Just for a laugh I once browsed Stormfront to see what crap lurked within, and along with the ludicrous "JEWS CONTROL THE MEDIA!!!" and "BLACKS MAKING KIDS GAY!!!" posts, I noticed a whole sub forum devoted to...

...The Lord of the Rings?

Seriously, what the feth? I know Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxon mythology and history, but that's where the similarities to the cluster of bigoted arseholes that is Stormfront ends.

What. The. Hell?

Some people are delusional enough to think that Tolkien, and the Lord of the Rings, were written with racist intent.

Dwarves, in this line of thinking, are stereotypical greedy jews (which wasn't his intent at all, although it's easy for one to draw the conclusions by looking at stereotypes). Dark-skinned people are in the service of Sauron (which isn't actually true... the reinforcement to Pelennor Fields for example included dark-skinned people from the southern part of Gondor).

Yeah, tons of nutbags out there. I once saw a conspiracy theorist on DemocraticUnderground claim that the Jews were responsible for sinking the Titanic because ice cannot possible penetrate steel, and then conducted an "experiment" with cinder blocks, chicken wire, and kerosene to prove that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush admin.

The internet is an outlet for these crazies. All you can do is laugh and shake your head at the same time.

Oh dear...

And there was me regaining some faith in humanity...

Melissia, I need a hug...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Yeah, tons of nutbags out there. I once saw a conspiracy theorist on DemocraticUnderground claim that the Jews were responsible for sinking the Titanic because ice cannot possible penetrate steel, and then conducted an "experiment" with cinder blocks, chicken wire, and kerosene to prove that 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush admin.

The internet is an outlet for these crazies. All you can do is laugh and shake your head at the same time.

What. The. Feth.

Tolien certainly had no affiliation with the nazi party. Here's his letter to the german gov regarding the german translation of the his books and if he was of jewish ancestry

25 July 1938
20 Northmoor Road, Oxford

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject — which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.

Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its sustainability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung.

I trust you will find this reply satisfactory, and

remain yours faithfully,

J. R. R. Tolkien

Only one serious reply here

 youbedead wrote:

25 July 1938
20 Northmoor Road, Oxford

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject — which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.

Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its sustainability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung.

I trust you will find this reply satisfactory, and

remain yours faithfully,

J. R. R. Tolkien

OMG.

Tolkien actually knows what an Aryan is? In 30's? EDIT: Also, didn't know Indo-Iranian was actually in use in the 30's I thought it was more recent than that XD

Kool Points would be awarded, but Tolkien already has a mountain of them so it would be kind of pointless.

Tolkien was a philologist by trade-- he studied language, the history of language, etymology, etc.

So he definitely would know terms like that.

Now that I did not know. That actually makes a massive amount of sense considering the style the Lord of the Rings was written in. Kind of flowery but not purple. A guy who knows language could definitely pull that off.

Visiting Stormfront is the real facepalm, especially if you are from the UK.
The government already has a right to a full transcript of all websearches conducted by persons in the UK, and watch certain websites for activity, Operation Orb is a good example of this.
This would be ok, were it not that we live in a society where blanket assumptions are often made by those in authority. Turn up often enough at a website like that and authorities might wonder why you are doing so, and by and large they don't stop to think you are researching. According to the current doctrine people don't research, they visit sites to sate baser desires, so anyone known to visit Stormfront is therefore likely to be a far right extremist. You might not get a chance to convince anyone otherwise, and this might effect you if you go for certain job positions.
Turning up at a far right extremist site to research is similar to what Pete Townsend did researching paedos. It might be logical, but its still grossly unwise, it could come back to haunt you. One or two visits is likely safe, but I wouldn't stretch beyond that. I would like to visit Stormfront because it is important to know what people think and do, however I dare not visit so heavily monitored site as that, not with our dogmatised police service.

 LordofHats wrote:


OMG.

Tolkien actually knows what an Aryan is? In 30's? EDIT: Also, didn't know Indo-Iranian was actually in use in the 30's I thought it was more recent than that XD

Well he was an active professor at one of the worlds most prestigious universities. That should be enough.
Furthermore he was a linguistic scholar, and linguistics is heavily linked to anthropology, where a people group comes from and whom they connect to came from helps understand the origin and structure of their language.
All told it would be very unlikely indeed that Tolkien would have had to look anything up before replying as he did. His comment about Jews has been oft quoted and misquoted. Tolkien didnt' envy Jews, he hated the Nazi policy of anti-semitism and wanted to make a carefully worded F-U to the Third Reich.

 LordofHats wrote:
Now that I did not know. That actually makes a massive amount of sense considering the style the Lord of the Rings was written in. Kind of flowery but not purple. A guy who knows language could definitely pull that off.

Really the books were just a way to show the brand new language he came up with

Tolkien needs no more cool points, I regard to this day LOTR as still being the best book I have ever read, I loved it when I was 15, and I loved it even more when I read it again some 12 years later.

I guarantee it is the only book with singing in that I will ever enjoy.

 mattyrm wrote:
Tolkien needs no more cool points, I regard to this day LOTR as still being the best book I have ever read, I loved it when I was 15, and I loved it even more when I read it again some 12 years later.

I guarantee it is the only book with singing in that I will ever enjoy.

The story was great. The writing was atrocious. I read those books once, I cannot reread them. Tolkein created a true work of art, but I wish he had a ghost writer.

Why was the writing atrocious?

If the entire point of a book is to be entertaining, and it is, whats the problem!?

My missus says things like that because she is a bit pretentious, she loves Ulysses, but hates LOTR, but the former was boring as feth and the latter was all kinds of awesome!

That being the case, who cares if scholars deem it "atrocious" anyway!?

djones520 wrote:

The story was great. The writing was atrocious. I read those books once, I cannot reread them. Tolkein created a true work of art, but I wish he had a ghost writer.

Heretic. The language is beautiful.

I do understand that there is a generation gap problem with it, people don't understand proper English anymore, whether from the UK or abroad. At least you have some excuse being a Yank. Reading Tolkien is very natural to me, it may be partly indecipherable to some, but its silky smooth prose to others.

I can see Tolkien's prose as being a bit of a struggle at times, but that's it. The writing was beautiful. One of those authors who not only understands the mechanics of the craft but the language, which isn't something you typically get in popular writing (its one of the 'reasons' Americans these days don't even get considered for a Noble in literature).

The only criticism I would have about the writing is that it could be too detailed at some points. How many pages of "hobbits are walking around, the sun is bright, oh look mushrooms *insert page about how to cook the mushrooms* they are the best friends ever and are walking around some more while the sun is bright....etc etc etc" do you need.

But I do love the books.

When I first read LOTR it was a bit thick for me, lots of details and the like and required a serious amount of effort to focus in on. Albeit I was eight or nine so that's probably understandable. Even then though I did not have any problem with his prose. I am apparently rare in this regard amongst my peer group, later on in my junior year of high school (15-16 years old) it took us half a year to chew through Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter" which is incredibly, minutely thin to the point that I'd consider it for a short hop of an airline flight or a lazy afternoon, but nothing more extended. Meanwhile my class's brains were hurt by Old English in any form thus drawing the book out to the point of being ludicrous.

TLR Tolkein's a literary god, Portions of the American populace may as well be illiterate.

Yeah I can agree on the overly long descriptions like, I remember one page where he writes about 6 paragraphs about how nice some hills are.. and I thought "Ok mate the countryside is nice, now for feths sake..lets get back to some stabbing!"

Tolkein was old-school "Gosh aren't you fellows rather swarthy" racist.

Stormfront are lonely pyschopath shooting up a school racist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The only criticism I would have about the writing is that it could be too detailed at some points. How many pages of "hobbits are walking around, the sun is bright, oh look mushrooms *insert page about how to cook the mushrooms* they are the best friends ever and are walking around some more while the sun is bright....etc etc etc" do you need.

Find something shiny to chase after.

 Testify wrote:
Tolkein was old-school "Gosh aren't you fellows rather swarthy" racist.

Discrimination against orcs?

If that is an issue this country is even more fethed that I realised.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Tolkein was old-school "Gosh aren't you fellows rather swarthy" racist.

Discrimination against orcs?

If that is an issue this country is even more fethed that I realised.

No, orcs are the industrial working class.

LOTR is pretty racist against the Haradrim and other "dark people" though, there's no denying.

Inb4 someone quotes the bit where sam and frodo are in Ithilian and Sam wonders about the dead Haradrim's motives.

 Testify wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The only criticism I would have about the writing is that it could be too detailed at some points. How many pages of "hobbits are walking around, the sun is bright, oh look mushrooms *insert page about how to cook the mushrooms* they are the best friends ever and are walking around some more while the sun is bright....etc etc etc" do you need.

Find something shiny to chase after.

I'm not understanding the criticism here, sorry?

I was just trying to say that at times it just seems like there is too much fluff to read through. It does allow you to paint a pretty vivid and detailed picture with your mind though.

Actually the FOOD is valid criticism that LOTR and Brian Jacques's Redwall books must be saddled with. Goddess forsake that is a lot of delicious grub, and it's rather difficult to read through some of the various feasts in either series without having the urge to do the kind of cooking that involves multiple large water fowl.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Actually the FOOD is valid criticism that LOTR and Brian Jacques's Redwall books must be saddled with. Goddess forsake that is a lot of delicious grub, and it's rather difficult to read through some of the various feasts in either series without having the urge to do the kind of cooking that involves multiple large water fowl.

The redwall cookbook http://www.amazon.com/The-Redwall-Cookbook-Brian-Jacques/dp/0399237917 makes the feasts much more entertaining

Great. Now I'm hungry again, and thanks to Scout is Hungry (search it on youtube, it is hilarious) I have images of Frodo waltzing into the Prancing Pony and declaring "I'm gonna EET some FUH-KING FOOD!"

I read LOTR, the Hobbit and the Silmarillion at least once every year or two, and it is, without a doubt, one of the only novels that can bring me to tears, which normally I am too emotionally stunted to shed, but man, when frodo leaves the grey havens, and sam is just all upset and all these people he has come to love are leaving and they won't ever come back, and he has to make do with the normal life of a hobbit after this epic, soul wrenching adventure, but its the life he's always wanted. man. that always gets to me. :/

 Testify wrote:

No, orcs are the industrial working class.

No they are not, thats revisionist rubbish. Tolkien himself said there was no allegory in Lord of the Rings.

 Testify wrote:

LOTR is pretty racist against the Haradrim and other "dark people" though, there's no denying.

Dark as in not-light, not dark as in ethnic.

Tolkien uses the darkness and light concepts strongly, magic is connected to colour, hence why wizards had specific coloured robes. Sauron and Morgoths power was Black as in unholy, dark and devoid of light, not negroid. The alliance of the West's primary power was White meaning light and purity not caucasian.

Swarthy refers to a look and mannerism not necessarily an ethnicity. Besides even dark doesnt always mean evil, Legolas was a Dark Elf, he was born from among the Avari, those who did not make the journey to live in Valinor under the light of the Trees.

 youbedead wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Actually the FOOD is valid criticism that LOTR and Brian Jacques's Redwall books must be saddled with. Goddess forsake that is a lot of delicious grub, and it's rather difficult to read through some of the various feasts in either series without having the urge to do the kind of cooking that involves multiple large water fowl.

The redwall cookbook http://www.amazon.com/The-Redwall-Cookbook-Brian-Jacques/dp/0399237917 makes the feasts much more entertaining

....Welp from the description "Heavy on butter and cream" I think I might be gaining a pound or two from this! Now if only there was a LOTR cook book my nerd cooking library would be complete.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 youbedead wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Actually the FOOD is valid criticism that LOTR and Brian Jacques's Redwall books must be saddled with. Goddess forsake that is a lot of delicious grub, and it's rather difficult to read through some of the various feasts in either series without having the urge to do the kind of cooking that involves multiple large water fowl.

The redwall cookbook http://www.amazon.com/The-Redwall-Cookbook-Brian-Jacques/dp/0399237917 makes the feasts much more entertaining

....Welp from the description "Heavy on butter and cream" I think I might be gaining a pound or two from this! Now if only there was a LOTR cook book my nerd cooking library would be complete.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lord-Rings-Cookbook-ebook/dp/B005JQ9FSI

 Orlanth wrote:
Heretic. The language is beautiful.

I do understand that there is a generation gap problem with it, people don't understand proper English anymore, whether from the UK or abroad. At least you have some excuse being a Yank. Reading Tolkien is very natural to me, it may be partly indecipherable to some, but its silky smooth prose to others.

You brits have a problem with language yourselves, tossing around the term "Yank"/"Yankee" as if you actually understood its meaning!

:fistwave.png:

Jokes aside, I loved the way it was written, and I'm a southern American, which is about as far from British as you can get.

Will redneck do then?

Only if you're talking about yourself.

 youbedead wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 youbedead wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Actually the FOOD is valid criticism that LOTR and Brian Jacques's Redwall books must be saddled with. Goddess forsake that is a lot of delicious grub, and it's rather difficult to read through some of the various feasts in either series without having the urge to do the kind of cooking that involves multiple large water fowl.

The redwall cookbook http://www.amazon.com/The-Redwall-Cookbook-Brian-Jacques/dp/0399237917 makes the feasts much more entertaining

....Welp from the description "Heavy on butter and cream" I think I might be gaining a pound or two from this! Now if only there was a LOTR cook book my nerd cooking library would be complete.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lord-Rings-Cookbook-ebook/dp/B005JQ9FSI

...you're trying to kill me aren't you?

White nationalists can't enjoy Tolkien's works too?

Lord of the Rings is pretty damn racist.

White skin=protagonist
Dark skin=antagonist

Most modern readers look past the racism, because it's a pretty good book when you ignore that.

 LoneLictor wrote:
White skin=protagonist
Dark skin=antagonist

Already disproven.

 Melissia wrote:
the reinforcement to Pelennor Fields for example included dark-skinned people from the southern part of Gondor

There were other examples as well, of good-natured dark skinned peoples in LotR.

Also, Sarumon was also very white, and many if not most of Sauron/Sarumon's flunkies were white. In fact, many of the "evil" human soldiers (including hte dark skinned ones) were actually not evil at all, but rather fearfully obeying a tyrannical dictator who was under the thumb of Sauron.

Orc/Orks (Tolkien liked Ork better during the later part of his life, though the book was published with Orc) were also not dark-skinned, but rather, heavily misshapen to the point of being inhuman-- and in fact were at one point intended to be tortured elves, or descended from the same, although Tolkien struggled all his life with finding out the meaning behind his Orcs, why they were always evil when evil in his ideology was a choice, not genetics.

 Orlanth wrote:

Visiting Stormfront is the real facepalm, especially if you are from the UK.
The government already has a right to a full transcript of all websearches conducted by persons in the UK, and watch certain websites for activity, Operation Orb is a good example of this.
This would be ok, were it not that we live in a society where blanket assumptions are often made by those in authority. Turn up often enough at a website like that and authorities might wonder why you are doing so, and by and large they don't stop to think you are researching. According to the current doctrine people don't research, they visit sites to sate baser desires, so anyone known to visit Stormfront is therefore likely to be a far right extremist. You might not get a chance to convince anyone otherwise, and this might effect you if you go for certain job positions.
Turning up at a far right extremist site to research is similar to what Pete Townsend did researching paedos. It might be logical, but its still grossly unwise, it could come back to haunt you. One or two visits is likely safe, but I wouldn't stretch beyond that. I would like to visit Stormfront because it is important to know what people think and do, however I dare not visit so heavily monitored site as that, not with our dogmatised police service.

That guy not only went to a website that had child porn, but he also entered his credit card into that website. Not only is that actually illegal, but it's actually a step toward committing it. I don't think it's likely to be treated the same as visiting a legal website and only browsing. That said, caution is strongly advised against going to such websites. Even going to troll them is inadvisable, as registration is an act of joining them, and it's not likely that someone who watches the entire internet is going to take the time to review your posts. Also, the consequences could be extreme; the visits would be recorded in a government database, which would likely be accessed when applying for government positions. It's also unlikely that they would tell you why you were turned down, or that the person telling you would know, which would mean that there would be no way to explain the reason.

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Visiting Stormfront is the real facepalm, especially if you are from the UK.
The government already has a right to a full transcript of all websearches conducted by persons in the UK, and watch certain websites for activity, Operation Orb is a good example of this.
This would be ok, were it not that we live in a society where blanket assumptions are often made by those in authority. Turn up often enough at a website like that and authorities might wonder why you are doing so, and by and large they don't stop to think you are researching. According to the current doctrine people don't research, they visit sites to sate baser desires, so anyone known to visit Stormfront is therefore likely to be a far right extremist. You might not get a chance to convince anyone otherwise, and this might effect you if you go for certain job positions.
Turning up at a far right extremist site to research is similar to what Pete Townsend did researching paedos. It might be logical, but its still grossly unwise, it could come back to haunt you. One or two visits is likely safe, but I wouldn't stretch beyond that. I would like to visit Stormfront because it is important to know what people think and do, however I dare not visit so heavily monitored site as that, not with our dogmatised police service.

That guy not only went to a website that had child porn, but he also entered his credit card into that website. Not only is that actually illegal, but it's actually a step toward committing it. I don't think it's likely to be treated the same as visiting a legal website and only browsing. That said, caution is strongly advised against going to such websites. Even going to troll them is inadvisable, as registration is an act of joining them, and it's not likely that someone who watches the entire internet is going to take the time to review your posts. Also, the consequences could be extreme; the visits would be recorded in a government database, which would likely be accessed when applying for government positions. It's also unlikely that they would tell you why you were turned down, or that the person telling you would know, which would mean that there would be no way to explain the reason.

Looks like we are agreement then. I used Townsend as an example in case people think that visiting sites for research and curiosity is harmless and cannot lead to problems. Its hard to find concrete examples otherwise. Its not like the police say "we highlighted another six people amongst those visiting Stormfront this week and we have labeled them potential right wing extremists on government files and that might result in them failing vetting tests for jobs in public service positions".

And yes its a problem in the US also.

I've been told by sources that "People be crazy".

I tend to agree.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:

No, orcs are the industrial working class.

No they are not, thats revisionist rubbish. Tolkien himself said there was no allegory in Lord of the Rings.

Yeah, but what does he know? Clearly people that apparently barely read his works know exactly what he was thinking decades after his death.

As to the Stormfront forum:

I'm really not surprised. If I had a nickel for every Nazi IG thread I've seen...

Also, later in his life, Tolkien even considered the idea of there being good Orcs, but they just were not involved in the stories that he told. One wonders if he would have written about the good orcs in his various collections of tales to be added to the Simarillion and other such collections.

It's possible, especially after the fall of Sauron. If the Elves, a race that's been uniformly indoctrinated to be good, can have bad apples, than an "evil" race should be able to have oddballs that are good.

That's the thing, Tolkien said he didn't believe in evil being something naturally inherent within living creatures.

Orcs weren't inherently evil as a race, basically.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:

No, orcs are the industrial working class.

No they are not, thats revisionist rubbish. Tolkien himself said there was no allegory in Lord of the Rings.

Yeah, but what does he know? Clearly people that apparently barely read his works know exactly what he was thinking decades after his death.

Sarcasm?
Assuming not for now; people can draw allegory into Tolkien's work if they choose, in fact interpretation of a finished artform is the observers privilege and one Tolkien would understand.
However the work cannot be classified as racist of itself if no allegory is intended. One can choose to see racist allegory in it if one chooses as an artistic interpretation but that doesn't lay any moral baggage on Tolkien or the work.

 Melissia wrote:
Also, later in his life, Tolkien even considered the idea of there being good Orcs, but they just were not involved in the stories that he told. One wonders if he would have written about the good orcs in his various collections of tales to be added to the Simarillion and other such collections.

Its likely they would be hunted anyway, the irony would not be lost on Tolkien.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
It's possible, especially after the fall of Sauron. If the Elves, a race that's been uniformly indoctrinated to be good, can have bad apples, than an "evil" race should be able to have oddballs that are good.

The Silmarillion has plenty of accounts of evil elves. It also stated that the corruption of Morgoth stained even Valinor and division persisted there even after the chaining of Morgoth. So Tolkien's promised land is to an extent itself tainted by evil.

I always saw it rather that Morgoth (and then Sauron) drove them insane, and kept them starved and ignorant.

The Silmarillion has plenty of accounts of evil elves. It also stated that the corruption of Morgoth stained even Valinor and division persisted there even after the chaining of Morgoth. So Tolkien's promised land is to an extent itself tainted by evil.

That's where I got my basis from. Also, a wayward elf is the cause of the beginning of Turin's life choices in the Children of Hurin.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I always saw it rather that Morgoth (and then Sauron) drove them insane, and kept them starved and ignorant.

The Silmarillion has plenty of accounts of evil elves. It also stated that the corruption of Morgoth stained even Valinor and division persisted there even after the chaining of Morgoth. So Tolkien's promised land is to an extent itself tainted by evil.

That's where I got my basis from. Also, a wayward elf is the cause of the beginning of Turin's life choices in the Children of Hurin.

How about Feanors threat to murder the Teleri if they failed to hand over their fleet, and carrying out the threat when they didnt. Or the sacking of Doriath.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 youbedead wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 youbedead wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Actually the FOOD is valid criticism that LOTR and Brian Jacques's Redwall books must be saddled with. Goddess forsake that is a lot of delicious grub, and it's rather difficult to read through some of the various feasts in either series without having the urge to do the kind of cooking that involves multiple large water fowl.

The redwall cookbook http://www.amazon.com/The-Redwall-Cookbook-Brian-Jacques/dp/0399237917 makes the feasts much more entertaining

....Welp from the description "Heavy on butter and cream" I think I might be gaining a pound or two from this! Now if only there was a LOTR cook book my nerd cooking library would be complete.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lord-Rings-Cookbook-ebook/dp/B005JQ9FSI

...you're trying to kill me aren't you?

It's even in handy E-book form

Sadly it's not available, or I'd send you a package of Lembas bread.

 Monster Rain wrote:
As to the Stormfront forum:

I'm really not surprised. If I had a nickel for every Nazi IG thread I've seen...

LOL I've seen too many of those.

 Melissia wrote:
I'm a southern American, which is about as far from British as you can get.

Of course it isnt! Proper Southerners ARE British right?

Thats why you always get Irish Americans and Italian Americans but never British Americans, because white blokes from the 13 colonies who arent one of the big three or four immigrant communities just think of "American" as "a descendant of them limeys who started the whole thing off" Anyway, thats the answer I have received when Ive asked blokes from Oaky and Virginia why nobody ever says "British American"

British soldiers feel more at home with a bunch of American soldiers than they do with some blokes from Nicaragua or the Philippines or some Persians or something!

And our culture and food is almost identical, the colours on our flags are the same, our language is the same, ad its thus with all our relatives.. Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand......people from all of those nations come together and socialise about as easily as they do with people from the same county, let alone country. About as far from British as you can get?!

You need to face it, but you lot are about as British as it gets!

No thanks, I like my tea iced.

 Melissia wrote:
No thanks, I like my tea iced.

Hey me too..

Gimme a hug you big lug!

 mattyrm wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'm a southern American, which is about as far from British as you can get.

Of course it isnt! Proper Southerners ARE British right?

Thats why you always get Irish Americans and Italian Americans but never British Americans, because white blokes from the 13 colonies who arent one of the big three or four immigrant communities just think of "American" as "a descendant of them limeys who started the whole thing off" Anyway, thats the answer I have received when Ive asked blokes from Oaky and Virginia why nobody ever says "British American"

I hear "Anglo-American" on occassion...

Wait, why is Captain America's skin orange?

 Melissia wrote:
Wait, why is Captain America's skin orange?

Spray tan.

Everyone wants fake dark skin, just none of the baggage associated with actually having it...

 Melissia wrote:
Wait, why is Captain America's skin orange?

That's not Captain America, that's his long-lost relative Agent Orange...

 Melissia wrote:
Wait, why is Captain America's skin orange?

Old comics.. the color was worse.

Or it might be the black Captain America.. I remember him.



Hey the color was worse.. did you see what I did there?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CT GAMER wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'm a southern American, which is about as far from British as you can get.

Of course it isnt! Proper Southerners ARE British right?

Thats why you always get Irish Americans and Italian Americans but never British Americans, because white blokes from the 13 colonies who arent one of the big three or four immigrant communities just think of "American" as "a descendant of them limeys who started the whole thing off" Anyway, thats the answer I have received when Ive asked blokes from Oaky and Virginia why nobody ever says "British American"

I hear "Anglo-American" on occassion...

That's pretty rare though considering Americans with some British lineage are what.. the third biggest group? .. mostly British Americans just say "American!" because they have inherited their cousins haughty arrogance.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Wait, why is Captain America's skin orange?

That's not Captain America, that's his long-lost relative Agent Orange...

This was the most brilliant post I've seen in months.

 Monster Rain wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Melissia wrote:Wait, why is Captain America's skin orange?

That's not Captain America, that's his long-lost relative Agent Orange...

This was the most brilliant post I've seen in months.

Why thank you good sir!

On a side note, why is the new quote system evil?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:

No, orcs are the industrial working class.

No they are not, thats revisionist rubbish. Tolkien himself said there was no allegory in Lord of the Rings.

bs. The orcs are obviously the urban working class of Birmingham and London. Mordor is represented throughout the entire book as industrialisation and wanton creation.

 Orlanth wrote:


Dark as in not-light, not dark as in ethnic.

Tolkien uses the darkness and light concepts strongly, magic is connected to colour, hence why wizards had specific coloured robes. Sauron and Morgoths power was Black as in unholy, dark and devoid of light, not negroid. The alliance of the West's primary power was White meaning light and purity not caucasian.

Swarthy refers to a look and mannerism not necessarily an ethnicity. Besides even dark doesnt always mean evil, Legolas was a Dark Elf, he was born from among the Avari, those who did not make the journey to live in Valinor under the light of the Trees.

I love being treated like an idiot, that's why I post on dakka so much.

Haradrim & co are BLACK SKINNED and the lord of the rings is explicitly racist against them. You can deny it if you want.

 Testify wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:

No, orcs are the industrial working class.

No they are not, thats revisionist rubbish. Tolkien himself said there was no allegory in Lord of the Rings.

bs. The orcs are obviously the urban working class of Birmingham and London. Mordor is represented throughout the entire book as industrialisation and wanton creation.

Why Birmingham and London specifically?

 Orlanth wrote:


Dark as in not-light, not dark as in ethnic.

Tolkien uses the darkness and light concepts strongly, magic is connected to colour, hence why wizards had specific coloured robes. Sauron and Morgoths power was Black as in unholy, dark and devoid of light, not negroid. The alliance of the West's primary power was White meaning light and purity not caucasian.

Swarthy refers to a look and mannerism not necessarily an ethnicity. Besides even dark doesnt always mean evil, Legolas was a Dark Elf, he was born from among the Avari, those who did not make the journey to live in Valinor under the light of the Trees.

I love being treated like an idiot, that's why I post on dakka so much.

Haradrim & co are BLACK SKINNED and the lord of the rings is explicitly racist against them. You can deny it if you want.

They don't fight the Haradrim because they're black though...
They fight them because they allied with Sauron.
Now if it went about saying that they allied with Sauron because they are black and black people are intrinsically evil then yeah you might have a point.

 purplefood wrote:

Why Birmingham and London specifically?

Tolkein's picturesque rural childhood was consumed by a growing industrial Birmingham.

 purplefood wrote:


They don't fight the Haradrim because they're black though...
They fight them because they allied with Sauron.
Now if it went about saying that they allied with Sauron because they are black and black people are intrinsically evil then yeah you might have a point.

Hmm. I'm going to have to find some quotes later.

 Testify wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

Why Birmingham and London specifically?

Tolkein's picturesque rural childhood was consumed by a growing industrial Birmingham.

 purplefood wrote:


They don't fight the Haradrim because they're black though...
They fight them because they allied with Sauron.
Now if it went about saying that they allied with Sauron because they are black and black people are intrinsically evil then yeah you might have a point.

Hmm. I'm going to have to find some quotes later.

Well I don't remember them being anymore disliking of the Haradrim simply because they were black...

 Testify wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Testify wrote:

No, orcs are the industrial working class.

No they are not, thats revisionist rubbish. Tolkien himself said there was no allegory in Lord of the Rings.

bs. The orcs are obviously the urban working class of Birmingham and London. Mordor is represented throughout the entire book as industrialisation and wanton creation.

 Orlanth wrote:


Dark as in not-light, not dark as in ethnic.

Tolkien uses the darkness and light concepts strongly, magic is connected to colour, hence why wizards had specific coloured robes. Sauron and Morgoths power was Black as in unholy, dark and devoid of light, not negroid. The alliance of the West's primary power was White meaning light and purity not caucasian.

Swarthy refers to a look and mannerism not necessarily an ethnicity. Besides even dark doesnt always mean evil, Legolas was a Dark Elf, he was born from among the Avari, those who did not make the journey to live in Valinor under the light of the Trees.

I love being treated like an idiot, that's why I post on dakka so much.

Haradrim & co are BLACK SKINNED and the lord of the rings is explicitly racist against them. You can deny it if you want.

I do deny, here is why:

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. I cordially dislike allegory, and have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.""
J.R.R .Tolkien ~ From the forward of the second edition of Lord of the Rings ( pub Allen & Unwin 1965)

Testify, your call.

Purplefood wrote:Well I don't remember them being anymore disliking of the Haradrim simply because they were black...

Pretty sure they were praised for their ability as warriors several times throughout the books. I think the Silmarillion makes it clear that the men who stayed in the east are more easily manipulated by evil because of their lack of exposure to the elves, apart from a few dark elves.

Apparently according to Stormfront H.P Lovecraft was a racist and white supremist, did some quick searching on google and nobody seems to agree on whether he was racist above the norm of the period he lived in. Anyone on dakka can shed light?

Lord-Loss wrote:

Purplefood wrote:Well I don't remember them being anymore disliking of the Haradrim simply because they were black...

Pretty sure they were praised for their ability as warriors several times throughout the books. I think the Silmarillion makes it clear that the men who stayed in the east are more easily manipulated by evil because of their lack of exposure to the elves, apart from a few dark elves.

Elves in LotR are really kinda weird...

The thread in Stormfront's Fantasy section on Steampunk and its inherent Victorian values, specifically those concerning European dominance an Colonialism, being taken at face value was both interesting and saddening at the same time.

 Orlanth wrote:

Well he was an active professor at one of the worlds most prestigious universities. That should be enough.

To this I say Niall Ferguson.

 Orlanth wrote:
"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. I cordially dislike allegory, and have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.""
J.R.R .Tolkien ~ From the forward of the second edition of Lord of the Rings ( pub Allen & Unwin 1965)

Testify, your call.

While I agree it was not Tolkien's conscious intention, authors have a habit of their subconscious running rampant while writing. Things can work their way into a piece without the author realizing it, and there is a lot of sense for many of the Christian and urban/modernization allegories claimed to be in the Lord of the Rings series. It flows together very effortlessly and while Tolkien may not have intended it to be that way, it did sort of end up there.

I'll also point out that while I've never seen the above quote before, the last two sentences are, curious. Tolkien is rejecting the idea of allegory but accepting that he may have written things to be in a sense allegorical? I'm confused by the way he is using applicability.

 LordofHats wrote:
I can see Tolkien's prose as being a bit of a struggle at times, but that's it. The writing was beautiful.

The only difficult component of Tolkien's work is his use metaphor and "period" language. I remember coming across many descriptions of emotive states that were essentially meaningless to me, or needlessly verbose.

 LordofHats wrote:

I'll also point out that while I've never seen the above quote before, the last two sentences are, curious. Tolkien is rejecting the idea of allegory but accepting that he may have written things to be in a sense allegorical? I'm confused by the way he is using applicability.

He's stating that anything which might appear allegorical was not written into the narrative by way of intention, but was instead inferred by the reader. In other words, his work might be applied in a particular way by another person, but he did not consciously construct the narrative in order to be so disposed. Its a very heavy-handed way of saying "This is not intended as an allegory."

That being said, I have a hard time believing that Tolkien wasn't aware of some of the more obvious ways in which LoTR could be interpreted allegorically, especially in terms of modernization.

 dogma wrote:

He's stating that anything which might appear allegorical was not written into the narrative by way of intention, but was instead inferred by the reader. In other words, his work might be applied in a particular way by another person, but he did not consciously construct the narrative in order to be so disposed. Its a very heavy-handed way of saying "This is not intended as an allegory."

That being said, I have a hard time believing that Tolkien wasn't aware of some of the more obvious ways in which LoTR could be interpreted allegorically, especially in terms of modernization.

Right.
Considering the orks all talk with urban working class accents , and the hobbits/elves all talk like country aristocracy (or at least, the country middle class), I flat out refuse to accept that is not an allegory.

 Orlanth wrote:


I do deny, here is why:

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. I cordially dislike allegory, and have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.""
J.R.R .Tolkien ~ From the forward of the second edition of Lord of the Rings ( pub Allen & Unwin 1965)

Testify, your call.

It looks like maybe Tolkien just mispoke.

Jesus, Testify, just apply some literary theory - it doesn't matter what Tolkein's stated intentions were. It's largely irrelevant to your reading of the work, because you don't need his dead hand on your shoulder in order to derive meaning from the text. If allegory is how you read it, then that's how you read it.

Also, why the Ferguson hate from dogma? I quite enjoy his books.

Yeah I always say this gak, my missus goes on about Ulysses.. and I buy only half of what the pretentious douche bags say about the book.

Basically, feth heads love to read too much into gak to try and make themselves sound clever. We know some of what went through Tolkien's head because of his letters, but if they didn't exist, than all sorts of ridiculous claims would have been made.

I like reading the forewords to modern books reprints because 90% of the time, the heroine isn't allegorical of the Queen, the victims aren't allegorical of the struggles of the Serbian people, the hero isn't a metaphor for Che Guevara and the treasure isn't alluding to the hanging gardens of Babylon.

Basically, most the time they just wrote gak that sounds good and makes a cool story. And then along come some fething dweebs and they write books about how every single sentence has a hidden meaning, and it goes from being one pretentious tit in a berets opinion to a fething "fact"

I cant wait to read what they are saying about Terry Pratchett in 30 years time if I'm still here. Rincewind will be Jesus, the night watch will be the disciples and the walking chest will be a hidden message to illustrate Pratchett's desire for the UK to have been a Republic because each of its kneecaps were members of the Royal Family and the trunk was meant to be filled with members of the house of lords.

Or something...

The point is, read the fething books and like them or hate them. But unless Tolkien specifically said any of this nonsense, then the Orcs weren't Birmingham factory workers and the Elves weren't members of the postal workers union. They were fething Orcs and Elves!!

Lord-Loss wrote:

Purplefood wrote:Well I don't remember them being anymore disliking of the Haradrim simply because they were black...

Pretty sure they were praised for their ability as warriors several times throughout the books. I think the Silmarillion makes it clear that the men who stayed in the east are more easily manipulated by evil because of their lack of exposure to the elves, apart from a few dark elves.

Apparently according to Stormfront H.P Lovecraft was a racist and white supremist, did some quick searching on google and nobody seems to agree on whether he was racist above the norm of the period he lived in. Anyone on dakka can shed light?

The Haradrim look pretty boss in the films. Fun side to play as in that LotR Total Waresque game.

I'm a big fan of Lovecraft. I own all his works and I've read quite a few critiques of his work. I don't think he was exceptionally more racist than was the norm at the time. Perhaps slightly more so, but not to the point where he was a practicing white supremacist. He was certainly racist though, especially by today's standards. He had a cat named [see forum posting rules]-Man. I kid you not.

purplefood wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:

Purplefood wrote:Well I don't remember them being anymore disliking of the Haradrim simply because they were black...

Pretty sure they were praised for their ability as warriors several times throughout the books. I think the Silmarillion makes it clear that the men who stayed in the east are more easily manipulated by evil because of their lack of exposure to the elves, apart from a few dark elves.

Elves in LotR are really kinda weird...

Elves are magic.

Testify wrote:

 dogma wrote:

He's stating that anything which might appear allegorical was not written into the narrative by way of intention, but was instead inferred by the reader. In other words, his work might be applied in a particular way by another person, but he did not consciously construct the narrative in order to be so disposed. Its a very heavy-handed way of saying "This is not intended as an allegory."

That being said, I have a hard time believing that Tolkien wasn't aware of some of the more obvious ways in which LoTR could be interpreted allegorically, especially in terms of modernization.

Right.
Considering the orks all talk with urban working class accents , and the hobbits/elves all talk like country aristocracy (or at least, the country middle class), I flat out refuse to accept that is not an allegory.

The man stated plainly it was not an allegory. If you want to read into it excessively, go ahead, but don't excuse Tolkien of lying or having a hidden agenda.

What have I started?

Lord-Loss wrote:

Purplefood wrote:Well I don't remember them being anymore disliking of the Haradrim simply because they were black...

Pretty sure they were praised for their ability as warriors several times throughout the books. I think the Silmarillion makes it clear that the men who stayed in the east are more easily manipulated by evil because of their lack of exposure to the elves, apart from a few dark elves.

Apparently according to Stormfront H.P Lovecraft was a racist and white supremist, did some quick searching on google and nobody seems to agree on whether he was racist above the norm of the period he lived in. Anyone on dakka can shed light?

Well he did have the tendency to throw that "N" word about a bit in his work and was a fan of using the term "mongrel breeds" to describe the group of cultist's in The call of Cthulhu and a few other stories as well I think. It's difficult to say if he was above the "norm" from what I read.

He was an amazing writer of horror stories. But I get the impression he was a bit of a gakker.

Lord of the rings is great, but Tom Bombadill was over-the-top silly. Also, I got bored with the 50 pages of Bilbo planning a fething birthday party.

Beyond that, it's still one of my favorite books.

 mattyrm wrote:
Yeah I always say this gak, my missus goes on about Ulysses.. and I buy only half of what the pretentious douche bags say about the book.

Basically, feth heads love to read too much into gak to try and make themselves sound clever. We know some of what went through Tolkien's head because of his letters, but if they didn't exist, than all sorts of ridiculous claims would have been made.

I like reading the forewords to modern books reprints because 90% of the time, the heroine isn't allegorical of the Queen, the victims aren't allegorical of the struggles of the Serbian people, the hero isn't a metaphor for Che Guevara and the treasure isn't alluding to the hanging gardens of Babylon.

Basically, most the time they just wrote gak that sounds good and makes a cool story. And then along come some fething dweebs and they write books about how every single sentence has a hidden meaning, and it goes from being one pretentious tit in a berets opinion to a fething "fact"

I cant wait to read what they are saying about Terry Pratchett in 30 years time if I'm still here. Rincewind will be Jesus, the night watch will be the disciples and the walking chest will be a hidden message to illustrate Pratchett's desire for the UK to have been a Republic because each of its kneecaps were members of the Royal Family and the trunk was meant to be filled with members of the house of lords.

Or something...

The point is, read the fething books and like them or hate them. But unless Tolkien specifically said any of this nonsense, then the Orcs weren't Birmingham factory workers and the Elves weren't members of the postal workers union. They were fething Orcs and Elves!!

Quoted for fething truth!

Have an exalt dude, this is awesome...

I second that. Well said Matty!

"But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people."

Oh yeah, Tolkein sure agreed with Neo-Nazi's....

 Testify wrote:

Right.
Considering the orks all talk with urban working class accents , and the hobbits/elves all talk like country aristocracy (or at least, the country middle class), I flat out refuse to accept that is not an allegory.

I don't think he intended it as an allegory per se, but I do think that, minimally, his perception of the way in which language evolves (or, possibly in his mind, degenerates) may have informed his portrayal of orcs as minions of darkness working against the proper order of the world.

 mattyrm wrote:
Yeah I always say this gak, my missus goes on about Ulysses.. and I buy only half of what the pretentious douche bags say about the book.

Basically, feth heads love to read too much into gak to try and make themselves sound clever. We know some of what went through Tolkien's head because of his letters, but if they didn't exist, than all sorts of ridiculous claims would have been made.

I like reading the forewords to modern books reprints because 90% of the time, the heroine isn't allegorical of the Queen, the victims aren't allegorical of the struggles of the Serbian people, the hero isn't a metaphor for Che Guevara and the treasure isn't alluding to the hanging gardens of Babylon.

Basically, most the time they just wrote gak that sounds good and makes a cool story. And then along come some fething dweebs and they write books about how every single sentence has a hidden meaning, and it goes from being one pretentious tit in a berets opinion to a fething "fact"

I cant wait to read what they are saying about Terry Pratchett in 30 years time if I'm still here. Rincewind will be Jesus, the night watch will be the disciples and the walking chest will be a hidden message to illustrate Pratchett's desire for the UK to have been a Republic because each of its kneecaps were members of the Royal Family and the trunk was meant to be filled with members of the house of lords.

Or something...

The point is, read the fething books and like them or hate them. But unless Tolkien specifically said any of this nonsense, then the Orcs weren't Birmingham factory workers and the Elves weren't members of the postal workers union. They were fething Orcs and Elves!!

Yeah, I pretty much completely disagree with this entire post.

 Amaya wrote:

The man stated plainly it was not an allegory. If you want to read into it excessively, go ahead, but don't excuse Tolkien of lying or having a hidden agenda.

That may be so, but Tolkien was noted for his dislike of the effect that industrialization had on England. He may not have intended LoTR to be allegorical, but its almost certain that some of that sentiment crept into it anyway.

 dogma wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

The man stated plainly it was not an allegory. If you want to read into it excessively, go ahead, but don't excuse Tolkien of lying or having a hidden agenda.

That may be so, but Tolkien was noted for his dislike of the effect that industrialization had on England. He may not have intended LoTR to be allegorical, but its almost certain that some of that sentiment crept into it anyway.

It's almost impossible for a human to separate themselves from the influences that their life has had ,after all.

 Melissia wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

The man stated plainly it was not an allegory. If you want to read into it excessively, go ahead, but don't excuse Tolkien of lying or having a hidden agenda.

That may be so, but Tolkien was noted for his dislike of the effect that industrialization had on England. He may not have intended LoTR to be allegorical, but its almost certain that some of that sentiment crept into it anyway.

It's almost impossible for a human to separate themselves from the influences that their life has had ,after all.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on any potential reading of the text.

 Albatross wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

The man stated plainly it was not an allegory. If you want to read into it excessively, go ahead, but don't excuse Tolkien of lying or having a hidden agenda.

That may be so, but Tolkien was noted for his dislike of the effect that industrialization had on England. He may not have intended LoTR to be allegorical, but its almost certain that some of that sentiment crept into it anyway.

It's almost impossible for a human to separate themselves from the influences that their life has had ,after all.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on any potential reading of the text.

I have no idea what that sentence means.

I think he means that even though a personal's experiences will seep into their works (literature, film, art, etc) it is unintentional and should not automatically be viewed as an intentional allegory.

No one ever said that it was intentional? It doesn't matter if it is intentional or not.

You'd have to have a very specific type of mind to not equate the orks (who talk with industrial working class accents, dwell in dark terrace-like holes and are spawned from smoke-spewing industrial complexies) to the urban proletariat.

Tolkien did not write an allegory, he wrote a story inspired and influenced by the world around him. That does not mean it was a critique of that world.

This is not hard...

That disctintion only exists in your mind.

 Testify wrote:
That disctintion only exists in your mind.

... man

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure I'm right and Testify doesn't understand what an allegory is.

 Albatross wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on any potential reading of the text.

1: I was referring to the author.
2: Yes, it does, actually. One's interpretation of what they experience is heavily influenced by past experiences.

 Amaya wrote:
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure I'm right and Testify doesn't understand what an allegory is.

I do. You're using semantics to argue and I don't know why.

Allegory is a fairly simple thing. It's why I find Tolkien's words in the quote I mentioned so odd. He's rejecting allegory as something he doesn't like, while admitting that he uses experiences and ideas that readers will find familiar i.e. applicable to tell the story... Which is an allegory...

Unintentional/Intentional is somewhat irrelevant towards determining the meaning of a text. It's only relevant when discussing the author, but a text is its own entity, related by separate.

he wrote a story inspired and influenced by the world around him

Yeah. It's called being allegorical.

I think what Tolkien was rejecting were interpretations of text that were not his intent or maybe not the point of his work, and to an extent I can agree as the Orcs maybe being an allegory of the urban working class, isn't really relevant to the main themes of the Lord of the Rings at all.

That's not what an allegory is.

An allegory is something that is intended to have a hidden meaning, often moral or political, and refers to the use of symbols which are intended to reinforce an interpretation that leads to that hidden meaning.

Tolkien desired no hidden meaning-- he wanted to tell a good story, rather than push an idea or moral.

 Melissia wrote:
That's not what an allegory is.

An allegory is something that is intended to have a hidden meaning, often moral or political, and refers to the use of symbols which are intended to reinforce an interpretation that leads to that hidden meaning.

Tolkien desired no hidden meaning-- he wanted to tell a good story, rather than push an idea or moral.

That's just one more specific use of allegory. In it's most basic form an allegory is just a metaphor given the form of a character or plot device to symbolize something.

C.S. Lewis, like Tolkien, rejected allegory, but the Jesus-Allegory-Lion is quite obviously a Jesus-Allegory-Lion, so I'm wondering if its not really allegory Lewis and Tolkien rejected as much as some specific usage of allegory that may have been predominant in their time to the point they rejected the term in its entirety?

 LordofHats wrote:
That's just one more specific use of allegory. In it's most basic form an allegory is just a metaphor given the form of a character or plot device to symbolize something.

I don't agree with that definition.

That definition is pretty much what you get when you break allegory down to its simplist form (though a pro at this sort of thing would word it more concisely). Allegory is a very broad thing.

 LordofHats wrote:
That definition is pretty much what you get when you break allegory down to its simplist form

That's like claiming that quarks are water, because they are most of what you get when you break down water in to its simplest form.

 Melissia wrote:
That's like claiming that quarks are water, because they are most of what you get when you break down water in to its simplest form.

Well, we are all just atoms in the end

But I wouldn't take it that far. Allegory is a metaphor. Breaking it down to the point that it ceases to be a metaphor makes talking about it pointless in the same way we can't discuss water if we break it down so much it is just quarks.

Now that I think of it, maybe what Tolkien and Lewis rejected was overt allegory? Lots of people in literature criticize purposeful allegory as being unnatural to a story, often producing convoluted plots or one dimensional characters because the author is too focused on symbolism. So maybe what Tolkien meant by applicability is that he didn't write Lord of the Rings with an allegorical intention in mind, and thus to him there is no allegory? I want to say C.S. Lewis said something along these lines about the Chronicles of Narnia, but I can't seem to find the quote I'm thinking of anywhere.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That's like claiming that quarks are water, because they are most of what you get when you break down water in to its simplest form.

Well, we are all just atoms in the end

But I wouldn't take it that far. Allegory is a metaphor.

Allegory is a specific kind of metaphor. Claiming that all allegories are metaphors is like saying "Cats are mammals". Well yes. But not all mammals are cats, so acting like all mammals are cats is illogical. There are specific traits that cats have that separate them from other mammals. Just like there are specific things that separate allegory from other kinds of metaphors.

Allegory is a specific kind of metaphor. Claiming that all allegories are metaphors

So your saying allegory is a specific kind of metaphor, but not all allegory is metaphor? That's doesn't make sense at all...

All allegories are at their core a metaphor. Just like hyperbole. It's a figure of speech, existing within character(s) or object(s).

The problem here is that Tolkien seems to have some peculiar notion for what allegory is, and he doesn't like it so he chooses to use applicability instead. Apparently TV Tropes has a page on 'Applicability' but it's not really clearing this up for me. I'm seeing the distinction the page draws, but it's just a tautology game between overt allegory and non-overt. I think Tolkien just didn't want to use the word allegory cause its implications distract from what he was trying to explain.

al·le·go·ry/ˈaləˌgôrē/
Noun:
A story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.
The genre to which such works belong.

There is no hidden meaning in Lord of the Rings. CoN fits the bill in that the entire series is a allegory in support of Christianity. It is very obvious to most readers that it is, but never explicity spelled out as such.

Lots of allegories have no hidden meaning, moral, political or otherwise. Apollo's chariot (EDIT: Story of) is one of the most basic allegories (for the sun) and there's no hidden meaning about it, nor is it moral or political.

Dictionary definitions are not written to be all inclusive meanings for a term, and people should stop treating them like they are.

And this when the notsureifserious.jpg is used...

 Amaya wrote:

There you go

It's a very simple concept. Suppose orcs are an allegory for the urban working class. There's no real meaning (necessarily, maybe there is, but its not required) behind that allegory. It's simply a symbolic representation of one thing within another. It is not a requirement of allegory to having hidden meaning, let alone political or moral. That's just a very common form (probably most common these days), hence why it gets a dictionary definition, seeing as the writers of a dictionary aren't going to write an essay deconstructing a literary device.

EDIT: This is why the use of applicability confuses me. Tolkien is saying he's using allegorical symbols with no formal meaning, while claiming he's not using allegory at all, which is just weird.

But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class, nor did he mean for his tale to be any kind of larger allegory for WWI, WWII, or the industrial revolution, as various people have erroneously claimed at different times. People have repeatedly made the claim that LotR is an allegorical story, which it is not.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class, nor did he mean for his tale to be any kind of larger allegory for WWI, WWII, or the industrial revolution, as various people have erroneously claimed at different times.

I never intended for my milk to spill out of my cereal bowl but it did. Just cause there is not an intention for something doesn't mean it isn't there. Of course I also said suppose. I don't really care if orcs are representative of bunnies in a flower field. I'm more playing around with the quote from a page or two ago trying to figure that out than anything. It just seems like a tautology to me.

 LordofHats wrote:
But I wouldn't take it that far. Allegory is a metaphor.

Allegory isn't interchangeable with metaphor. If it were we wouldn't bother having two different words.

Think of Orwell's Animal Farm, which really is allegory. In Animal Farm knowing that Mr Jones represented the old aristocracy gives meaning to his broadly drawn drunken coward. We are meant to see Mr Jones and realise certain things about the Russian aristocracy.

No such direct, one for one parallels exist in Tolkien's or Lewis' work. Aslan is directly based on Jesus, but the intent is not to say 'I'll make this talking lion so people will understand Jesus better'. Instead Lewis is saying 'well as a Christian I believe Jesus would exist in very world, and so if there were a world of talking animals he'd be a lion that'd act like this'.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class

I think it's more or less impossible to have this opinion having a)experienced urban England and b)read the Lord of the Rings.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. I cordially dislike allegory, and have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.""
J.R.R .Tolkien ~ From the forward of the second edition of Lord of the Rings ( pub Allen & Unwin 1965)

I'll also point out that while I've never seen the above quote before, the last two sentences are, curious. Tolkien is rejecting the idea of allegory but accepting that he may have written things to be in a sense allegorical? I'm confused by the way he is using applicability.

No, he's saying that he prefers history, which is something in which a reader may find meaning applicable to their own life, as opposed to having a hidden meaning pawned off on them by the author.

Aslan makes me wish Jesus was real. If life was like Narnia it would be so much simpler (and cooler).

 Testify wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class

I think it's more or less impossible to have this opinion having a)experienced urban England and b)read the Lord of the Rings.

I don't mean any offense by this, but to me that statement comes off a good deal more racist than anything I've read in Tolkien.

 sebster wrote:
Allegory isn't interchangeable with metaphor. If it were we wouldn't bother having two different words.

Oh so that's what Mel meant. Amend that statement to "Allegory is a type of metaphor." Poor wording, my bad.

No such direct, one for one parallels exist in Tolkien's or Lewis' work. Aslan is directly based on Jesus, but the intent is not to say 'I'll make this talking lion so people will understand Jesus better'. Instead Lewis is saying 'well as a Christian I believe Jesus would exist in very world, and so if there were a world of talking animals he'd be a lion that'd act like this'.

That's the difference between overt and non-overt allegory (note I say 'overt' that cause I don't know what the technical term is). One Tolkien and Lewis both rejected, while the other Tolkien seems to call 'applicability.'

Aslan makes me wish Jesus was real. If life was like Narnia it would be so much simpler (and cooler).

I think we could all use a spunky rodent side kick whose handy in a bar brawl

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class

I think it's more or less impossible to have this opinion having a)experienced urban England and b)read the Lord of the Rings.

I don't mean any offense by this, but to me that statement comes off a good deal more racist than anything I've read in Tolkien.

What? How?

I meant by the mannerisms and culture of the orks. We get this most strongly in the chapter where Frodo is captured by the orks and Sam over-hears them talking about "the lads" and having "a fix".
Compare this to the dialogue of the elves, or the hobbits, or the men.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class, nor did he mean for his tale to be any kind of larger allegory for WWI, WWII, or the industrial revolution, as various people have erroneously claimed at different times.

I never intended for my milk to spill out of my cereal bowl but it did. Just cause there is not an intention for something doesn't mean it isn't there.

But an allegory is a device used by an author to express an idea in an indirect way. If (like in Orwell's Animal Farm) an allegory is in play, by understanding the symbols being used, you can make inferences and draw conclusions about the relationships between the characters and situations, and their likely conclusions, based on the things you know they represent in the real world. Tolkien had no such intent in his work, and you can't draw conclusions about (for example) the past relationship between Galdalf and Saruman based on knowing what real-world countries, historical figures, political parties, or philosophical schools of thought (for a few examples) each actually represents.

It might have been Tolkien's intention, but once finished the text is its own entity. If something exists within it it exists. An allegory can take form without the author realizing it. Whether that matters will depend on your philosophy of literary criticism

I tend not to care about something if its not intended, myself, but like I said. I'm working that quote out more than anything. Tolkien wrote an essay on fantasy writing. I'm looking for a PDF copy to hopefully shed light on the issue.

LordofHats wrote:It might have been Tolkien's intention, but once finished the text is its own entity. If something exists within it it exists. An allegory can take form without the author realizing it. Whether that matters will depend on your philosophy of literary criticism.

Clearly Tolkien was not a member of that school of literary criticism. He was trying to create a mythology and a fictional history; not a political or philosophical message or propaganda piece. Like any novelist he was trying to communicate some things about his characters and about the human experience, but people need to be cautious about twisting the meaning of an artistic work to suit themselves, and misrepresenting that work in the process.

While you can find in a work meaning that the author never intended, there is a danger there of making something up and pretending it's present in the work when it's actually not. Of glossing over inconsistencies in one's pet theory. If the author never intended the allegory, it's unlikely to all fit neatly into an exterior framework being imposed on it.

 Testify wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
But Tolkien never meant Orcs to be representative of the urban working class

I think it's more or less impossible to have this opinion having a)experienced urban England and b)read the Lord of the Rings.

I don't mean any offense by this, but to me that statement comes off a good deal more racist than anything I've read in Tolkien.

What? How?

I meant by the mannerisms and culture of the orks. We get this most strongly in the chapter where Frodo is captured by the orks and Sam over-hears them talking about "the lads" and having "a fix".
Compare this to the dialogue of the elves, or the hobbits, or the men.

Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks.

I believe Tolkien was attempting to portray the way he experienced (he was in the army) or imagined toughs and ruffians as speaking. He wasn't trying to create a metaphor to sell you a larger point about urban working class people being tools of a fascist state. There are certainly parts of his writing which are drawn from his personal experiences; obviously he romanticizes the countryside and writes with emotion about negative aspects of industrial production/destruction, and those do seem to be in part be based on things he saw and felt in real life. But to the extent that they're in the story, they're drawn on for their emotional resonance and as part of the setting, not as part of a hidden theme or political message.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks.

I believe Tolkien was attempting to portray the way he experienced (he was in the army) or imagined toughs and ruffians as speaking. He wasn't trying to create a metaphor to sell you a larger point about urban working class people being tools of a fascist state. There are certainly parts of his writing which are drawn from his personal experiences; obviously he romanticizes the countryside and writes with emotion about negative aspects of industrial production/destruction, and those do seem to be in part be based on things he saw and felt in real life. But to the extent that they're in the story, they're drawn on for their emotional resonance and as part of the setting, not as part of a hidden theme or political message.

I didn't say orcs were portrayed as tools of the fascist state, nor did i say he was making some genocidal point.

You've covered what I was saying fairly well in your post, I just think a lot more has been inferred in this thread than was implied.

Ironic, given the subject matter.

 LordofHats wrote:
That's the difference between overt and non-overt allegory (note I say 'overt' that cause I don't know what the technical term is). One Tolkien and Lewis both rejected, while the other Tolkien seems to call 'applicability.'

One thing to remember about authors is that like all people, they say a bunch of stuff that contradicts other stuff they wrote.

Tolkien said he hated allegory. By all reports people would actually worry that he was going to trap them in a corner and lecture them on how crappy allegory was. But he also wrote "Leaf by Niggle", a quite beautiful little short story that is an allegory for his own creative process.

You can get the story for free on PDF, and I'd really recommend it, because it's a really beautiful little story, and because it becomes clear how Tolkien writes when he is actually using allegory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
It might have been Tolkien's intention, but once finished the text is its own entity. If something exists within it it exists. An allegory can take form without the author realizing it. Whether that matters will depend on your philosophy of literary criticism

I tend not to care about something if its not intended, myself, but like I said.

Sure, it might be there whether intended or not. The issue is whether looking at it as allegory makes it a greater or a lesser work. Animal Farm is a fairly weak story in and of itself with an almost non-functional narrative, it's only when taken as allegory that you get any value out of it. But LotR is a wonderful stand alone work, with a great deal to be drawn from it when taken purely as a story. Taking all these various groups in the novel and making them stand-ins for real life ethnic and social classes makes it a less interesting story, and tells you little of any interest about those ethnic and social groups in the real world.

And as such, LotR really can't be seen as allegory.

I'd propose a story can contain allegories but in its whole not necessarily be allegorical. Stories can contain stories that are more focused or specific than the whole work.

An allegory is an entire work not excerpts from that work.

 Amaya wrote:
An allegory is an entire work not excerpts from that work.

And you claim others don't know what allegory is? An allegory is a literary device. It can form the entirety of a work or just a piece of it.

EDIT: Take Code Geass as an example. A major element in the story, and in the authors subsequent work Guilty Crown, is an allegory for the loss of Japan's national identity following WWII and the struggle to readjust culturally to a new mindset and regain a sense of what was lost. This forms a minor point (and is pretty much irrelevant to the main character's motivations) in both series' but is still an allegory.

That's technically accurate, but I can not think of a single example of that. By default if a story contains allegorical elements the entire story is an allegory. The Orcs are not an allegory. Their speech and mannerisms bear a resemblance to the English working class, but there is no hidden meaning or message behind that. It is simply to give the reader a better since of their character and since it is a fantasy story, having elements obviously connected to modern life can help the reader connect to the story. The same is true for the description of the Shire. It reminds one of the English country not because it is an allegory, but because that image of the countryside is picturesque and readily recalled in the mind of Tolkien's audience.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously? I have only a passing familiarity and even less of an interest in anime.

There is no real story concerning the Orcs. Their origins are hinted at, but never deeply discussed outside of conjecture. They only exist in the story because the Big Bad requires Mooks.

By default if a story contains allegorical elements the entire story is an allegory. The Orcs are not an allegory. Their speech and mannerisms bear a resemblance to the English working class, but there is no hidden meaning or message behind that. It is simply to give the reader a better since of their character and since it is a fantasy story, having elements obviously connected to modern life can help the reader connect to the story. The same is true for the description of the Shire. It reminds one of the English country not because it is an allegory, but because that image of the countryside is picturesque and readily recalled in the mind of Tolkien's audience.

Again, its not my intention to say they are, I've just been using that as an example for thinking purposes while I try to figure out Tolkien's use of applicability.

EDIT: Yeah, seriously. Its even word of god from the writer himself. He's actually taken some flak from fans and people who disagree with his views on post-WWII Japan. The Gundam series is another that packs a lot of internal allegories that bear little meaning to the work as a whole, especially concerning Cold War politics and human nature. The Japanese have a certain flair for allegory in story telling that would make Medieval Europeans blush with envy.

I meant seriously as you expect people to know about obscure anime shows...

Here is a real gem from Stormfront on Tolkien.

Link removed.
Reds8n

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleric Preston
I suspect that the Lord of the Rings is a lot closer to the history of our race then many people suspect.

I don't have time to formulate a full response right now as I have to
leave for work, but I'll try to get my thoughts in order.

I think your idea is certainly on the right path though
Not that i'm falling for all that Laurence Gardner stuff or anything like that, but with Professor Tolkien's background and personal connections, possible access to ancient documents, with his inkling friends at Oxford, I think sometimes the 'Notion club papers' have the ring of truth about them-autobiography, with a thin film of fiction to protect identities.

And now we know that there were all kinds of 'human' populations we modern types shared the planet with for thousands of years, including the 'Homo Floriensis', or 'hobbit'....My goodness, Tolkien would be amused and suprised....Or would he?

One thing though. Tolkien was a devout and sincere Roman Catholic, his oldest son becoming a Catholic priest. Considering the discrepancies between the fictional histories and the biblical account (but also taking into consideration that the 'Silmarilion' and other tales of his are 'Elvish Mythology'), perhaps he found ways to reconcile the accounts, as with his 'Valian Year' being 9.5 Solar years...

Maybe too, the Annunaki of Gardner and Sitchin really are the Elves of Tolkien, and there's another side to the story-Tolkien telling and running with the 'Elvish Version', if you will....A romanticized and softened version of one side of a long conflict, with the winners as usual writting what records that remain-myths, legends, and vague historical accounts, and dreams steming from long-lost racial memories. If Tolkien had some kind of real-life "Red Book of Westermark' to work from, it would've been all too easy to pick the side of the ancient narrator, especially if the other side was uncomfortably close to Danny Vendramini's Neanderthal 'Apex Predator'.

 Amaya wrote:
I meant seriously as you expect people to know about obscure anime shows...

I don't think it's that obscure XD But then if you don't watch anime

I can think of several western ones, but I'm not sure if they're any less obscure. Pilgrim's Progress by John Banyan is basically just one successive allegory after another (though the entire story is also an allegory itself for Christian life/spirituality ). Stranger in a Strange Land has a couple of allegories, but like progress is also allegorical as a whole. It is hard now that I think of it to find something well known. So many things are clearly not allegorical or clearly allegorical. I'd have to go through and really look for something. Lots of works have episodic allegorical elements but they are of course, episodic.

Scummy racist gaks have been using Tolkein as a symbol of white/Aryan supremacy for decades, especially among National Socialist black metal musicians like Varg Vikernes, who went by the stage name Count Grishnak for a while. It's stupid and way off mark, but sadly, it's nothing new.


LOL @ Gundam being an "obscure" anime show. Though I guess it's pretty obscure if you don't watch anime, kinda like how, say, I dunno, Bane is somewhat obscure if you don't follow or really care about comics at all. I haven't watched anime in a very long time, but Gundam wasn't bad.

What does Code Geass have to do with Gundam?

Ah ha ha, I meant Code Geass, derped because I had just read the Gundam post and I've been awake for about 21 hours. I guess that's what I get for trying to be smug. Still, it can't be that obscure if I, as someone who actively dislikes and avoids anime, have heard of it and vaguely know the plot.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd propose a story can contain allegories but in its whole not necessarily be allegorical. Stories can contain stories that are more focused or specific than the whole work.

Sure, but I don't really see how that applies to LotR.

Seriously though, go read Leaf by Niggle. It says more about Tolkien's intent for LotR and the whole creation of Middle Earth than this thread could ever do. That it does so by being an allegory is just nice bit of irony

I do LOVE irony

Ratbot, no one cares if you know who Bane is or not. You made an ignorant comment assuming that Bane as he was portrayed in TKDR was inaccurate.

 LordofHats wrote:
In it's most basic form an allegory is just a metaphor given the form of a character or plot device to symbolize something.

True, but generally a text is only considered an allegory in itself if the author intentionally constructed it as an allegory. Otherwise we're talking about allegorical readings, which is a bit different.

Fountainhead (*shudder*) is an allegory, whereas LoTR can be read allegorically.

Alby and several other people have said they disagreed with my comment, whilst it may have read more like an opinion piece, surely it isn't even up for a debate, its a certifiable fact because there are living artists, be they singers, writers, poets or painters, who have come right out and said "Thats fething gak"

All I said could have been shoved into one sentence, and its utterly irrefutable.

Not every character/major event in fiction is inspired by reality.

Plenty is, plenty isnt, end of discussion surely?

Animal Farm was, Star Wars wasn't. Darth Vadar wasn't supposed to be Oliver Cromwell, Princess Lea wasn't meant to be Joan of Arc.. my point was simply that you might have an opinion on something, you can say that Indiana Jones reminds you of your Dad or Hitler or Harvey Milk, but it doesn't make it right, because the only person who is "right" is the artist. There are only probably 6 or 7 archetypical "hero" types in fiction.. its surely not hard to see that right? So why are they all inspired by real people? I can invent a sullen broody hero, or a charming dashing hero, or a noble but occasionally psychopathic anti-hero, but I can make all 3 and not have been thinking of any actual individual from history.

I read David Gemmells foreword to "The Jerusalem Man" series, and he says "Oh I just wanted to make a man with a mission, in a post apocalypse world, and I was really into cowboy movies at the time" and that's pretty much it. He wrote it, not a critic. You don't get to say "Oh he based John Shannow on Issac Newton" with any conviction if the actual inventor of the IP says "your talking gak" surely?

All I said in my long winded post was "loads of intellectuals talk gak about other peoples works and spout it as if it is fact" and that's absolutely true!

 mattyrm wrote:
Alby and several other people have said they disagreed with my comment, whilst it may have read more like an opinion piece, surely it isn't even up for a debate, its a certifiable fact because there are living artists, be they singers, writers, poets or painters, who have come right out and said "Thats fething gak"

All I said could have been shoved into one sentence, and its utterly irrefutable.

Not every character/major event in fiction is inspired by reality.

Plenty is, plenty isnt, end of discussion surely?

Animal Farm was, Star Wars wasn't. Darth Vadar wasn't supposed to be Oliver Cromwell, Princess Lea wasn't meant to be Joan of Arc.. my point was simply that you might have an opinion on something, you can say that Indiana Jones reminds you of your Dad or Hitler or Harvey Milk, but it doesn't make it right, because the only person who is "right" is the artist. There are only probably 6 or 7 archetypical "hero" types in fiction.. its surely not hard to see that right? So why are they all inspired by real people? I can invent a sullen broody hero, or a charming dashing hero, or a noble but occasionally psychopathic anti-hero, but I can make all 3 and not have been thinking of any actual individual from history.

I read David Gemmells foreword to "The Jerusalem Man" series, and he says "Oh I just wanted to make a man with a mission, in a post apocalypse world, and I was really into cowboy movies at the time" and that's pretty much it. He wrote it, not a critic. You don't get to say "Oh he based John Shannow on Issac Newton" with any conviction if the actual inventor of the IP says "your talking gak" surely?

All I said in my long winded post was "loads of intellectuals talk gak about other peoples works and spout it as if it is fact" and that's absolutely true!

Nah, it's really not. An interpretation of a text is never presented as fact, rather a case is made for a particular reading of certain symbolic components, based on evidence and argument. Here's an example: I've had an idea for a paper on 60s British Psychadelia as a commentary on Empire. I will point to the introduction of eastern elements into pop music as an example of orientalism, and discuss what that says about the national outlook on the decline of Empire at the time. I will look at post-colonial representations in the movie 'Help!' and compare the portrayal of India/ns as superstitious, barbaric and incomprehensible, as opposed to the loyal (if a little backward) redcoated Bahamians.

Now, Paul McCartney would probably say that none of this was The Beatles' intent but frankly, that's irrelevant. Once a text is released out into the world, its link with the author is severed, in terms of meanings derived from it. For example, I know and care little about Tolkein's life - does that make my reading of LoTR 'wrong'? The author's intent is pretty much worthless when discussing art, particularly in the postmodern era. The symptoms of a thing are that thing, which means we don't need the thing, only it's symptoms. It's like Baudrillard on simulated bank robbery - you'd still get nicked even if the gun was fake, because as far as everyone knows (except you), it's a real gun and a real robbery.

So, if you read Star Wars as a wild west story because of certain structural similarities you happen to observe, then for all intents and purposes, that's what it is. It doesn't matter what George Lucas thinks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on any potential reading of the text.

1: I was referring to the author.

Yes, which is why your statement was incorrect.

2: Yes, it does, actually. One's interpretation of what they experience is heavily influenced by past experiences.

As a reader, yes.* As an author, yes.* Is that necessarily transmitted between the two? Does it need to be in order to read a text? Do I need to understand the life and times of the author in order to derive meaning from his work?

No. This is something that was recognised by academics long before we were both born.



*But not always, and not necessarily.

 Amaya wrote:


I'm a big fan of Lovecraft. I own all his works and I've read quite a few critiques of his work. I don't think he was exceptionally more racist than was the norm at the time

Lovecraft falls under the category of fantastically racist, even making the caveat that this was turn of the century through post WWI society. His letters make for some very interesting reads, especially the ones between him and his aunts where he seems most relaxed about letting his opinions flow in unreserved language.

Of course, what a lot of people seem to forget in discussions like this is just because he held some truly horrible opinions and views doesn't suddenly mean that his stories are all actually secret metaphors about how awful the Jews are, or cleverly disguised outrage at having to endure the presence of blacks mixed in with the decent white folk when he went to the beach. Lovecraft was a smart guy. If he wanted to write a story about the existential angst of man's insignificance in the universe (he was writing at a time when, amongst other things, technology had advanced to the point that telescopes could clearly show the answer to the long-standing argument of whether our galaxy was the whole of the universe, and it just happened to contain lots of spiral shaped nebula, or were those nebula actually _other_ galaxies?), he wasn't compelled to stick a 'and I hate the darkies,' in there as well.

 Albatross wrote:

Nah, it's really not. An interpretation of a text is never presented as fact, rather a case is made for a particular reading of certain symbolic components, based on evidence and argument.

Yeah see, it is sometimes presented as a fact, as this thread shows!

I agree with most of what you wrote, of course its an almost organic thing, an IP. Indeed, the term meme gives that sorta, biological quality to ideas and thoughts right? "An idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture" according to RD.

Obviously what you are saying is correct (minus the above sentence!) in that once something is in the ether, than it is at the whim of the tens or hundreds of millions of minds that absorb it irrelevant of the authors wishes.

But I'm talking about the black and white facts, not just peoples interpretations and opinions, and people DO present interpretations as facts, which is why we have people here vehemently arguing about what Tolkien meant and its those people I was having a go at! They aren't saying its their opinion are they? They are saying "this is what he meant" and then another guy says "No he didn't because he actually mentioned it in a letter"

Fact is, if I write a book, and I don't base the hero off Winston Churchill, I base him off Abe Lincoln, then twenty years later you say I based the hero off Churchill, you ARE wrong. You think I did, and you can argue why you did and maybe even put forward an extremely convincing case, but that doesn't mean its correct. Its what it means to you, but its not what it meant to me.

Were arguing two different things here anyway mate, because I agree with your premise, I had to write character studies in English class, I wrote about Mercutio and Piggy (you know the books obviously) and who I think they were based on, and where I think the writer drew the traits from, and of course I was free to do that, but all I said in my initial post was that not every character in fiction is based on a real person, and that is undeniable.

Its trivially easy to pin all of the characters of fiction on real people anyway! Humans don't even have that many strong, easily definable traits and emotions, so you could probably shoe-horn every single character from all of fiction ever into about 8-10 different categories couldn't you?

 mattyrm wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Nah, it's really not. An interpretation of a text is never presented as fact, rather a case is made for a particular reading of certain symbolic components, based on evidence and argument.

Yeah see, it is sometimes presented as a fact, as this thread shows!

Not by anyone who has any sort of background in academic arts criticism.

But I'm talking about the black and white facts, not just peoples interpretations and opinions, and people DO present interpretations as facts, which is why we have people here vehemently arguing about what Tolkien meant and its those people I was having a go at! They aren't saying its their opinion are they? They are saying "this is what he meant" and then another guy says "No he didn't because he actually mentioned it in a letter"

Fact is, if I write a book, and I don't base the hero off Winston Churchill, I base him off Abe Lincoln, then twenty years later you say I based the hero off Churchill, you ARE wrong. You think I did, and you can argue why you did and maybe even put forward an extremely convincing case, but that doesn't mean its correct. Its what it means to you, but its not what it meant to me.

See, by that logic, the Qu'ran is definitely the word of Allah as dictated to Mohammed (or whatever), because the author said so. See the problem with that? You're reliant on human testimony, when humans are complicated creatures. What if you lied? What if you applied character traits to Lincoln that were actually from Churchill, and had merely confused the two? Who were you writing the letter to, and for what purpose? There may have been a motive behind you writing it.

And what does it matter who you based the character off? To me, I mean? Your intent doesn't matter - if structures of meaning are present, then they are present. The encoding of symbols isn't always a conscious process. You could have subconsciously referenced Churchill. He does permeate our national mythology, after all. That's the beauty and mystery of semiotics - you aren't always just saying one thing, to one person. It's a web of codes.

Its trivially easy to pin all of the characters of fiction on real people anyway! Humans don't even have that many strong, easily definable traits and emotions, so you could probably shoe-horn every single character from all of fiction ever into about 8-10 different categories couldn't you?

Well, that's just it - we don't have an unlimited supply of archetypes.

Well, that's just it - we don't have an unlimited supply of archetypes.

In the words of Shakespear there are only 7 types of stories Even if his list can be compiled down into just 5 if you really think about it.

 LordofHats wrote:

Well, that's just it - we don't have an unlimited supply of archetypes.

In the words of Shakespear there are only 7 types of stories Even if his list can be compiled down into just 5 if you really think about it.

Incidentally, have you studied literary theory, LoH? You seem to be on a similar page*, is all.



*Pardon my pun, and 7 more will take their place.

Yes I have. Granted I have not studied it formally. Its just a hobby.

As I said in another thread-- there's nothing new under the sun. The main differences is in how the archetypes are used, rather than the archetypes themselves.

 LordofHats wrote:
Yes I have. Granted I have not studied it formally. Its just a hobby.

Cool. You into Barthes?

I know who he is but I've never read his work. I do have a general understanding of "Death of the Author" which I've spewed a little bit over this thread

Yeah, I got that!


'Mythologies' is a good place to start, definitely worth a look. You might also want to check out Jean Baudrillard's 'Simulations' on this topic also.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Actually the FOOD is valid criticism that LOTR and Brian Jacques's Redwall books must be saddled with. Goddess forsake that is a lot of delicious grub, and it's rather difficult to read through some of the various feasts in either series without having the urge to do the kind of cooking that involves multiple large water fowl.

Lol Redwall and LOTR actually remind me of each other quite a bit; I found the writing style to be a bit similar. Both authors put in an immense amount of description into just about everything. Redwall and LOTR are definitely way up there in my list of favorite books. I don't even know how it is possible for someone to criticize the writing styles of either of them, other than just simply stating that there was a lot of description, which there was. The songs irritated me a bit though.