Again read what I said... I am not the one who wrote paragraphs after paragraphs saying that is was not a different species because there wasn't enough genetic difference, etc..., etc... only after a couple of posts to say that races vs species was irrelevant.


Dude, try at least to read the thread nobody talked about the Vistani, and even looking at the original link, if you read it, it's not about the Vistani it's about changes that are planed, the Vistani are only mentioned (in a single paragraph our of eight) as an example of what was already changed.

I quoted you talking about the Orcs and talked about them in my post, if you weren't interested talking about them then why did you even answer in the first place ? I didn't mention the Vistani at all before you start bringing them into the discussion.

Not even sure what you are trying to say here...

Ok, let's try to simplify things again, what I said since nearly the beginning :

For your points for 1 :

Fictional races should be able to be depicted in any way the author decides them to be. Because they are fictional even if they might borrow from some existing lore or mythology.

If an author decide that, in his/her world, Orcs are dumb brutes then they are dumb brutes, period, it's not a stereotype, racist or anything because that's what they really are in said world.

But of course that's valid for fictional races/culture, if the author borrow too heavily (and too obviously) from existing / current culture then he or she has to be more careful : If you describe your main evil murderous/rapist race as being a bunch of bearded gingers wearing kilts with a Bagpipes in their hands and talking with a strong Scottish accent, don't be surprised if some peoples might have an issue with that. (unless it's done as a parody / satire)

And for 2 :

To avoid having to specify is in every sentence I am talking about the changes for Orcs / Drows / etc and not the already done story changes for the Vistani

It is simply that I disagreed with the idea that those changes whould necessarily makes things more interesting either from a character point of view or from a mechanics point of views.

And the other thing is that I find it stupid to do those changes because peoples were offended by the depictions of fictional fantasy races.

That's it.

I am not "outraged" by it, I just find it stupid (again, the Orcs and Drow thing, etc... etc...), I know it's hard to believe in 2020 but you can still disagree with something even find it stupid without being "outraged" by it. Don't worry I am not going to whine on twitter asking for peoples to be canceled / fired the total extend of my "non-outrage" is strictly limited at making a couple of posts in this thread.

If anything the atheists should be more bothered by his works and those of the guy behind the Lion Witch Wardrobe books.

*
*
*
(This bit is to the topic rather than to the above quoted user)

And a bit of a fixing of the 'ice cream shoppe' example from before to more accurately depict what is occurring here

It is not 'the company added vanilla ice cream to the menu and people complain for no good reason'

But more like the same company took all flavors, added in something (maybe nuts) and tells everyone of their customers (even those who dislike or can't eat nuts) "be thankful for the change you ungrateful buggers"

And then when you go to other ice cream shoppes you find they have all started adding in nuts to all their ice cream as well, and you are SOL if you want otherwise.

I think one should rather avoid casual accusations of racism and casual virtue signaling.
In case you're ignorant: black is traditionally associated with Evil, and I'm not talking about people, but the colour. It has nothing to do with racism, but with light and darkness.

LOTR is ultimately derived from Tolkien's wish to make a mythology for England and he was white, so naturally the protagonists are white, and the few coloured people mentioned are from faraway countries where they were ensnared by Sauron. It doesn't mean they were "evil", or that the ones fighting against Sauron were "better", just as Germans and Japanese are not more evil than American and Brits because they fought on the wrong side.

Don't forget the near total lack of female characters; my understanding is that, in the books, the only time a female character ever does something that matters is the "I am no man" moment.

(Not to mention the impact on RPGs, with 1e AD&D being sexist mechanically and Bard's Tale 1 and 2 not having *any* female characters at all (except for the princess you can optionally rescue in BT2, who does not look anything like a princess).) The same association of black (the color) with evil is, IMO, not unrelated to the perception of Black (the race) as being inferior.

We really, really shouldn't conflate "casual racism" with something that can be taken as racist. There are numerous examples of all the peoples of Tolkien's legendarium being deceived, corrupted and used by Morgoth and Sauron. There is really no reason to see those "African-style" people serving Sauron as any different than north-western "race" men serving Morgoth or Saruman.

Here's a direct quote from the book

"It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace-all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind."

Hardly a "casually racist" sentiment by any stretch. There's more reason to inferr "I really want someone to ride giant elephants to the big battle" as the motivation for their inclusion than "casual racism", and casually making that accusation in a case such as this only cheapens the issue.
Except for, you know, the arguably most important part of the whole legendarium, the story of Beren and Luthien, where not only does Luthien save Beren from Sauron's fortress, but also performs the bravest and greatest deed of the age descending into the dungeons of Morgoth overpowering him and his armies with her voice and taking one of the Silmarils from his crown (yeah, Beren is there too, but it is Luthien who does all the heavy lifting in that story).

Just to check: Does this happen in the three main Lord of the Rings books? (Other books set in the universe (including The Hobbit) don't count, nor do the movies, but the appendix at the end of the final book does.)

Oh, of course. >rolls eyes so hard it hurts<

Here's an idea - perhaps you should first read the books (since you clearly have not) before you attempt to discuss them.

Or that from time immemorial nighttime has been scary for humans, probably with very good reason from an evolutionary perspective. I find it extraordinary to suggest that black people have anything to do with it. Black people aren't #000000 whereas pitch darkness actually is.

At this point, I am asking a question about the books because I want to know, not because I'm trying to make a point.

Anyway, I tried to read the books as a child, but stopped reading in the middle of the first book. I think I prefer magic to be much more common than they are in Tolkien's world, though it was interesting (though a little odd) how there are parts written like Tolkien is talking to the reader.

Personally, I would say my favorite series of fantasy novels is the one that starts with a book called Dealing With Dragons (which starts with a princess running away to the dragon's den).

Actually, there is one thing I am wondering that might help address this issue: In the traditional indigenous beliefs of the black African people (specifically, the stories that predate the influence of white Europeans and Christianity), is the association between black (or darkness) and evil present?

Interesting. Sounds like that might've been the inspiration for this scene from The Hobbit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pbJuHNcWuo
I actually got goosebumps in the theater for this scene, even though I knew it was not in the book. Perhaps because we finally got to see Galadriel kick some ass :D It's one of the precious few somewhat redeeming parts of the trilogy (still seems incredibly weird to refer to the Hobbit as a trilogy :P)

I always wondered though what Tolkien's idea with that part of the book was - Gandalf just casually mentioned going off to Dol Guldur before the dwarves entered to the Mirkwood, or having come from there after he saw Bilbo later. Can't remember precisely anymore, just that no details was given with what went down there.

IIRC Tolkien needed to send Gandal away so Bilbo could be a hero, so he came up with the story about The Necromancer, The White Council and Dol Goldur. It was only later, when writing LOTR, that Tolkien himself "learnt" the details.

Well, at the time of writing the Hobbit Tolkien's only idea for that part was "at this point Gandalf needs to get lost so Bilbo can shine and gradually take over Gandalf's role as the de facto leader". It was only much later when writing LotR and incorporating The Hobbit into the wider story that the Necromancer of Dol Guldur became anything more than an excuse to write Gandalf out of the story for a while. EDIT: Ninja'd by Petrus.

There were more such changes, not all behind the scenes. The Riddles in the Dark chapter has been significantly re-written by Tolkien after the first edition of the book, with LotR in mind. In the original version Gollum actually bets the ring (which is "just" a magic invisibility ring at this point) during the riddles contest and gives it to Bilbo when he loses (this version is later presented as lie, made up by Bilbo under the influence of the Ring, to "legitimize" his ownership of it, just like Gollum came to refer to the Ring as his "birthday gift").

I'm ashamed to admit I'm not at all familiar with our local mythologies. The basic one that near everyone know about is the Tokoloshe, a little monster that can harm people at night. Supposedly you can protect yourself from the Tokoloshe by elevating your bed with brick underneath each corner.
According to several cultures the hooting of owls at night are a bad omen, which sometimes leads to owls being killed with stones in rural areas.

More than that I do not know, and I really should read up more on it. Do note though that both have to do with the night. Pitch darkness constitutes a primal fear for us, so I don't find it surprising at all that if you had to conjure out of the thin air an evil / harmful supernatural thing, then you would gravitate towards pitch blackness. In Lord of the Rings for example the enemy is often referred to as 'the shadow'.

But you do raise an interesting question. I'm sure books/articles have been written on the origins of evil in mythology, looking for and trying to reason for the presence of similarities. It might be worth looking up.

Fair enough, it did make sense seeing as the dwarves were meant to get lost and slowly lose a sense of time, along with their minds in the Mirkwood. Something that would've been hard to make believable with Gandalf present.
It's just that it seemed a bit out of place and too simplistic for Tolkien. To me it came across as "I have to go now, my planet needs me"

Maybe I'm explaining it wrong...
Leaving Tolkien aside, let's go further back. The Romans and the Greek before them saw themselves as the pinnacle of civilizations, and felt that they were surrounded by scary barbarians. When, what the old scholars wrote about their neighbours would be written today, it would be considered incredibly racist, arrogant and ignorant.
Also writings, including fictional stories, sagas, plays, from times when slavery was a normal thing of course depict it like that - it's normal for a "real man" to own another (somehow lesser) human.
If you wrote the same story today, without addressing the issue - it would cause an outrage.

In feudal times it was normal that there are high-born and low-born people. Stories of that time reflect that, and even today especially fantasy writers use this concept, although we know it's basically bullshit. But here is the thing: We've mostly overcome this concept and at least want to believe in things like equality. So nobody feels stepped on their toes when there is another "proud line of kings" in the next story. Racism however is still a thing, and the repercussions of slavery are felt to today, esp. in the USA - that's why people react more sensitive to it.

Wow ok that's fascinating I didn't know that. It's undoubtedly my favorite part of the book, and coincidentally the one part of the film that was absolutely masterfully done.