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!
Several people here have pointed out that LOTR was a product of its time. Of COURSE it was. So were the Enid Blyton books. I wouldn't give them to my child as a lesson in "what children were reading back then".
"Here: to understand gender stereotypes and creepy moral values of the 50s and the 60s, you really should read The Famous Five." ???
If you'll read the original Q - or my original comment on the other Q&A which is quoted here - I wrote that I WOULDN'T ban LOTR, but I wouldn't stand by and watch my child read it - OR watch the films - without discussing its values and - it seems to me - its hidden agenda.
This comment won me 2 "thumbs down". If you surf this web-site, you will find VERY few "thumbs down"s. Apparently, you can give a "thumbs up" if you QUITE like a comment, but you need to be really ANTI to give a "thumbs down". So 2 users felt really strongly opposed to what I'd written.
Why?
Because they really oppose the idea that parents should discuss with their children the books that they read?
Or because those 2 users were worshippers of the great Tolkien, and ANYONE casting slurs on his MASTERPIECE deserves rebuke?
Tolkien is God... apparently according to some. Certainly many treat LOTR as a religion.
I'm not a big fan of any religion. But to worship this book is something I, personally, find disturbing.
To drag LOTR and The Hobbit OUT of "the times that they were products of", create SIX MEGA-budget films out of them now - precisely at a time when our "leaders" are REALLY KEEN to create a scare scenario about immigrants* - is another detail that bothers me. The films lead to increased sales of the books and the whole thing spirals.
* You'll notice that the immigrants that we should be worried about are dark-skinned VICTIMS, while white Americans and Australians who overstay their tourist visas are no real problem, and RICH immigrants who want to exploit British workers are welcomed with open arms. (If you're American, make the necessary translation: Chinese or Arabian multi-millionaires who want to buy factories in the USA, then lay off the work force or pay them a pittance are WELCOME. Wetback Mexicans who want to make a pittance by doing back-breaking work harvesting your oranges and peaches are SCUM.)
As far as I remember, Gandalf the Grey, when raised to #1 wizard, became Gandalf the WHITE. ALL dark-skinned creatures were EVIL. They came from the EAST and the SOUTH to threaten the WEST. They had elephants.
If you can't see the racist message in that, you've got your eyes closed.
BTW, Tolkien resented the notion that the book was an allegory against the Nazis. He also would have preferred an England separated from Wales and Scotland. He was an Albion [ENGLAND] supremacist.
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?
You can read anything into it that you want, but your interpretation of any novel is based on your experience and biases. Just as my interpretation is formed on my own experiences and biases.
It's also a product of its time and shouldn't therefore be judged by today's politics or standards.
@ Barbara ("Jimmy [...] Can I just ask why you have 3 names?")
When I first lived in Barcelona, I admired the fact that the Spanish (also - BTW - the Portuguese) have 2 surnames: one coming from their father, the other from their mother. The "i" (due to W&A technology capitalised) is a detail added by the Catalans. It means "and".
The English equivalent would be Jimmy Hollis-Dickson BUT this is not my official name, just a usage that I've adopted to honour my mother as part of my heritage, and use as my nom-de-plume.
Jimmy Hollis i Dickson