Dealing with values dissonance

[The Marquis de Leech]

He expects that the dwarves remind people of the Jews. Now, his stereotypes are fairly positive as far as that goes (greed and craftsmanship appear to be the big ones), but it seems clear that he built the dwarves from the aspect of humanity he associated with the Jews. Again, I don't think this makes him antisemitic - but I do think that at the very least he was playing on the stereotypes of Jews and likely believed those stereotypes.

From elsewhere in Tolkien's letters:

"I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue."

Tolkien's obsession was language.

But again: the big stereotypical profession of the Jews was moneylending. The Dwarves don't lend money: they mine and make stuff (and eat pork). At best, your argument boils down to "well, Tolkien said the Dwarves are like the Jews, so that's evil stereotyping!"

Remember, back in the 50s and 60s you were an enlightened liberal if you were a benevolent racist. If you believed all women were more empathetic or all black people were good at sports, this was viewed as a positive.

Depends on the country. Tolkien just got annoyed that his interest in Germanic languages and Norse mythology got hijacked by the far-right (he famously called Hitler a 'ruddy little ignoramus' in one of his letters).

[RebeccaSigyn]

Taking The Hobbit, first chapter, here's what we learn about the Dwarves:

Dwalin: blue beard and very bright eyes, plays viol

Balin: white beard, plays viol

Fili and Kili: yellow beards, play fiddle

Bombur: fat, plays drum

Dori, Nori, Ori: play flute

Bifur and Bofur: play clarinets

Thorin: plays harp, pompous git, likes six fried eggs with his ham.

Does any of that really scream Jewishness? Incidentally, between Thorin's ham fondness, and Bombur's request for a pork pie, I think we can conclude that we're dealing with some very non-kosher Dwarves. ;)

Very non-kosher indeed. I have several Jewish friends & none of them ever felt that the dwarves in the books were based on the Jewish race but I had a few think that the ferengi in Star Trek may have been based on steoro types of the Jewish race.

[Angalin]

<mod>

Let's keep the values dissonance discussion about authors, not other posters, thanks.

</mod>

[Kalbear]

"I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue."

Tolkien's obsession was language.

How is that strictly about language though? I also don't see how that's particularly analogous to the Dwarves, given that the Dwarves had their own tongue and spoke it more than any mannish language, they had their own lands and their own king, they weren't particularly alien where they lived and they weren't particularly welcoming of outsiders. That specifically seems like a really odd comparison to make on those grounds, no?

But again: the big stereotypical profession of the Jews was moneylending. The Dwarves don't lend money: they mine and make stuff (and eat pork). At best, your argument boils down to "well, Tolkien said the Dwarves are like the Jews, so that's evil stereotyping!"

I didn't say evil. I said stereotyping. Which...it sounds a lot like it is.

The fact is that the Dwarves aren't the villains of the piece, so the big evil Jewish stereotype (that is, Jews are responsible for everything that goes wrong) wasn't covered. Greed is the primary stereotype about Jews; that they're moneylenders to gentiles back in the day plays into that, but that wasn't the big one anyway. Not that it matters; him writing that the Jewish race is fabulous and awesome is as much a stereotype as anything. It just happens to be a benevolent one.

[Kalbear]

And you don't think the main character being raped until she likes it is sexist

No, not really. It's misogynistic and rape culture-y, but it's not sexist. In the same book we have the male character essentially get worse treatment with a similar result. Neither is something I think is good, both use rape as a way to Make Sympathetic Characters, but it's hard for me to characterize that as sexism. Point of fact, that the main male character gets raped is pretty profound for genre work at all.

Rape by itself isn't sexist. Nor is the notion that getting raped until you like it sexist.

[Arthmail]

You're fine, Rebecca. Seal Team Gnome and I got your back.

Seal Team Gnome. I like it. Can i use it?

Edit: Changed it a little.

[Happy Ent]

Welcome to he the board, Rebecca.

[Jon AS]

Welcome to he board, Rebecca.

Are you claiming ownership of this place now? That's a brave thing to do, someone is bound to hold you responsible for our antics at some point.

[Horza]

no, he's claiming the board that the board becomes when it invokes the Power of Greyskull

[Lummel]

Pretend for a moment that the comment truly was made with stereotypes in mind. Do you think Tolkien would have been so stupid to make such a public comment in 1964 - when memories of the Second World War and the Holocaust were still fresh in people's minds? Bearing in mind, this is the same person who condemned the Nazis in the 1930s, when anti-semitism (and racism in general) was much more socially acceptable.

Yes I would. I wouldn't phrase it like that though, it wouldn't have been stupid to do so just normal for the UK at that time. It was the 1960s and people were still open about their prejudices. On the spectrum of anti-semitism his position is at the mild end and probably fairly typical of many people of his generation and class.

It sticks out to me, but as I see not to boarders in other cultures with different anti-semitic traditions.

[thistlepong]

You know, other than a pretty funny article claiming the entire conflict was motivated by Gandalf running a pipeweed ring, I hadn't really looked at whether various charges of racial profiling in Middle Earth were well founded. From what's been presented in this thread so far it looks like Tolkien had some of the same dissonance the OP was considering. It doesn't surprise me that various readers would struggle through that or take note of it. That it's confirmed explicitly by the author kind of damns any rebuttal stating it's not.

I pretty much have dissonance all the time. Do folks really read through books with, like, I dunno, wildly exaggerated gender ratios and not notice? Is it really so difficult to notice that a particular group is limited to a certain set of characteristics and think that might be significant?

[Happy Ent]

Is it really so difficult to notice that a particular group is limited to a certain set of characteristics and think that might be significant?

Huh? But of course it’s significant. It seems to be part of our basic psychological make-up. We all do it, as do all humans, as do all other animals. It’s obvious. It’s part of what makes us human. Let’s study the hell out of it.

And understanding this point is exactly why you should not edit or avoid Mark Twain, Astrid Lindgren, Tolkien, or Conan.

See, the value dissonance is entirely between wise and enlightened people like me, who grok human nature, and people who are authoritarian, religious, or censorial liars (while considering themselves to be good and virtuous). It’s absolutely interesting and worth debating, and touches upon issues that are both politically dear to me and scientifically interesting.

But to seriously discuss whether dead authors two generations ago were not well aligned with whatever values we have today is utterly boring, intellectually vapid, and ideologically facile. It’s not because I don’t understand the debate. It’s because it’s childish. I engage neither Creationists, nor cultural reductionists, postmodernists, or Sapir-Whorf defenders, for the same reason. I get their point. I just find it boring.

[thistlepong]

Kyle Rayner is the best Green Lantern, refrigerator notwithstanding.

[Mr. E]

Kyle Rayner is the best Green Lantern, refrigerator notwithstanding.

Pfft. J-Stew all the way. That means I'm not racist, right? Because I like the black green lantern?

[Grack21]

No, not really. It's misogynistic and rape culture-y, but it's not sexist. In the same book we have the male character essentially get worse treatment with a similar result. Neither is something I think is good, both use rape as a way to Make Sympathetic Characters, but it's hard for me to characterize that as sexism. Point of fact, that the main male character gets raped is pretty profound for genre work at all.

Rape by itself isn't sexist. Nor is the notion that getting raped until you like it sexist.

Misogynistic is te word I meant to use there.

[Sci-2]

Game of Thorns

Admittedly, I didn't fully think on the repercussions of the Nuban character when I read Prince of Thorns.

ETA: Put quote in quote box.

"

There have been authors such as Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft whose own misogyny and well documented racism are inseparable from an understanding and indeed, an appreciation of their work. We would have never had Lovecraft's Deep Ones or much of his crawling alien horrors without his pathological fear of miscegenation.

And Howard struggled most of his short and tragic adult life against what he perceived as a dying of manly values, rugged independence, and the loss of a certain type of white, anglo-celtic primacy. Conan for all his faults and fondness for slaughtering 'degenerate' blacks and dusky fellow savages, is empowered by the very perishing vitality that his creator was obsessed with the perceived loss of in "civilized" society.

To deny these authors the full spectrum of their personal biographies, is to do both they and their stories a grave disservice. So is to perpetuate the myth that their blinkered viewpoints were merely the product of "their time and culture" and not in fact attached to their authorial presence as much as other elements which surface in their fantastic tales. People write stories, but stories are not brought into the world as innocent babes. They all bear the marks and the sins of their parents. To deprive them of this, is as damaging as to exclude their many virtues."

[Grack21]

I always thought the Nubian in Thorns was a clear reference to Howard. What that actually means other people can debate to death.

I thought of two other authors I have railed against on here. Sara Douglas and Stan Nichols(DId I spell that right? Meh). Orcs is pretty much just rape porn so there's not much to discuss there, but Sara Douglas is interesting because female readers tend to like her a great deal but her books are full of the "strong man saves womem from rape" cliche, and the rape you like it, and an almost pro incest message. I haven't read them in a while but 'm sure I can think of other problems.

Also in my defense, I believe the only two authors I have defended on here over the racist/sexist claims were Abercrombie and Tolkien. If I sound like I was defending Howard I apologize, I was just think Conan is mostly sexist, while his racism shows up a lot strong in his other works.

[Galleymac]

I had to step away from Sara Douglass at a very swift pace. Which was sad, because she was recced to me by a person whose taste I respect. Unfortunately the first book of hers I read had its POV character marry her rapist (the rape in question being very unambiguous and so painful I had to cross my legs and recollect myself) and then I was supposed to like him later because he gave her baby (product of the repeated rape) the name that the POV character had had stolen from her by, more or less, HIM.

It's been a very long time, nearly a decade, and I don't even remember the name of that book, let alone have confidence I'm getting the details exactly right. But I do remember my conclusion: "Hmm, hooking up for a happily ever after with your rape torture guy. I think I'm going to take steps to narrow my chances of experiencing this in literature ever again."

Catherine Cookson pulled that one a couple of times. I still have fairly fond childhood memories, though, of the bits where she was NOT doing that. Taste is complex.

[Mr. E]

To deny these authors the full spectrum of their personal biographies, is to do both they and their stories a grave disservice. So is to perpetuate the myth that their blinkered viewpoints were merely the product of "their time and culture" and not in fact attached to their authorial presence as much as other elements which surface in their fantastic tales. People write stories, but stories are not brought into the world as innocent babes. They all bear the marks and the sins of their parents. To deprive them of this, is as damaging as to exclude their many virtues."

Naw, man, New Criticism all the way. Death of the Author. What's that? Why yes, New Criticism was created by white men with doctorates, why do you ask? :cool4:

[Grack21]

I had to step away from Sara Douglass at a very swift pace. Which was sad, because she was recced to me by a person whose taste I respect. Unfortunately the first book of hers I read had its POV character marry her rapist (the rape in question being very unambiguous and so painful I had to cross my legs and recollect myself) and then I was supposed to like him later because he gave her baby (product of the repeated rape) the name that the POV character had had stolen from her by, more or less, HIM.

It's been a very long time, nearly a decade, and I don't even remember the name of that book, let alone have confidence I'm getting the details exactly right. But I do remember my conclusion: "Hmm, hooking up for a happily ever after with your rape torture guy. I think I'm going to take steps to narrow my chances of experiencing this in literature ever again."

Catherine Cookson pulled that one a couple of times. I still have fairly fond childhood memories, though, of the bits where she was NOT doing that. Taste is complex.

Hades' Daughter. It's the Douglas book I was mainly referencing and it's one of the first things that pops into my head when I think of the word "foul".