Does LotR have cross-cultural appeal?

[The Saucepan Man]

This is an issue which has featured obliquely in many discussions on this forum, most particularly those relating to religion, “canonicity” (whatever that is ) and Tolkien’s literary, historical and mythological influences. It has, however, never formed a topic in its own right as far as I am aware and it is one which I have been musing upon for some time.

It seems to me that LoTR has a particular cultural appeal, which is based very much on the religious, historical and mythological traditions that Tolkien drew upon in writing the book. I have no hard and fast data concerning the book’s world-wide appeal but, based upon the membership of the Downs (which at least is indicative of those for whom the book has particular appeal), its greatest appeal would appear to lie among those of European (Anglo-Saxon/Germanic/Scandinavian) and/or the Judaeo-Christian heritage.

Of course, this should come as no surprise. The book was written by an Englishman and first published in the UK. As a philologist, he was greatly influenced by some of the older languages of Europe (Anglo-Saxon, Welsh and Finnish in particular). The book itself is based in a “Western European” setting and Tolkien drew heavily on European traditions and mythology. And, by his own admission, he was also influenced heavily by his own Catholic faith “consciously so in the revision”. So it is hardly surprising that his book should appeal most to readers who share the faith (in broad terms) and/or the cultural traditions on which it is primarily based.

Interestingly, as I have noted above, LotR’s appeal within Europe seems to be particularly focussed within those countries which might broadly be described as having Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and Scandinavian (and possibly Celtic) heritages. Clearly, many Downers hail from the UK, and there are quite a few from Germany, the Netherlands and (in particular) the Scandinavian countries. On the other hand, I have seen few, if any, members from France, Italy or Spain (although I know that there are a few very popular Spanish LotR fansites). Yet these are the countries of Europe in which Tolkien’s own faith, Catholicism, is strongest. I wonder why this is? Is it simply because, while the book may be popular in these countries, readers prefer forums based upon their own language (as seems to be the case in Spain)?

In any event, my question is: Does LotR have any cultural appeal beyond the traditions that I have identified above? Of course, the Downs membership (and thus the appeal of LotR) extends beyond Europe (the majority of course hailing from North America, including the site's founder), but it seems to me that this is primarily the result of such traditions having been exported through migration, imperialism and the spread of Christianity, with the result that they are no longer solely Europe-based. As far as I am aware, there are no Downers in China or in any strongly Islamic countries. Is this because the book has little appeal in these cultural traditions, or is this largely a function of language barriers? Does the book have any appeal to Hindus, Buddhists (and I know that there are a few Downers who at least have an interest in Buddhism) or among the indigenous people of the Americas and Australasia? Or does its really only appeal to those of the European and/or Judaeo-Christian tradition?

It seems to me that this question is important because I do believe that, in writing LotR, Tolkien was attempting to set out what he saw as “universal truths” on matters such as morality and the human condition. If, however, the book only has a relatively limited cultural appeal, might it not be argued that he failed in this? If the book appeals only to those who can identify with the traditions and imagery upon which Tolkien drew, can the “truths” which he sought to get across really said to be universal? Or is it that the “European trappings” of LotR (ie the geography, imagery and cultures of Middle-earth) put off those who cannot identify with them, thereby obscuring such underlying messages or cross-cultural archetypal imagery as might be present?

I would be interested to hear other perspectives on this issue. Are you aware of LotR having cross-cultural appeal? Are there any Downers who do not hail from the European/Judaeo-Christian traditions that I mention above? If so, do you find that there are elements that the book has in common with your own traditions (whether cultural or faith-based)? Have I simply under-estimated the broad appeal of the book based upon a relatively narrow cross-section of the Tolkien-reading world (ie Barrow-Downs membership)? Also, does ethnic origin come into it at all? I would say that the majority of Downers are Caucasian, but there are a good few members of Oriental and Asian ethnic descent. But what about those of African and Afro-Caribbean descent? Does LotR have particular appeal only among certain ethnic groups? Please share your thoughts.

Disclaimer 1: I realise that I have somewhat mixed up culture, ethnicity and religion in this post. While I accept that these concepts are not identical, it seems to me that they are intrinsically linked.

Disclaimer 2: I have tried to choose my words very carefully in this post in order to avoid giving any offence to any particular religion, cultural tradition or ethnic group. If I have inadvertently done so, I apologise.

Disclaimer 3: It is not my intention to start another “canonicity” type discussion. While any discussion of LotR will involve consideration of whether there are “universally accepted truths” in the book (and I have raised this point myself above), that is not intended to be the central focus of this thread. Rather, I am interested in whether LotR does have cross-cultural appeal, if so why, and if not why not.

[Bêthberry]

I have certainly noticed this in the chat room, Sauce. There are a good many Dutch Downers and Scandinavians along with those from English-speaking countries. I cannot recall any French chatterers, although Tolkien's dislike of the French and his attitude towards Celtic--he preferred Welsh and to my mind rejected Celtic mythology in favour of Anglo-Saxon lore--could have some influence there. Also, given that English is the required language--and real English, not chat-speak--it is not surprising there are so few other linguistic heritages represented in chat.

One point to be considered about the books is the quality of the translation into other languages. We have Tolkien's thoughts on various translations, but if the books aren't 'page turners' in a person's native language, they won't attract many readers. And if the books don't have 'cultural correlates' in other languages, they will be difficult to translate effectively. I wonder if book sales info is available for various countries, both for English and translated forms.

I'll let others weigh in before I add any more thoughts.

[the guy who be short]

Nice thread, SpM.

I think we should probably consider nationality as well as ethnicity if we're going to be discussing the appeal Tolkien has. I'm of Indian descent, but British myself, so that I have access to both West European and Indic traditions, mythologies, faiths (following none myself) and ideas.

I believe you're correct in identifying the "greatest appeal" as lying within Europe (and North America) - as far as I can recall, there is one Downer dwelling in India and one in an Islamic state (though it's hard to tell where people live, of course). Geographically, I guess Tolkien nuts are denser in the West. But then, consider literacy rates elsewhere too. People in large parts of the foreign world simply don't have the chance to learn to read, yet alone read Tolkien.

Originally Posted by SpM

Is it simply because, while the book may be popular in these [Catholic] countries, readers prefer forums based upon their own language?

I'd say this is the case. I know of a few French Tolkien fansites, despite Tolkien's opinions on their tongue. The English fansite is naturally more likely to attract native English-speakers.

Originally Posted by SpM

As far as I am aware, there are no Downers in China or in any strongly Islamic countries. Is this because the book has little appeal in these cultural traditions, or is this largely a function of language barriers?

As I said, I recall one Downer from an Islamic nation. I would presume the fact can be based on language barriers rather than culture.

Originally Posted by Spm

Does the book have any appeal to Hindus, Buddhists (and I know that there are a few Downers who at least have an interest in Buddhism) or among the indigenous people of the Americas and Australasia? Or does its really only appeal to those of the European and/or Judaeo-Christian tradition?

I was born into a Hindu family, but living in Britain I also have a firm knowledge of Christianity. I can only presume my love of Tolkien would still exist, were that not the case. I am an atheist, and I know LotR appeals to a lot of atheists and agnostics as well as to Christians and Jews.
As to the Question of Hindus and Buddhists... well, who can say? I presume that Hindus and Buddhists living in the East without Western influences would simply not be able to pick up a copy of LotR (do translations into Hindi etc. actually exist?).

Originally Posted by SpM

If so, do you find that there are elements that the book has in common with your own traditions (whether cultural or faith-based)?

I guess I see a parallel with Elven reincarnation and Hindu beliefs, but I can't think of much else. Oh, and Tengwar looks surprisingly like Hindi alphabets, though I don't think that's extremely relevant - all it does is take the "foreignness" away from Tengwar.

Originally Posted by SpM

Also, does ethnic origin come into it at all?...Does LotR have particular appeal only among certain ethnic groups?

Don't really see why it should... I'd say ethnicity and faith have little importance, whereas geography and perhaps culture do. As you said, these all overlap so much that there would appear to be ethnic and religious differences. But considering that ethnicity doesn't really affect anything about a person, and that people of any religion can (and do) enjoy any book, I don't see any importance there.

Main points:

Geography - People from the Sahara are less likely to have access to Tolkien. This doesn't mean it wouldn't appeal to them. Illiteracy plays a large part - perhaps a huge proportion of Burkina Faso's population would be interested in Tolkien, if they had the opportunity to read.

Culture - Middle-Earth does have more in common with Western culture - the Valar, for example, are more likely to be understood by and appeal to somebody with knowledge of Western history and culture than a Buddhist in Tibet.

I can't help but feel that I've been horribly unclear in this post and failed to get any messages that I wished to across, but I'm not feeling that great, so I excuse myself even if you don't.

[Mithalwen]

I know Japanese Tolkien addicts from other sites and I know there are a number of Indian members here. Also Singaporeans .......

I can tell you there are some very active French LOTR (Seigneur des Anneaux) sites out there (haven't plucked up the courage to post ) and they are rather fond of Christopher Tolkien since he is " Francophile et francophone" and Adam Tolkien is gradually translating HoME in to French.

Other cultures may of course have a slightly different perspective on the books since they approach it fresh. One of my English teachers said it was quite an experience teaching Wuthering Heights in Africa. They saw great symbolism in the grass being green for example.....

[Formendacil]

Culture...

That is an interesting term.

My own opinion- quite possibly a faulty one- is that while Tolkien's work heavily and deliberately draws off of his Catholic faith, seems to appeal to people of all faiths, although Christians like to claim it as their own.

However, as far as language-culture goes, I would say that you are correct in that it is limited to the speakers of the Germanic and Norse languages for its main appeal. Which would seem to be a natural extension of how it was written. it was, after all, originally a legendarium for the English- and it draws heavily off of the Norse and Germanic traditions.

I also have to wonder what role the translation plays in this... After all, the idiom and such would naturally translate more readily to another Germanic language than it would to a, for example, Latin tongue.

You mentioned that Tolkien seems to have a greater following in Spanish than in French. I wonder if this might have to do with the translators? Maybe they did a better job with Spanish...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I also have to wonder what role the translation plays in this... After all, the idiom and such would naturally translate more readily to another Germanic language than it would to a, for example, Latin tongue.

You mentioned that Tolkien seems to have a greater following in Spanish than in French. I wonder if this might have to do with the translators? Maybe they did a better job with Spanish...

This is an interesting point, as in the latest Mallorn (Journal of the Tolkien Society) there's an article 'Traitors & Translators: three German translations of LotR'. Apparently the latest one, by Wolfgang Krege, has taken an approach of translating the work into a contemporary German idiom, so that, for example, Sam refers to Frodo as 'Boss', rather than 'Master', &, to give some examples, Galdriel's 'Like as not,' said the Lady with a gentle laugh.' becomes something like 'Sure!' said the Lady, giggling softly.', Faramir's 'It may even help the Master you love.' becomes equivalent to 'It may even be to the advantage of the Master you're so concerned for.' & Sam's 'O wake up Frodo, me dear, me dear.' is 'translated' as 'O wake up Frodo, damn it all, wake up!'

On the wider point, Tolkien was attempting to supply a mythology for England, to replace the one we had lost. I've said this before, but I've always been slightly surprised that non-English readers even get the story, as its always seemed so very English to me. A pleasant surprise, of course, but odd, to me, nonetheless....

[Lalwendë]

For myself, I was always surprised at the strong response Tolkien's work received from committed Christians as it has aways seemed to me to resonate more with pre-Christain culture and belief. It's been said before, but there is a distinct lack of churches, priests and rituals within Middle-earth. Those rituals which we do see are simple, such as Faramir's company looking to the West as a form of 'grace', and this could also signify something to do with honouring ancestors from Numenor.

Tolkien's work also reveres the landscape; those who work with it are considered to be 'good' while those who work against it are not. Creatuires such as the Ents are often compared with older cultures' ideas such as The Green Man and tree spirits, and though carvings of The Green Man are often seen in churches, this is most defintely a pre-Christian symbol. Tolkien seems to direct us towards reverence for all living creatures, including the living landscape rather than rverence of humans.

Such beliefs are still strong in the world today. Not only the 'west' has followers of Pagan faiths, but these are present in the indigenous cultures of Australasia, Africa and the Americas. In Japan, Shinto reveres the ancestor.

I'd say that Tolkien's work does appeal to people other than European or European descent Christians, for want of a better term. The other thing is that with a forum like this, none of us can tell what colour the other person is, so how do we know if we are predominantly of White descent or not?

The question of whether good translations are available is particularly relevant, as English is a difficult language to work with, and Tolkien makes great use of both archaic and idiomatic English, so a good translation must be difficult to find (and possibly also expensive?). Bearing this in mind, there is another issue, and that is whether in certain countries English is the preferred foreign language to be taught at school.

I do knwo that there are indeed a lot of French LotR fans, but the French are as protective about their native language as the English are and so I'm not at all surprised that we don't have many French members, as they will probably prefer a french language site. Whether this holds true for French Canadians (if that's the right term) I don't know. If I had a different native language than English and there were a lot of good quality sites where my native tongue was used, then I should prefer to use those no doubt, as it would simply be easier.

As to cultural appeal, I'm lost on what to say for the moment, but if the films had a worldwide appeal then wouldn;t the books have this too?

[Novnarwen]

Davem said

On the wider point, Tolkien was attempting to supply a mythology for England, to replace the one we had lost. I've said this before, but I've always been slightly surprised that non-English readers even get the story, as its always seemed so very English to me. A pleasant surprise, of course, but odd, to me, nonetheless....

Very English? Define, please…?

To be honest, I’m surprised by your comment. If Tolkien indeed created a mythology for England, I see no reason why it should be a great surprise to see non-English ‘get the story’. I mean, look at Greek Mythology, Roman mythology, Egyptian mythology, Norse mythology etc. etc. (you name it!). I don’t speak Greek (and I probably never will), but that doesn’t keep me from ‘getting the story’. I don’t see how it should. Unless the translation is poor, or there’s no translation at all, I don’t see a reason why I shouldn’t get and make out the main points of the story.

I think the problem lies in the ‘very English’. How can anything be so ‘Very English, very Greek, very Roman, etc’ that people ‘outside’ have no chance in understanding it? Do you sincerely believe that it is, or should be, impossible for an ‘outsider’ to understand, in this case, a text that is written for a specific purpose and nation etc.? (What about people who are multi-cultural and living in England, or in any other English speaking country?)

To a certain extent, I believe that different groups of people (national, continental…) will have different ways of understanding a text, in this case Tolkien’s works. This however, doesn’t mean that people from cultures that differ greatly from the English/European/Scandinavian won’t understand the story altogether. A point I would like to bring up, even though I know it’s a bit off topic, is what lies in the expressions ‘understand’, and ‘get the story’ (as you used.)

In my opinion, to understand a story means that you’re fully able to make out the point(s) of the story and thus be able to for example reflect around it. To ‘get a story’… well… I see that as an other ‘thing’. I don’t know if you’re suggesting Tolkien’s works to be allegories, but by using this expression, I can’t avoid think that you are. Is there only one way of ‘getting the story’, and is this only possible if you, in this case, belong to a culture of which the author has been inspired, or live in the country in which the story was intended for?

This is where, again, the interpretation of each individual come in. Though a person from for example an Asian country interprets the story a little bit differently than a native British, it doesn’t mean that he/she hasn't gotten the story altogether. (In fact, he/she might interpret it the same way a Brit would do! Is a Brits’ interpretation, understanding, of a Story by an English author more ‘correct’ than an Asian’s?)

It’s perhaps natural that culture, religion etc. play a part in the process that takes place in your mind when reading a book. In other words, these factors can influence your reading. Due to this, a book can seem less appealing to some groups of people, but I honestly believe that this is not the case. As someone mentioned before, language barriers can be one of the reasons why Tolkien hasn’t reached the whole world’s population. I also think that Developing Countries, which are situated mostly in Asia and Africa, don’t have the same accessibility to books, at least not books from abroad, as Industrial Countries. I believe many, who have not discovered the magic of LoTR and find themselves belonging to cultures and countries far, far away from the origin of the book, will find it very appealing, if they had just had the chance to read it…


Edit: Cross posted with Lawendë

[davem]

Novnarwen

I meant that to me the settings - particularly the parts set in the Shire, & the Hobbits themselves seem so English that I've always been surprised that non-English readers can relate to them so deeply. When I read a book or watch a movie set in another country/culture there's always for me a feeling of 'distance' - sometimes very small, but there nonetheless.

I think you've taken from my post a kind of claim of 'ownership' on my part - that I'm saying 'Tolkien belongs to we English & you have no right to him' - I'm not saying that at all. I said it was a pleasant surprise to find that so many non English readers have taken Tolkien to their hearts. I do wonder, though, whether non English readers experien ce the work in the same way as English readers. For instance, I've grown up in an area parts of which are still reminiscent of the Shire - ''woods, fields, little rivers' - so I've been able to wander in places which strongly reminded me of the books, & I've encountered people very like the Hobbits. So I have that connection with the books that people living in a different landscape wouldn't have.

Its just me - that was/is the feeling I've always had. To be honest, if it comes to a knowledge of & insight into Tolkien, I'd have to defer to many non English people - Some on the Downs, others authors & experts like Verlyn Flieger for example.

And I'm sure that Tolkien fans living in Oxfordshire/Berkshire might feel it surprising that a Yorkshireman like myself could understand & love Tolkien's work as much as I do ...

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I do knwo that there are indeed a lot of French LotR fans, but the French are as protective about their native language as the English are and so I'm not at all surprised that we don't have many French members, as they will probably prefer a french language site. Whether this holds true for French Canadians (if that's the right term) I don't know. If I had a different native language than English and there were a lot of good quality sites where my native tongue was used, then I should prefer to use those no doubt, as it would simply be easier.

French-Canadians...

Yes, that is the correct term.

Ontopic, I think you might be closer to the mark in attributing it to the protectiveness of the French culture than to the merits of the translator- although the translator must bear some of the burden.

After all, the translator has far-reaching powers where the works he/she translates are concerned. If done well, the original feeling of the work will be made available to readers otherwise unable to enjoy it. Done poorly, it discredits not only the translation, but likely the original work as well.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by davem

This is an interesting point, as in the latest Mallorn (Journal of the Tolkien Society) there's an article 'Traitors & Translators: three German translations of LotR'. Apparently the latest one, by Wolfgang Krege, has taken an approach of translating the work into a contemporary German idiom...

I don't know of three translations in German, but I have looked briefly into both the old and new. The latter is rejected by many German fans because it doesn't do the spirit of the work justice, yet the former is a bit wooden. Quite frankly, since I read the original first, I can't get myself to settle for second or third best, so I don't read the translations.

I have often experienced a similar effect with other books, movies, TV shows, etc. - if I read or saw them in German first, they didn't always appeal to me. Only when I had the opportunity to read/see the original did the fascination get to me. Can the magic be translated? Just the words are not enough.

[HerenIstarion]

You may well be aware, as I've mentioned the fact in other threads and places, that I've first read Tolkien in Russian. And though the Hobbit translation (by Nina Rakhmanova) had distinctive taste of 'Englishness' about it, the case with LoTR was different - Muraviev and Kistakovsky (best, in my opinion, despite numerous blunders, Russian translation) obviously tried, and succeded in a way, to make LoTR 'russian' cultural phenomenon. The language is very 'living', for lack of better term, and at times it bears similarity to Russian 'bilina's (thing approximately correlative with Svandinavian 'saga's)

I ascribe to this very translation (it being the first as well) the popularity Tolkien has in Russia. It subsided of late, but there certainly was a phenomenon known as 'Tolkien craze', which burst out (and was mainly manned with young people - teenagers main part, but up to people in their 'late tweens') by the end of 80s, following publication of 'short version' translation of LoTR in 1982 and first full translation in 1988. There was much fuss about it in Russian media in 90's, there was even an insulting term coined (tolkienutiy - roughly, 'banged on the head with Tolkien'), but it was (and to a point, still is) wide and vast movement of RPG players and people involved in arts (poetry, music, costumes etc). Media accused participants of Tolkien movement of being anything from escapists (which they, up to a point, were - given intensity of social changes and collapse of the whole governmental system and istability in all post Soviet Union space in the 90s) to sword-armed maniacs and satanists. Orthodox Church was also divided in evaluating of the phenomenon - those priests who, presumably, only gathered some bits of media fuss accussed the movement of betraying 'orthodox values' for the sake of 'faulty' or even 'heretical' 'Western values', but there were actual priests in the movement itself.

Some occultists and 'would-be-extrasensors' and 'wizards' (number of which grew like mushrooms after the rain in aftermath of collapse of mainly materialistic state) tried to exploit Tolkien as 'visionary' giving glimpses of 'spiritual world' as well.

One of my dearest ambitions in 90s was to go to Moscow (I would not have been allowed to go alone, seeing as I was too young, and we lacked means to afford the proper trip) and participate in gatherings which took place in Neskuchny Garden every Thursday, which 'tolkienists' (the term 'tolkienutiy's' applied to themselves) termed Eglador. Several years latere there was much disquiet, as Eglador turned by and by to become what is now known (or was known in 2000-2001, I don't know if all activity hasn't diet out by now) as 'Poganishe' (Foul Place) - as majority of original members dropped out and instead of poetry-contest/musical/criticism/discussion gatherings Neskuchny showed tendency of having drunk youngsters impersonating orks and 'dark forces' on Thursdays.

Intensity of 'Tolkien Craze' during the 90s was such that there was actually a book written 'from another side's point of view' (the feat David Brin only toyed with the idea of) - somoene under the name of 'Nienna' published book named 'Dark Wings of the Wind' (if my memory is not failing me), which is supposed to be Silmarillion from Melkor's position.

Again, intensity was such that another chap, Nick Perumov, has written the whole series of so-called 'original' books, the first of which is a feeble essay in writing 'what happened next', as the hero is the hobbit and the events take place some 3 centuries after the War of the Rings. He made a real mess-up of it, though, as he tried to become more original.

There is quite a number of sites dedicated to Tolkien in Russia. One of them I know of (Arda-na-kulichkax) has a number of people who participated in original Tolkien movement, and grew up to become real good poets and writers and scholars (basing number of doctorates on Tolkien, even).

I suppose the release of the movies revived the interest, but I have no data to account for what happened over last several years. What I know for sure it there is not so much fuss in media about 'escapists' and 'satanists' of late.

As for Georgia, the Hobbit was just published some two or three years ago, the LoTR was not translated ever, and the movies where just movies. Not much of what should be called 'craze', rather number of people, mainly from what maybe called intelligentsia, with good reading Russian infested with some of Russian craze, but nothing wide-spread. Tolkien was lucky personally for me, as my examiner in University entry examination was in love too, and I was lucky we've found it out, but that's another story.


PS I promised not to evaluate, but based on my memory of once made 'Map of the Barrowdowns', there were no members from Muslim countries. But I know, based on first hand experience, that there are Tolkien lovers in Azerbaijan. But again, as in Georgia, those are mainly people with good reading Russian catching the infection from Russian craze

[Lyta_Underhill]

I meant that to me the settings - particularly the parts set in the Shire, & the Hobbits themselves seem so English that I've always been surprised that non-English readers can relate to them so deeply. When I read a book or watch a movie set in another country/culture there's always for me a feeling of 'distance' - sometimes very small, but there nonetheless.

There are some people who read books set in their own country who still feel that sense of 'distance,' though, even though the work be that of one's own countryman. I can't understand the urban culture, as I live deep in the country. City folk who visit my area get bored really quick; that's because they haven't learned to enjoy talking to trees! For the trees, this would be an urban center! And, as a result of this country slowness, I think the residents here become like Hobbits, slow to change, set in their ways, thoughts and beliefs. Of course, they speak with more of a twang than any Hobbit of the Shire ever would. And if you live in the South long enough, you can tell a Georgia twang from an Alabama twang from a Tennessee twang from a Kentucky twang, etc. etc. just like Sam could tell that another Hobbit must be from a suspicious part of the Shire (i.e., not Hobbiton!).

But none of this could have been part of Tolkien's original vision for the Shire. It is all applicability and not authorial intention. I think I would be appalled to hear Galadriel say "Sure!" or think that Sam is saying "damn it all" to awaken Frodo, as if he were having to shake him frantically out of sleep; so we lose a little more of authorial intention and the applicability is diluted due to awkward translation.

As a matter cross cultural comparison, I've recently become enamoured of a Japanese cartoon called "Keroro Gunso," translated roughly as "Sergeant Frog." The only place I can get the later episodes in English language version is from Hong Kong. So I watch this obviously hilarious anime that is fraught with bright Japanese characters across the screen that the folks in Hong Kong didn't feel worth translating and watch the horrendous translated subtitles at the bottom of the screen and wonder what I'm missing. However, I still get the main idea, and the situational comedy is still quite amusing! I get the sense I'm missing something, but I also enjoy what I do get out of it. Obviously, there are pieces that are so Japanese that I will never understand them, especially through the Hong Kong filter. But I still keep coming back for more, and it is my favorite current show of any type (albeit I don't have regular television!) But I'm sure I don't experience it in the same way as a Japanese person can, they having access to it in its original language.

As a corollary to my current obsession with things Japanese, I have been reading "the Chrysanthemum and the Sword," with its analysis of the Japanese social order, and there was something rather interesting mentioned therein--that the Japanese do not struggle with the notion of good vs. evil, that either is acceptable if it fulfills the requirements of an obligation. So, in that way, I imagine it would be difficult to translate Lord of the Rings into something that would make sense to a Japanese person who thinks in terms of 'circles of obligation,' rather than the struggle between 'good and evil.' However, this work was written just after World War II and attitudes in Japan have a way of changing very quickly, so I am sure I am not up to date in this observation. I can see how one could relate to the struggle of Frodo and of Aragorn to live up to their great obligations while not violating the smaller ones could appeal to a culture structured in this way. In fact, good and evil might not have to enter in as a concept, merely Frodo's obligation to Middle Earth and his more personal obligations also, and Aragorn's obligation to his country and to Elrond personally, etc., if you see what I mean.

So the story can be cast in different ways, according to the tenets of the culture. I'd think any story must gain and lose meanings in translation, though, for the very reason of cultural and expressive differences...

Cheers!
Lyta

[Novnarwen]

By Davem

I meant that to me the settings - particularly the parts set in the Shire, & the Hobbits themselves seem so English that I've always been surprised that non-English readers can relate to them so deeply. When I read a book or watch a movie set in another country/culture there's always for me a feeling of 'distance' - sometimes very small, but there nonetheless

Davem, settings or story? In your first post you said that you were surprised, and found it odd, that Non-English speakers ’even got the story’. Now, you’re saying that you meant the ‘settings.’

Surely, the settings of a story is not what determines whether a person will ‘understand’ (or ‘get’) a story. The setting is but a small part of a book, and to be quite frank I believe that to understand or ‘get’ a story/book the subject plays a far greater part than the settings. And even though, settings may play a great part, why should we underestimate everyone who hasn’t grown up in green surroundings and think it odd and surprising that they ‘get the story’? Do you honestly think these people can’t picture a ‘green field,’ ‘a river,’ ‘tall trees’ and ‘forests’? (Tolkien uses these words, among others, in his descriptions in LoTR.) How hard can it be? Thank God for imagination, I say, for with these words they ought not to understand, get the story, or setting…

When it comes to the ‘story,’ (as you referred to in your first post) I can’t see what brilliance in Tolkien no one outside of England aren't supposed to understand. Short, it’s a story about good vs. evil. I don’t think I’m exaggerating that all books, (at least those I’ve read ,) is about this, one way or another. Why should people have difficulties understanding, or ‘getting the story’, when probably the greatest fraction of the books they’ve read too, deals with this subject? (By this, I would also claim, again, that LoTR has a cross-cultural appeal, because I see it as VERY likely that everyone who reads has touched upon the subject of LoTR many a times when reading, and I dare say that the subject itself hasn't stopped the majority from reading similar books.)

By Davem

For instance, I've grown up in an area parts of which are still reminiscent of the Shire - ''woods, fields, little rivers' - so I've been able to wander in places which strongly reminded me of the books, & I've encountered people very like the Hobbits. So I have that connection with the books that people living in a different landscape wouldn't have.

A question I have to ask is why you think it odd that people can still relate to Tolkien’s books so deeply when the settings are so ‘very English’. Again, I emphasize the importance of the subject of the books, rather than the settings. Additionally, has it occurred to you that people that find themselves in other landscapes than the ones described in LoTR can perhaps relate to everything else in Tolkien’s books such as personalities etc.?

It’s not odd that everyone who reads LoTR can relate as deeply to the books as you do. Personal interpretations again, I say. You let the settings enchant you to grow so deeply fond of Tolkien, but there are still many other elements in LoTR that can enchant others just as well. To me, the setting plays no great part in any of it. If Tolkien had chosen the Shire to be a desert, or to be an underwater realm, I would still find myself relating to the story, characters, personalities and events etc. just as deeply as I do now.

(I’ve started repeating myself, so I’ll stop.)

By HereIstarion

PS I promised not to evaluate, but based on my memory of once made 'Map of the Barrowdowns', there were no members from Muslim countries. But I know, based on first hand experience, that there are Tolkien lovers in Azerbaijan.

From this, I draw the conclusion that you can find yourself enchanted by LoTR, enjoy the story and belong to a culture or a religion that differ from English/European/Scandinavia, but don't hang around at BD. BD could be representative; it should also be questioned. There are Muslims in Europe and America, too, (According to a site here, 2% of Europe total population are Muslims) and excluding them as a group (as well as Buddhists and Hindus etc.) due to 'cultural and religious differences' sounds too simple.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Esty

I don't know of three translations in German, but I have looked briefly into both the old and new. The latter is rejected by many German fans because it doesn't do the spirit of the work justice, yet the former is a bit wooden. Quite frankly, since I read the original first, I can't get myself to settle for second or third best, so I don't read the translations.

The three translations mentioned in the articel are by Margaret Carroux (1969/70), Roswith Krege-Meyer (1991) & Wolfgang Krege (2000). According to the article the 'revised & corrected' translation (Krege-Meyer) was around for a while but is now out of print.

Originally Posted by Novnarwen

Davem, settings or story? In your first post you said that you were surprised, and found it odd, that Non-English speakers ’even got the story’. Now, you’re saying that you meant the ‘settings.’

I suppose I don't distinguish between settings & story - perhaps to me the setting is the story. the Legendarium is the story of Middle earth.

I am prepared to accept that I'm completely wrong about it, of course.....

[Mithalwen]

As for the settings, apart from the Shire I never felt them especially English and other than always identifying the New Forest where I grew up as Mirkwood, my strongest "this is middle earth" experiences overseas - albeit in anglophone countries. One was in Gippsland in Victoria, Australia, the other was watching dawn over the approaching Rockies. I felt like Bilbo seeing the Misty Mountains in the Hobbit.

[Lalwendë]

I'm certain that the whole subject of translation does have an important bearing on whether a book becomes popular worldwide. It may be that one country does not ahve access to good translations as H-I has said happened in Georgia while another country may be 'blessed' with particularly good versions. I would guess that many countries are just like the UK and that the majority of the population do not possess a decent enough knowledge of a foreign language to tackle a book as long and complex as LotR if it is not in their native tongue. So those people would rely on good translations.

I particularly love Goethe's Faust and I got hold of a very old copy in the original German to see if it was any better in the original; I took German up to the age of 18 but my knowledge was nowhere near good enough to tackle Faust. In addition, I have never used the language practically so I was unable to read it. In practical terms I can imagine it is much the same for other people wanting to read something 'in the original language'. I have known many people who have taught themselves English through sheer determination just to read a book or enjoy pop music better (I even know one woman who learned English via MTV - the mind boggles) but it does take a huge amount of effort and possibly natural talent, sadly.

Considering those who are English speaking but from different cultural backgrounds, there could be other factors to take into consideration. Maybe there are a lot of Tolkien fans who are from different backgrounds, but it might simply be that they do not use forums such as this. In my experience, not many British people of Asian descent use internet forums (at least not the ones I use, and they are not all specialised like this), but I think this may have a lot to do with the 'digital divide' and the lack of opportunity to get access to the net.

One thing that does interest me is whether people from different backgrounds/ages get different things from the story, e.g. do they enjoy it as a simple adventure, do they appreciate the action more than the description, and so on? Is there something about your personality (as oppsed to your background) that might 'pre-dispose' you to be a Rings fan?

[Formendacil]

Hmm... countryside...

I think that people tend to associate what they know with what they read. As an Alberta boy, my visions of the Misty Mountains are inevitably coloured by the Rockies. Mirkwood becomes BC. Lorien becomes the Edmonton-area parkland. The plains of Rohan become Saskatchewan. Anduin becomes the Red Deer River..

And so on...

But with things like the Shire, where the description is of a general countryside with which I am unfamiliar, of small hills and farms, and trees like oaks, I am admittedly at a loss. I imagine that if I ever visited rural England, I would be able to see it a lot more clearly.

[The Saucepan Man]

Some great responses. Thank you to all who have contributed.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I wonder if book sales info is available for various countries, both for English and translated forms.

I wondered that too, as I tend to agree that merely going by Barrow-Downs membership is unlikely to be the most accurate of indicators, given language issues. I tried Googling, but found little of use. Nevertheless, I do have a hunch that Tolkien’s works are more widely read in what might broadly be described as the “west” than elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

One point to be considered about the books is the quality of the translation into other languages. We have Tolkien's thoughts on various translations, but if the books aren't 'page turners' in a person's native language, they won't attract many readers.

A good point. Although the problems that have been referred to with, for example, the German translations do not seem to have affected its popularity in Germany. Then again, English is commonly spoken to a high standard in many parts of Germany and the same applies, I believe, with regard to the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. And, while the same might be said of France and (to a lesser extent) Spain and Italy, I guess the “own language preference” point explains the lack of Downers from these countries.

I would expect the language barrier to be the greatest obstacle where an entirely different alphabet is used. That will certainly be an issue in most Islamic and Far Eastern countries. However, the Russian alphabet is unique and, as HI has indicated, Tolkien has (or at least had) quite a following in Russia, so I think that there is more to it than this. It seems to me that the culture of many parts of Russia and also many of the former soviet states (Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia for example) have much in common with Europe when it comes to matters such as mythology, history and faith. Moreso, for example, than countries like China or Saudi Arabia.

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

But then, consider literacy rates elsewhere too. People in large parts of the foreign world simply don't have the chance to learn to read, yet alone read Tolkien.

Fair point, although I was more thinking in terms of those from different (ie non-“western”) cultures who are literate and who do have access, one way or another, to Tolkien’s works. Do the books hold as much appeal to them as they do for those from, or who are aqcuainted with, “western” cultures?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Culture...

That is an interesting term.

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

I think we should probably consider nationality as well as ethnicity if we're going to be discussing the appeal Tolkien has.

I agree that “culture” is a difficult concept to define in this context. My Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines it as:

… the customs, institutions and achievements of a particular nation, people or group.

When considering the appeal of Tolkien to different cultures, it seems to me that we should focus on the belief system, history, mythology and traditions of those cultures. So, for example, the Rohirrim will seem rather familiar to those who are acquainted with pre-medieval European history. But would they seem as familiar to someone from China, or to an Australian Aborigine? Their history and cultural roots are not the same. Similarly, Goblins and Trolls are creatures from European mythology, albeit interpreted by Tolkien. Perhaps, through translation, the equivalent creatures from other mythologies may be co-opted into the story, but then will readers be seeing something different?

Of course, as a result of the migration of peoples that has taken place throughout history, cultures will transcend national boundaries and ethnicity, and will become blurred. Indeed, as davem points out, one of Tolkien’s stated intentions in writing LotR and his other works, was to provide a mythology for England which he felt to be lacking. But the mythological roots of the legendarium remain very much rooted in European tradition.

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

But considering that ethnicity doesn't really affect anything about a person … I don't see any importance there.

Yes. I would agree with you there. Ethnicity, in terms of racial stock, is certainly not the same thing as culture and, while ethnic origin may be an indicator of culture, it is not in itself a factor in determining whether a book based upon a certain cultural tradition will have any particular appeal to a person. Ethnicity, therefore, is perhaps rather a red herring.

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

I was born into a Hindu family, but living in Britain I also have a firm knowledge of Christianity. I can only presume my love of Tolkien would still exist, were that not the case. I am an atheist, and I know LotR appeals to a lot of atheists and agnostics as well as to Christians and Jews.

I agree. I would describe myself as an agnostic, and this has not affected my appreciation of LotR. Indeed, until recently, I was unaware of Tolkien’s faith and did not pick up on the religious undertones in his works at all. Having said that, I am familiar with Christian ideals and so perhaps there was a degree of connection there, even though I did not appreciate it at the time.

Then again, the kinds of concepts which LotR espouses – its morality, if you like – are not exclusive to Christianity. Do these shared concepts appeal to those of other faiths, even though the “trappings” within which they are presented are Christian in origin?

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I know Japanese Tolkien addicts from other sites ...

I find that interesting, given that Japan has a very distinctive cultural tradition. What is it in Tolkien’s works, I wonder, that appeals to Japanese fans? Do they see it differently to “westerners”, ie as interpreted by reference to their own mythological and cultural traditions, or do they see it as a story based upon a different culture, but one which nonetheless contains messages with which they can identify? Difficult to generalise, I know. But it would be interesting to know how the book “translates” to different cultures (in the minds of readers, rather than on the page). Does the imagery of the films, while familiar to most European/North American fans, seem slightly alien to those from other cultural traditions?

Originally Posted by Lyta_Underhill

So the story can be cast in different ways, according to the tenets of the culture. I'd think any story must gain and lose meanings in translation, though, for the very reason of cultural and expressive differences...

I tend to agree with that although, while the style of translation on the page may have a bearing, I do think that it is perhaps more a matter of translation in the mind of the reader.

Originally Posted by davem

I've always been slightly surprised that non-English readers even get the story, as its always seemed so very English to me. A pleasant surprise, of course, but odd, to me, nonetheless....

Originally Posted by davem

I meant that to me the settings - particularly the parts set in the Shire, & the Hobbits themselves seem so English that I've always been surprised that non-English readers can relate to them so deeply.

It does not surprise me that non-English readers can relate to the visual backdrop to the story since, while the Shire might be very much grounded in the English countryside, the plains of Rohan, the peaks of the Misty Mountains and the depths of Moria will be recognisable to those from many other countries. So, it is not so much the landscape of Middle-earth which I suspect may be unfamiliar to some readers from different cultures, but rather the depiction of its peoples and their traditions. From Hobbits to Dwarves, from Elves to Ents and from Gondorians to Rohirrim, their depiction is unambiguously European.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I ascribe to this very translation (it being the first as well) the popularity Tolkien has in Russia. It subsided of late, but there certainly was a phenomenon known as 'Tolkien craze', which burst out (and was mainly manned with young people - teenagers main part, but up to people in their 'late tweens') by the end of 80s, following publication of 'short version' translation of LoTR in 1982 and first full translation in 1988.

Thank you, HI, for your excellent description of the “Tolkien craze” in Russia. I would be interested to know whether it gained a greater following amongst the Slavic peoples of Russia than amongst those from the Muslim and other cultural traditions. Would you be able to shed any light on that? You indicate that the books have a following in Azerbaijan, which would suggests that it does have some following amongst Muslim peoples. But could the same be said with regard to Iran or Saudi Arabia, I wonder.

Further thoughts, anyone?

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by SpM

I would describe myself as an agnostic, and this has not affected my appreciation of LotR. Indeed, until recently, I was unaware of Tolkien’s faith and did not pick up on the religious undertones in his works at all. Having said that, I am familiar with Christian ideals and so perhaps there was a degree of connection there, even though I did not appreciate it at the time.

When I read, I tend to separate my mindset from that of the so-called real world without even realizing it. And not having a Christian view from the beginning, I never made any kind of connection in that sense. Of course, I read at the beginning of FotR that LotR is a "fundamentally Christian work," but that had little effect on my reading. I generally accept books as their own little contained worlds, just appreciating the stories in and of themselves, and it's not until I have read them several times over that I begin to make deeper sorts of connections. It was this forum that actually alerted me to the actual depth of LotR. But even knowing about the presence of this "applicability," it doesn't overwhelm me when I read; it usually doesn't cross my mind. The few exceptions are where there is supposed to be intervention from Eru, which I originally interpreted as pure chance, ie: 'There goes Gollum... it would have done Sauron some good if he'd installed guard rails in Sammath Naur.'

Religion doesn't define one's ability to enjoy LotR, and I think the same goes for geography too. I've never seen anywhere like the Shire with my own eyes (or hendu, for my fellow Quenya students ), but I can certainly imagine it. And there are other parts of Middle-earth that I can relate to familiar places. The Misty Mountains could easily be the Adirondacks; Fangorn is any dark and looming wood. I think everyone can associate something they know with somewhere (or even someone) in LotR. And, there are many ideas and ideals presented in LotR that are nearly universal: loyalty, friendship, courage, mercy, love. As long as people hold these as positive ideals, there will be appreciation for the book.

[Mister Underhill]

Here is an interesting article on a man who has gotten rich and famous from the huge royalties he earned from his Chinese translation of LotR, which sold over 600,000 copies following the release of FotR (the movie) in China. You can just cancel the prompt to install a Chinese language pack if you see it and still read the article, which is in English.

The Chinese arguably have a stronger point of identification with the Rohirrim than the average Englander, since they can count as ancestors the most fearsome horse-warrior culture in history. From what I can tell from popular Chinese cinema, the average Chinese has at least as much of a connection to LotR's themes of duty and honor as the typical modern Westerner, too.

Speaking of the movies, I wonder if they have forever biased an analysis of Tolkien's cross-cultural appeal. Who knows how Jackson's "visual translations" have affected -- or created -- audiences abroad?

A couple other quick points, as I always seem to be pressed for time these days:

There are too many factors in play to make any definitive judgment of Tolkien's potential appeal in some parts of the world. For instance, in Saudi Arabia, where people are still occasionally executed for the practice of witchcraft and it is illegal even to possess "polytheistic and superstitious books", and where the government tightly censors the books and even the web access available to its citizens, is it any surprise that there is no big Saudi Tolkien following? Can we rightly say that Tolkien has no "cross-cultural appeal" in such a climate? I guess it depends on how you define culture.

I must join other posters, particularly Novnarwen, in scoffing at the idea that the setting of Middle-earth is somehow so particularly English that the rest of us won't "get it". England doesn't have a corner on green hills or swift rivers or trees or even mist, davem, my friend. Are visitors to Sequoia National Park the only ones who may even have a chance to "get" Lothlórien? Have many primeval giant lava-spewing volcanoes in England, do you? How ever do you "get" Mordor? What's the English analog for Khazad-dûm of which we fur'n'ers are deprived? For Rivendell? It's silly. Middle-earth, while clearly inspired by English and other European landscapes, is not England. Anybody with even a little media exposure and a little imagination should have no trouble imagining Middle-earth, no matter where they hail from.

[Joy]

I would have to agree that people from other cultures would have no problem understanding the themes of LotR. Yes, the Asian culture is different that the Western/European, but they sitll have the theme of honor in battle (think of the Samuria warriors).

I am from the South US (Ga) to be exact. I have been to the mountians of Tn and N Ga. Maybe not as grand as the Rockies (which I have pictured for the Misties). I have been to the caves in Marrianna, Fla. I sometimes picture them as Aglarond.

I think we all have geography that we can picture as the places.

[Cailín]

I definitely agree with the statement that the members of this forum are not a true representation of the Lord of the Ring fans over the world. Most countries have perfectly adequate translations and therefore their own fandoms. For example, in the original Dutch translation Frodo Balings (Baggins) lives in the Gouw (Shire) and sets out to Mordor with Sam Gewissies, Merijn Brandebok en Pepijn Toek. It's not only the language barrier that keeps the nations with their own 'Tolkien-culture' away from the Downs - the world in which the story takes place might be entirely different (being both a native Dutch and English speaker - I have very different associations with something called the Shire than with the Gouw). But let's not get into that.

Though the concept of good vs. evil is universal, I do believe the Lord of the Rings appeals more to western nations and cultures than others. Tolkiens works are based on Germanic (and possibly Celtic) mythology - the heritage of the western world and easy for us to relate to. Now, people of a Romanic or Greek descent are still closer to the Germanic people than say - for example - African or Eastern-Asian people. Whenever I try to read African stories, I find myself confused, because their morals are so different and their humour seems very un-funny.

Also, let's say you grew up in a desert instead of the typical English landscapes of the Shire. Though I don't want to seem judgemental, it makes sense the desert people would make the desert the 'good' place and the forests and riverlands with which they are unfamiliar 'evil'.

Maybe what I am trying to say is this: Tolkiens works are widely read and enjoyed. But if we assume (another discussion) that it is the reader, not the author, who gives meaning to the text, people of a different culture might be reading an entirely different story than the majority of us.

~ Cailín

Note: It should not be forgotten that the Dutch and Germans have essentially less trouble understanding and translating English than any other country, for they are all Germanic languages and actually very much alike. The same would apply to French and English - since French influenced Modern English so heavily - but the French, as we all know, are far more protective of their own language.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

For myself, I was always surprised at the strong response Tolkien's work received from committed Christians as it has aways seemed to me to resonate more with pre-Christain culture and belief. It's been said before, but there is a distinct lack of churches, priests and rituals within Middle-earth. Those rituals which we do see are simple, such as Faramir's company looking to the West as a form of 'grace', and this could also signify something to do with honouring ancestors from Numenor.

Tolkien's work also reveres the landscape; those who work with it are considered to be 'good' while those who work against it are not. Creatuires such as the Ents are often compared with older cultures' ideas such as The Green Man and tree spirits, and though carvings of The Green Man are often seen in churches, this is most defintely a pre-Christian symbol. Tolkien seems to direct us towards reverence for all living creatures, including the living landscape rather than rverence of humans.

As one of those committed Christians I’d say that love of creation goes along with love of the creator. And the story resonates deeply with a reverence for the creator. The lack of ritual, aside from what we had with Numenor, is really rather a trivial thing. I suppose it all hinges on how you describe religion, and with was set of eyes you read the stories. But it seems that the way Tolkien writes the stories you can relate it to your own experience and values, whatever that maybe. Though it might turn out a very different story, if for instance you are of the post WWII Japanese mindset, or of Mongolian descent.

I have never quite understood how people can be drawn to the more sinister aspects of the story. Could it be that orc lovers love them out of pity? But then perhaps it is just the same with them, - another set of eyes far different than mine. I could be wrong of course, but it would seem that there are very many differing reasons why people love these books. And with the realization that there is such a diverse crowd on the Downs in relation to background and belief, I do think that it would appeal to a broader group if language/translations weren’t a barrier. Even if it is just a curiosity for someone of a vastly different culture, the stories are good. (Just as one can appreciate the Ramayana with out being Hindu and without necessarily getting the full impact.)

Which brings me to the point that I have noticed quite a few people from the Indian subcontinent on the Downs over the years. Three thoughts come to mind that may have some bearing on India being an exception, things touched upon earlier on, one being that there are many ‘English medium’ schools there, and another is that many of those schools are Catholic. Lastly, is that the English did leave a bit of their culture behind, architecturally and otherwise. It would be hard to say which (language, religion or familiarity) might provide more of a spark to potential Tolkien readers. But I think it is safe to hazard the guess that a good command of English is probably the greater catalyst there.

[Orofaniel]

SaucePan-

As far as I am aware, there are no Downers in China or in any strongly Islamic countries. Is this because the book has little appeal in these cultural traditions, or is this largely a function of language barriers? Does the book have any appeal to Hindus, Buddhists (and I know that there are a few Downers who at least have an interest in Buddhism) or among the indigenous people of the Americas and Australasia? Or does its really only appeal to those of the European and/or Judaeo-Christian tradition?

I think we should look at Tolkien's letters.

There are many theological themes underlying the narrative, the battle of good versus evil, the triumph of humility over pride, the activity of grace, Death and Immortality, Resurrection, Salvation, Repentance, Self-Sacrifice, Free Will, Humility, Justice, Fellowship, Authority and Healing. In it the great virtues of Mercy and Pity (shown by Bilbo and Frodo towards Gollum) win the day and the message from the Lord's Prayer "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" was very much on Tolkien's mind as Frodo struggled against the power of the One Ring (Letters, 181 and 191).

If you read this, I think you’ll see that the themes in Lord of the Rings aren't just of any great importance in Christianity, but also in many, if not all, religions. The basics in all religions are almost identical.( I have many examples, but I think I’ll leave it to you to figure out the resemblance between the world’s biggest religions. It really isn’t that difficult.)

So, even though Tolkien was catholic - and English- for that matter, I'm not surprised that the book appeals to members of other religions living in very different continents. I would only think it natural, since Lord of the Rings brings up the "basics" in Christianity. It is about good versus evil and more. It appeals to all of us, even though we have different beliefs. I actually find it a bit disturbing that one even can suggest that it wouldn’t appeal to people with different beliefs, because for me, there is such an obvious answer to it.

Perhaps there is a language barrier. But at the same time, perhaps people from non-English countries prefer to join Tolkien sites/froums in their own language. Or perhaps they don't feel like discussion books on the internet. Also, most people on the Barrowdowns are from England, USA, Australia & Europe. I guess it has something to do with the economical state in this world as well. Not a lot of people form the poor countries in Africa and Asia has the ability to be representative on this forum, due to, as I said, the economical situation. The Lord of the rings might not even be available certain territories, due to many reasons, something that has already mentioned. But it certainly doesn't mean that it wouldn't appeal to those people. I think it definitely would appeal to them, because they could relate too many of the themes in the book, as well as the atmosphere.

*


As for settings; wow. I'm amazed. What do we have books for? I certainly thought it was an excellent opportunity to create our own images and use our imagination.

Davem-

For instance, I've grown up in an area parts of which are still reminiscent of the Shire - ''woods, fields, little rivers' - so I've been able to wander in places which strongly reminded me of the books, & I've encountered people very like the Hobbits. So I have that connection with the books that people living in a different landscape wouldn't have.

I guess I'm lucky because I have seen a few hills during my life time - and a couple of rivers too. That way I can "relate" to LoTR more...is that what you think? Seriously, I don't think those images is that hard to imagine on our own. We are homo sapiens, the creatures with the highest IQs on this Eearth - I think. Hills, rivers, fields - that's a piece of cake. And so, I would say that your argument about your stronger connections with the books because you have seen/grown up in a "look-alike-LoTR-Landscape", is groundless. There is no right or wrong way to interpret scenery, or a book, in my opinion. (But perhaps some of us find it easier to interpret it because of their knowledge about what the writer is describing.) And I guess we all can feel the strongest connections to the book even though we don't have the same background as you do. I guess we've all felt like wandering the Shire every now and then, not necessarily just because of the scenery, but because of what seems to be a "Shire-like atmosphere". I even think small objects and/or buildings can give us a few hints what it would be like to live in the Shire.

I swear I’ve been in Mordor. I have. I swear it.

[Bêthberry]

Perhaps this thread on Engrish subtitles suggests that there is a cultural divide to be crossed?

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Shwoa! I hope the poor individuals don't base any opinions on that translation!

[Lalwendë]

First of all, like SpM and Encaitare, I never thought twice about any possible links to Christianity within the text, not for a long time. It was only after I had spoken to Christians who had read LotR that I began to notice how certain aspects might be found within. I wonder how many other people also fail to pick up on the Christian links? Now, thinking about the early fandom, in the late 60's, I also wonder how many of those people picked up on the Christianity? I know that Tolkien is loved by many people who for want of a better word fit into 'alternative' culture which is often non-Christian; I've lost count of how many ex-hippies, goths and greenies that I've met who love LotR.

After hearing what Ronald Hutton said about Tolkien's work, I'm even more convinced that Tolkien did not set out to write a Christian story, but that those elements were found in there afterwards. Hutton said that using the Letters as a basis for Tolkien's meaning can be risky. Why? Tolkien was a committed Christian (albeit one who seemed to lose faith during the 1920's) after LotR was published, and he was keen to appear so. In answering letters filled with difficult questions, he emphasised this fact, which is quite understandable. It doesn't alter the fact that there are non-Christian elements within the books.

Maybe many of those elements which remind us of our beliefs are universal and shared between faiths and often equally as well understood by those who do not have a faith. I don't think LotR could be claimed as a Christian book, instead it was a book written by a Christian which is different. In that respect it has a wider appeal, and looking at it in that way helps me to understand why I (and many many others) love it despite not being a committed Christian. Maybe there ought to be a thread questioning and examining if it is the kind of text it is sometimes deemed to be?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by SpM

would be interested to know whether it gained a greater following amongst the Slavic peoples of Russia than amongst those from the Muslim and other cultural traditions

I have no exact data of figures, but my impression is that yes, Tolkien gained greater following with Slavic peoples. Muslims I mention in my previous seemed more like an exeption to me, still more both persons I had in mind are well-acquainted with Russian cultural environment.

But, again, I have no statistics to lean on, justs impressions

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I don't think LotR could be claimed as a Christian book, instead it was a book written by a Christian which is different.

I couldn't agree more. But I do think that there are a few things that Catholics at least will pick up on, that the rest of us may not. Whether Tolkien intended them too is another matter, entirely.

[Bêthberry]

May I make a suggestion here? Sauce, since you raised the issue, perhaps you could provide some quotations or point to particular passages and events which you think might represent a Eurocentric cultural view rather than a 'universal' view (even if regarded by Caucasians as universal) which people of other cultures might not see as a universal truth?

It is all well and good to say that all peoples and all cultures and all faiths understand 'good vs evil', but there are very different ways of understanding those terms. I don't say this to discredit anyone's beliefs--and I apply here all of SpM's cautionary comments from his first post--but to consider more specifically how different events can be understood.

For instance, the entire framework of a march south to battle evil and repel it from Gondor: Does this read too much like the medieval crusades from some points of view? I mean, would it remind some readers of the crusades and battles to exclude the Muslims from Europe? We all have a certain understanding about Tolkien's methods in describing the Easterlings and men from Harad--we know he wasn't racist--but how do those descriptions at least initially impact on Asian or Middle eastern or African people? What does it mean for black readers to constantly see the words 'dark' and 'black' used for the evil side? And before any of you jump on me, let me suggest you read some of Toni Morrison's thought here, say, Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination.

Sauce, were you asking us to consider LotR through other eyes than our own?

[HerenIstarion]

What does it mean for black readers to constantly see the words 'dark' and 'black' used for the evil side?

But surely 'evil side' is rather defined by what it does, not how it looks. Or rather, it looks 'dark' (as in creepy cold black starless foggy night, not brownish warm chocolate colour) following what it does (clouds fogging both Orodruin and Thangorodrim expressing Sauron/Morgoth's brooding)

Than there is Sam reflecting upon fate, war and nature of evil over the dead body of the Southerner.

I don't suppose the employement of word 'dark' should be that repelling. Whatever the skin colour, people generally prefer bright day to the dead of night (despite what we down here play at, being skeletons and wights)

Most virtues are the same across cultures (courage, justice, mercy, kindness (even japanese 'obligation' incororates those) are good things, cowardice, threachery etc - bad things)

It should appeal therefore, on moral plane, even if it does not appeal on, per instance, with nature description (indeed, what if I prefer deserts, starry skies and the wind to rooks and hills? But my preferences are irrelevant, as if Aragorn and Co were Bedouins, Sauron would be Iblis/Shaitan trying to defile the silence of the desert itself, and there would be no quesiton which side should I be on)

Epic is an epic everywhere

Indeed, in this respect hobbits should be the major drawback for the 'cross-cultural appeal' (or at least, hobbits in the beginning of the book). If they serve the purpose of connecting modern (presumably, European) reader with the epic heroes of the past, for some cultures (Japanese, for hobbits have no obligations and seem lazing more often than not, Bedouins or Afghanis, for hobbits are gentle, not warlike at all etc) they may prove an entity, contrary to intention, reader is unable to feel for or associate himself with at all

But once we are on to High Epic, LoTR is less unlike any other national epos. Why should not it appeal?

[Bêthberry]

I know that sequential posts by one poster are usually regarded as bad form, but on rereading my above post, I decided that I should not attempt to speak for those Others but should provide some of their own words, an extensive act beyond a simple edit. I also just now found my copy of Morrison's book.

Here is an excerpt from the preface to Toni Morrison's work, Playing in the Dark:

The principle reason these matters loom large for me is that I do not have quite the same access to these traditionally useful constructs of blackness. Neither blackness nor "people of colour" stimulates in me notions of excessive, limitless love, anarchy, or routine dread. [Here she is alluding to her discussion of a passage from Marie Cardinal's The Words to Say It, about a white French girl's thoughts on growing up in colonial Algeria.] I cannot rely on these metaphorical shortcuts because I am a black writer struggling with and through a language that can powerfully evoke and enforce hidden signs of racial superiority, cultural hegemony, and dismissive 'othering' of people and language which are by no means marginal or already and completely known and knowable in my work. My vulnerability would lie in romanticizing blackness rather than demonizing it; villifying whiteness rather than reifying it. The kind of work I have always wanted to do requires me to learn how to maneuver ways to free up the language from its sometimes sinister, frequently lazy, almost always predictable employment of racially informed and determined chains. (The only short story I have ever written, "Recitatif," was an experiment in the removal of all racial codes from a narrative about two characters of different races for whom racial identity is crucial.)

. . . .

When does racial "unconsciousness" or awareness of race enrich interpretive language, and when does it impoverish it? What does positing one's writerly [or readerly, as she has suggested previously] self, in the wholly racialised society that is the United States, as unraced and all others as raced entail? What happens to the writerly[again, also, readerly] imagination of a black author [again, reader] who is at some level always conscious of representing one's own race to, or in spite of, a race of readers that understands itself to be "universal" or race-free? In other words, how is "literary whiteness" and "literary blackness" made, and what is the consequence of that construction? How do embedded assumptions of racial (not racist) language work in the literary enterprise that hopes and sometimes claims to be "humanist'?

EDIT: cross-posted with HI, so I guess my apologia here wasn't necessary. I think Morrison answers some of the points HI has raised in his post: the point is not that it cannot be done, but what goes on to make it 'done'?

[HerenIstarion]

SpM, seeing as it is a latest fashion on the Downs to undertake statistacal research, I suggest that you add a poll to the thread.

It will be selective, of course, as knowledge of English is probaly the main requirement for BD membership, and great number of people this thread inquires upon read LoTR in their own languages, still many more are denied the pleasure as Tolkien’s works are not yet translated into their native tongues, but, given our considerable numbers, it will still give approximate picture, even if a bit lopsided due to prevalence of Englishmen and Americans. But, apart from that apparent lead, the rest of the world will be presented more or less accurately, I suppose.

As the poll facility only gives 10 option choice, and as, following Samuel P. Huntington, I too hold that cultural confrontation of modern times leaves the borders of national state and ethnicity and moves to wider scale of confessional opposition, I further suggest that the poll will be conducted by religious confession membership. Just, as such information may be considered private and confidential, do not make the poll public, so we’ll see numbers but not who believes what.

Par example:

Are you:

1. Atheist
2. Buddhist
3. Christian (Catholic)
4. Christian (Eastern Orthodox)
5. Christian (Protestant)
6. Jew
7. Hinduist
8. Muslim (Shia’)
9. Muslim (Sunni)
10. Other

(The list is in alphabetical order)

If you find the poll does not correspond with the goal of the thread, I can make a special thread for it (with moderating team’s permission, of course)

cheers

[Lalwendë]

I think this is a good idea - as I'd be interested to see how things shake out as t'were.

I think "Other" will be a rather popular option here - though if you couple this with asking 'Downers to 'please explain', the thread might end up with some extremely long posts!

Under option 5 you might also get quite a lot of variants. Indeed, some Christians might tick 'other', especially if they are Unitarian or Mormon. And then again, Universalist Unitarians might wish to tick 'all of the above'.

British 'Downers might remember the controversy over the last census which asked people to indicate their religion. Not all choices were covered understandably as the form would have been ridiculously long, but some people were very vocal about the option 'Jedi Knight' not being available.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Yes, the choice of 'other' would cover a very broad spectrum. Maybe it would be good to include something like 'another traditional religion, not mentioned above' and also 'non-traditional religion' or 'personalized belief system'.

[the guy who be short]

There don't appear to be many Muslims here. Perhaps to free up space, Shia and Sunni Muslims should be merged. The other option could then be used for Wiccan/Spiritualist/Traditional faiths.

We also need somewhere for Agnostics and Sikhs.

I don't think we'll find many Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus or Muslims - Perhaps we could merge Buddhists and Hindus as they have common roots? I don't want to merge Atheists and Agnostics because there'll likely be large numbers of these.

So:

1. Agnostic
2. Atheist
3. Buddhist/Hindu
4. Christian - Catholic
5. Christian - Orthodox
6. Christian - Protestant
7. Jew
8. Muslim
9. Sikh
10. Wiccan/Spiritualist/Other

Would that work?

Anyway, I found the "map" of the Downs here. The actual map is on page 14.

[The Saucepan Man]

I haven't time right now to respond to all of the great points that have been made recently on this thread, but hope to do so shortly.

So this is a brief response to HerenIstarion's proposal for a poll.

The problem with focussing on religion is that it is only one aspect of a person's culture, and therefore only one aspect of what I wanted to address on this thread. I also have in mind social considerations, ethnic origin, history, traditions etc. Some religions, or branches of particular faiths, have a very strong sense of culture such that one can almost define the believer's culture by reference to his or her faith (devout Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons etc), while others permit greater scope for more cultural diversity among their adherents. So religion is only one part of the picture. And a rather small part for those who, like me, have no strong religious belief.

Having said that, I can see value in a poll such as that which HerenIstarion suggests. But then should we also set up polls for location (although the list compiled by Amanaduil that TGWBS linked to does provide a lot of information in this regard), place of birth, ethnic origin etc etc? Or perhaps we should conduct a Barrow Downs census (voluntary, of course)!

Unfortunately, having only 10 possible categories severely limits the scope of any poll on religion, given the multitude of faiths that there are in the world. With this limitation, my suggested list would look like this:

1. Atheist
2. Agnostic/No strong religious belief
3. Buddhist/Shinto
4. Hindu/Jain
5. Christian - Catholic
6. Christian - Protestant/Other
7. Jew
8. Muslim
9. Sikh
10. Wiccan/Spiritualist/Other

I am happy to include a poll in this thread but, given what I have said about religion only being one aspect, it might, if people are interested, be worth starting a separate thread for this purpose.

[Bêthberry]

Also, just so everyone knows, polls that are private can, I suspect, still be read by the Admins, who see all and know all

I think I would agree with Sauce that a poll on religion alone is likely not to refer to all the aspects he wishes us to consider.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

1. Atheist
2. Agnostic/No strong religious belief
3. Buddhist/Shinto
4. Hindu/Jain
5. Christian - Catholic
6. Christian - Protestant/Other
7. Jew
8. Muslim
9. Sikh
10. Wiccan/Spiritualist/Other

You know I was looking at this and thinking that I'm glad you included Sikhs in their own catagory, for I don't see which other box they could pick, when I realized that the Other box is lumped in with either Wiccan/Spiritualist or Protestant, and that might cause a problem to some.

Perhaps a formal poll is not the thing to do since it is so limited, but I rather like the idea of a voluntary poll where the members could give as much pertinent information as they would like, such as:

Do you feel your view of the Lengendarium is impacted by religion. If yes, which religion and what is the strength of your adherence or non-adherence? (optional).

Do you find that the Legendarium and your faith conflict or supplement each other.

What is your native language?

What culture and nation have you been raised in?

Did you first read the books in English or in translation?

Approximate age when you first become interested in Middle-earth.

And so on.

Perhaps one individual could be PM’d the responses, and compile the results.