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!
Jimmy, with regards to Rowling. I picked up a Harry Potter book a few years ago to see what the fuss was about. I read a few paragraphs and put the book back, because the prose was poor.
However, I take my hat off to Rowling for encouraging millions of children to read. I hope that many millions of her readership, have since developed a habit for reading quality literature.
I would have thought Lord Of the Rings was a fantasy book for adolescents (in my opinion it's too scary to be a 'children's' book). It was in our (secondary) school library, I read it then, it was very popular amongst all my friends and it became a cult-book in the 'psychedelic' Sixties.
It was written at the end of the 1930's and, for me, is also influenced by that era and the growing Nazi threat (exemplified by the name 'Nazgul' for the black riders and the symbol of the threatened English 'Shire'). Far from being politically incorrect it was, and still is, so obviously anti-totalitarian. The discussion about banning such a masterpiece sends shivers down my spine.
As far as elephants are concerned - Hannibal (one of the greatest military strategists in history) used elephants very effectively in his battles with the Romans). They were just a very effective weapon (superior to the horses the Romans were using) at the time.
Jimmy
I don't think LOTR needs any more 'defending'. Can I just ask why you have 3 names?