I know they’re always popping up on TV and all, but has anybody ever actually seen one?
Like I brought up with Star Trek could this complaint not be raised at any fantasy or sci fi work with sentient species with inherent differences in intellect or propensity for violence etc? Its such a standard plot element I’d be shocked at any works that buck the trend.
Elves were French, Dwarves were German, Hobbits were English, and they all needed to unite under the leadership of the Americans to fight against the Slavic Menace from the East. It’s an allegory for the Cold War, not WWII.
No, it’s not an allegory for anything… Tolkien specifically says so in the Foreward. :rolleyes:
GSV, meet The Intentional Fallacy; Intentional Fallacy, meet GSV.
A book that was begun and, to a very significant extent plotted out, by 1938 is not an allegory for either the Cold War or WW2. If it’s influenced by anything modern, it’s Tolkien’s own experiences in the First World War. This biography talks about his experiences then, and the effect on his fiction.
They may not have thought it worth trying, or tried and given up the way the metaphysics in that universe seems to work. Everything seems geared towards continual corruption, decay, diminishment; older Ages are greater than younger ones, older Elves greater than younger ones, elder races & cultures more powerful & knowledgeable & beautiful, etc. Corrupting men or Elves into Orcs goes along with the general tendencies of that universe; but we seldom if ever see anything that’s been corrupted or diminished regain any of their former stature.
Well that’s five minutes of my life I’ll never get back.
When judging the intentions and motivations of the author, surely it is important to…er, take note of the self-proclaimed intentions of the author.
Or is the above “fallacy” just to allow the critic to say whatever the heck they like and be “right” regardless of what the author says? It reads as one big critical “get-out” from start to finish.
That would make Tolkien awfully precient, since he started work on it well before the Cold War begain.
As far as “intentional fallacy”, Tolkien himself made a wry point: if he’d intended it as an allegory for WW2 (plus cold war), surely the “good guys” would have ended up using the ring, and Saruman would have made one of his own, etc. … ? 
My own opinion is that while his work was influenced by his experiences, it mostly looks to the past of the anglo-saxon, germanin and finnish mythology that Tolkien loved, not to the present.
An example of an express influence is the “dead marshes” which was I think directly inspired by the horrors Tolkien went through in WW1.
I don’t agree - the rend of the LoTR has the relm of Gondor renewed to its former glory with, as stated, the “return of the king” after centuries of moldering decay and diminishment. The indications were that the long-vanished northern realm would be restored. Also, the Hobbit saw the restoration of the destroyed kingdom of the dwarves under the lonely mountain and the city of Dale.
Certainly, the Elves diminished, but the idea was that the new age was to see the rise of Men.
As a discussion of a literary figure primarily, I think this belongs in Cafe Society. From IMHO.
Wasn’t this in the Cafe Society from the begining?
What should we expect from a guy named “orc-enio”?
So that’s what these are for.
http://www.thompsoncigar.com/thumbnail/CIGAR-ACCESSORIES/CIGAR-CUTTERS/8413/c/8413/pc/8406.uts
Oy Vey!
True. But the idea behind New Criticism is not to learn what the author is saying, it’s to learn what the book is saying. If the author has to come in to explain that, no, really his book is a metaphor for basket weaving in Paraguay, but no one who reads the book can see any sort of parallel between the story and South American arts and crafts, then is his book really about what he claims it is about?
Yes, that is a big part of it, although I wouldn’t characterize it as pejoratively as you have. Art is a means of communication. The focus to this type of criticism is not on the message sent, but on the message received. As such, one of the central ideas is that there are no incorrect interpretations. If someone reads LotR, and sees it as an allegory for WWII, then that’s what they got out of the book, regardless of what the author wanted them to get out of it.
You can take account of them, sure, but the core of the Intentional Fallacy is that readers also need to be aware that an author is never the final word on “the meaning” of his or her text: they may not have intended to include something, or they have may have intended not to include something, but authors don’t exist and create in a vacuum, and various factors they may be wholly unconscious of may emerge in their texts.
As an author Tolkien was a product of his time, and as with all authors his work reflects the attitudes of his time. He may not have intended racism, yet it is undeniable that as with C. S. Lewis, his heroes were white, his villains were darker skinned. That doesn’t make him a bad writer or a bad person; we are all products of our eras, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t productive for later generations of readers to examine what he chose to include or omit.
Does he ever specify a skin color for any of the protagonists?
As for the problem of orcs, my take is that it’s impossible for a redeemed orc to exist, but that an orc can be redeemed. The resolution is that, in the process of redemption, the redeemed would cease to be an orc, and revert to being an elf. Probably still an elf deformed in body, but no longer deformed in soul.
In the context of this thread, the problem is making an objective statement about the author based on an entirely subjective assessment of that author’s works (not that I think you are doing that, of course).
I can buy that for some reader LoTR is an allegory for WW2 regardless of whether the authour intended it or not, or whether that thing was partly written before the event that it is supposedly an allegory for. That’s all well and good.
I cannot but that a judgment can be made about the author - such as whether he’s a “racist” or not - based on a totally subjective claim about the work. I regard that issue as something requiring an objective assessment.
What a ridiculous thread. By this logic Skyrim should be banned for being racist. After all some races are better at magic, resistant to fire etc
It is no secret why Tolkien’s heroes tend to resemble anglo-saxons, germanic types, and finns - northern europeans all; he was an expert on (indeed, professor of) northern european languages and mythology, and quite conciously molded his legendarium based on those interests.
That doesn’t make him “racist”, any more than an author who bases his fantasy world on Chinese or Indian mythology is “racist” if his fantasy characters turn out to sound somewhat like Chinese or Indians.