![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jul. 10th, 2024 10:14 amI was getting dressed this morning, set down my socks on the bed while I put on my shirt, and a Certain Someone leaped up and ran off with one of them. Thief! Baggins! Socks in particular are a favorite prey of hers, and I"ve bought extra so I can let her have a few at a time. But in fairness I had cats growing up so I can't claim I didn't know what I was signing up for.
I've been reading the story of Aldarion and Erendis for the first time and basically liveblogging it over at Tumblr. I may collect up the links if anyone's interested. But the main thing (other than I've been letting my inner geek out to play and heartily enjoying it) is, Tolkien is playing with some rather racist and sexist ideas here in much more explicit terms than I think I've ever seen in his writings. The trick is it's story-internal racism and sexism, and it's clear the belief --if it's even genuinely held-- is being used to serve the story. Not something Tolkien necessarily believes or even is presenting as true for the story's world.
An example: Aldarion is a direct descendant of Elros, and Erendis, while she has the look of that line, it's said she isn't really and won't have the same longer lifespan. Aldarion is driven to go on long sea-voyages (he's away for years at a time even after they're married), and it's a main reason their marriage devolves into a technicality more than a true marriage. So Aldarion sets up a law where the king's heir can only marry someone of Elros's line. On the surface it feels very racist, even eugenics-y. The official justification given is because of the differing lifespans couples would be fundamentally mismatched. Which doesn't make much sense even on its own terms since there are lots of Elros-descended people not in line for the throne, so if this is really such an issue surely the law should apply to all of them?
The real reason is Aldarion's blaming the lifespan thing for the breakdown of his marriage, rather than accepting blame for essentially abandoning her, repeatedly!, so he could go off adventuring. It's a little more complicated than that (Aldarion's being driven by sea-longing, which Tolkien describes as an almost physical need to get back to the ocean), but certainly he's not treating Erendis well and because of his pride and just his basic character, he's not accepting that he needs to apologize and right the relationship. Much easier to blame her for being below him and them being fundamentally incompatible because of that, and thank goodness he has the wisdom to spare other people his heartache, etc.
It's a really fascinating look at racism as a crutch. And even the parts of all this I suspect Tolkien may have believed himself -- the idea of Numenoreans as the mannish messiahs of Middle-earth in the fight against Sauron does have imperialistic undertones, and I can see a conservative-leaning British man of his age having at least some sympathy for that view -- even there, Tolkien seems all too aware how this kind of mindset harms even the Numenoreans. It's fascinating, really, and quite fun to think through how we navigate hateful-in-RL things in the context of literature.
I've been thinking about that a bit because in other fandom news, Neil Gaiman was accused of sexual assault recently. What little I know seems more like a messy sex life to be sure but where I don't have enough facts to have an informed opinion on if it was truly assault vs. miscommunication, different perspectives, etc. So while he doesn't come out smelling like a bed of roses, I'm also not reaching for my pitchfork yet. But I'm also very aware that I like his writing, like the parts of him I've come to now through social media, and probably would approach these accusations differently if I wasn't so emotionally invested in him being a good guy. So the question of how we react to hateful things and even morally complicated situations in the abstract, versus when there's emotional entanglement (and yes, storytelling is similar!) is definitely on my mind. I don't have any hard answers. But I suspect I'll be thinking about it for a while to come.
Back to work, I suppose. Thanks for the space to play with my thinky-thoughts, and have a good day.
I've been reading the story of Aldarion and Erendis for the first time and basically liveblogging it over at Tumblr. I may collect up the links if anyone's interested. But the main thing (other than I've been letting my inner geek out to play and heartily enjoying it) is, Tolkien is playing with some rather racist and sexist ideas here in much more explicit terms than I think I've ever seen in his writings. The trick is it's story-internal racism and sexism, and it's clear the belief --if it's even genuinely held-- is being used to serve the story. Not something Tolkien necessarily believes or even is presenting as true for the story's world.
An example: Aldarion is a direct descendant of Elros, and Erendis, while she has the look of that line, it's said she isn't really and won't have the same longer lifespan. Aldarion is driven to go on long sea-voyages (he's away for years at a time even after they're married), and it's a main reason their marriage devolves into a technicality more than a true marriage. So Aldarion sets up a law where the king's heir can only marry someone of Elros's line. On the surface it feels very racist, even eugenics-y. The official justification given is because of the differing lifespans couples would be fundamentally mismatched. Which doesn't make much sense even on its own terms since there are lots of Elros-descended people not in line for the throne, so if this is really such an issue surely the law should apply to all of them?
The real reason is Aldarion's blaming the lifespan thing for the breakdown of his marriage, rather than accepting blame for essentially abandoning her, repeatedly!, so he could go off adventuring. It's a little more complicated than that (Aldarion's being driven by sea-longing, which Tolkien describes as an almost physical need to get back to the ocean), but certainly he's not treating Erendis well and because of his pride and just his basic character, he's not accepting that he needs to apologize and right the relationship. Much easier to blame her for being below him and them being fundamentally incompatible because of that, and thank goodness he has the wisdom to spare other people his heartache, etc.
It's a really fascinating look at racism as a crutch. And even the parts of all this I suspect Tolkien may have believed himself -- the idea of Numenoreans as the mannish messiahs of Middle-earth in the fight against Sauron does have imperialistic undertones, and I can see a conservative-leaning British man of his age having at least some sympathy for that view -- even there, Tolkien seems all too aware how this kind of mindset harms even the Numenoreans. It's fascinating, really, and quite fun to think through how we navigate hateful-in-RL things in the context of literature.
I've been thinking about that a bit because in other fandom news, Neil Gaiman was accused of sexual assault recently. What little I know seems more like a messy sex life to be sure but where I don't have enough facts to have an informed opinion on if it was truly assault vs. miscommunication, different perspectives, etc. So while he doesn't come out smelling like a bed of roses, I'm also not reaching for my pitchfork yet. But I'm also very aware that I like his writing, like the parts of him I've come to now through social media, and probably would approach these accusations differently if I wasn't so emotionally invested in him being a good guy. So the question of how we react to hateful things and even morally complicated situations in the abstract, versus when there's emotional entanglement (and yes, storytelling is similar!) is definitely on my mind. I don't have any hard answers. But I suspect I'll be thinking about it for a while to come.
Back to work, I suppose. Thanks for the space to play with my thinky-thoughts, and have a good day.
