Should we separate the author from the work?

[axordil]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-m ... 93708.html

The tip of the iceberg when it comes to flawed people making great, or at least interesting art.

[Nin]

I immediatly thought of Wagner too and don't remember him being discussed. And, obviously, I'll go to see Wagner with my students to see a Wagner opera of four hours tomorrow.... so this shows my decision to separate the work from the author I think. But also, Wagner's views were certainly terribly anti-semitic, but nothing exceptional for the time in which he lived. Much of it comes from his ideas being later used by the Nazis in theri most extreme interpretation and it is not sure that even Wagner himself would have agreed with that.

Now, of course, in German literature and culture you have a lot more of those authors where the question needs to be asked: Heidegger? Leni Rieffenstahl? Ernst Jünger? Nietzsche?

What about the recent discussion about Tintin in Congo - which is racist and Hergé, the writer or Tintin was racist, no doubt. Should it be forbidden?

How about Rudyard Kippling? Terrible racist, this one.

At least for artists from the past, I don't think that they can be judged by the political standards of today.

And yes, of course, horrible persons can create beauty.

edited for terrible typos!

[Túrin Turambar]

I immediatly thought of Wagner too and don't remember him being discussed. And, obviously, I'll go to see Wagner with my students to see a Wagner opera of four hours tomorrow.... so this shows my decision to separate the work from the author I think. But also, Wagner's views were certainly terribly anit-semitic, but nothing exceptional for the time in whic hhe lived. Much of it comes from his idea being later used by the Nazis in theri most extreme interpretation and it is not sure that even Wagner himself would have agreed with that.

Now, of course, in German literature and culture you have a lot more of those authors where the question needs to be asked: Heidegger? Leni Rieffenstahl? Ernst Jünger? Nietzsche?

What baout hte recent discussion about Tintin in Congo - which is racist and Hergé, the writer or Tintin was racist, no doubt. Should it be forbidden?

How about Rudyard Kippling? Terrible racist, this one.

At least for artists from the past, I don't think that they can ge judged by the political standards of today.

And yes, of course, horrible persons can create beauty.

I think your list raises two additional points:

1) To what extent do we let a person off for having immoral views if they were the norm for the time? Hergé’s depictions of the Congolese are cringeworthy but I don’t know of any real evidence that he had actual malice towards people based on their race. I even recall that he modified Tintin in the Congo later as social standards changed. IOW, I think it unlikely that he would opt for such openly racist caricatures were he writing today.

2) To what extent do we accept that an author cannot be separated from their work, but find artistic merit in the work anyway? This applies to Rieffenstahl, who had a technically-brilliant film which had the sole purpose of promoting Nazism. Or, to put it this way – can you like the Horst Wessel Song for its melody? Jünger is probably another example, although a less-objectionable one. I have limited experience of his writing, but some of its raw power seems to come from the delight that he took in war and the belief that fighting a soldier was the ultimate character-building experience. He was a very interesting character regardless.

[yovargas]

2) To what extent do we accept that an author cannot be separated from their work, but find artistic merit in the work anyway? This applies to Rieffenstahl, who had a technically-brilliant film which had the sole purpose of promoting Nazism.

Birth of a Nation - an old, extremely racist silent movie that is credited for the rise of popularity of the KKK in the US - is often included on lists of great American films because it was a both a technically brilliant a film and it is also thought to have ushered in many modern movie-making techniques. Personally I wouldn't give a damn about either of those things and think that works like that should be clearly and loudly condemned as the garbage they are. Unless you're, I dunno, a film major or something, there's no other reason to promote anyone ever viewing of such a thing.

[Nin]

Birth of a Nation - an old, extremely racist silent movie that is credited for the rise of popularity of the KKK in the US - is often included on lists of great American films because it was a both a technically brilliant a film and it is also thought to have ushered in many modern movie-making techniques. Personally I wouldn't give a damn about either of those things and think that works like that should be clearly and loudly condemned as the garbage they are. Unless you're, I dunno, a film major or something, there's no other reason to promote anyone ever viewing of such a thing.

Well, yov, the problem is: they are not garbage. It is extremely easy to dismiss 90% of the Nazi propaganda movies which have fallen in oblivion (as did all the Stalin propaganda movies): they were garbage. Propaganda barely disguised into images with a thin and obvious story line, without any artistic interest; and often mediocre sucesses even in times of heavy promoted propaganda movies, or even if people wer more or less obliged to go to watch them. But for some it is not that easy, like Rieffenstahl or like the fabolous Eisenstein movies - or Birth of a Nation, which I saw. And unlike you, I do think it important to see them and to understand them; especially Birth of a Nation.

First for movies like Rieffenstahl's Olympia movies or Eisenstein's Potemkin, there is a real artistical value of the work. You can study with them, how a totalitarian Regime uses beauty to seduce and how people fall for the images without regarding the message. Very important. IMHO

With Birth of a Nation, produced in democratic country, it is different. But it is an extremely interesting document on the views about the Civil War throughout American History and about the place wich extrememism can take in a so called free democratic society. This movie was a major success. Not facing this is acting as if American society at the beginning of the century had not been deeply racist...

I alos think by wiping out unpleasant or outright racist/ anti-semitic/mysogenic aspects of works of art we tend to act as if the ideas behind those works had never existed. And I do think that it is wrong. The world does not become polically correct by pretending that it is or always has been.

[JewelSong]

IAWN.

Well said.

[yovargas]

First, there are lots of places one can go to understand and study the uglier pasts of our nations. I don't see the need to encourage viewing ones that promote those uglier views.

But second, I think that it's great to admire things like visual composition in a aesthetically beautiful film, I have no qualms in saying that a pretty film with abhorrent values is objectively a BAD film. When assessing whether a work of art is good or bad, I firmly believe that nothing should be placed ahead of whether it is promoting good or bad values or philosophies ect. Well-presented bad arguments are still bad arguments. To call Birth of a Nation historically significant or aesthetically beautiful is one thing, but there's no way in hell it should ever be labelled a "great" film.

[Passdagas the Brown]

PtB et al, I think you misunderstand. I spoke of bloodlines, not races. While charges of racism against Tolkien are not entirely unfounded, I do think they are exaggerated. But Aragorn is awesome because he is Isildur's heir, Bard is Girion's descendant, not some random soldier, even Bilbo's "Tookish side" is important.

We're talking about 1920's to 1960's England here. EVERYONE was racist!

And it shows in their work. The question is, if the author's work reflects the values you loathe, is it enough to make the entire work unpalatable. That is a personal decision. For me, Kipling is still a favorite author, despite the imperialistic, "White man's burden" overtones. On the other hand, I can no longer enjoy some of Jack London's stories, which are not only racist, but portray women in ways that make me wonder, frankly.

More later, taking Rodia out for Thai.

I also addressed the bloodline issue in a previous post. From my perspective, the "superior bloodlines" among the heroic characters is simply a function of the type of mythic story Tolkien is creating, and not reflective of Tolkien's perspective on bloodlines in real life. Such familial distinctions were common in Dark Age literature, and I believe Tolkien was reflecting that.

The hobbits are, I agree, a bit trickier as they may better reflect Tolkien's mind. But I still think there's a problem in your assessment here. Yes, the "Tookish" blood is considered to be partially explanatory for "adventurous behavior," but the key point is that there is not a value judgment implicit in that. A propensity for risk-taking and adventure, among a certain bloodline, is not judged to be superior to the Baggins quality of homeliness, nor to the agricultural bent of the Gamgees. It is simply presented as as a distinction that may partially explain differences in behavior and profession.

That is problematic to many modern readers, and I certainly don't agree that genes have much to do with personality. I'm much more a nurture over nature believer.

But in the end, we cannot be sure that Tolkien even agreed with such distinctions among hobbits! He may simply have been presenting a picture of what a Victorian or Edwardian English rural society may have been like. As a historian might do, or a good writer of historical fiction. After all, are we supposed to judge the personal beliefs of historical fiction writers Bernard Cornwell and Mary Renault, based on the fact that some of their main characters are racist, or because many of the supporting characters present racist views? No. These authors are trying to recreate a historical time period, and Tolkien, as he confessed, was trying to give a deep sense of historicity to his mythology. But since it's fantasy, people tend to think that he inserted racism and "familial-ism" into his stories because he himself believed in those qualities. I think that's misguided, and contrary to the record.

I see little to no evidence of either racism, or a belief in the superiority of certain bloodlines, in Tolkien's letters. And that's all I can judge him by.

The Silmarillion, Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are stories, and the characters within it are not Tolkien. Just because some of his beliefs are reflected in the story, it does not follow that all views presented in that story are his personal ones about the real world.

[Alatar]

I see little to no evidence of either racism, or a belief in the superiority of certain bloodlines, in Tolkien's letters. And that's all I can judge him by.

You don't consider this in any way racist?

"The Orcs are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types"

[Passdagas the Brown]

I see little to no evidence of either racism, or a belief in the superiority of certain bloodlines, in Tolkien's letters. And that's all I can judge him by.

You don't consider this in any way racist?

"The Orcs are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types"

No. In this instance, Tolkien says "degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."

There are three important bits of this sentence to consider. He says the orcs are "degraded and repulsive versions of" that type, that such a type may be least lovely "to Europeans," and does not make any assessment beyond the aesthetic.

First of all, he does not denigrate the Mongol-type. He simply says that orcs looked like a degraded version of such a type. At one point, Tolkien also called orcs degraded or corrupted elves, but that does not imply a racist attitude toward elves!

Second, though Tolkien is a European, he does not necessarily group himself in with those Europeans who would think of a certain Mongol-type as unlovely. Otherwise, why the qualifier "to Europeans"? Why, if he was a racist, would he simply not assert that such a type is unlovely to him?

Lastly, Tolkien seems to solely be making an aesthetic assessment in that sentence. He is not saying that Europeans would find such a "Mongol-type" inferior in humanity or intellect, as a racist might - but that Europeans might not find such a Mongol-type aesthetically lovely.

Now, is there a possible insensitivity to Mongols in his comment? One could certainly argue the case for that.

But it is definitely racist? No, I don't think so.

Tolkien may very well have had a number of racial prejudices. But in my view, his statements do not provide enough evidence to suggest that he was, in fact, a racist.

Speculation about his alleged racism is just that. Speculation.

[Alatar]

That strikes me as pure apologism. The twists and turns you have to put the sentence through to make it appear anything other than racist should be a warning sign. In this as in all things, Occam's razor should apply.

Note, I don't say that I believe Tolkien was any more racist than others of his time. But he was almost certainly as casually racist as anyone else.

[Passdagas the Brown]

If "twists and turns" are defined as looking at Tolkien's statements from a logical perspective, and ascertaining beyond a reasonable doubt that Tolkien was a racist, then yes, I'm an apologist. But I don't think that's your definition.

Specifically, what about my assessment of Tolkien's comment on orcs and Mongol-types strikes you as incorrect? How do you come to the conclusion that Tolkien was "almost certainly" a casual racist, based on statements like that?

I ask this as someone who is a liberal, and professionally devoted to eliminating racism and ethnic intolerance.

[Beutlin]

I have to agree with Alatar here. If I were to write a novel nowadays and I said specifically that I based my invented race of hideous, evil creatures on a degraded version of East Asians, most people would call me a racist.

I would argue that many people who specifically fight against perceived racist views in pop-culture would call the “Lord of the Rings” an incredibly racist, sexist and classist book if it were released today. And there are plenty of critics who have done so. David Brin called it an endorsement of a traditional elitist social culture, Michael Moorcock labelled Tolkien deeply bourgeois and misanthropic and left-wing fantasy writer China Miéville called LOTR reactionary.

For the German Tolkien society the British literature professor Stephen Shapiro wrote the following article on this subject:

http://www.tolkiengesellschaft.de/v4/al ... 0103.shtml

Among other things Shapiro writes (in English):

“Tolkien himself took principled stands against nazi rhetoric and the apartheid of his native South Africa. But if he was no racist, he was, nonetheless, a Nordicist. In a much quoted 1941 complaint against the damage caused by Hitler's bungling, non-academic Germanicism, Tolkien admitted his devotion to "that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light."

Tolkien felt the Northern races had a specific culture, and that this culture was something located in one's blood and birthplace. This is to say that Tolkien is "racialist" in believing that geographized race is the primary category through which we express culture and encounter others.Lord of the Rings expresses this racialism as the trilogy begins by showing his characters interacting with one another based on self-evident assumptions about the social characteristics of their various races. The members of the Fellowship are often praised less for the heroism of their actions, than when they act differently from what is expected of their race. Imaging culture as something that our bodies contain, rather than a dynamic produced out of social interactions becomes fraught as Lord of the Rings clearly presents some races as superior to others, with the ideal being the pale-skinned elves.
The more elvish blood the characters have the longer they live and taller they appear. At the trilogy's end, when Frodo returns from his time amongst the elves, Tolkien writes that most of the next generation of normally brown-haired Hobbits were born with a "rich golden hair," as if elvish cultural nordicism is not something learned but rather genetically imprinted through association with the race. The Return of the King, the trilogy's last segment, culminates by showing how Aragorn marrying the "higher" elvish Arwen overcomes a human civil war, partially set off by the results of miscegenation.The most degraded figures in the novels are the orcs, who Tolkien often describes as "dark" or "swarthy." Products of torture, the orcs lurk in the shadows, swing curved scimitars, rather than straight elvish swords or daggers, talk what Tolkien calls "Black Speech" and are often called "slave." In case the novels' connotation was not clear, Tolkien made it plain to a film producer that the orcs should look like "degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."


Because Tolkien has his "bad-thinking" characters evidenced by physical disability, and his "good" ones by muscularity or dexterity, the novels train their readers to assume that looking different than the white elves can only suggest, at best, a decline from excellence or, more seriously, moral and cultural inferiority. At the basic level of narrative and description, it is hard not to read Lord of the Rings as an epic transmitting long-standing Anglo-European anxieties about being overwhelmed by non-European populations as well as attendant fears about the loss of a racialized cultural purity.
I'm also interested in making an argument about the politics of Tolkien's initial entry into the liteary field. Rather than go into long detail, let me just say that the literary field in Britain has clearly defined right-left political camps, and Tolkien is clearly associated with the right wing and acts in opposition to one known by GB Shaw, HG Wells, and George Orwell.
The literary sphere that Tolkien belongs to (largely under the wing of GK Chesterton and Hiliare Belloc) veers during the 1930s toward support of (Italian) fascism and (Spanish) Falangism. The much quoted letter of Tolkien's disgust at being asked for a statement of Aryan identity and non-Jewish descent has often been taken to mean Tolkien wasn't on the right. The problem is that in England in the 30s fascist sympathies did not require one to be anti-semitic.

There are other critics who label the “Lord of the Rings” a racist book:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/d ... oftherings
http://arsmarginal.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... remacists/
http://requireshate.wordpress.com/2012/ ... l-with-it/
http://www.salon.com/2002/12/17/tolkien_brin/

[Beutlin]

Mind you, I am not saying that left-leaning people cannot be fans of Tolkien's works. My older cousin has many times voted for the communists and she still adores Tolkien's works. Most LOTR fans I know are rather left-wing or liberal. And many intellectuals of the left such as Rushdie or Zizek have praised "The Lord of the Rings".

But I think those people who I call "pop-culture crusaders", a.k.a. culture-deconstructionist bloggers, those who think that the Western canon is just a huge turd produced by patriarchal, racist, old, dead white men, and racism can easily be eradicated if there are only more minority characters in the next superhero film, will always think of Tolkien as one of the bad guys. And it’s only logical for them to do so.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There are other critics who label the “Lord of the Rings” a racist book:

There are a lot of people who say a lot things, but that doesn't make them true.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Beutlin,

Good points.

I would not dispute that Tolkien was an open and proud "Nordicist." He most certainly was. But that did not necessarily imply that he felt the contributions of other peoples to civilization was in some way inferior. Shapiro's analysis is incredibly thin and unfounded, and his charge of "racialism," which is different than racism, doesn't hold water either.

Tolkien's Nordicism is a very different thing than racism, or even racialism. He was simply proud of, and deeply interested in, the roots of an ethno-cultural-lingusitic background that was Germanic in nature. I know proud African-Americans, proud Celts, and proud Slavs, who are not racist at all. They're just deeply interested in their roots! There are also racist African-Americans, Celts and Slavs, who do believe in their inherent superiority to others, but from my readings, Tolkien explicitly did not agree with those types.

Lastly, there are many current authors of historical fiction who portray main characters as somewhat racist, and who include racist descriptions of peoples from those characters' perspectives, yet are free of the charge of racism. Bernard Cornwell's characters can be quite racist, but those characters make sense in the context of the historical period they exist in. Even GRR Martin's stories have an East-West dichotomy, where the East is generally a place of despotism and slavery, while the West (while brutal) has outlawed slavery, and features a less overt form of oppression. This is most certainly "Orientalist" in its flavor. But again, most of the story is told through Western eyes, so it's generally acceptable. Do some people make the racist charge? Yes. But it's not a widely-held or water-tight charge.

I would hope that when I write my own mythological fantasy - told through the eyes of Easterners who viewed Westerners as barbarous demons, that people would not accuse me of an anti-Western bias - or worse - of racism towards Europeans! I will simply be following the logical conclusion of my characters.

Tolkien's comment on "Mongol-types," today, would justifiably raise hackles (and I would not defend it, especially since I've spent quite a bit of time among Mongolians, who are wonderful people). But I do not find it to be "racist," which is Alatar's charge, for the three reasons I gave above. It may be somewhat insensitive to Mongols, but it's not racist.

[Beutlin]

There are other critics who label the “Lord of the Rings” a racist book:

There are a lot of people who say a lot things, but that doesn't make them true.

Nor did I say their views are true. I just wanted to point out that there always will be “cultural-critics” from the Grauniad or Salon who will call Tolkien a baddie. “The Fellowship is all white? How can that be? Were there no black people in the Shire? Must be racist. There are no female warriors at Helm’s Deep? The patriarchy! Sam calls Frodo his master? Where is Django when you need him!?”
And there will always be less-successful fantasy writers who feel the need to bash Tolkien for what they believe is racism, sexism, etc. Because they are really angry that not as many people appreciate their highly-crafted, original and political works of art. "How can that dead, old English guy get more attention than I do? Must be our patriarchal, racist society where people just love their patriarchal, racist literature!"

On the other hand, I fear there will always be fascist losers who think Middle-Earth is some allegory for White Power. That Sam Gamgee really is a Herrenmensch, after all.

Anyways, I've got a flight to catch. I shall be gone for a while, so I hope you enjoy the remaining weeks until "The Desolation of Smaug". I sure will!

[JewelSong]

There are a number of authors and composers whose works have been modified or even set aside due to racist overtones in the original work. Usually, this was not the kind of overt racism we see today, but more a product of the time.

For instance, in Hugh Lofting's delightful "Dr. Dolittle" one of the plot points is an African Prince who desperately wants to be turned white. Dr. Dolittle manages to save himself and his menagerie from the angry African King by creating a concoction that will turn this hapless Prince with a white man.

As far as I know, that part of the book has been deleted or greatly altered. Too bad, because it was a wonderfully written segment. And I do not think Lofting was a "racist." He was merely reflecting the time in which he happened to live.

In the original version of Roald Dahl's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," the Oompa Loompas were brown, like chocolate. They were described as "looking as though they were MADE of chocolate." This made a lot of sense for the story-line, but in subsequent versions, they are described as pink.

And Stephen Foster's songs had many original lyrics that could never be sung today, with copious use of the word "n*gger" and other terms that just are not said today.

[Alatar]

If "twists and turns" are defined as looking at Tolkien's statements from a logical perspective, and ascertaining beyond a reasonable doubt that Tolkien was a racist, then yes, I'm an apologist. But I don't think that's your definition.

Specifically, what about my assessment of Tolkien's comment on orcs and Mongol-types strikes you as incorrect? How do you come to the conclusion that Tolkien was "almost certainly" a casual racist, based on statements like that?

I ask this as someone who is a liberal, and professionally devoted to eliminating racism and ethnic intolerance.

I believe you are parsing the sentence in such a way as to make it appear less racist than it is. Lets break it down.

"The Orcs are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types"

removing asides...

"The Orcs are squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the least lovely Mongol-types"

Lets distill further.
The orcs are short, dark and ugly. Uglier versions of the most ugly mongols.

What is clear here is that Tolkien considers Mongols to be ugly and that the orcs look like the ugliest of them.

Now, to bring back in " (to Europeans)". This is a clarification. Tolkien is European and is saying that Mongols look ugly to Europeans. The logical reading of this parenthesised aside is to suggest that while Tolkien and other Europeans find them "unlovely", obviously other Mongols do not, or perhaps other races. Your assertion that Tolkien uses "to Europeans" as an exclusion of his own opinion makes no sense. Unless you are trying to twist the sentence to mean what you want it to mean, rather than what it actually says.

Taking Wikipedia's description of Racism:

Racism is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that consider the human species to be divided into races with shared traits, abilities, or qualities, such as personality, intellect, morality, or other cultural behavioral characteristics, and especially the belief that races can be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to others, or that members of different races should be treated differently.

I believe Tolkien certainly meets many of those criteria. Again, not because he was a bad person, but because he was a product of his time. I think it is ridiculous to raise him to a pedestal and ignore the facts just because they make one uncomfortable. Tolkien had his own failings, prejudices and foibles like anyone else. That does not diminish the man or the work.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Racism is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that consider the human species to be divided into races with shared traits, abilities, or qualities, such as personality, intellect, morality, or other cultural behavioral characteristics, and especially the belief that races can be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to others, or that members of different races should be treated differently.

Nowhere in that definition is racism defined as a recognition that different ethnic groups look differently, or that people find certain ethnic physical characteristics more aesthetically pleasing than others. If you parse that definition, and place it next to Tolkien's quote about Mongol-types, you'll quickly find that it meets none of the criteria of that definition. You can't just "believe" that Tolkien meets the criteria of that definition, you need to prove that he actually does in order to make such a serious charge. And even a cursory analysis shows that he doesn't. Let's take a look.

First, there is zero evidence that Tolkien felt the human species was "divided into races with shared traits, abilities, or qualities, such as personality, intellect, morality, or other cultural behavioral characteristics." Nowhere in the "Mongol-type" quote does he assert that Mongols have a certain intellect or morality that is inherent to the Mongol "race."

Second, there is zero evidence to suggest that Tolkien adhered to: "the belief that races can be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to others." Nowhere in the quote you provided does he make the case that the physical aspects of the "least lovely Mongol-type (to Europeans)" translates into a belief that the "least lovely Mongol-types" are inherently inferior to Europeans.

Third, the Mongol-type quote you provided does not in any way suggest that Tolkien believed "members of different races should be treated differently."

The only thing that quote demonstrated is that Tolkien recognized that Mongol-types look a certain way (which is simply an objective fact) and that Europeans might find certain types of Mongol-types to not be lovely (a judgment he made about Europeans in general, which is certainly debatable). Again, these are comments on physical characteristics that have to do with aesthetic preferences, not judgments about the inferiority or superiority of certain races over others in terms of "personality, intellect or morality," - a quote from the definition of racism you provided.

After all, when we hear someone say that they find red-haired Irish women to be especially attractive, do we accuse them of racism? Or if someone says that they don't like the dental makeup of certain types of Brits, do we accuse them of racism? Not really. It may be insensitivity, or a casual stereotyping, but it most certainly does not meet the definition of racism. Not even the definition you provided to support your argument!

In short, I am not apologizing one bit. I am setting Tolkien's words against the definition of racism, and finding no evidence to suggest that he was one.

Could he have been racist? That's a possibility, especially given the times he grew up in. But there's no good evidence of that. And in fact, he made some very explicit statements to the contrary.