I notice that on a recent Q&A ("What books would you destroy to avoid them falling into other hands?": https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/question/view/2379) 2 users of this site gave "thumbs down" to Wilhelmina Lyre and to Jimmy Hollis i Dickson.
To Wilhelmina for posting:
'[...] parents who don't read the books that their children are reading - with a very critical eye - are running the same risk.
'I'm not really in favour of BANNING The Lord Of The Rings. But I'd take the trouble to debate with my child the values of a book that depicts people/creatures who come from the East and South, are dark-skinned (and who associate with Elephants - or however Tolkien chose to "disguise" this word, it's been decades since I read this filth) as purely EVIL, as invaders who are intent on destroying the values - and lives - of "The Shire" (read the British Isles). Not to mention "Holy Wars" as a solution to a country's problems or the sharp divide between what is "suitable behaviour" for males and what is "suitable behaviour" for females.
'The Lord Of The Rings (considering its wide appeal) must be the very favourite book of UKIP, male supremacists... and many of those even further down the road of xenophobia and racism.'
To Jimmy for his:
'I see that somebody has given my friend Wilhelmina a "thumbs down" for her latest comment. Since said "thumbs-downer" didn't actually post a reply (unless they're doing so while I'm composing this), we may only guess whether this "thumbs down"is re: the idea that parents should talk with their children about the books that they're reading (does this come under the heading of "poking your nose in" / "invasion of territory"?) or rather a TLOTR fan taking umbrage at anybody's criticising hat "masterpiece" of storytelling.
'Whatever the reason, could you please give me a "thumbs down", too? Because I agree with every single word that she wrote.'
I have decided to throw down the gauntlet. Having read what Wilhelmina wrote, IS anybody willing to 'actually post a reply' and defend (on literary or cultural merit) Tolkien's ' "masterpiece" of storytelling'? IS anybody seriously willing to defend it against the charges of 'xenophobia and racism', as well as male-chauvinism and militarism.
In these days when politicians are distorting facts and statistics to create an atmosphere of fear re: [DARK-SKINNED] immigrants and "bogus" asylum seekers, I fancy a bit of lively, LITERARY debate between fanatics on either side.
Tolkien admirers: stop being ashamed to reveal who you are!
And perhaps it was more of the bludgeoning tone of your comment that drew the downvote rather than the subject matter?
I can't say, because I'm no mind reader, but most people can see an opposing view and argue against it without becoming confrontational or resorting to voting thumbs down.
Oh dear.
I can see where you're coming from, Willhelmina, but I still disagree. And no, it's not because it's a religion to me -- I don't do religion -- but because I can step back and take a calm, objective look at it without having to rely on hyperbole to get my point across.
Tolkein was a white man, writing in a predominantly white place for a predominantly white audience. Most fiction in England at that time was about white people. Good or bad. You can't look at it from today's perspective and decide that it was because he was a racist. That's just silly. Most people were racist to a degree (most still are to an extent, although some of us choose to strive not to be).
The bad guys, mostly orcs, weren't even human. However, 'black' was for the longest time the colour of 'evil' and 'white' the colour of 'good', because of 'darkness' and 'light' rather than skin colour. So his choices were likely a product of tradition rather than a deliberate decision to paint all people of colour as 'evil'.
As for the story of Sam and Frodo, it's sad that you choose to dwell on the fact that Sam was Frodo's servant, rather than their friendship and the fact that Sam truly loved Frodo as a friend and vice versa. Neither of them destroyed the ring, but it was Gollum and his being under Sauron's spell that destroyed the ring (which was really what the whole point of that whole journey was about as far as I'm concerned - the fact that Frodo almost gave into the power of the ring and was saved only by the loss of his finger, and the fact that Gollum was so far gone).
I think your dislike of the story has more of a 'zealous' feel to it, than vice versa. But each to their own.
@ CJ Jessop ("What about the message of coming together of different races to overcome a threat? Of the underdog sacrificing all to save the world? Or its message of the strength of women?")
a) All the races (dwarves, elves, hobbits, etc.) which came "together to overcome a threat" were WHITE races. The threat was dark-skinned.
b) The hero worship of Sam towards Frodo is one of the things that I find REALLY disturbing about this book. Sam IS an underdog. Frodo is his master. And we're not allowed to forget it. Even though it's Sam who destroys the ring, FRODO is the hero at the end. "Everyone in his place and happy with the status quo." Class struggle? Equal rights / equal recognition for all, irrespective of the class that you were born into? FORGET IT!!!
c) The strength of women??? Only if they followed the gender stereotype. The ONE exception - the woman who wanted to be a fighter, dressed as a man, and went to war - was only allowed [by Tolkien] to do so in order to allow HIM [Tolkien] to be clever clever with the prophecy that no MAN could kill the leader of the black riders. You could see THAT "clever twist" coming from a MILE away. Once the "clever twist" has been sprung on us, this would-be-warrior becomes a doting nurse because her PRINCE has come along and converted her to a "real" woman, subservient and starry-eyed. Excuse me while I vomit.