Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.