Should we separate the author from the work?

[River]

I'm finding it rather telling that there is one quote that supports the thesis that Tolkien was racist and it's sketchy evidence at best. It's a remark that clearly goes over like a lead brick under today's values but you could go either way with whether or not Tolkien was claiming that Europeans are superior to Mongols. Remember, though Tolkien was a man of his time, he was also a linguist and he was trained to look at ethnic groups and cultures through a much different lens than, say, a Nazi sympathizer (of which there were many all throughout the West in the years leading up to WWII). For one thing, he knew that Aryans are not blondes with blue eyes.

[anthriel]

I am setting Tolkien's words against the definition of racism, and finding no evidence to suggest that he was one.

I think that the definition of racism is the issue, here. It is a fairly pliant standard, which changes not only generation by generation, but almost day by day.

And any deviation from the currently accepted standard is instantly labeled a moral failing, which almost strikes me as a... temporal grandeur, of sorts. We have no license to judge all other periods of history against our current standards, loftily dismissing entire groups of people as gravely flawed.

I agree with Nin on this point; the world that people lived in at the time needs to be taken into account.


I shudder to think what future people will think of us.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I'm finding it rather telling that there is one quote that supports the thesis that Tolkien was racist and it's sketchy evidence at best. It's a remark that clearly goes over like a lead brick under today's values but you could go either way with whether or not Tolkien was claiming that Europeans are superior to Mongols. Remember, though Tolkien was a man of his time, he was also a linguist and he was trained to look at ethnic groups and cultures through a much different lens than, say, a Nazi sympathizer (of which there were many all throughout the West in the years leading up to WWII). For one thing, he knew that Aryans are not blondes with blue eyes.

I'm finding it telling that this one quote used, as evidence, does not even come close to meeting even the broadest definitions of racism! There is incredibly little - arguably no - evidence to back up the assertion that Tolkien was a racist. There is far more explicit evidence, from his letters, that he was avowedly not a racist.

The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those accusing Tolkien of racism, and they have very, very little to support them.

Believe me, if the evidence was strong, I would be one of the first to accept it as a very real probability. I of course do not rule out his possible racism entirely, as I did not know the man, but as of today there is absolutely nothing indicating that he was.

He was a linguist specializing in Germanic mythology, who used that scholarship as a springboard for a fantastical tale of his own. It's almost impossible to engage in such a project, and not be accused of racism by someone! Particularly given the horrors perpetrated by pan-Germanic nationalism in the 20th century. In that context, it's an understandable impulse to be wary of any racial elements in Tolkien's Nordicist ethno-linquistic work, but the charge of racism does not even hold up to cursory scrutiny.

[Frelga]

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.

IAWY. The idea that we should admire pretty pictures without regard for both content and intent is unacceptable to me.

[Beutlin]

I would like to make one last remark on this subject. I have been studying “The Journey of William of Rubruck” for a university-assignment lately. The 13th century Franciscan missionary and explorer William of Rubrouck led a mission to the Mongols in years 1253 to 1255 and is widely credited as the first objective European medieval geographer of Eastern Asia. When he encounters the local Mongol commander Scatatai, William writes the following:

“Scatatai was sitting on his couch holding a guitar in his hand, and his wife was beside him; really I believe she had cut of her nose between the eyes so that she might be more flat-nosed, for she had no nose there at all and she had smeared the spot with black ointment, and also her eyebrows, which to us looked hideous.”

[Passdagas the Brown]

Good find. Fear of Mongols, and a certain amount of revulsion at their appearance, was a common thing among medieval European observes after the reign of Chinghis Khan, his children and lieutenants. It is not out of the question that Tolkien may have even been channeling this "European" opinion in his "Mongol-type" comment. My friend Jack Weatherford, a scholar of the medieval Mongol empire and its offshoots (the Khanates and such), is also a good source on this subject.

[narya]

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'm not going to argue about whether or not Tolkien was a racist in real life. As a product of our times, we are all at least somewhat racist. It's unlikely that Tolkien would have married a black South African, or a Mongol, because they simply wouldn't have had the opportunity to mingle their disparate social circles and get to know one another as individuals rather than stereotypes.

But if you apply this quote to "people" rather than "humans" of the LOTR, there's plenty of racism in his books. I think he chose to place all his stereotypes in different peoples rather than different human races in order to prove a point - 100% evil people act in a certain way. People with various amounts of good and evil act in other ways. He was pitiless in describing the orcs' foul, perverted, brutal, malicious, ugly, treacherous, selfish, unintelligent nature. They were all inherently evil, and incapable of creating beauty. Elves were the not the complete opposite, but close to it. They were possessors of physical beauty, goodness, intellect, artistry, and so on, except of course when they were killing each other. Dwarves were "a tough, thrawn race for the most part, secretive, laborious, retentive of the memories of injuries (and benefit), lovers of stone, ... But they are not evil by nature" (Appendix F).

Thus he was saying that basically good but flawed people can make things of beauty despite their flaws and personal opinions. And these flawed but basically good-hearted people can do great things on occasion, especially with a little divine providence. In fact it is their less than perfect nature that makes them more loving and giving (elves being more on the aloof end of the scale). Completely evil orcs and Maia cannot think outside the evil box, and cannot imagine beauty, nobility, etc. It is also the individuality of their flaws that makes them more useful to the cause. Thus, a closed minded, racist Elrond would have chosen a Fellowship of strictly superior elves. Instead, he recognized the strength and compassion for flaws within each individual, and the balance brought by the mix of races.

[Túrin Turambar]

I'm finding it rather telling that there is one quote that supports the thesis that Tolkien was racist and it's sketchy evidence at best. It's a remark that clearly goes over like a lead brick under today's values but you could go either way with whether or not Tolkien was claiming that Europeans are superior to Mongols. Remember, though Tolkien was a man of his time, he was also a linguist and he was trained to look at ethnic groups and cultures through a much different lens than, say, a Nazi sympathizer (of which there were many all throughout the West in the years leading up to WWII). For one thing, he knew that Aryans are not blondes with blue eyes.

I'd be willing to accept that Tolkien was racist, but I have to say that I come around to this view as well. It is probably fair to say that his views on race would be considered a bit unenlightened today (eg. The Orc comment, his fixation on noble bloodlines, etc) but in real terms he was both a critic of Apartheid and the Nuremburg Laws. Admittedly this was less uncommon at the time than we think now - a lot of educated middle-class people in Western Europe and North America looked askance at the treatment of non-white people in South Africa, the U.S. South and other post-colonial societies in the early 20th century, and the Nazi persecution of Jews drew loud condemnation almost from the start. But Tolkien came down against these things fairly firmly. I have to wonder, in addition to his linguistic training, whether being a Catholic in an often anti-Catholic society gave him a different perspective on these issues to mainstream Anglo-Protestants.

ETA: I should add, I suppose, that people could still (and often did) hold casually-racist attitudes about the inferiority of coloured peoples but still abhor the idea of mistreating them or denying them civil or political rights. This is a common theme, for example, in debates in the U.S. surrounding the abolition of slavery and Reconstruction. I have read books on the British Empire from the 1910s and 1920s that have no issue with referring to the native peoples of the Americas, Africa and Australia as 'ignorant savages' but at the same time praising measures to educate them and elevate them to full participation in society. For example, the election of Maori MPs in New Zealand.

[axordil]

As Beutlin and PtB note, there's a subtext that is difficult to tease out of the casual prejudice. The East and the South had been a source of European cultural anxiety since the days of Attila and Tariq, and continued to be through the Mongols, the Ottomans, et al. The fear of the invading Other had a basis in reality, once upon a time; by the Victorian period the tables had been decidedly turned, but cultural inertia kept the images of the swarthy hordes, ready to plunder in heartbeat, alive.

[WampusCat]

Just in case it's of interest, here is another story about Orson Scott Card.

[Alatar]

Thanks for pulling this back on topic Wampus. My OP was asking about whether the author's views should be separated from their work.

Instead of arguing about whether Tolkien was or wasn't Racist, the real question is "Should it matter whether he was or wasnt?". I'm dropping the other subject since by now we're simply talking past each other and frankly I don't care whether Tolkien was racist or not, because that was simply the default position for pretty much anyone of that time.

So again: "Should it matter what the author's views are?" Whether one believes it possible for a bigot/racist/flyingspaghettimonster to create great art; if they did, does it affect the value of the art?

[Nin]

So again: "Should it matter what the author's views are?" Whether one believes it possible for a bigot/racist/flyingspaghettimonster to create great art; if they did, does it affect the value of the art?

I think this anwer is easy - and I think that after having listened to 4 and a half hours of Wagner's Valkyria yesterday...

Yes. This man was as bigot and racist as they get and his music is undoubtly wonderful art. Even if it does not "do" it for you - his muscial invention of the leitmotiv attached to a person, is the key to modern movie music more than any other composer.

I want to add a few words about the difference in case of written words, but I have to leave the computer.

[narya]

So again: "Should it matter what the author's views are?" Whether one believes it possible for a bigot/racist/flyingspaghettimonster to create great art; if they did, does it affect the value of the art?

I believe that we are all somewhere on the grey scale of racism, bigotry, homophobia, promiscuity, liberality, conservatism, dogmatism, and name-your-evil of our religious, political, and social upbringing, yet we are capable of producing what some people consider to be great art despite it. Now what is "great art"? That's another thread.

[kzer_za]

I agree with Nin on this point; the world that people lived in at the time needs to be taken into account.

I shudder to think what future people will think of us.

I would add that there are aspects of contemporary society that would probably horrify people in the past, even while we have advanced beyond them in other ways. Imagine explaining the atomic bomb to someone in the Middle Ages!

[axordil]

Angels have no need of art and thus no capacity to create it. Great art is great because of our flaws, not in spite of them.

[yovargas]

Um, what? Angels have no need to express beauty, the sublime, joy, grief, love, and loss? Even the most perfectly perfect person still has the vast range of human emotion and experience and art remains an avenue to express and connect to them. And so does, more topic-relevantly, the more morally depraved among us.

And on a more topic-relevantly note, I have no problem accepting something like a well-delivered message of compassion from a person who failed to live up to their own message.

[axordil]

Um, what? Angels have no need to express beauty, the sublime, joy, grief, love, and loss? Even the most perfectly perfect person still has the vast range of human emotion and experience and art remains an avenue to express and connect to them. And so does, more topic-relevantly, the more morally depraved among us.

The most perfectly perfect person has very little to say to the rest of us, though, in terms we could understand. Parables only go so far. And the joy of angels is not the joy of humanity.

You have to have a well of sorrow to draw from to depict sorrow in any useful, realistic fashion. You have to have flaws to understand flaws, and to show their working out.

That doesn't mean one has to be a jerk to be an artist--but one can't be too virtuous, either.

[yovargas]

You have to have flaws to understand flaws, and to show their working out.

Which is to imply that art is all about humanities flaws, a strange comment considering how objectively false it is. Some art is simply, purely, and sublimely beautiful. And even if you believe you need some "dark side", a "perfect" person - and we're talking morally perfect here - would still experience all the grief and loss, not to mention general human empathy, the rest of us do. Yeah...I don't see any validity in that perspective....

[Nin]

A few more thoughts:

In some works of art, ideas are more openly expressed than in others. For instance, architecture can be highly aestethic, despite of the ideology behind it. Music can be listened without paying attention or without understanding the words - if there are words. "The Pines of Rome" by Ottorino Respighi are a breathtaking piece of music - yet, it has been seen as a celebration of italian fascism.

But literature often is expression of ideas and thus sometimes faces more difficulties than visual or auditive arts.

I am quite sure that Tolkien as a man of his time was more racist than would be politically correct today and also more homophobic and probably extremely tradionnalist towards women - at the very least towards mothers. But then, everybody was it. If you read medieval textes today, you shiver how the arabs are described - as vile infidels.

So, I can separate a work of art from his author without major problem. But I can't separate it from the time of its creation. And, I can't separate it from its message - especially in case of literature and poetry. I have no problem with someone being racist/bigot/drug addict... if his work does not contain a message which I refuse.

And if his work containes a message I refuse (like Rieffenstahl of Birth of a Nation) I can still regard this work of art as a historical document from which it is possible to learn about the power of art - and I think it should still be regarded that way.

Lastly, I am sure that everybody here has enjoyed Disney movies, even the older ones, still by Walt himself. Terrible mysogine, this one, also anti-semit (the wolf in the three little pigs movie....) - yet creative, funny and even innovative in many ways.

How would you think about it when someone says: I don't read books of this author because he is gay - like a terrible intolerant person? But it's just the same argument, the other way round.

[axordil]

You have to have flaws to understand flaws, and to show their working out.

Which is to imply that art is all about humanities flaws, a strange comment considering how objectively false it is. Some art is simply, purely, and sublimely beautiful. And even if you believe you need some "dark side", a "perfect" person - and we're talking morally perfect here - would still experience all the grief and loss, not to mention general human empathy, the rest of us do. Yeah...I don't see any validity in that perspective....

I absolutely disagree. A morally perfect person would, in fact, be incapable of empathy. Empathy is understanding what others feel on a visceral--NOT intellectual--level. How would a morally perfect person understand what it is to feel guilty? Or remorseful? Or vengeful?

If something is simply, purely, and sublimely beautiful, it's not art, it's a postcard.