[ SECRET POST #5371 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5371 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 33 secrets from Secret Submission Post #769.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

06. https://i.imgur.com/o7eGT3X.png

[(Anonymous)]

Oh good. I'm so glad we get to have this tedious discussion again.

You forgot a camp anyway. There's also the 'Tolkein was a product of his time and IDGAF because it's a good story' camp.

[philstar22]

It doesn't sound like the secret maker would disagree with that? The person they are quoting is arguing there are no messages in Tolkien at all, which is absolutely absurd. Good or bad, the messages exist. Readers can choose what they like and don't, what they agree with and don't, and how they interpret the writing. But to argue there is no messages at all in Tolkien's writing is a ludicrous argument to make.

[(Anonymous)]

Can his socially ingrained attitudes be described as messages though?

[philstar22]

That's not all that's in his writing, though? He genuinely was trying to get some points across, he wasn't just writing fiction without intending to say anything. No, I wouldn't called his ingrained attitudes of his time messages, which is why your comment confused me. The secret maker wasn't talking about the ingrained attitudes, they were talking about messages.

[(Anonymous)]

Fair enough. When I read criticism of Tolkein, it's always usually about his attitudes. I haven't seen anything more nuanced, but then I'm only on the peripherals of the fandom.

[philstar22]

Seriously. Like, it is one thing not to agree with all the messages, or even any of them, and still like the books. I don't agree with all his messages myself. But to claim that he had no messages in his writing is patently absurd. He clearly intended to get some points across. The nice thing is that unlike some other fantasy writers (Lewis for one, Terry Goodkind for another), the message didn't take over the story and end up ruining it. But I don't think you can say there are no messages there.

[(Anonymous)]

I can't figure out what this is supposed to mean and I feel like I must be missing something? As far as I can tell the secret is saying that people who think that a story represents nothing are the ultimate expression of thinking that a story represents nothing but bigotry? But I don't understand what that means. It feels like a math problem I can't solve.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, this wasn't cogent to me either. I don't get the connection.

[erinptah]

Point seems to be "only a person who is super bigoted themselves would be unable to recognize the author's bigotry, so when you say you don't recognize Tolkien's bigotry in his story, you are expressing that same bigotry yourself."

...what I can't figure out is why "bigotry" and "nothing" are the only two options. Like, sure, Tolkien's writing is informed by his personal prejudices and blind spots (same as the rest of us), but it wouldn't be my first answer for "what does his writing represent?" Wouldn't even be in the top 10.

[(Anonymous)]

[commenter above you]

Thank you, that does make it make a bit more sense.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

I explained down below, but I want to also clarify here that I’m NOT calling Tolkien bigoted. My problem is with people who shout down the possibility of multiple interpretations.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, thank you. That sentence makes no sense to me.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Some people believe one interpretation is valid, and some people believe no interpretations are valid. Both groups agree on the invalidity of a massive variety of interpretations, and they only disagree on a single one. It’s like the old quip that Christians disbelieve in all but one of the gods atheists disbelieve in.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

DA
Sorry, I still think what you wrote in the secret is kinda incomprehensible, but if that is what you were trying to say then I guess I agree with you. Even though I find it hard to believe that there are actually people who think that there's no meaning to be found in Tolkien's writing.
Also just because someone thinks an author is a bigot doesn't necessarily mean they can't recognize other messages in their work. Those messages would just be overshadowed by the bigotry (real or not) and are therefore probably meaningless to some.
Maybe the people on both sides of this argument were being a bit hyperbolic?

OP

[(Anonymous)]

TBF, the “no messages” guy who prompted this probably was being hyperbolic. Apparently, his actual issue was with interpreting Frodo and Samwise as a couple.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not entirely sure what any of this means. Am I old and stupid? I know about the whole "this entire book is a sausage fest and no good female characters blah blah" argument but what's this about bigotry and other horrible stuff? Maybe I should just stay out of online fandom altogether if a Norse-saga-style-epic-fantasy about little guys doing their part and the horrors of war never being far from our borders is now bigoted and worse.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

There are a bunch of black authors like Kieron Gillen and N.K. Jemisin who say orcs are black stereotypes. I think that’s a possible way of looking at it, but I don’t think it’s entirely fair. Especially when you get into the transformative works argument—Jemisin says orcs are a terrible trope that can never be redeemed, and meanwhile I see all these trans women who make art of attractive orcs who have body types like trans women.

(Kind of reminds me of the goblincore argument. People with ADHD cheerfully think of themselves as goblins, and then these Jewish bloggers lecture them for spreading stereotypes about Jews. Seems unfair to the ADHD folks who just wanted to express their feelings about their own minds and habits.)

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

If you really want to go that way, goblins would be a Mongolian or steppe people stereotype at worst. I think this truly says something about those authors who intentionally see people with their skin colour as a bunch of fantasy creatures that aren't even meant to stereotype THEM. God, what a stupid argument.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Kieron Gillen talks about his issues with Tolkein (see the notes for his comic "Die"), but he isn't black!

[meadowphoenix]

I don't think the "a blue sweater is just a blue sweater" people are doing the same ideological things as the "this is very gay, it might as well be text" people. Denying social context is not the same deciding there is only one social context; the former is denying the very purpose of language, the latter is just being too prescriptive about it.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Hmm . . . Maybe I made a mistake somewhere in my thinking. I said that the people who say "you're an idiot if you don't think this is racist" are doing the same thing as the people who say "you're an idiot if you think this has meaning." But I wouldn't have said that the people who say "you're an idiot if you think this isn't gay" are doing the same thing. I can't think of a logical reason that would be different from the other two, unless you're right and the whole comparison doesn't make sense.

Re: OP

[meadowphoenix]

Honestly, yeah, I don't get why those two things wouldn't feel the same to you, especially since the racism aspect has more historical context for being so than the gay, which historical context leans away from a gay reading as a primary reading (it's always a bit ambiguous because history in general has awarded and esteemed homosocial relationships with men in literature which means it's a great place to hide gay subtext!). Is it because you don't actually believe the "this is gay!" people mean that so strictly?