What are we really arguing about, then? I have zero interest in trying to "prove" mathematically that Tolkien was a racist, for one because I don't even believe that. I don't think there's an objectively correct answer to the question of whether LotR as a book is racist or not - you can make a good case that it is, but you can't prove that it is or isn't, because it's all about interpretations.

Allow me to show off my Tolkien fanboy-hood by pointing out that at least one of the Nazgul (and the only one whose origin we know, afaik) was not, in fact, a white man, but is explicitly called an Easterling. And the Witch-King of Angmar was already a Nazgul at the time he ruled Angmar, so it's not a given that he's actually from that area, either. About the rest, I think we just don't know.

Anyway, like I said, I have no interest in "proving" that Tolkien was a racist, because I don't think he was. All I'm saying is that there's a lot in the books that suggests sexism and racism, and one has to give Tolkien the benefit of the doubt on a considerable amount of points to clear him of all charges. When someone reads the work as sexist or racist, odds are it'll be futile for his defenders to try to convince that person otherwise.

When you get right down to it, orcs and to a lesser extention other non-human races in fantasy, when they are written in such absolute terms as they are in Tolkien, can be seen in two ways. Either they're supposed to represent humans in the real world, and then it's hard to avoid racism. Or they're not supposed to represent anything at all in the real world, and then one is justified to ask what the point is, other than escapism.

Some other authors - Erikson of course, and I believe Sapkowski is a good example as well, but I haven't actually read him so you'll have to take that with a grain of salt - have non-human races but write them in a more nuanced way, where some will have the traditional characteristics and others will not, some will be "evil" and others "good" and most of them just grey. And then of course it becomes far easier to argue that yes, they are supposed to represent humans, and the interaction of races in the fantasy world has relevance for the interaction between races and cultures in the real world, without propagating racism.

We may agree then, or we may not, depending on what exactly you mean by that. I don't agree with that conclusion either - but I do think it's fair.

Yeah, and so were Muslims. In some times and places in the Christian medieval west, the problem was exacerbated by the guilds refusing Jews as members, making it effectively impossible for them to practice most other professions (if I'm still allowed to use that word after the discussion on the Comm board...).

The problem here is that Tolkien's Dwarves are obviously a *race*, and one that is shown to have a number of characteristics that all members of that race have in lesser or greater amounts - applying such a view to human races really is very close to the literal definition of racism. When he then says that he associates his Dwarves with Jews in the real world, it seems obvious to me that the natural conclusion is going to be an ugly one. Once again, defending Tolkien on this requires giving him the benefit of the doubt, and it's hard to blame people for refusing to do that.

I'm not. Some people might (and do), and I'd be hard-pressed to convince them otherwise (though I haven't seen this information that you looked up and that you say makes clear he wasn't anti-semitic).


Put Eowyn's storyline in a book that is teeming with strong women, and it becomes rather far-fetched to call it sexist. But it being where it is, it very much seems sexist, and to argue otherwise, as you noted, feels like searching excuses. Again a question of benefit of the doubt and how much of it you're willing to give.

Celeborn is pretty much a non-entity whose role is extremely limited - one cannot help but suspect that has to do with him being a lower kind of Elf who's married to a Noldor princess.

But since you compare to Elrond, yes, that's precisely my point, the difference between Elrond and Galadriel. Elrond talks of war, fighting the Enemy, he takes decisions in the war and tells people what to do. Galadriel, who was active in war and politics before most of Elrond's grandparents were even born, talks of comfort, of gifts, and very little of the war or her role in it (there's more than a single exception, granted, she does make a comment once about having seen Nargothrond and Gondolin). Her status as the only player in the LotR besides Sauron to have been a player in the Silm makes her a special case, which doesn't really help in arguing that she's a good choice to judge Tolkien's women on - but it's easy to argue that when even a woman of that stature mostly just talks of comfort and protecting nature (and when that fits into an existing pattern), Tolkien must have had some views on men and women's natural abilities and inclinations that wouldn't really stroke with today's prevalent views in the West.