On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Brad DeLong wrote:
> >one thing not mentioned in this discussion of THE LORD OF THE RINGS
> >is that the bad guys in Tolkein all seem to be dark or "swarthy,"
> >while the good guys are light or "fair."
>
> Dwarves are good guys. So are the hairy men of the
> woods--Ghan-Buri-Ghan and campany. And the ents... the ents are
> definitely non-Aryan mongrels...
>
> But in broad sweep you are right: it's somewhat creepy...
>
Even more telling are the regions the evil enemies reside in: The East and the South. Our heroes the Hobbits, in contrast, live in the innocent, bucolic North of Middle Earth.
- - - - -
There is a passage, I think in the _Two Towers_, which has a "creepy" (I like Brad's characterization) imagery of "red tongues" in black faces. It was that passage, some 40+ years ago, that brought my attention to the other features that have been mentioned. That whole anglo catholic/catholic group (Lewis, Tolkien, Sayers, Williams) may or may not have been actually racist, but they sure as hell were pretty casual about race. "Hebrew," as an adjective I think, is a big joke in a couple of Sayers's Lord Whimsey novels.
Tolkien declared frequently that the trilogy was strictly non-allegorical: and then at the very end, he has "Sharkey" rationalize his rule over the Shire as "sharing." One allegorical touch, especially such a vulgar one, tends to allegorize the whole thing, including the echoes of racist cliches.
I retain a fondness, despite all, for the books -- but the two movies seemed to me more like slide shows intended to trigger reader-nostalgia. I can see why Dennis P couldn't follow the second movie. I couldn't either, and at one time I knew the text pretty well -- even taught the _Two Towers_ in an intro to lit class back in '64 or '65.
Carrol