Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjecthmm, didn't notice this post. there's so many mistakes though
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=33408&mesg_id=33424
33424, hmm, didn't notice this post. there's so many mistakes though
Posted by The Damaja, Wed Dec-21-05 12:17 AM
>Here's my take on LOTR. You start off in a utopia

why is it a utopia? the shire is a nice place, but the rest of the lands and histories of MIddle Earth are full of corrupt and decaying empires, wars, etc, not to mention there was even greater evil BEFORE the ring was created

dominated by
>wasp males.

actually Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic.

It is an all white Christian patriarchical society
>and pretty flowers gorw and all is dandy.

bear in mind that Tolkien wrote this as an alternative history, not an imaginary history. he's saying that the events of LOTR actually happened in real life. So anyway, how could he make society anything BUT patriarchal since all societies up to this point have been patriarchal (not that he dwells on the subject, it's just the default setting for the world)

Then the ring is
>introduced. The finger going through the ring very much
>resembles penetration, i.e. intercourse. This is
>representative of a loss of ground in the male power
>structure. The person who puts on the ring becomes a slave to
>it. The social suggestion is that the feminist movement is
>undermining a pre-ordained male dominance which is destroying
>the promised land. Women are out to make men their slaves and
>are not to be trusted, they should not be undermining their
>role as second class citizens and male property. Let's be
>honest, what does the eye above the castle look like? It looks
>like a big sinister vagina.

but in the book the eye is only described as 'the Eye', in fact it's not even clear that it's detached from a body, or that it even literally can be seen. Basically the eye you see in the film is not the work of Tolkien and came as a bit of a surprise to the Tolkien community

We also see a dark army rise out
>of Mordor. Mordor sounds quite like mortar a mud like
>substance. What does these right wing militia groups call
>African Americans and Hispanics? Their term for them is the
>mud people and they believe these mud people are out to
>destroy them

the orcs actually have grey skin (not brown) and as such are probably supposed to be descendents of white people who have been banished underground (like the Morlocks in HG Wells' The Time Machine and the goblins in Macdonald's Princess and the Goblin) and as such have no melanin and have paled into a dull grey dirtied/blackened by the filth of the mines. nothing to do with african or hispanic people. also did you know the Orcs speak with cockney accents in the book?

secondly at the time of publication Britain had just finished a war AGAINST extreme right wing militants, the NAZIs. and if there's anyone Tolkien probably hated it was the Germans (he fought in WW1)

. This group of Christian white males are out to
>destroy the ring and battle to restore order in the world
>using their swords. Let's look at what the sword represents.
>The sword is a mighty phallic object. These warriors are using
>their manhood to restore order in this world turned upside

lol. what do you want them to fight with? nets? Swords are important in the story (and not just in the fighting, which should be obvious) because swords have often been important mythic items throughout history, and ESPECIALLY in the little mythology that England DOES have (King Arthur and his sword Excalibur)

Speaking of upside down, the sword upside down and you
>have a Christian cross. Who do they meet up with along the
>way? A two faced ugly little trickster named Smiegel. Smiegel
>obviously represents the people of Jewish decent, being that
>these right wing militia groups consider Jews two-faced
>swindlers. In the end, the white Christians defeat the dark
>army and destroy the ring.

So Tolkien is anti-Jewish? It comes as surprise then, that Tolkien abruptly terminated his contract with a German publisher after they asked him (before publishing The Hobbit in German) if he had any Jewish blood in his family. Even though he NEEDED the money.

The sinister vagina watching over
>them and controlling their existence disappears from their
>castle. At the end of the film, order is restored in this
>Christian utopia with the men in charge and the women in a
>subordinate position.

This 'sinister vagina' theory is complete bullshit. If that was Tolkien's intention, you have to say he completely failed to tie it up in any logical way to the characters (Sauron is male) or the other symbols. Frodo's finger is bitten off with the Ring still on it which finally destroys Sauron - what's the moral there? As men we should castrate ourselves then there will be no ill in the world? But then what do we do with all these phallic symbols lying about? lol Look, because symbolism is never explained directly by the author, you have to work it out yourself - but what you're doing is simply applying your own symbolism and it shows because it doesn't make any sense in relation to other things.

The two-faced Jew and the dark army are
>now out of the picture and all is well in their world. An
>interesting side note is that when Timothy McVeigh bombed the
>Oklohoma City federal building he was trying to start the
>white Christian revolution that is described in the Turner
>These right wing nutjobs believe that the Jews currently
>control the world and that African Americans and Hispanics are
>working for the Jews trying to undermine white Christianity.
>They believe that the revolution described in the Turner
>Diaries is a divine revolution and that God will grant them
>victory. They believe after this revolution the earth will
>exist for 1,000 years as a white Christian utopia with all
>those who are not white Christians will be wiped off the face
>of the earth and condemned to hell by God. To me, LOTR seems
>to be pretty allegorical of their belief structure and the
>revolution they believe will bring them to their promised

you're basically reading what you want to read into the work. you're the one with the (racist) agenda. if that was really Tolkien's intention, think of how much more textual evidence you would have at your disposal

basically, Tolkien was writing about the past in a mythological mode
the past is: feudal, ideologically flawed, patriarchal, undemocratic, bloody, romanticized, self obsessed, etc etc all those negative qualities that we would not wish in present society, nor did Tolkien wish them
but they WILL be there, by default, if you write a historical fiction/fantasy, if you do otherwise you're writing a political fantasy
as for racism, in the mythical context I don't even think it EXISTS. even in the context of Tolkien's lifetime, it's rather different from all the things you are assuming (that he was a WASP etc)