Lord of the Rings: Reactionary?

[Dimentio]

#1.
Sauron (The Lord of the Rings)


http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/2/7/40527.jpg?v=1
The "villain":
Oh, come on. Sauron is like the archetypal evil overlord. He's got massive armies of monsters. He has a flaming eyeball. He has a helmet made of spikes, people, come on. And, he did... you know, he did all of those... things. And...

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/2/3/40523.jpg?v=1
Sauron, seen here evilly defending his home from an invading army.
Hold on a minute there:
And what exactly? Please tell us, because throughout the entire 2000-hour run of the Jackson trilogy, we couldn't find a single reason why everyone demonized Sauron like he was a debt-collecting pedophile. Yes, he was building an army to advance on Middle Earth. But who was in that army? What were they fighting for?
This was a world where Orcs were used as target practice among elvish communities. The elves loved that shit. Sauron put a stop to that by offering all the underprivileged creatures a place in his non-race-exclusive army (the only nonsegregated force in Middle Earth other than the Fellowship), with promises of their own country in the future. After what he did for the orcs and the goblins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Ringbearer), Sauron was just some towering, mace-wielding folk hero.

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/2/4/40524.jpg?v=1
"Let freedom ring! Also, let's eat some man-flesh."
Of course the humans and elves couldn't have that, because if orcs moved-in next door to them, their houses' property value would go down. After all, these creatures are dark and smelly and have weird voices. They must be murdered on sight.

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/2/5/40525.jpg?v=1
Above: Segregation?
We hear a lot about freedom, and the free peoples of Middle Earth standing up to Mordor. What do we mean by "free?" They're certainly not fighting for Democracy -- each kingdom is a monarchy where the people have no say over what the leader does as long as that leader possesses the right genes. And overwhelmingly it seems like what those leaders like to do is shit on the Orcs, and the countless other minorities who Sauron was able to recruit onto his side.
What you were seeing in these films was not an unprovoked act of aggression, undertaken just for the hell of it. You were seeing generations of pent-up frustration by oppressed minorities, harnessed by a leader they could get behind. What Sauron did was nothing more than try to cut out a piece of that Middle Earth dream for himself and his followers, and find land that doesn't require them to live under a continuously erupting volcano.

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/2/6/40526.jpg?v=1


His methods were violent and there were excesses -- as you see in every revolution. But if Middle Earth doesn't take a moment to understand why Sauron was able to draw tens of thousands of disenfranchised individuals to his cause, then they're destined to fight the same war all over again, as soon as the next Sauron shows up.


http://www.cracked.com/article_18417_the-lighter-side-dark-side-5-villains-who-were-good_p3.html


xbTun4qJ1BQ

Basically, I have found that the Lord of the Rings is filled with both implicit racism, implicit western supremacism and implicit classism. In general, most humans (the people of Bree, the Dunlendings, the popular majority of Middle Earth) are "swarthy" and shorter than the tall Rohirrim and Númenorean, who represent small minorities, and they in general either are hostile neutral or support Sauron.

In Tolkien's mythology, the ultimate crime was "revolt against authority (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Music_of_the_Ainur)", and Tolkien was even too reactionary to be a supporter of the capitalist system (he looked back at some kind of romanticised feudal past).

Another example in the books is when the daughter of the Rohirrim King is reluctant to marry Faramir because she is of an "inferior race" in comparison to him (even if she also represents the ruling class of her country).

Orc dialects also somewhat resembles English working class dialects.

[Tommy4ever]

:laugh:

This was pretty funny. Nice find. :D

[ComradeOm]

Its not exactly a new criticism (http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953) of Tolkien and the like

[Dimentio]

I kind of enjoy Tolkien's writing style. Like old school stuff.

[graymouser]

Tolkien's actual, deeply-held views were most definitely reactionary, but in the sense of the people described in the Communist Manifesto as "feudal socialists" where he yearned to go back to an idyllic and mostly imaginary past.

I don't think the racism of The Lord of the Rings was exceptional; the orcs were literally supposed to be corrupted elves, not an indigenous or brown-skinned "race" in the sense that people trying to give a political criticism of Tolkien's works often read them as. There was a bit of Orientalism at the literal periphery of Middle-Earth with the "Southrons" and "Easterlings" and so on, but this was fairly typical of its period. And to his credit, Tolkien explicitly rebuked Nazi anti-Semitism and the idea of "Aryan" supremacy when in discussion of a 1930s German translation of The Hobbit.

For me perhaps the most interesting semi-political point of the books was its astounding treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder; for all the heroism of the war, Frodo's psychological state is harrowed in a way that reflects a deep understanding of what PTSD does to a person. His longing at the end of the book is really an interesting picture.

Of course, if you want fantasy with reasonably good politics, you should take a look at Ursula K. LeGuin and Michael Moorcock, both anarchists; LeGuin's first three Earthsea books are a refreshing multicultural alternative to the stereotypical Euro-fantasy, and Moorcock's Elric is a rollicking yarn that deconstructs many of the rah-rah sword and sorcery tropes.

[Red Future]

the tall Rohirrim and Númenorean, who represent small minorities, and they in general either are hostile neutral or support Sauron.

The Numenoreans though are the opposite of the anglo-saxon nordics that were perceived as superior in 19th century eugenics. they are spanish/ latin based peoples as they have black hair as a distinguishing feature yet are the wisest and most learned of the races of men.

[Hit The North]

Whatever Tolkien's intentions were, at least the Orcs are not supposed to be human, unlike the subhuman depiction of the Persians in recent, disgusting, crytpo-fascist cartoon, 300.

[khad]

Whatever Tolkien's intentions were, at least the Orcs are not supposed to be human, unlike the subhuman depiction of the Persians in recent, disgusting, crytpo-fascist cartoon, 300.
Well, I just had to wiki this, and sure enough:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_%28Middle-earth%29#Physical_appearance


they are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.

[PhoenixAsh]

I saw the thread title and was like: :blink:
Then I read the posts and was like: :blink:

And now I am not sure if we are going to start an Orc Liberation Army to safe these poor creatures from obvious repression....

Or that we are going to burn Tolkien books for being racist reactionary literature....

Eitheray...today revleft had taken a strange turn for the silly.... first a gthread about Bieber...and now this one about Tolkien.

my: :blink:-face has not changed....









Yeah...pretty much

[khad]

my: :blink:-face has not changed....
Well, you just keep looking that way and leave the hard political stuff to others.

Anyway, I also found this. Apparently the Italian fascists have fully incorporated Tolkien into their cultural programme.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ideazione.com%2Fsettimanale%2Fn umeri_speciali%2Fspeciale_Tolkien%2Fvivenzio.htm&act=url

There's even a far right band called Compagnia dell'Annello (Fellowship of the Ring)

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.compagniadellanello.net%2Fstori a.htm&act=url

More here. Apparently hobbit camps were springboards for right wing careers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massimo_Morsello


Massimo Morsello (10 November 1958, Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome) – 10 March 2001) was an Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) far-right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right) political activist and singer-songwriter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer-songwriter). He was the main figure of Italian far-right political music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_politics) and, with Roberto Fiore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Fiore), a co-founder of the Italian neofascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofascism) movement Forza Nuova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forza_Nuova).

In 1975, at the age of 16, he joined the Italian post-fascist party Movimento Sociale Italiano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimento_Sociale_Italiano). He became a member of the juvenile political association Fronte della Gioventù (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fronte_della_Giovent%C3%B9&action=edit&redlink=1) and, although not attending a university, joined FUAN (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FUAN&action=edit&redlink=1), an organization of right-wing university students. FUAN was less dependent on parliamentary politics than other organizations, and it was something of a thinktank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinktank) of the Italian far-right youth in the late 1970s. During the so-called "Anni di Piombo" or Lead Years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension) he became involved in various violent episodes and is thought to have possibly been a member of the neofascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofascism) terrorist organization Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclei_Armati_Rivoluzionari). He was sentenced to 9 years and 6 months for crimes related to terrorism.

In these years he also began his career as a musician, with his first performance being at the first Hobbit Camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hobbit_Camps&action=edit&redlink=1). He gained the nickname Massimino among the far-right members of Italian society.

"Tolkien helped design our value system," says Italian fascist minister:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/fascists-take-heart-from-hobbit-revival-663838.html


The release of the blockbuster film The Lord of the Rings has stirred turbulent political sentiments in Italy. For the fortysomethings of Alleanza Nazionale (AN), the right-wing party in government, J R R Tolkien and his cast of elves and hobbits are as much a part of their political property as Che Guevara was for the left-wing. So much so that AN members of parliament and sympathisers held their own private première of the film.

Attending the private screening were the cabinet ministers Giovanni Alemanno and Maurizio Gasparri. Mr Alemanno, the Agriculture Minister, said: "I feel I am a hobbit who has got hold of the ring of power and doesn't know quite what to do with it." Mr Gasparri, the Telecommunications Minister, added: "Tolkien helped design our value system."

Tolkien was adopted by the MSI (Movimento Sociale Italiano), the heirs of Mussolini's Fascist party, in 1977 in an effort to give its young supporters a sense of identity beyond Fascist nostalgia. Celtic crosses aloft, the movement ran the first Hobbit Camp, a cross between boy scout jamboree and a paramilitary camp.

[black magick hustla]

tolkien was p. reactionary but to give him credit he was a sort of "feudal socialist". he probably was a bit racist like probably virtually all the old white men from south africa or whatever, but to his credit he called out white supremacism and apartheid. he ended up siding with the nationalists in the spanish civil war, but he mentioned this was because he heard that the republicans were murdering priests.

[Meridian]

I found the original article funny, thanks for that.

A person can see the negative aspects of a work, even fundamental ones, and still find that the work is well written and brilliant in its own right. I think anyone shielding themselves off from something because they disagree with some of its premises or context are prone to missing out.

Of course there is a racist or imperialist aspect to the Lord of the Rings, as a large part of the story is about the connection of uniting against a common enemy. Because the work is so fantastical, 'the enemy' can be portrayed in the most stereotypical ways possible without the fact that it is so one-dimensional revealing itself as easily.

[the last donut of the night]

i mean no doubt tolkien was a racist, but goddamn do i love the books

[Diello]

I am a LotR fanboy to some extent, but I do have to say that the fact that the orcs are apparently just EVIL, constitutionally, has always bugged me.

[ComradeOm]

Tolkien's actual, deeply-held views were most definitely reactionary, but in the sense of the people described in the Communist Manifesto as "feudal socialists" where he yearned to go back to an idyllic and mostly imaginary pastThe "feudal socialists" that Marx spoke of were a relatively narrow group of aristocrats who appealed to the working class in order to forward their own reactionary agenda. I see nothing to suggest that Tolkien or his works sought to "rally the people". Which is unsurprising given that that current of thought did not survive the early 19th C. Instead he merely possessed a romantic image of an "idyllic and mostly imaginary past" that is common to all reactionaries

[PhoenixAsh]

I am a LotR fanboy to some extent, but I do have to say that the fact that the orcs are apparently just EVIL, constitutionally, has always bugged me.

Orcs are elves; captured and twisted by Morgoths torture and foul magic. Its in Silmarillion...on the history of ME.

They are evil because they are designed for the purpose of corruption and destruction.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I enjoyed the books and the movies and while Tolkien had some reactionary ideas, I think the works can speak for themselves and are interesting enough to seperate out some of the reactionary anti-industrialism ideas. I also enjoyed the moves in many ways, but what really annoyed me was that the elves and humans spoke like Shakespearean actors and the villains spoke like they just walked out of a factory in the UK. Once again in hollywood, unrefined = working class.

Apparently fantasy writer and SWPer China Mieville HATES LotR:

Fantasy, science fiction, and politics (http://www.isreview.org/issues/75/interview-mieville.shtml)

Actually it's a really interesting article about Fantasy, Sci-Fi, the New Atheists and politics.

[Ocean Seal]

Hmm, I prefer a different Tolkien story.

vkmczhkrKYA
This is a good one, and quite revolutionary I might add. :cool:

[Joe Payne]

You don't understand how happy I am that that exists. Like, you really don't.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::thu mbup1:

[Tomhet]

I would NEVER disgrace this fine pieces of literature by bringing politics into it TBH.. I don't see LOTR as political..

[Joe Payne]

lol, politics is everywhere. Tolkien brought his politics into the thing when he wrote it. Personal politics bleeds into every author's novel, there's no getting around it. As long as people can form thoughts they have politics, which will influence any fictional world they create (as said world is nothing than the utopian exposition of their political desires).:thumbup1:

[Os Cangaceiros]

I liked the books when I was a youngster.

[Joe Payne]

I personally like The Hobbit, and only the parts of Sam and Frodo's journey. I felt most of the books were wicked dense for no reason and unneccessarily detailed. Like they'd get to a forest and then he'd spend like 20 pages explaining the history of the forest and by the time you get back to the story you don't know why they're there in the first place. And then when a battle scene comes up its so short and undetailed it's like WTF? Like I was SOOOOO dissapointed when I got to the Battle of Helms Deep. The part that shoulda gone on for pages was over before it even really started. It was weird. He can desribe blue eyed blonde people thrity different ways but can't extend a battle scene with a million things going on? I dunno, I felt it was a wierd aspect of the writing.

But Frodo and Sam's journey I thought was well done and I actually enjoyed it a lot. I think the PTSD comment is probably why it's so well done compared to the rest of the books.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would NEVER disgrace this fine pieces of literature by bringing politics into it TBH.. I don't see LOTR as political..

Politics are involved in everything and art can be analyzed for it's politics. I think the "disgrace" is to let the political analysis overshadow the artistic merit of a work. Shakespeare supported monarchy and his plays reflect this - does that make his works reactionary? No they can be analyzed and looked at politically and this can enhance our understanding of the work, but it will not make the work itself better or worse artistically.

Impressionist paintings, for example, often don't have overt political messages but most are inherently political if only for the fact that this movement emerged as capitalist modes of production began to dominate in the art world... so private galleries and collectors (and the art trade) and so on began to be more important than church or aristocratic patrons. This meant that portraits done for and of patrons became less important than "artistic" beautiful scenes that any (rich person) could buy. If you were a wealthy capitalist, what would you want to buy a painting of some contemporary aristocrat or a beautiful and stylish painting of a landscape or country-scene?

This political understanding of the art doesn't make the impressionist art inherently "better" than, say, a well-crafted portrait of an aristocrat or worse than a pro-working class painting by Diego Rivera. But it can help enhance our understanding of it.

[ComradeOm]

I would NEVER disgrace this fine pieces of literature by bringing politics into it TBH.. I don't see LOTR as political..Honestly I don't see how people can read it without noting the political subtext. I'm not talking about ridiculous theories that frame the book as a comment on Cold War geopolitics, but rather the unremitting 'Little England' Toryism. Even as a child, when I first read LOTR, there was something obviously off about the 'scouring of the Shire' - in which the evil smokestacks must be torn down and the Shire returned to its agricultural bliss, as if the entire story had not occurred

[x359594]

...I felt most of the books were wicked dense for no reason and unneccessarily detailed. Like they'd get to a forest and then he'd spend like 20 pages explaining the history of the forest and by the time you get back to the story you don't know why they're there in the first place...

Tolkien was creating a sub-text with these detailed descriptions and back stories; it was an imaginary world that comes alive to the extent that it has a believable past and present.

[Dimentio]

He actually cut them in half by content before he was able to publish them. Before that, they were like filled with descriptions.

[tbasherizer]

When I read the books of Tolkien, I do a rare thing and stop thinking politics for a while. I disconnect from reality and go into a world in which there is a god called Iluvatar, his Jesus Manwe, a Satan called Morgoth, and his servant Sauron. I'll even assume so much as the right of inheritance and a static "nature" directly dependant on which race you are. That's why it's called fantasy.

You've got to consider that Tolkien, being a product of his time, would probably imbue his work with a Euro-centric, pastoral, reactionary slant. The idea that certain races "just were" a certain way persisted into Tolkien's time (and still does, in some circles). The aesthetic of the ancient stuff from whence Tolkien draws his inspiration is almost universally appealing to western audiences, which explains the almost universal appeal of his books. This should also explain the books' appeal to fascist organizations that purport to seek the restoration of that aesthetic. It is by no means a reflection on the influence of a book if some hateful groups choose to co-opt its themes for their own ends.

Besides, we shouldn't care what books people choose to read for fun anyways.

[praxis1966]

See, heaping all these externally ascribed motivations onto Tolkien's work says less about the political subtext of the LoTR trilogy than it does about political fanaticism clouding otherwise rational judgment. Personally, I find the fact that Tolkien actually said what he was attempting to do with the series was give a belated gift of a national mythology to England pretty telling. This was something he felt probably had existed at some point or another but was lost after the Norman invasion. Beyond that, I think a lot of what affected his writings had to do with his experiences in World War I (hence the advancing hordes from the East as well as an obvious affection for the common Englishman [Tommy] manifested in his romanticized descriptions of The Shire and Hobbits). That's not to say that any of this means Tolkien was some kind of uber nationalist. In fact, he did his damnedest to avoid serving in World War I (at least initially).

Anyway, I don't think he wrote in a setting involving kings and dark lords and elves and magicians because he was some kind of "feudal socialist," it was because he was trying to write something which could've predated the Norman invasion of England... Something that necessarily required things like magic, mythical creatures, and kings... I mean, for Chrissakes, hasn't anybody ever heard of a period piece, :rolleyes:?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Personally, I find the fact that Tolkien actually said what he was attempting to do with the series was give a belated gift of a national mythology to England pretty telling.

Yeah, he had a real affection for ancient Saxon England and the stories that came from that era, or so I read. He supposedly considered the Norman invasion to be one of the most lamentable events in history.

[ed miliband]

I think he just liked metal music but didn't know it yet (because it didn't exist), so he was creating a whole mythology and aesthetic in advance. Nothing to do with nationalism, just metal.

[Tim Finnegan]

Personally, I tend to see Tolkien's position as roughly Distributist- perhaps unsurprisingly, given his Catholicism- supporting the end of exploitation and domination, but without opposing private property. While his works certainly glorify monarchy, war, and so forth, they're self-consciously mythological, presented in opposition to the idealised notion of British life represented by the Shire, and the idealised notion of the British people represented by the Hobbits. While Gondor, Rohan and so forth would certainly represent authoritarian and even fascist ideals, the Shire is a more complex affair, which, while certainly romantic and reactionary, represents an effective non-authoritarian society. It's populated, as far as anyone can tell, by independent yeoman- the only characters we ever encounter who seem entirely free from labour are the Baggins, and their wealth does not take the form of capital- while the only political institutions we encounter are democratic and of apparently very limited power. The Shire, in effect, seems to represent a sort of "Little England Anarchism" (with a little nod to the Scottish ideal of "clan communism" in the form of the Tooks), which, while reactionary in so far as it represents a retreat into the much-romanticised ideal of pre-Norman England, sits uncomfortable alongside the more vicious and militaristic ideals espoused by Nazis, Fascists, or, hell, run-of-the-mill English nationalists.

This is a fairly significant excerpt from one of his letters, and one which I'm slightly surprised hasn't already been posted:


“My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people. […] Anyway the proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any many, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity. At least it is done only to a small group of men who know who their master is. The mediaevals were only too right in taking nolo episcopari as the best reason a man could give to others for making him a bishop. Grant me a king whose chief interest in life is stamps, railways, or race-horses; and who has the power to sack his Vizier (or whatever you dare call him) if he does not like the cut of his trousers. And so on down the line. But, of course, the fatal weakness of all that — after all only the fatal weakness of all good natural things in a bad corrupt unnatural world — is that it works and has only worked when all the world is messing along in the same good old inefficient human way. […] There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamating factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal”

From J. R. R. Tolkien. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. ed. Humphrey Carpenter (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981), 63 -4.

[Comrade Awesome]

The fall of Isengard in particular has always bugged in, we're supposed to support the destruction of a city because they are cutting down trees...

This (http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2011/02/15/last_ringbearer/index.html) may interest people as much as it does me; LOTR told from the other perspective. The 'free people' are protrayed as very reactionary or even primitivist.

In Yeskov's retelling, the wizard Gandalf is a war-monger intent on crushing the scientific and technological initiative of Mordor and its southern allies because science "destroys the harmony of the world and dries up the souls of men!"

[Tablo]

Lord of the Rings is extremely reactionary in its politics, but I don't care. I'm not much into mixing the fantasy world with the real world. I love all the Tolkien books I've read. Remember, it is a fantasy world where good and evil of some form exist. I don't much like taking my favorite imaginary settings and comparing them to the real world.

[Reznov]

Jesus christ people, its a fucking book set in a fantasy world. I don't believe Tolkien was writing a secret Fascist recruiting manual when he wrote the goddam thing.

[Tim Finnegan]

The fall of Isengard in particular has always bugged in, we're supposed to support the destruction of a city because they are cutting down trees...
It's really more about the wanton destruction of the natural environment to fuel a war machine whose one purpose is tyranny and domination. Tolkien is pretty clear that it's not industry per se that he finds problematic, but industry without positive end; after the reclamation of the Shire, remember, it's commented that Lotho's machinery was, in itself, merely something of a nuisance, and it was only when Sharky turned it towards malicious ends that it was deemed heinous.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The fall of Isengard in particular has always bugged in, we're supposed to support the destruction of a city because they are cutting down trees...

Not trees, bro...they're Ents.

[Kuppo Shakur]

The biggest thing that pisses me off about any fantasy world, be it in the form of a movie, novel, or computer game, is that their economies never make any damn sense.

Same for sci-fi worlds.

But really, I couldn't care less if some white supremacist wizard is tromping around in some enchanted forest, suppressing the deformed.

[Manic Impressive]

Whatever Tolkien's intentions were, at least the Orcs are not supposed to be human, unlike the subhuman depiction of the Persians in recent, disgusting, crytpo-fascist cartoon, 300.
Sorry I know this is off topic but had to respond

You totally miss the point, did you even watch to the end? At the end of the film the guy is telling the story of Leonidas and the 300 to the troops before they fight the Persians with a full strength army. Of course he is going to make them out to be monsters as with most wars dehumanizing the enemy is good for morale. The same was done with the way the animals represented from a Greek's point of view an elephant or a rhino two animals they are unlikely to have seen before are going to look like scary monsters and that is how they were depicted. It was not trying to make a statement that they are actually monsters. This strikes me as a case of looking for something to be offended by while missing the obvious reason which was actually included in the film.

[Rocky Rococo]

Absolutely. Now Bored of the Rings, there's the revolution! Unfortunately enough time has passed that some of the gags have lost their contemporary signifiers. Goodgulf. The Riders of Roi-Tan. But still. The Nine Nozdrul still rule.

[Tablo]

The biggest thing that pisses me off about any fantasy world, be it in the form of a movie, novel, or computer game, is that their economies never make any damn sense.

Same for sci-fi worlds.

But really, I couldn't care less if some white supremacist wizard is tromping around in some enchanted forest, suppressing the deformed.
How are you supposed to make sense of the economy of middle earth? I don't think Tolkien ever talked much of that in any of his writings. i kinda assume it is some kind of feudal economy based on the setting. Perhaps it is more complex than that.

[ChrisK]

I really have trouble seeing the fascist tendencies in these books at all. It is certainly reactionary, but fascist? At what point does Tolkien call for a master race? He certainly has the Numenorean's as blessed by the Valar, but this is because they stood with them against Morgoth, not because of some sort of natural superiority. They are more like the equivalent of Jews; the Children of God. Further, orcs were supposed to be proof that no thing is infallible as they were elves corrupted by Morgoth and elves can be best understood as humankind before the fall.

I would say that these books are best seen in light of Tolkien's catholic faith. Take the whole mythology, you have Eru (which translates to "the One") aka Iluvatar (which translates to "Father of All"), who is obviously God. Then there are the Ainur who are clearly angels. These are divided between higher and lower angels, the Valar and Maiar respectively. Then the greatest of Eru's Valar who when singing to create the world shows himself to be the greatest of the singers and tries to challenge Eru. He, Melkor, is turned away from Eru and he takes with him many of the lesser Maiar with him and is renamed Morgoth. Very clear Satan here. Finally, there are elves, man before the fall, immortal and as perfect as a human can be. Beyond this, Chain of Being, a major catholic medieval belief, plays heavily into Tolkien's mythos.

While this work is clearly reactionary, it is reactionary in the sense of wanting an era where life is considered both simple and anti-authoritarian. That attitude is not horrible, though it is wrong headed.

Finally, and most importantly, we really ought to remember that these books were written by a man who fought in one of the most horrific wars in history, saw technology used to destroy in ways never seen before including chemical warfare and the use of tanks for the first time. His reactionary attitude towards technology, in context, makes perfect sense. He saw technology at its worst and it certainly scarred him.

[Exakt]

Man, you guys have taken too many English lit. classes. They suck the fun out of life.

Sure, you can find allegory anywhere you want to find it,

& I'm not denying that Tolkien's personal views and upbrining didn't influence his writings

but I read it as a fictional novel

just as I watched the A-Team as a fictional movie

And it was good.

Beyond that, I really don't give too much of a flying fuck

BRB,

gonna go critically analyze Rihanna's "S&M" song from a Marxist feminist perspective

[ChrisK]

Or we can enjoy it our own way.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yeah, he had a real affection for ancient Saxon England and the stories that came from that era, or so I read. He supposedly considered the Norman invasion to be one of the most lamentable events in history.

Well, the Norman invasions, as with any militaristic invasions in history, did kill a lot of people.

Personally I think socialists should in principle oppose all invasions that have occurred throughout history, no matter what they are. We should always stand on the side of the native peoples of any region, against any kind of militaristic invaders.

But then the Anglo-Saxons were once invaders too, (4th - 5th centuries CE) and probably even the Celts before them. (12th century BCE)

[Marxista]

Well, you just keep looking that way and leave the hard political stuff to others.

Anyway, I also found this. Apparently the Italian fascists have fully incorporated Tolkien into their cultural programme.



There's even a far right band called Compagnia dell'Annello (Fellowship of the Ring)
More here. Apparently hobbit camps were springboards for right wing careers:





"Tolkien helped design our value system," says Italian fascist minister:



Wait.. MSI and Other far right movement stole characters, romance, novel, comics (!!).
CasaPound (far right social center) has V (v for vendetta) and Captain Harlock. They said "V is fascist!".

I think LORT is a neoromantic opera: Titanism, fight for ideal and causes, heart vs mind irrational passion and love, nature vs technology. Not fascism.

[Tim Finnegan]

They said "V is fascist!".
*chokes on own rage*

[praxis1966]

CasaPound (far right social center) has V (v for vendetta) and Captain Harlock. They said "V is fascist!".

Yeah, I once saw some neo-con dipshit on IMDb try to claim in a rather serious and lengthy post that V was symbolic of George Bush and Adam Sutler (he was referring to the movie obv, not the graphic novels) was supposed to be symbolic of Saddam Hussein. :rolleyes: :laugh:

I guess neither of them happened to notice the giant fucking anarchy symbol plastered all over the fucking thing.

[GallowsBird]

Sorry I know this is off topic but had to respond

You totally miss the point, did you even watch to the end? I have. It was rubbish... and racist. It is by Frank Miller who is almost literally a fascist and most definitely racist.
At the end of the film the guy is telling the story of Leonidas and the 300 to the troops before they fight the Persians with a full strength army. Yes and did you notice that the world he inhabits looks the same as the one in the story. Naked men with speeds instead of armour, an orange world, an amassed army of mutants on the horizon.
Of course he is going to make them out to be monsters as with most wars dehumanizing the enemy is good for morale. The same was done with the way the animals represented from a Greek's point of view an elephant or a rhino two animals they are unlikely to have seen before are going to look like scary monsters and that is how they were depicted. Except the Greek sources don't do this, only the US Imperialist source ('300') does. So Frank Miller hates Iranians, blacks and gays so it is OK to make them into "creatures" as seen in the film?
It was not trying to make a statement that they are actually monsters. Yes it was, or at least it is comparing Iranians, gays, blacks, Muslims (come on they were supposed to be "Islamic"... which is ridiculous as Iranians weren't at the time), deformed people et cetera to monsters. Note also that Miller seems to support eugenics when it comes to the deformed Spartan who should have been killed according to the plot.
This strikes me as a case of looking for something to be offended by while missing the obvious reason which was actually included in the film. Not really. It is a case of being offended by something offensive. '300' is a racist, homophobic, fascistic, imperialist piece of crap to be honest. I am one who tries to judge things as art or entertainment rather than as a political statement but when something is made soley as a propaganda piece to support US foreign policy then that is where I draw the line; especially when it is pure drivel as '300' is.

[GallowsBird]

Well, the Norman invasions, as with any militaristic invasions in history, did kill a lot of people.

Yes, they did. In fact Northern England is still feeling the effects of the "Harrying of The North" to this day.


Personally I think socialists should in principle oppose all invasions that have occurred throughout history, no matter what they are.

Yes they should but there is a little bit of a double standard in which Anglo-Saxons are seen as conquerors (rather than both), Celts are seen as conquered (rather than both) and the Norman invasion is either supported or no one cares about it and thinks that the struggle for liberation within England is unimportant (hence my views on the "Eagle of the Ninth" themed thread).


We should always stand on the side of the native peoples of any region, against any kind of militaristic invaders.

Indeed.


But then the Anglo-Saxons were once invaders too, (4th - 5th centuries CE) and probably even the Celts before them. (12th century BCE)

That is true albeit in different ways to the upper-class Normans. Hence the Celtic nations are Celtic in nature (albeit Ireland do have a lot of pre-Celtic influences... as the "invasion" there was evidently more peaceful than elsewhere such as in Great Britain and Gaul) and England is English mostly though it is the most Normanist/Briticist area today (sadly).

[GallowsBird]

I am a LotR fanboy to some extent, but I do have to say that the fact that the orcs are apparently just EVIL, constitutionally, has always bugged me.

Tolkien:


I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making — necessary to their actual existence — even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good. That God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today.Take out of that what you will! ;)

I seem to remember him describing all the combatants in the First World War as "Orcs" as well.

[Meridian]

No matter what, writing fiction about something does not mean that you endorse it politically.

[Gorilla]

Anyway, I also found this. Apparently the Italian fascists have fully incorporated Tolkien into their cultural programme.

When I was in Italy in the late 90's the MSI was running a big series of rallies based on The Neverending Story. Swear to God. The title was something like La voce d'Atreju: Gioventu speranza della nazione or some similar horseshit. Literally the dumbest thing I ever seen and I live in America. But then, if your whole movement is based on taking the Salo republic as some kind of model for social solidarity, you're going to be pretty adept at turning nonsensical irrelevancies into politics*.

* Actually, "turning nonsensical irrelevancies into politics" might be a half-decent working definition of fascism.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes, they did. In fact Northern England is still feeling the effects of the "Harrying of The North" to this day.
Oh, don't be silly.


Yes they should but there is a little bit of a double standard in which Anglo-Saxons are seen as conquerors (rather than both), Celts are seen as conquered (rather than both) and the Norman invasion is either supported or no one cares about it and thinks that the struggle for liberation within England is unimportant (hence my views on the "Eagle of the Ninth" themed thread).I'm pretty sure that the Saxon-as-conquered is a fairly sturdy trope even today. If it's decline since it's 19th century heyday (Ivanhoe and all that), it's because there isn't quite the same ideological need to strut around the place declaring some essential distinction between the English and the rest of the continent, rather than because we've all becoming zealous Francosupremacists.


I am one who tries to judge things as art or entertainment rather than as a political statement but when something is made soley as a propaganda piece to support US foreign policy then that is where I draw the line...
Because US foreign policy is all about supporting small bands of vicious fanatics defend their rugged, mountainous homelands against the threat of colonisation by multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan empires? :confused:

You can try and read some political preaching or other into 300- although, frankly, I think you'd be mistaking the received tropes of Whig history as active propagandising- but the insistence that 300 is an explicit endorsement of contemporary US foreign policy, popular as it is, simply does not follow. One may as well argue that, for example, Braveheart was a defence of Israel- after all, does it not depicts the struggle of a small but liberal nation inhabited by an oppressed and culturally homogeneous people against the dictatorial forces of a foreign oppressor with some notion that they have a right to the small nation's homeland- a rough sketch of the Zionist narrative? You're assuming support for a certain cause based on the employment of certain rhetorical clichés ("freedom!", "glory", etc.) and empty pantomime of certain broad ideologies (imprecise nationalisms, etc.) and picking out those parts of the film which support that, regardless of the actual substance of the narrative.

Also, the comic was written in 1998, which is, y'know, before 9/11. So I don't know how that works.

[El Chuncho]

nce invaders too, (4th - 5th centuries CE) and probably even the Celts before them. (12th century BCE)

Definitely, pre-Indo-European lived in the British isles (hence the pre-Celtic stonehenge) before the Celts came. Infact, we do not know how many migrations and invasions occurred before the first Celts set foot there, and certainly the Celtic groups didn't move in one migration, which is why Brythonic is more related to Gaulish than it is to Gaelic. One of the saddest facts of history is that cultures have usually settled in one place after war and conquest, I guess they had to, to find land, but that doesn't make it celebratory, obviously. All invasions are sad and should not be supported. All imperialist wars, likewise.

Anyway, Tolkien had a few reactionary, as is befitting his brand of anarchism (yes, we was an anarchist), but that doesn't mean you cannot enjoy his work of see merit in it. His retreat into the early medieval period was more to do with his views of the class struggle between Normans and Anglo-Saxons, much in the same way as the socialist William Morris saw it, rather than due to some form of fascism or Nazism, whether people agree with him or not. He also championed the common man with characters such as Sam, who is the true hero of the novel. The second last chapter of the book (if my memory serves) featured the people of the Shire defeating a foreign, even imperialist, power.

On the negative side, Tolkien was some form of monarchical anarchist, professors often have some naive and strange political beliefs, which meant he believe that the monarchy should remain, which is unfortunate:

''My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inaminate real of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remained obstinate! If we could go back to personal names, it would do a lot of good. Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so to refer to people."

Of course, anarchists will have to evaluate whether that makes him entirely reactionary or worthy of some anarchist praise, because I am not an anarchist, which I do not find to be entirely compatible with Marxism-Leninism anyway.

[El Chuncho]

Yeah, he had a real affection for ancient Saxon England and the stories that came from that era, or so I read. He supposedly considered the Norman invasion to be one of the most lamentable events in history.

Many English people, socialist or otherwise agree with him. If liking the Anglo-Saxon (an interesting sign of immigration and tribal mixing, hence the hyphen) era and stories and poetry from that time (like 'The Dream of The Rood', 'Beowulf', 'Deor' or 'The Wanderer') is reactionary, then people should take it up with William Morris, and eminent English socialist, who spent the latter half of his life trying to spread socialism and studying, translating and enjoying Germanic literature, believing it to be part of his cultural (in a non-racist, non national socialist sense) and from an era when people were more free (pre-Norman conquest). Claiming that William Morris was a reactionary is too much even for me, and I am a cold-hearted Marxist-Leninist, and should offend Libertarian Socialists. I have a fondness for his work, and I agree with much of his views, as he was a socialist I encountered before I had even heard of Marxism-Leninism; in many ways I owe him a debt of gratitude, even though I do not belong to his school of thought, especially in regards to his economic views.

William Morris was also an environmentalist socialist, so if Tolkien's environmentalism is ''reactionary'' that would mean that William Morris again is a reactionary.

The thing is that we leftist have very different views claiming that people are reactionary for having different views shared by many socialists is not very helpful. It is like me claiming that all Trotskyists, all Anarchists and all other forms of socialism are ''reactionary'', because they do not line up with my beliefs. The Marxis-Leninists in me says ''go ahead'', the humanist and pan-leftist in me says ''think about it for a minute...''.

;)

[IndependentCitizen]

Guys, I'm going to be honest.

I think you need to chill, and stop analysing things...

[Blake's Baby]

Many English people, socialist or otherwise agree with him. If liking the Anglo-Saxon (an interesting sign of immigration and tribal mixing, hence the hyphen) era and stories and poetry from that time (like 'The Dream of The Rood', 'Beowulf', 'Deor' or 'The Wanderer') is reactionary, then people should take it up with William Morris, and eminent English socialist, who spent the latter half of his life trying to spread socialism and studying, translating and enjoying Germanic literature, believing it to be part of his cultural (in a non-racist, non national socialist sense) and from an era when people were more free (pre-Norman conquest). Claiming that William Morris was a reactionary is too much even for me, and I am a cold-hearted Marxist-Leninist, and should offend Libertarian Socialists. I have a fondness for his work, and I agree with much of his views, as he was a socialist I encountered before I had even heard of Marxism-Leninism; in many ways I owe him a debt of gratitude, even though I do not belong to his school of thought, especially in regards to his economic views.

William Morris was also an environmentalist socialist, so if Tolkien's environmentalism is ''reactionary'' that would mean that William Morris again is a reactionary.

The thing is that we leftist have very different views claiming that people are reactionary for having different views shared by many socialists is not very helpful. It is like me claiming that all Trotskyists, all Anarchists and all other forms of socialism are ''reactionary'', because they do not line up with my beliefs. The Marxis-Leninists in me says ''go ahead'', the humanist and pan-leftist in me says ''think about it for a minute...''.

;)

That is a ridiculous way of arguing. You may as well argue that because Hitler was interested in Germanic legends and environmentalism, William Morris must be a Nazi. Environmentalism and an interest in folklore by themselves are neither 'left' nor 'right', neither progressive nor reactionary. You can be a murderous environmetal shit-for brains, or a lovely fluffy bundle of folklore interested niceness, or anywhere in between. It is the political content that you give them that is important.

Unfortunately when we compare William Morris's polical content with Tolkien's, we find one writing a futuristic novel about a man travelling in a vision of a socialist utopia, and the other writing a racist, catholic and monarchist paean to a pre-lapsarian version of 'merry old England'. Tolkien wants to re-fight the English Civil War and have the other side lose.

[Tim Finnegan]

...a racist, catholic and monarchist paean to a pre-lapsarian version of 'merry old England'.
You are aware that Tolkien's idealised "Merry Old England", the Shire, is notably lacking in both church and state, aren't you? :confused:

[Blake's Baby]

Yes.

There is a benevolent non-interventionist restored monarchy in the shape of Aragorn who confirms the Shire's 'seperate but equal' development inside the overarching constitution of Arnor; and there is the inevitable working of the wages of sin being death, but leaving the entire theological punishment/reward structure of fate in the Lord of the Rings, there's no 'church'.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes.

There is a benevolent non-interventionist restored monarchy in the shape of Aragorn who confirms the Shire's 'seperate but equal' development inside the overarching constitution of Arnor...
That's simply the reconciliation of two very different and, in practical terms, entirely incompatible ideals: the self-consciously mythical benevolent dictatorship of Arnor, and the romantic but non-mythical distributist federation of the Shire. The two are forced to co-exist as they end up doing because of literary necessity, not because Tolkien desired that such a duality be realised. Tolkien may have fetishised monarchy, I do not dispute that, but he really wasn't a monarchist in the traditional sense.

[Blake's Baby]

His outlook is glorifying the gentry. He wants a return to rural idiocy in the service of the Old Master at th'Big 'ouse. He rivets a yearning for pre-WWI upper-class life onto a romantic vision of the 1620s. The 'return of the King' is essential to this mythic narrative. The King on his throne, all is right with the world, flowers and trees can grow properly, and good honest sons of the earth like Sam can be fecund as you like, in their proper place.

[Agent Ducky]

I <3 Cracked. This article is funny and awesome 'cause it's a whole new perspective on that story... I read it to my brother who is a huge LotR fanboy and he was like "O_O.... I guess they have a point there"

[Tim Finnegan]

His outlook is glorifying the gentry. He wants a return to rural idiocy in the service of the Old Master at th'Big 'ouse. He rivets a yearning for pre-WWI upper-class life onto a romantic vision of the 1620s. The 'return of the King' is essential to this mythic narrative. The King on his throne, all is right with the world, flowers and trees can grow properly, and good honest sons of the earth like Sam can be fecund as you like, in their proper place.
I think you're confusing two distinct tendencies within the book. The monarchistic, imprecisely feudal societies depicted in Gondor and Rohan are self-consciously mythical- explicitly so, if you read his other correspondence on the topic- while the Shire is what Tolkien actually considered to be an ideal social model. The former is certainly reactionary as all hell, but the latter is more complex. There is no real state in the Shire, no apparent ruling class, no evidence of mass wage-labour or tenancy, or any other institution characteristic of an aristocratic society. Does that mean that it wasn't an ideal tainted by social conservatism, patriarchy, and a paternalistic attitude towards the working class? Of course not. But that hardly makes it a paen to aristocracy, as you suggest.

[eric922]

This may be off base, but I always saw the Scouring of the Shire as warning against industrial capitalism run amok. Or is that totally wrong?

[Tim Finnegan]

This may be off base, but I always saw the Scouring of the Shire as warning against industrial capitalism run amok. Or is that totally wrong?
More or less, yeah. That's also where Tolkien's reactionary tendencies actually evidences itself: rather than attempting to pursue the self-negation of capitalism, Tolkien instead favours shying away from capitalist development, instead imagining a relatively egalitarian consolidation of agrarian capitalism. The Shire is basically a distributist model, so its transition to industrial capitalism is not seen as negative because it is capitalist, but because it is industrial; the Battle of Bywater is essentially a Luddite insurrection with reactionary rather than progressive consequences.

[Summerspeaker]

You see elements of primitivism in Tolkien's writing as well, specifically with the Ents and Wild Men fighting to be left alone in the woods. So on the whole the books promote a mixture of mythic aristocracies, idyllic agricultural societies, and independent hunter-gatherer groups.

[Geiseric]

The Orcs represent imperialism, throughout their existance they've always been under the influence of dark lords like Sauron and always go through with his plans. They also show a disdain for nature, as seen by their attacks on Fangorn forest. They represent everything wrong with industrialisation, they work with more machinery than the other races, they are in a never ending conquest for materlials. They invaded Moria to get their hands on more raw materials for the wars they set out on.

Marxists should never support the imperialist dark lord, or his army of imperialist orcs! Even if he is anti-imperialist!

[El Chuncho]

That is a ridiculous way of arguing. You may as well argue that because Hitler was interested in Germanic legends and environmentalism, William Morris must be a Nazi.

My point exactly! ;)


Environmentalism and an interest in folklore by themselves are neither 'left' nor 'right', neither progressive nor reactionary. You can be a murderous environmetal shit-for brains, or a lovely fluffy bundle of folklore interested niceness, or anywhere in between. It is the political content that you give them that is important.

Agreed, unfortunately many Leftists do not which is why William Morris (as well as Gerrard Winstanley and John Ball) would be considered a reactionary by many. I have given up classifying certain opinions and interests as reactionary. I speak Gothic, an extinct Germanic language, because linguistics and old manuscripts interest me, I read the works of Morris and the works that inspired him, I like the English culture exemplified by the peasant, the worker and the socialist reformer. This doesn't mean that I do not hope for a multicultural internationalist world. I think some people are a bit hyper-sensitive about aspects of culture and mythology because of the NAZI stealing of such things, and the confusion of acknowledging cultures have a place in ''the world to come'' with nationalism. They ignore the fact that in Germany, ancient heroes like Siegfried were popular with leftists and rightists. Folkloric heroes are heroes to the common man because they often stand up to powers that are far more powerful than themselves, yet they are triumphant. Beowulf was not a hero of the aristocracy, although they would have heard tales of it, and neither is Robin Hood, who robbed from the rich, they are heroes that exist because the common man continued to tell stories which they thought was relevant to their lives. Folklore is just what it sounds like, the lore (customs and stories) of the folk (common people, the worker, the peasant). It is the same with folk music.


Unfortunately when we compare William Morris's polical content with Tolkien's, we find one writing a futuristic novel about a man travelling in a vision of a socialist utopia, and the other writing a racist, catholic and monarchist paean to a pre-lapsarian version of 'merry old England'. Tolkien wants to re-fight the English Civil War and have the other side lose.

Actually we can find a proto-LOTR in many of William Morris's fantasy/historical novels, as he didn't only right his futuristic novels. His often neglected 'The House of the Wolfings' is a good example of a Tolkien-like fantasy (with elements of history) with less naive politics (though I disagree that Tolkien is racist, the fact that most people are white - though also not even human - is more to do with the setting rather than him wanting Europe to be white), and it even inspired Tolkien's fantasy world, as Tolkien wrote in a letter:

''The Dead Marshes and the approaches to the Morannon owe something to Northern France after the Battle of the Somme. They owe more to William Morris and his Huns and Romans, as in The House of the Wolfings or The Roots of the Mountains."

'The House of The Wolfings' is about a Germanic tribe (often called ''Goths'', but are inspired more by Anglo-Saxons and Old Norse people, as the names in the book suggest) and their way of life. It contrasts them with the imperialist Romans, as the tribe are mostly agrarian workers (true to history, even in the Old English era), who, in the novel, merely defend their homes and freedom. The fact that they elect leaders to help them fight the Romans has an element of truth, as the Germanic tribes did have some form of chosen leadership even until 1066.

Tolkien and Morris both use the word Mark as a home for their Germanic cultures (as in the Riddermark/Mark, Rohan, for Tolkien's Rohirrim, and the Mark for Morris's ''Goths''), which is true to history. The Anglian kingdom, Mercia, was called Mierce (almost pronounced the same as ''mark'') which means ''mark'', or ''boundary people'', because they were situated on a boundary with the Welsh. Both Tolkien and Morris used ''Mirkwood'', which corresponds to the usage in folklore and mythology.

'The House of The Wolfings' is more political than 'The Lord of The Rings', as Tolkien was not thinking of politics when he wrote it, it was just an attempt at creating a new mythology based on older mythologies, which is why some questionable politics should be ignored. Morris, however, was thinking of politics as he liked to blend his love of Germanic cultures (myths, language, customs etc.) with socialism. His work, whilst set in the past, can be seen as a vision of a more environmental, simplistic and happier future. You can also make parallels between his Germanic culture and the plight of many people around the world who are forced to fight imperialist powers. The Goths of ''HoTW'' can be seen as Latin Americans fighting the US occupation of Latin American in the modern era, or even Palestinians fighting Israelis.


You are aware that Tolkien's idealised "Merry Old England", the Shire, is notably lacking in both church and state, aren't you? :confused:

That is a good point. Personally the Shire, ''Merry Old England'' or not, does seem like a nicer alternative to the capitalist ''Unmerry New England''.

[agnixie]

The Orcs represent imperialism, throughout their existance they've always been under the influence of dark lords like Sauron and always go through with his plans. They also show a disdain for nature, as seen by their attacks on Fangorn forest. They represent everything wrong with industrialisation, they work with more machinery than the other races, they are in a never ending conquest for materlials. They invaded Moria to get their hands on more raw materials for the wars they set out on.

Marxists should never support the imperialist dark lord, or his army of imperialist orcs! Even if he is anti-imperialist!

Interestingly, one of the interpretations of LotR I knew implied rather strongly that Isengard and the Orcs were essentially a stand-in for the imperialist industrialists of WW1 and the people the war had destroyed or corrupted. I'm not sure this entirely fits with Tolkien's own views, but he also is far far more critical of the elves and the "good" mortals in the Silmarillion as well.

That said I agree with those who point out that it's far more yearning to a return to early modern society than for a workers' revolution. There are statements by him where he seemed to have been somewhere between a strange form of quasi-anarchism and for a form of sacral monarchy; the monarch reigns (edit - i.e. as a symbol), but doesn't rule, at all, period. He also seemed to be in favor of the idea of "nolo episcopari" for power: that is, the notion that the one who least wants to rule might be the least likely to abuse this power.

[Wanted Man]

Man, you guys have taken too many English lit. classes. They suck the fun out of life.

Sure, you can find allegory anywhere you want to find it,

& I'm not denying that Tolkien's personal views and upbrining didn't influence his writings

but I read it as a fictional novel

just as I watched the A-Team as a fictional movie

And it was good.

Beyond that, I really don't give too much of a flying fuck

BRB,

gonna go critically analyze Rihanna's "S&M" song from a Marxist feminist perspective

I agree. All things in the world exist in total isolation from one another, there is no such thing as subtext, and all analysis is pointless. Man, it must be nice to go through life without ever thinking about anything.


Many English people, socialist or otherwise agree with him. If liking the Anglo-Saxon (an interesting sign of immigration and tribal mixing, hence the hyphen) era and stories and poetry from that time (like 'The Dream of The Rood', 'Beowulf', 'Deor' or 'The Wanderer') is reactionary, then people should take it up with William Morris, and eminent English socialist, who spent the latter half of his life trying to spread socialism and studying, translating and enjoying Germanic literature, believing it to be part of his cultural (in a non-racist, non national socialist sense) and from an era when people were more free (pre-Norman conquest). Claiming that William Morris was a reactionary is too much even for me, and I am a cold-hearted Marxist-Leninist, and should offend Libertarian Socialists. I have a fondness for his work, and I agree with much of his views, as he was a socialist I encountered before I had even heard of Marxism-Leninism; in many ways I owe him a debt of gratitude, even though I do not belong to his school of thought, especially in regards to his economic views.

William Morris was also an environmentalist socialist, so if Tolkien's environmentalism is ''reactionary'' that would mean that William Morris again is a reactionary.

The thing is that we leftist have very different views claiming that people are reactionary for having different views shared by many socialists is not very helpful. It is like me claiming that all Trotskyists, all Anarchists and all other forms of socialism are ''reactionary'', because they do not line up with my beliefs. The Marxis-Leninists in me says ''go ahead'', the humanist and pan-leftist in me says ''think about it for a minute...''.

;)

I believe ES was just pointing it out, not saying that it was "reactionary" to study Anglo-Saxon literature. I doubt you would find anyone prepared to argue that, even on this forum.

[GallowsBird]

Oh, don't be silly.

You are being "silly" if you think that the events of then haven't effected the economic "backwardness" of Northern England in the present era. Do you really think a depopulating event of that scale has no influence on the region to this day? That would be a very naive view to have. Also, before the "Harrying" Northumbria was one of the richest parts of England and after... well.... :rolleyes:

It isn't any sillier than thinking the Highland Clearances or Norman-Plantagenet lead "English" invasion of Scotland hasn't effected Scotland in anyway. Or do you think those events haven't effected Scotland?


I'm pretty sure that the Saxon-as-conquered is a fairly sturdy trope even today.

Probably because there is truth to it.


If it's decline since it's 19th century heyday (Ivanhoe and all that),

By the same author who wrote many books lionizing the Highlander and creating many aspects of modern Scottish culture.... 'Ivanhoe' is by the Scotsman (albeit a Borderer) Walter Scott after all.


it's because there isn't quite the same ideological need to strut around the place declaring some essential distinction between the English and the rest of the continent, rather than because we've all becoming zealous Francosupremacists.

Eh? How is declaring that the English were conquered any different than what the Scots and Irish and Welsh know to be true about themselves? And how does it declare any "essential distinction" between the English and the rest of the continent any more than say and Irish person agreeing that the Irish culture is a distinct culture from that of the British overlords. The English have always been a mix of cultures... your point is void to be frank.

Your apparent lack of support for any UK independence struggles outside of the "Celtosphere" is quite unnerving as well.


Because US foreign policy is all about supporting small bands of vicious fanatics defend their rugged, mountainous homelands against the threat of colonisation by multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan empires? :confused:

US foreign policy is about supporting a highly xenophobic, racist, homophobic and sexist world view while lionizing "freedom" and democracy


You can try and read some political preaching or other into 300- although, frankly, I think you'd be mistaking the received tropes of Whig history as active propagandising- but the insistence that 300 is an explicit endorsement of contemporary US foreign policy, popular as it is, simply does not follow.

Er, it is written by Frank Miller though who doesn't exactly hid his views and to be honest '300' isn't exactly subtle in the slightest. Sorry if you are a fan but I believe in calling a piece of crap a piece of crap.


One may as well argue that, for example, Braveheart was a defence of Israel- after all, does it not depicts the struggle of a small but liberal nation inhabited by an oppressed and culturally homogeneous people against the dictatorial forces of a foreign oppressor with some notion that they have a right to the small nation's homeland- a rough sketch of the Zionist narrative?

Yes but Mad Mel is Anti-Jewish so I doubt that would be his intention. :rolleyes:

I thought 'Braveheart' was rubbish and ridiculous to be honest.


You're assuming support for a certain cause based on the employment of certain rhetorical clichés ("freedom!", "glory", etc.) and empty pantomime of certain broad ideologies (imprecise nationalisms, etc.) and picking out those parts of the film which support that, regardless of the actual substance of the narrative.

No, I am taking it from the context of the film's plot-line and the philosophy espoused in it (which isn't in the historical accounts) along with Frank Miller's quite famously near fascist views and hate of most things "Middle East" (which in his views seems to be the majority of Asia).


Also, the comic was written in 1998, which is, y'know, before 9/11. So I don't know how that works.

So? The post 9/11 policy is a just the continuing of the US foreign policy from before that date (hence the various wars and propped-up dictatorships in the Middle East and elsewhere throughout last century) but that is besides the point as the film is from after 9/11, has some changes to the plot (added scenes mostly) and seems to have been released to capitalise upon the rejuvenated zeal for American imperialism!

[El Chuncho]

I believe ES was just pointing it out, not saying that it was "reactionary" to study Anglo-Saxon literature. I doubt you would find anyone prepared to argue that, even on this forum.

Oh, I know, but I am sure I saw someone say it is reactionary in this thread or another; anyway people have said it before. I didn't think ES meant that, though, so my post just came out wrong. ;)

[Tim Finnegan]

You are being "silly" if you think that the events of then haven't effected the economic "backwardness" of Northern England in the present era. Do you really think a depopulating event of that scale has no influence on the region to this day? That would be a very naive view to have. Also, before the "Harrying" Northumbria was one of the richest parts of England and after... well.... :rolleyes:
You really that this would have fundamentally altered the economic development of England? London didn't become the economic centre because the North couldn't keep up, but because it was actively cultivated as such by the English state.


It isn't any sillier than thinking the Highland Clearances or Norman-Plantagenet lead "English" invasion of Scotland hasn't effected Scotland in anyway. Or do you think those events haven't effected Scotland?I think that latter have not effected it in such terms, and I think that the latter was a fundamentally different event. The analogue to the Harrying of the North is the immediate reprisals after the '45 rising (remember, the Harrying was a counter-insurgency campaign, not just arbitrary dickishness), not the Clearances, which were the extension of capitalism to the Scottish Highlands and Isles. Their analogue is in the Enclosures, which were fundamentally significant in determining the economic development of England.

Nobody's denying that the Harrying was brutal business, or that it wasn't without long-term effects, just that you can't realistically claim that the North of England is sill suffering the sort of demographics effects that the Scottish Highlands did after the Clearances and Ireland did after the Great Famine. (In fact, I'd say that Northern England was more effected by those two events- producing, as they did, a major influx of Scottish and Irish refugees- than anything in the 11th century.)


Probably because there is truth to it.In the 11th century, certainly. By the 17th? Not so much.


By the same author who wrote many books lionizing the Highlander and creating many aspects of modern Scottish culture.... 'Ivanhoe' is by the Scotsman (albeit a Borderer) Walter Scott after all.Scott was a romantic and, above all else, a Tory. He moved between Saxonry and Jacobitism easily enough; what really mattered to him was maintaining the legitimacy of the Tory world view.


Eh? How is declaring that the English were conquered any different than what the Scots and Irish and Welsh know to be true about themselves? And how does it declare any "essential distinction" between the English and the rest of the continent any more than say and Irish person agreeing that the Irish culture is a distinct culture from that of the British overlords. The English have always been a mix of cultures... your point is void to be frank.England as in the bourgeois nation state, whose construct long post-dates the population influxes which you discuss, including the mutual assimilation of the Saxon and Norman populations. (You'd think that more people here would understand the nation as a bourgeois construct, and not as some organic expression of ethnic heritage... :confused:)


Your apparent lack of support for any UK independence struggles outside of the "Celtosphere" is quite unnerving as well.My what now? :confused: Have you been reading the "Pan-Celtic thingummy" thread? I explicitly state my preference for a non-Celiticist cultural autonomy movement, including the North and South-West of England and the Northern Isles.


US foreign policy is about supporting a highly xenophobic, racist, homophobic and sexist world view while lionizing "freedom" and democracyNo, US policy is about maintaining the power and influence if the American (and, more broadly, Western) bourgeoisie. Whatever ideological constructs they support that with are secondary.


Er, it is written by Frank Miller though who doesn't exactly hid his views and to be honest '300' isn't exactly subtle in the slightest. Sorry if you are a fan but I believe in calling a piece of crap a piece of crap.That's actually the thing- you're reading far more into than I think can be reasonably done! It's a simple story about burly Europeans beating the crap out of Whiggish stereotypes of Asiastic barbarism. That's something which the West has been churning out for about two centuries now, not some novel remark on foreign affairs. You could've made this film fifty years ago, and all that would change is that people would cry "anti-communism" rather than "Islamophobia". In fact, they did just that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_300_spartans)...
What it really shows is that these supposed ideological struggles are a way of maintaining the assertion of ideological purity- whatever that consists of this week- in opposition to the extra-national Other. This film plays into that in the general sense, but not in any specific sense.


Yes but Mad Mel is Anti-Jewish so I doubt that would be his intention. :rolleyes:

I thought 'Braveheart' was rubbish and ridiculous to be honest.Since when were Zionism and anti-Semitism mutually exclusive? From what I've seen, the two coincide just as often as they conflict... :p


No, I am taking it from the context of the film's plot-line and the philosophy espoused in it (which isn't in the historical accounts) along with Frank Miller's quite famously near fascist views and hate of most things "Middle East" (which in his views seems to be the majority of Asia).Which Miller only really developed after 9/11, which was, again, three years after the comic was written, and his active involvement with the thing ended...


So? The post 9/11 policy is a just the continuing of the US foreign policy from before that date (hence the various wars and propped-up dictatorships in the Middle East and elsewhere throughout last century)...Yes, but the alleged narrative pushed by 9/11- beleaguered democratic-rationalists battle overwhelming foreign hordes- is one that only emerged after 9/11. Before that, it was very much a "world police" scenario. If anything, 300 reads more like some declaration in support of national liberation movements against US intervention...


...but that is besides the point as the film is from after 9/11, has some changes to the plot (added scenes mostly) and seems to have been released to capitalise upon the rejuvenated zeal for American imperialism!And what scenes and changes would these be? Only ones I can think of involve the queen, and that was more a sort of botched Hollywood pseudo-feminism than anything else.

[GallowsBird]

You really that this would have fundamentally altered the economic development of England?

Yes, because it did in my opinion. I think the debate should be how much rather than whether it did or not.


London didn't become the economic centre because the North couldn't keep up, but because it was actively cultivated as such by the English state.Yes and no. London became it simply because of its location as a major crossing point over the River Thames. Winchester was the original capital of unified England. However I am not claiming that London became the major economic centre of England and then Britain due to the North's failure to &quot;keep up&quot; simply that the mass slaughter and wasting of the 1000s does still reverberate today.


I think that latter have not effected it in such terms, and I think that the latter was a fundamentally different event. The analogue to the Harrying of the North is the immediate reprisals after the '45 rising (remember, the Harrying was a counter-insurgency campaign, not just arbitrary dickishness), not the Clearances, which were the extension of capitalism to the Scottish Highlands and Isles. Their analogue is in the Enclosures, which were fundamentally significant in determining the economic development of England.Hmm, I can see that logic. ;)


Nobody's denying that the Harrying was brutal business, or that it wasn't without long-term effects, just that you can't realistically claim that the North of England is sill suffering the sort of demographics effects that the Scottish Highlands did after the Clearances and Ireland did after the Great Famine. (In fact, I'd say that Northern England was more effected by those two events- producing, as they did, a major influx of Scottish and Irish refugees- than anything in the 11th century.)Yes but I will acknowledge that the latter events were important and of course do still have more evident side effects due to their closeness in time. Heck, my family became Northern English in that era.


In the 11th century, certainly. By the 17th? Not so much.That is where we will have to disagree. I think their are still side effects, if nothing else on the psyche, that still can be seen to this day (population size is still slightly effected by it... though the Industrial revolution and influx of immigrants have made the population larger.


Scott was a romantic and, above all else, a Tory. He moved between Saxonry and Jacobitism easily enough; what really mattered to him was maintaining the legitimacy of the Tory world view.Yes and it shows you how the right and left can latch on to the same cultural myths and symbols.


England as in the bourgeois nation state, whose construct long post-dates the population influxes which you discuss, including the mutual assimilation of the Saxon and Norman populations.I'm not sure that there was a &quot;mutual assimilation&quot; in the sense many think of when they hear the term. The fact that the majority of Normans were part of the elite and the non-elite Normans who came as free tradesmen mostly still enjoyed many privaleges that most Englishmen of the time did not i think goes against the argument of their being as much assimilation just as in Ireland most of the &quot;English&quot; inhabited the upper echelons of society. Or Kenya may be a better example. Though of coursethere was some assimilation over the years especially linguistically, however originally Normans couldn't marry Englishmen* (though they could marry women to steal the land). Some of my ancestors came as &quot;Normans&quot;.


(You'd think that more people here would understand the nation as a bourgeois construct, and not as some organic expression of ethnic heritage... :confused:)I'm specifically taliking about the culture and people however...


My what now? :confused: Have you been reading the &quot;Pan-Celtic thingummy&quot; thread? I explicitly state my preference for a non-Celiticist cultural autonomy movement, including the North and South-West of England and the Northern Isles.That is good to hear. And I agree I am in many ways more of a regionalist in that regard.

No, US policy is about maintaining the power and influence if the American (and, more broadly, Western) bourgeoisie. Whatever ideological constructs they support that with are secondary.


That's actually the thing- you're reading far more into than I think can be reasonably done! It's a simple story about burly Europeans beating the crap out of Whiggish stereotypes of Asiastic barbarism. That's something which the West has been churning out for about two centuries now, not some novel remark on foreign affairs.That is true... I haven't said it is new. I just don't like it morally or politically...or artisically to be honest but that is purely due to taste.


You could've made this film fifty years ago, and all that would change is that people would cry &quot;anti-communism&quot; rather than &quot;Islamophobia&quot;. In fact, they did just that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_300_spartans)...
What it really shows is that these supposed ideological struggles are a way of maintaining the assertion of ideological purity- whatever that consists of this week- in opposition to the extra-national Other. This film plays into that in the general sense, but not in any specific sense.True.


Since when were Zionism and anti-Semitism mutually exclusive? From what I've seen, the two coincide just as often as they conflict... :pActually I agree there. I would like my original remark stricken from the record! :unsure: ;)


Which Miller only really developed after 9/11, which was, again, three years after the comic was written, and his active involvement with the thing ended...

Yes, but the alleged narrative pushed by 9/11- beleaguered democratic-rationalists battle overwhelming foreign hordes- is one that only emerged after 9/11. Before that, it was very much a &quot;world police&quot; scenario. If anything, 300 reads more like some declaration in support of national liberation movements against US intervention...Actually I agree to an extent.


And what scenes and changes would these be? Only ones I can think of involve the queen, and that was more a sort of botched Hollywood pseudo-feminism than anything else.That is true. Either botched feminism or a spoof of it. I seem to remember there were a few others though I'll have to recheck (some minor things like the Spartans being &quot;whiter&quot;) I haven't read it in years. But I still think it was made to cash in on the newly rejuvinated anti-Arabism and Islamophobia (even if we know Iranians aren't Arabs and weren't Muslim at the time).

* Saxon as a term for pre-Norman English wasa term used by Normans to give themselves more of a pedigree as Englishmen. The "Saxons" in reality were actually a sub-group and "English" as an identity had been established by the time of Bede... though "English" (actually "Englisc" in Old English) was used for "Angles" before that.

P.S. Though I argue with and seem overly critical of Tim Finnegan I hope people realise it is mostly in this regard and a few others and don't construe it as me completely disagreeing with him having read many of his posts I do share a lot of opinions with him. I shall admit I actually like him (as much as I know him.. which admitedly isn't too much in the long run but...) so there!:p

[GallowsBird]

Incidently I prefered the film '300 Spartans' as a film. Politically I am against it though... I am a Communist after all. Or should that be "Persian"!:lol:

[Kibbutznik]

To Tolkien's credit, Middle Earth is actually more nuances than it might appear. He said on numerous occasions that no one in the story was inherently evil, not even the orcs. Such would conflict with his deeply held Catholic faith. Orcs were made to be evil by their cultures, exploited by leaders such as Sauron who used them and cast them aside.

[Summerspeaker]

William Morris's The Story of the Glittering Plain (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1890/glittpln/chapters/chapter1.htm) would be another example of the kind of historical/fantasy fiction that inspired Tolkien and provided a measure of radical political content (alongside, unsurprisingly, a powerful dude supremacy). The anti-utopian implications are interesting to compare with News from Nowhere.

[Princess Luna]

I agree. All things in the world exist in total isolation from one another, there is no such thing as subtext, and all analysis is pointless. Man, it must be nice to go through life without ever thinking about anything.

Analysis is fine as long as you remember not every book is written as a political or religious statement, Tolkien made it very clear in interviews that LoTR did not have any hidden meanings (not even Christian ones) so going around saying "you shouldn't read it because it supports Fascism!" or "you should read it because it is a analogy for socialism!" is stupid. Isn't there a saying that says "If you are looking for something in art, you will find it." the same thing can be applied to literature.

[x359594]

Analysis is fine as long as you remember not every book is written as a political or religious statement, Tolkien made it very clear in interviews that LoTR did not have any hidden meanings (not even Christian ones)...

What Tolkien said about Lord of the Rings (or what any artist says about her work) should be considered with another aphorism, "Don't trust the artist, trust the tale."

And although not every book is written with as an explicit political or religious statement, it is written in the larger context of the dominant ideology whatever that ideology may be at a particular historical moment.