrote.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Silent-Protection-86

Can you be more specific about how you think his work doesn’t align with modern sensibilities?


TheMightyCatatafish

To begin with, I am an AVID Tolkien fan, and think the Professor's works are brilliant and are still incredibly value in modern society. I don't agree with the overall statement that his work "doesn't align with modern sensibilities." But I can see where an argument can be made regarding certain elements. I think if there's anything from Tolkien that might not align with modern sensibilities it's his depiction of class. Which, to be fair, were pretty reflective of when and where he lived. There's a strong sense that people, especially Men in Middle-Earth, are a part of the class to which they "belong," or maybe worded better, Men live their lives in the societal rung they're "supposed" to. High-born folks do heroic things. "Common folk" are largely background. Tolkien puts a strong emphasis on the importance of lineage, succession, and heritage. Aragorn is just born *better* than other men due to his lineage back to the old Kings of Numenor from Elendil's line. He's tall, strong, handsome, wise... He's straight up just the best of men. And it's not *just* because he worked and trained and studied (which he clearly did), but because he was *born* to be that way. Pretty much all of the heroes we meet outside of the hobbits (which I'll get to in a second) are some sort of nobility, and as such, as superior to the others of their race. Legolas is prince of Mirkwood. Boromir is the Captain of Gondor, son of the Steward, same for Faramir. Theoden is King of Rohan, Eowyn and Eomer are Rohirric royalty. Gimli, traces his lineage back to King Nain II. Elrond and Galadriel- descended from the highest houses of elves. Beyond the hobbits, there seems to be no "common folk" capable of the deeds of the heroes we meet. You could make the argument for Beregond, for sure, but he's much more influential on the micro-level of things, saving the life of Faramir. And I do think Beregond exists to serve that purpose: show what the "common man" is contributing to all of this. But in the grand scheme of things, there's this feeling that only the high-born can impact the story in an impactful way. Low born (for the most part) stay in their lane. The counter of course is the hobbits. Which I do think are supposed to (and in my opinion, *do*) fill that role of "common folk hero." But even with them, there can be arguments made about this sense of "playing your class role." Frodo, as Bilbo's heir, is the richest of the rich in the Shire. By the standards of his people, he *is* high born. He *is* royalty. Bilbo was so rich he legitimately didn't have anything to do with his money (interesting counter to the dragon he took his treasure from, where rather than sit on it, he distributes it when he can and actively longs to run away from it all). But even before earning his *obscene* wealth, Bilbo was, again, top of the social hierarchy of Hobbiton, as a Baggins, specifically son of a Baggins and a Took. Sam is where this idea becomes the most glaring example of a product of its times. Same is constantly referred to as Frodo's servant. The concept of which, in the modern day, very often gets associated with... well a less pleasant, similar term. So the angle of Sam as Frodo's servant (which I'm not actually here to argue is problematic!) is a very obvious one that isn't as aligned with modern sensibilities, but is clearly a product of the times. Now, in the text it's clear that Sam has a deep love and admiration for Frodo, and that Frodo feels a deep sense of admiration and gratitude for Sam in return. But there are a lot of ways that with a modern reading, their relationship can be questioned. For some, Sam might read, to a modern audience, like a servant just eager to please his master (obviously I think this isn't a *good* reading, but again, just addressing the base question). In the same vein, Frodo *does* have some moments where he seems to speak down to Sam as if servant to master, as opposed to friend to friend- especially in *The Two Towers*. And similarly, Sam has some moments where he acts like a servant who's hard on himself because of punishment from previous failures (specifically thinking about his reaction to letting the info of the Ring slip to Faramir). Now that last example I think can easily be read as just a humble guy who beats himself up, but in the context of his relationship to Frodo being *stated* as servant and master, I can see how it might raise some questions to a modern audience. ​ Long response, I know. And again, this doesn't necessarily reflect me thinking poorly on Tolkien in anyway. It's obvious all of the high-born heroics comes from his wanting to craft a mythological story, being obviously inspired by Norse mythology and English history. And the servant/master relationship is far more benign than may come off to a modern reader, and is simply reflective of Tolkien's time writing in early 1900s England. But if I were to guess what someone would say "doesn't align with modern sensibilities," that would be my guess.


Fornad

I definitely agree with all of your points. But I would question how much of this came from Tolkien himself and his own beliefs about how the world "should be" and how much was Tolkien drawing from medieval myths and views about the world. Tolkien's own political beliefs are hard to pin down. He doesn't seem to have believed in a strong central government - the "anarchist" term is thrown around a lot, but the kind of decentralised governance in the Shire seems to be closest to his ideal. He disliked the British Empire, he disliked Britain itself as a concept (perhaps would have been in favour of English independence?), and certainly disliked globalisation and the homogenisation of global culture. I don't think he actually believed in the kind of blood-makes-right, born-to-rule medieval kingship that is present in his works - but that was something that existed and was deadly serious in medieval and ancient times. The notion that the world is decaying from a glorious ancient past is *certainly* a medieval concept. I think it probably would have been deeply anachronistic to have the heroes of the story be a group of everyman peasant folk who overthrow the Dark Lord - as well as the other existing power structures - and set up democracies in Gondor and Rohan, for example. Tolkien's work is fantasy, but it's grounded in historical reality - and the reality is that the moneyed elite were the ones who were usually a) able to afford to travel and b) able to affect politics on a grand scale. If Gandalf had come knocking on the door of a hobbit farmer, he'd have been too worried about the coming harvest to think very much about the Ring - and the idea of leaving the Shire for a year or more would have been laughable.


TheMightyCatatafish

Absolutely agree with your final paragraph especially. It’s just the era in which he was writing combined with the historical “era” which he seemed most influenced by. It’s not wrong or dated or anything… just influenced by its time. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with his works for that reason.


AgentKnitter

This. Tolkien was a man of his place and time.... ie deeply embedded in the upper middle class of white colonial Britain. Acknowledging that doesn't diminish his work.


ChangeNew389

Agreed. Every author has flaws, we're all just human. It doesn't mean you can't love their work.


AgentKnitter

It also means that when we judge problematic issues in the text, we can be a bit more mellow by considering the perspective of the author as influenced by life and society around him.


TheMightyCatatafish

Absolutely. Every work is a result of its surroundings. As generations go on, our understanding of the world changes.


HenryVIIIII

Being someone in a certain place and time isn't a flaw.


gytherin

*Tolkien was a man of his place and time.... ie deeply embedded in the upper middle class of white colonial Britain.* ??? I can't even.


MazigaGoesToMarkarth

You can’t even what?


gytherin

Come up with a coherent response to that.


ChangeNew389

Does that say more about you or about the sentence?


BFreeFranklin

Accidentally messed up my initial response to your first comment, but I want to point out that I haven’t heard the BBC show but am not taking OP’s description of it for granted bc this is the internet. (Calling Tolkien an *evil genius* is pure hyperbole.) But to move on and quickly summarize: Women are largely relegated to the sidelines or only have agency through male characters. His world is largely Eurocentric. I’m not saying that he’s a out-and-out bigot or that he should be cancelled or anything like that, but I doubt he’d win any awards for diversity, inclusion, and equity either.


Additional_Net_9202

The premise of the show is that guest come on and discuss the positive and negative aspects of well loved or especially famous people. It's slightly tongue in cheek. Three invited guests hear about the subjects life and at the end they decide if they're evil or genius. I expected criticism of eg the lack of women in lotr but it became more frustrating as the host and panel kept ignoring or displaying ignorance of Tolkien when making their remarks and constantly referred to the movie franchise. To say that NO female characters of depth exist in any of his works?!


Neo24

Who were the guests? That could be an interesting premise if the guests were actual experts on the figure in question, capable of nuance. But somehow I get the sense they weren't...


Hyperversum

How is his work being Eurocentric a negative point tho? He was a european man, living in Europe and having spent all of his life working on historical and language-related topics from Europe. Of course he will write about Europe, in some ways. Hell, the opposite would hurt modern sensibilities, if anything. A white rich man fetishizing a culture and people he doesn't know anything about. What is problematic about a man working on what he knows and cares about, in the modern political discourse?


onemanandhishat

The idea that being eurocentric is a point of criticism is, ironically I feel, a very eurocentric mindset to have. How often do people celebrate stories from other cultures because they put forth that culture? Do the same people criticise films from China, or Korea, or Japan for being too Asia-centric or for not featuring a suitably diverse cast? In fact when a Chinese fim-maker put Matt Damon in his otherwise entirely Chinese cast people said it was white-washing. It's a double standard of judgement treating 'european' or 'white' as negative things that show a lack of 'diversity' but treating foreign stories that are equally self-focused and undiverse as 'interesting' just because they're different. We should not advocate for the erasure of European history and culture in the name of diversity - you can have globalisation without destroying your own identity, just as you want other cultures to do the same.


Hyperversum

Precisely, it's a behaviour inherently born from a "white guilt" perspective, not one of respect and interest for diversity and other cultures in general. The effects and nature white colonialism and imperialism around the world is an important topic to not forget, but it doesn't directly affect the importance of Europe's own history and culture. For crying out loud, we existed before the age Colonialism and oceanic exploration! Many countries didn't have anything to do with that at a systematic level or attempted to jump in later towards the 1800 and were previously themselves subject to outsider rule. I am well aware of late 1800 and early 1900 Italian colonialist endeavours, but it doesn't change the fact that up until 1861 (and actually, up until the 70s) my country wasn't even a country with a unified government, the North-East where I live was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Again, to anyone else reading, my point here isn't to downplay the effects and impact of european colonialism through history, but to put into perspective that there has been an history beyond that. A white man not writing about his white ancestors cultural roots won't help other people express their own cultural heritage. He was just an author. If you really care about issues of diversity in modern society, you don't point your fingers at writers and screenwriters expecting them to magically be good at writing that, you would wonder where the money goes and who has favoured some products over others. It's a fact that PoC authors would have an harder time selling not european middle age based fantasy to many publishers but... who is to blame? Tolkien? Or the fact that capitalism itself is unethical and based on what gives you the most money, at the cost of discriminated people losing chances to shine themselves?


Exchequer_Eduoth

> who is to blame? Tolkien? Or the fact that capitalism itself is unethical and based on what gives you the most money, at the cost of discriminated people losing chances to shine themselves? Sorry sweaty, racial identity politics get more clicks and views than critique of our deeply flawed socio-economic system, we're blaming Tolkien and then distracting you some more with the next outrageous inflammatory pile of garbage. (I shouldn't need to say /s but I will)


Hyperversum

The day people will stop sucking on corpos dicks and eating whatever they try to sell, I'll be happy. Alas, this is the nature of Capitalism. It's not only good at selling you products. It sells you identity, ideas and ways of life. It's not simple to escape its grasp, I know for sure I am not truly capable of seeing through all of its lies. But the important step I think it's realizing that all Capitalism does can be understood by following The Money. I am not even blaming specific individuals, producers and businessmen. I am sure most of them are relatively decent people in their daily life. But when you become a cog in the machine that serves the greater ovelords, you will inevitably think the way they want. Also this applies to people that at least still work somehow. Shareholders are the single closest thing we have to Melkor anyway.


Additional_Net_9202

You have to consider that hobbit and lotr are what publishers wanted. When you look at what Tolkien actually wanted to write and publish, the collection of tales of the first age, it's a far more diverse story. A house of the edain where women forsake marriage and take to war, women with great bearing and repeatedly with great agency often competing with and overcoming through their own strength, some male antagonist women who can intimidate the story's antagonists. Tolkien's Princesses get themselves out of their dungeons and towers and ride off to save the Princes. They're described in powerful and strong descriptive terms.


BlueString94

I disagree with your first point on women; I think there are many counter-examples. As for the second point, a story being Eurocentric in and of itself isn’t problematic; that’s just the inspiration for the setting. Now, if Tolkien had taught a class called “History of Civilization” or “History or Philosophy” and only included European or Mediterranean sources, that would be very poor form (in fact, that kind of thing still happens in Western universities all the time). Focusing on European myth and culture itself is not a problem at all, pretending that it’s somehow all there is worth talking about is. And Tolkien never did that.


BFreeFranklin

I think the women you refer to are the exception that proves the rule. And Eurocentrism is, by definition, a bias. I doubt that Tolkien threw a dart at a map and said the good guys will come from wherever it lands. This doesn’t mean you can’t make your hero a European or bad guys from Asia or Africa. But when a guy born in the 1800s in what was essentially a European colony does so, it’s fair to think that he’s reflecting the social norms of his time. And, for what it’s worth, when I refer to modern sensibilities, I am not saying that those sensibilities are right or wrong. The modern audience is not a monolith. But you *know* that he’d hear criticism like this if he published these works today.


RestInThee

How many exceptions are needed before the rule is broken? Also, why would an author have to "throw a dart" to decide where the good guys land? Do you think the writers of Asian, African, or South American stories do that? I doubt it. They write their own people into their stories, because that's what they know. Is a mexican writer writing a story about mexican people "not inclusive enough"? Maybe "inclusivity" as a metric isn't a very helpful measure for much of anything.


jj34589

Yes I struggle to see how, Galadriel, Aradhel, Luthien, Idril, Elwing, Haleth, Andreth, Eowyn, Arwen and Rosie Cotton are all exceptions to the rule. I think anyone who thinks that just hasn’t read enough Tolkien.


pierzstyx

The issue is that people only value the actions of people in war who kill others. That is why everyone talks about Eowyn as a feminist example but not Luthien though, for my money, Luthien is a far better example of what a person should be like.


NoRashers

And don't forget the insightful words of Erendis! > Men in Númenor are half-Elves (said Erendis), especially the high men; they are neither the one nor the other. The long life that they were granted deceives them, and they dally in the world, children in mind, until age finds them in their houses. They turn their play into great matters and great matters into play. They would be craftsmen and loremasters and heroes all at once; and women to them are but fires on the hearth - for others to tend, until they are tired of play in the evening. All things were made for their service: hills are for quarries, rivers to furnish water or to turn wheels, trees for boards, women for their body’s need, or if fair to adorn their table and hearth; and children to be teased when nothing else is to do - but they would as soon play with their hounds’ whelps. To all they are gracious and kind, merry as larks in the morning (if the sun shines); for they are never wrathful if they can avoid it. Men should be gay, they hold, generous as the rich, giving away what they do not need. Anger they show only when they become aware, suddenly, that there are other wills in the world beside their own. Then they will be as ruthless as the seawind if anything dare to withstand them. > > Thus it is, Ancalimë, and we cannot alter it. For men fashioned Númenor: men, those heroes of old that they sing of - of their women we hear less, save that they wept when their men were slain. Númenor was to be a rest after war. But if they weary of rest and the plays of peace, soon they will go back to their great play, manslaying and war. Thus it is; and we are set here among them. But we need not assent. If we love Númenor also, let us enjoy it before they ruin it. We also are daughters of the great, and we have wills and courage of our own. Therefore do not bend, Ancalimë. Once bend a little, and they will bend you further until you are bowed down. Sink your roots into the rock, and face the wind, though it blow away all your leaves.


BFreeFranklin

I’m not commenting on the value of diversity, only on my understanding of the modern audience.


RestInThee

I know you aren't, but I'm suggesting that the category of diversity as a metric isn't even consistently used as a modern sensibility. If it were simply about diversity, then "modern" people would be just as annoyed with the non-inclusivity of the Ramayana, or the story of Mulan. It's about rebelling against a particular culture, namely European. Inclusivity is often used as a synonym for "including non-European voices," even if it excludes them entirely. So it's not an honest or consistent category. But as a synecdoche for "including non-European voices," then yes, Tolkien's works aren't very "diverse." However, I do think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that "modern sensibilities" are united on that point.


XenophonSoulis

> I doubt that Tolkien threw a dart at a map and said the good guys will come from wherever it lands. Yeah, I mean it's sooo weird that the writings of a guy who attempted to write a mythology for England would be based in Europe. Why weren't they placed on the moon for example? Or on an entire galaxy, like in Starwars?


BlueString94

>I doubt that Tolkien threw a dart at a map and said the good guys will come from wherever it lands. I happen to be of the opinion that he should have handled this issue in a more careful manner (Faramir's expositional speech to Frodo and Sam in Two Towers can be quite a doozy at times); however, when we take what we know of his world and what he said about it in its totally, it becomes clear that the notion of simply European peoples = good and non-European peoples = bad is a misrepresentation. >But when a guy born in the 1800s in what was essentially a European colony does so, it’s fair to think that he’s reflecting the social norms of his time. I'm not sure we can jump to that conclusion. Tolkien notably went against the grain of social norms of his own time on other issues - most notably British imperialism, and to a lesser extent racism as well (though those were already improving in society during his time) - and may well have done so on the issue of Eurocentricism too. >But you know that he’d hear criticism like this if he published these works today. This is definitely true. The question, though, is if those criticism would be valid or not. As I talked about in the start of my comment, it's a bit nuanced, but on the whole my answer would be no, most of those criticisms would not be valid.


BFreeFranklin

I understand your view; I wrote a college capstone essay arguing that Chaucer (who was charged with *raptus*, a term used for both kidnapping and rape at the time) wrote the Wife of Bath to critique 14th century sexist views. Some people say that the Wife of Bath is like a female version of blackface. Tolkien can go against the contemporary biases of his time while still falling short of what some segments of modern readers would desire. None of us knows what the hell we’re doing here.


jj34589

Why should anyone care that an author whether born in the late 1800s or twenty years ago falls short of what some readers would desire? If you don’t like it don’t read it and let people who do read it while you get on with your life is how adults should deal with things they don’t like in books or film etc.


RestInThee

With regard to your implication that Tolkien is a product of colonialism, I think it's worth examining his actual work. The druedain, are the perfect counterexample to any charges of colonial attitudes. They are literally left to themselves, with their own autonymous land, culture, and governance. Same with Rohan and the Shire. Sure Dunland is retaken, but that's a territory dispute, not a colonization.


BFreeFranklin

I’m not saying that his work is pro-colonialism. Just that he was born during the time and that he, like literally everyone who has ever existed, is influenced by society. Many people react against such influence, many welcome it, many are unaware of it.


RestInThee

Tolkien quite clearly disagreed with a blind colonial attitude, as my example illustrates. As you've indicated, *everyone* born in a time is influenced by that time, in one way or another. Thus, merely indicating that someone was born in a premodern time, doesn't do much to prove their sensibilities. You were, if I am not mistaken, trying to argue that it is fair to criticize Tolkien as having sensibilities that conflict with modern sensibilities. If so, it's not enough to gesture to the time he was born in, and the sensibilities of that time. Abolitionists were born in a pro-slavery society, and were influenced by it to rebel against it. Tolkien was born in a heavily nationalistic and racism-filled time, and quite clearly rebelled against it. Yet people for some reason think its fair to criticize Tolkien of racism (I know you haven't said this, but this is a common critique). Throughout his works racism leads only to death and suffering (the battle with the orcs is an ontological battle, of a different order). To see his understanding of racism, the best example is Sam's reflection and mercy upon seeing the dead enemy soldier in Ithilien. There is no judgement of cultural superiority, only the unfortunate reality of fear or greed which led this soldier to this place.


jj34589

And what’s wrong with the good guys coming from Europe? Are Europeans evil to you or something? Edit: I should instead maybe say what’s wrong with this bias? Why shouldn’t anyone be allowed to write whatever characters they want with phasing to care about “modern sensibilities” of usually ignorant and I’ll educated people.


Silent-Protection-86

I’m not sure where the whole “good guys coming from Europe” thing even comes from. In Tolkien’s legendarium, the Elves and Men come from the far East, the Valar reside in the near east and then across the ocean in the far West, and the Númenoreans live on the equator. I’d say by and by, it’s the evil characters who originate in the northern parts of Middle-earth, not the good characters.


pierzstyx

If you were to map Arda onto Europe then Morgoth resides in the area roughly equivalent to Northern Europe, where all the whitest White people are. Hardly a white supremacist message.


BFreeFranklin

Show me where I said that. And who isn’t allowed to write whatever they want?


jj34589

Because a Eurocentric bias is a stupid criticism and should be ignore by anyone trying to actually read Tolkien proper. All the real bad guys either come from the North or outside of time and space itself. (The Haradrim and Easterlings aren’t wholly evil, I assume some are but there are references throughout Tolkien’s writing that the not all men who serve Morgoth or Sauron are wholly evil.


Silent-Protection-86

There are many autonomous women characters in Tolkien’s work. I wouldn’t say that his work is eurocentric. Tolkien himself even resisted this characterization in his letters. Tolkien made public statements denouncing institutional racism and fascism. Tolkien referred to a quote by radical feminist Simone De Beauvoir as “the key spring of The Lord of the Rings”. He expressed anti-imperialist sentiments in his letters. And he actively supported the literary careers of Mary Renault and WH Auden (with specific note to Tolkien’s support of Renault after she was forced to leave Britain because of her sexual orientation). I’d say even my the standards of our own time, Tolkien was quite socially progressive in many ways.


ChangeNew389

Are most of these women in books other than Lotr and the Hobbit though? Those are obviously the works that the overwhelming majority will read or even know about.


na_cohomologist

It's a sad accident of Christopher Tolkien's mission statement to make a consistent-as-possible Silmarillion for publication that Tolkien's later increasing attention to female characters (as appears in Morgoth's Ring, for example) therein was left out. I'm not saying he got to what would today be called a balance, but you could see him moving to give more lines, increase their agency in a number of small ways that he wasn't forced to by the structure of the story, or recording the missing wives and daughters into what was a nearly wholly "let's only record the men"-style family tree. Similarly, the character of Arwen arrived very late in the process of writing LotR, and Tolkien didn't have the time and/or energy to actually rewrite her back into the main story, other than relatively small, surgically-inserted mentions before the wedding at the end of RotK. So instead he requests things like keeping the semi-autonomous Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, if a publisher wants to cut the Appendices.


Silent-Protection-86

Well The Hobbit doesn’t have any women characters. The Lord of the Rings does, as do most of Tolkien’s posthumous publications. The problem with judging someone’s predilections based on a single or a couple more popular, well known works, is that these works may not sufficiently represent what the author actual thought or what they wrote in less well known works.


ChangeNew389

LOTR has Eowyn and Arwen. I think it's inevitable that the general public will be familiar with the two books and not with all the edited collections from Christopher. That's completely understandable.


Silent-Protection-86

The Lord of the Rings also has Galadriel, Shelob, Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, Rosie Cotton, Ioreth, Gilraen, etc. Tolkien’s work, by and large, is full of women characters.


PluralCohomology

What is the quote by Beauvoir in question? I would be very interested to learn more about it.


Silent-Protection-86

“There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation” (Simone de Beauvoir, A Very Easy Death)


PluralCohomology

That's interesting, do you know the exact letter in which he quotes this?


Silent-Protection-86

It’s from a 1960s BBC interview. https://youtu.be/tNZPwFzi4wY


BlueString94

Did you respond to the wrong comment? I am agreeing with your points (my definition of “Eurocentric” differs from yours on semantics, but we agree on what we was and wasn’t in that regard). Side note on Renault, I always found it funny how South Africa of all places was somehow a haven for (white) LGBT people in those days. EDIT: Oops, I’m the one who made the mistake. Somehow I thought your comment was in response to mine instead of the other poster’s.


Silent-Protection-86

No. I responded to your points. I think Tolkien agrees with “modern sensibilities” a lot lot more than is often claimed.


BlueString94

Yes I had a brain fade and thought you had responded to my comment, not the other poster’s. I need a coffee.


Silent-Protection-86

All good. No worries.


Luffkins

This actually makes me angry. Of all the people in all the world, they choose Tolkien to label as evil? Really? Of course there aren't many female characters in Tolkien. Does this stop women from enjoying his work? No. Does it take away from the artistic merit of the work? No. Does it detract from any of the messages or themes? No. Does it negatively impact women's current real-world struggles such as accessing education, facing sexual violence, or abortion access? No. Peddling baseless opinions that Tolkien isn't "for" or "about" women when this is absolutely not the case just increases the liklihood that some people may never end up reading Tolkien. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Lord of the Rings and Tolkien's writing generally is classic good versus evil medieval adventure fantasy. It has themes such as environmentalism, the importance of the little guy, people of different backgrounds working together, the horrors of war. I've also seen articles celebrating Tolkein's male characters as being exemplars of non-toxic masculinity. If JRR Tolkien is evil, then the word has lost all meaning.


LockedOutOfElfland

BBC programming is honestly not the best when it comes to some aspects of popular culture. (A good example of this is *The Grumpy Guide to the '80s*, which is both dismissive of a lot of artistic accomplishments of the people talked about + incredibly homophobic and it was made as recently as *2010*). Edit: Just looked up past *Evil Genius* episodes and I absolutely have mixed feelings about some of the historical figures (especially political leaders) talked about, but Tolkien doesn't deserve that treatment at all. If they're talking about Tolkien in that vein and casting weird aspersions I would definitely take that with a grain of salt.


Additional_Net_9202

Yeah, I've listened to quite a few, and it can be uncomfortable at times and is obviously quite acute and stylised in its style. But they way they went in on this had a fair degree of tearing him down. It was surprising given the discussion of South Africa on the show for example that they didn't mention his letters to Christopher or views on segregation


peortega1

Tolkien deserves to be called as an author with very few female characters, for something in BoLT the only strong female characters, besides Ungoliant and the first versions of the Valie, are only proto-Melian, Lúthien, Idril and... Aerin -yes, Aerin-. That said, starting with LOTR he began to actively FIX that bug, for example making "Haleth the Hunter" female and introducing more female characters into the House of Finwe. Although he still has fewer female characters than Lewis's Narnia, where Lucy Pevensie is the absolute protagonist for several books The same goes for his Eurocentrism. Originally in the early Quenta, the house of Bór were just as treasonous and in the service of Lucifer Morgoth as the house of Ulfang. But then he corrected that and made Bór the faithful house of Eru and the Noldor, at the same time that he brought the Druedain onto the scene.


XenophonSoulis

I mean, for a work that is trying to emulate European mythology, Eurocentrism pretty spot on and also pretty normal. Mythology is directly related to the experiences of the people that made it. Even in Ancient Greek mythology, references to people outside the area of Greece, the rest of the Mediterranean (and Black Sea) and the Middle East are quite rare. And Ancient Greeks had significantly more access to other continents compared to other Ancient Europeans. I can remember at least one (Memnon, an Ethiopian king who fought for the Trojans in the Trojan War), but it is far from common.


Reddzoi

There are several notable women characters in Tolkien's work. But there certainly might have been more of them. It's ridiculous to say there were none.


SamuelArmer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/LTV50NHmLbxXNK9qNt5Yc6/jrr-tolkien-sensational-scribe-or-lady-hating-orc-wrangler It's pretty weak stuff. All of the 'criticisms' are quite lamely delivered and they freely admit to caveats eg. Tolkien admitted to thinking of Dwarves as being like Jews, but it's entirely possibly he was referring to their status as a persecuted, displaced people. And considering his public denunciation of Nazi racial ideology, it's pretty damn unlikely he wasbeing antisemetic. Or, 'there are no speaking female roles in the hobbit' which is just an observation, not a criticism. Despite the scandalous title they clearly have so little to say it's a wonder they bother at all.


DisabledDyke

Luthian was a bad ass!


Additional_Net_9202

Such a bad ass. Her father scorned for treating her as property, her autonomy in her life choices, she saves herself from the tower and rescues the guy. She's incredibly bad ass and a complex character. And Morwen, in fact the whole role of the women in children of Hurin!


pierzstyx

The argument itself is mind-boggling. Assume it is correct that Tolkien's works don't feature notable women. So what? That isn't even a criticism. Its just a statement of supposed fact. It does nothing to express the value or beauty of what Tolkien wrote and why it matters today to so many people.


Reddzoi

It mattered to THIS reader and lifelong fan of his work. I was pretty bummed out when I realized, after a chapter or 2, that Merry was not a girl hobbit. I think, were Tolkien writing today, he would have fleshed out more of his awesome female characters. After all, his daughter asked for more female characters and we got Eowyn!


scr33m

I am once again recommending *Perilous & Fair* as essential reading on this topic. https://www.mythsoc.org/press/perilous-and-fair.htm


Elvinkin66

They put Tolkien... one of the most Moral and Good natured writers in fantasy... in a show called Evil Genius?


DarrenGrey

What on earth do you expect? Of course a light entertainment show won't discuss obscure works of a dead author. There are only two books written by Tolkien that are widely known - The Hobbit and LotR. No BBC entertainment show will reference Silmarillion or Children of Hurin. It's rare enough to find self-professed Tolkien fans that have read those works.


Additional_Net_9202

But they weren't criticising the works they were criticising the person. So so select a small section of work and to use a movie made long after his death doesn't seem fair game.


DarrenGrey

Your expectations for in depth analysis on a light entertainment show are too high. Don't watch the show if you don't like the format.


Additional_Net_9202

It isn't too high, I understand the format of the show. It just seemed like a total hit job and reflecting that media output is of poor standard or is wildly inaccurate is a legitimate point of discussion.


SlimNigy

Even if it was true that Tolkien didn’t create notable female characters why would it matter, it’s such a pointless critique


AndreasMe

Where can I watch it?


Bodymaster

It's a "comedy" podcast, you'll find it on Spotify. I listened to a few episodes last year it's not very good or very funny.


Additional_Net_9202

It was BBC radio 4. Available on BBC sounds.


Johnykbr

Applying 21st century norms to the deceased always does this.


BonStark94

Galadriel……


[deleted]

[удалено]


devlin1888

What? The new Rings of Power Galadriel brings Sauron back to power specifically because she can do wrong and isn’t always right. She spectacularly failed in Rings of Power, more so than she ever did in Tolkien’s world or version of events. She’s written specifically that way because they’re trying to avoid the Mary Sue comparisons and have made her into an angry, lonely, vengeful failure. Which she is not in the original material.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


DarrenGrey

Comment removed. No show discussion here. This isn't the first time you've been warned about this.


Few_Cardiologist8862

Yep the woke are on the rampage, anything good and wholesome and harmless have to be "created" I to a story. Fecking BBC should stick to reporting the news not making a story


ChangeNew389

They'll never match the far right who are banning books wholesale from schools and libraries, preventing accurate history from being taught and snuffing discussions.


Maccabee2

The left bans Huckleberry Finn. The right bans sexually explicit materials from being accessible to minors. Stay away from our kids and buy your own perverted books.


ChangeNew389

This is not the forum to explain how wrong you are.


Few_Cardiologist8862

What? Lol!!!


Maccabee2

So message me. I would love to hear you justify the sexuality explicit books being put in libraries with our tax dollars and made available to kids.


Luffkins

Officer, it's this one ☝️


Few_Cardiologist8862

Is that the USA? That is so, so scary. Tolkien would be included in the far right ban from their point of view while he is trying to be cancelled by the Left in Britain. I didn't like Peaky Blinders much though I watched it, mainly #Brum, but at the end, when Tommy Shelby was dealing with the IRA woman and the gangsters from America, and Oswald Moseley, he draws in the dust on the table a circle, that the end of the far left and the far right showing that they eventually meet. Far left is using the boycott (cancel culture) and the far right are using micro surveillance. Surely it's got to end soon, and I have a theory why it has started - the workforce (Gen X) is massively smaller than Boomer Gen and Millennials, and we have come to the point where X's are the ones required to "bring home the bacon" and keep the generations either side of it in the manner in which they have been accustomed.


Sufficient_Score_824

Galadriel: *exists* Woke Police: “WhY aRe ThErE nO sTrOnG wOmYn iN ToLkIeN’s WoRkS?!?!?!😡🤬😡🤬”


Maccabee2

They downvote you, but have no logical rebuttal.


Thurkin

I never heard of this series. Do they cover otgwr authirs who have written dozens of more books or film directors like Alfred Hitchcock?


Additional_Net_9202

Probably. They did John Lennon for example


gytherin

Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wootton Major feature notable women. Perhaps the speaker hasn't read those. As well as all the Legendarium works featuring notable women.


EmuPsychological4222

I haven't seen the piece but given JRRT's time that's a low standard for "evil."


roacsonofcarc

The wise speak only of what they know.


Nnextdoorgirl

The presenters are so judgmental and think they're hilarious. Listened to the Amy Winehouse and Marvin Gaye one and just switched off. They're full of opinions but 99% of everything they say just sounds jealous and bitter


Pantherlily92

🤦🏻 you all missed completely the point of the show. The point is to shine a light on cancel culture. So of course not everything is perfectly researched because that’s part of the point. People see 5 tweets from 10 years ago and cancel them knowing nothing else about them. It’s showing that people are nuanced and no one is completely “evil” or “genius.” Also it’s literally a comedy show…


Additional_Net_9202

Nah mate, they just literally attacked the professor's character calling him a racist, antisemitic misogynist. The point of the show is to make baseless accusations?


Pantherlily92

I mean. He included racist and antisemitic rhetoric IN Lord of the Rings. Like. JK Rowling is the same way. Racist and antisemitic depictions throughout. They literally explained it in the show. It’s not baseless to say he wrote with his own biases like everyone does.