Minority criticisms of The Lord of the Rings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines.

If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. (See also Wikipedia:Notability)
This article has been tagged since February 2007.
There are very few or no other articles that link to this one.
Please help introduce links in articles on related topics. After links have been created, remove this message.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with The Lord of the Rings. (Discuss)

J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings has been the subject of many interpretations and criticisms.[1] While some of these have gained a wide following, there have been many which are only held by a minority.

Contents

[edit] Racism

One minor criticism holds that Tolkien's novels display racism in their portrayal of white-skinned Men, Elves, Dwarves, and hobbits as protagonists and dark-skinned Orcs as antagonists. These dark-skinned Orcs are shown as a threat to the superior ethnic groups. Critics have held that this amounts to a declaration that foreigners destroy culture, especially those of another ethnicity.[2] Among other counter-criticisms, this charge is belied by the fact that Tolkien does write about dark-skinned men coming to help in the siege of Gondor.[3]

[edit] Derivation from Wagner

Another criticism holds that Tolkien's works are derived from Richard Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen. These critics have noted that both involve the forging of a magic ring and the ability of the ring to exhibit some degree of control over its wearer. These critics hold that Tolkien's work borrows so liberally from Wagner that Wagner's work exists in the shadow of Tolkien's.[4]

In defense, Tolkien once wrote in response to a Swedish translator's claim that the One Ring was "in a certain way" Wagner's Ring. "Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceases."[5]

[edit] Phallic symbolism

Other critics have claimed that the books incorporate excessive phallic symbolism, which they believe creates a misogynistic tone. These critics point to the emphasis on swords, towers, staffs, and other objects. Counter-criticisms include that anything longer than it is wide can be seen as a phallic symbol, as well as swords being a common weapon in fantasy.[6] Also, the prevalence of caves, tunnels and other subterranean places in the work might as well be interpreted as vaginal symbolism, which would render the charge of one-sided sexism groundless.

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: Truth, Myth or Both?" Berit Kjos. Posted December 2001. Retrieved January 27, 2007.
  2. ^ "Tolkien, Racism, & Paranoia". Page 2. Julia Houston. Retrieved January 27, 2007.
  3. ^ J. R. R. Tolkien (1987). The Return of the King. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, "The Siege of Gondor". ISBN 0-395-08256-0. 
  4. ^ The Ring and the Rings. Alex Ross. Posted December 15, 2003. Retrieved January 27, 2007.
  5. ^ Carpenter, Humphrey and Tolkien, Christopher (eds.) (1981). The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, #229. ISBN 0-395-31555-7. 
  6. ^ "Review of Tolkien: A Celebration". David Mills. Posted 2002. Retrieved January 27, 2007.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/n/Minority_criticisms_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings_5b9d.html"