*Deleted by user*
An argumentative response, not a productive one.No, that's not how we end up with misunderstandings. If I say Tolkien's racial patterns are deeply problematic, that's not "sit{ting} around calling each other racist." It is a statement directed at the writings of someone, and even if you ignore the ellipsis and claim I'm calling Tolkien racist, that's still not "each other".
Tolkien was born in what is now South Africa, although he would have had little memory of his life there as he moved to England permanently at age three.Source? I'm not necessarily going to buy that comment, seeing as most Englishman would have no little to no contact with the Empire at large. To the average Englishman, I except the Empire was little more than an abstract concept and, possible, a source of exoticism. Most of the English population, I would assume had little knowledge of the horrors which occurred throughout the larger empire except under the obscuring lens of British propaganda.
Woses: Skin color not specified, but clearly a different race than the humans of Gondor and Rohan. Material culture seems to resemble Amazonian tribes. Longtime victims of persecution because of their perceived ugliness. Implied to be the descendants of the people who inhabited the whole area before the Rohirrim, um, "moved in". Sympathetic and on the side of the heroes.I think more troubling than orcs is that all the non-white humans (say, Haradrim and Easterlings) are all Sauron's minions.
If Tolkien had been more culturally inclusive, for which of his other progressive failings would we (by which I mean "you") be criticizing him?
Yes, the school of deconstructionism analyzes texts in that way, but is but only of many styles of critical analysis.
I have said nothing of the LotR film. I haven't seen it, and therefore have no opinion on the matter.
To the average Englishman, I except the Empire was little more than an abstract concept and, possible, a source of exoticism. Most of the English population, I would assume had little knowledge of the horrors which occurred throughout the larger empire except under the obscuring lens of British propaganda.
It is just as likely that we have become a society obsessed with fighting and/or cementing racial divides and are looking at past works with an eye to discovering racial bias rather than allowing the greater picture of the western literary tradition speak for itself.
Unless you want D&D to remove the dualism of allegoric good and evil (which is one option)
Er...huh?That's a failure for understanding reader-response criticism of the books and of D&D's use of the races.
One of which is there due to Tolkein and has been around since 1e if not earlier; while the other two...meh, whatever.D&D 5 offers drow, tiefling and half-orc as core races.
How can WotFE's lack of opinion on something s/he hasn't seen be construed as a failure of any kind?
One of which is there due to Tolkein and has been around since 1e if not earlier; while the other two...meh, whatever.
I didn't mention deconstructionism; I mentioned "reader-response criticism", which largely wouldn't give a flip about Dante and Germanic mythology and other junk that most readers weren't familiar with.
That's a failure for understanding reader-response criticism of the books and of D&D's use of the races.
Note we're talking about an Oxford don here, not the average Englishman. And the British propaganda that told them it was okay to rule over Africa and India is sort of the problem here.
Looking at the works of an Oxford don at the height of empire for how the world he lived in affected what he wrote seems quite in line with most serious literary criticism. It seems naïve, or at least narrow to act like the works of an author can be studied by just looking at ancient literary tradition.
D&D 5 offers drow, tiefling and half-orc as core races. There's a reason why I talked about Lord of the Rings races and old-school D&D.
Uruk-Hai?But half-orc is not a Tolkien race, ....
I thought Bill Ferny's southerner friend was supposed to be, if not half-orc, at least part-orc. He's described as "looks more than half like a goblin".But half-orc is not a Tolkien race, and it complicates this simple duality that's being argued for.
That sort of thing has been around since 2e and Drizz't, if not earlier. As an occasional exception for story purposes it's fine...makes for good drama sometimes...but as a baked-in assumption of the overall game? No thanks.The existence of the other two races tells us that stereotypically evil races can be good in D&D 5.
Reader-response opens the box of misinterpretation of the author's intention.
Seeing as the races of LotR hold very little to the old school D&D races of the same name, I don't see the relevance of Tolkien in the conversation at all. LotR disinterested Gygax; it shouldn't come as a surprise that they races aren't identical and are, in many ways, quite far removed from Tolkien's depictions (see BX Elves for details).