Fandom, Books, Music, Science, & Cats

That’s right, this is a dragonfly nymph! Our impressive flying friends actually spend the vast majority of their life like this: as a ferocious aquatic predator. The way we see them above water is comparatively a fleeting moment of their lifespan.

So firstly imo what’s crucial here is understanding that the desert riders don't simply represent post-9/11 anxieties… their inclusion in that form outright reproduces the securitisation logic of the War on Terror. And this isn’t me forcing a progressive read of an adaptation that never claimed to be righting racial wrongs, because the entire Adar plotline with the orcs (as much as I am a bit iffy about certain aspects there) was proof that the writers are perfectly aware of how fantasy can think about populations constituted as "life to be protected" versus "life disposable to violence." 

The first problem for me here is how the show constructs the riders as a collective rather than as individuals. Again, a clearly deliberate choice in a piece of media where half the characters are straight up OCs, many of them well fleshed out and elaborated upon. You have an entire plotline about Harfoots and Stoors with a full new cast of characters, and yet you never even see the riders’ faces, never hear their individual stories, never witness any internal differentiation or dissent within their ranks, only an instance of collective disagreement with their leader. Sure you can say ‘this might come later’ but looking at the narrative trajectory, I simply do not think so and even so, literally every other in-group has been depicted at length already.

And this depiction of racialised populations as a collectively violent mass, this coding through ‘swarm’ and ‘horde’ aesthetics has a very trackable genealogy in colonial discourse about non-Western peoples lacking individuation. Anonymised people of the global south, etc. The riders answer only to Blue bin Laden, are not positioned as a nation-state enemy to be negotiated with or defeated militarily in conventional terms… Gandalf doesn’t treat with them, he treats with the wizard. The riders are simply a band of terroristic agents in an area very clearly representing ‘the Orient’, who are willing to kill children over a payment dispute with their boss, a kind of illegible viral threat that requires ‘divine’ counterinsurgency in the form of Bombadil and Gandalf. The lack of faces under headscarves worn in a style blatantly similar to representations of Arabs + them literally wearing fucking skull masks (edited on them in post!!!) isn't just dehumanisation fyi… it's the visual articulation of an enemy that cannot be comprehended as human through the liberal USamerican 21st century frameworks of personhood the show deals in. Just look at the very name they’re given! Gaudrim, ostensibly from the Sindarin gaud (machinery, contrivance, according to TG)!!!

Anyway this is where Lawrence of Arabia / Gandalf of Rhûn comes in, the savior figure and an example of a particular technology of power at work… elven and Maiar magic is benevolent even when violent, operates in service of life (healing, protection, nurture). Meanwhile, the desert riders' power (through their connection to the dark Istar) is necropolitical from the jump, oriented towards pure destruction. 

This isn't a morally neutral "corruption" narrative or a general black-and-white fantasy portrayal of good and evil… this takes the Oriental horde tendencies of the Easterlings from the source text and gives it a contemporary, worse, face. In a show where everyone from a random orc extra to literal Sauron is presented as redeemable or at least not ontologically ‘bad’, the elf jihadis are given no such humanity. Even their doubts are to do with honour and payment. And the thing is, for a production claiming a racial progressivism that sets it apart from its predecessors… this not a unique portrayal! This is the logic of War on Terror American exceptionalism! 

As in, our violence is regrettable but necessary, protective, ultimately life-giving; their violence is pathological and must be eliminated. The show literally cannot imagine the Gaudrim as having legitimate grievances or complex motivations, their only disagreement with their leader being a basic argument over compensation and the loss of ‘honour’ for these former kings. They follow the dark wizard because *checks notes* they're just like that 🤪🤪🤪

Vulnerable to extremism and prone to fanaticism. Like, you know…

Ok moving in to spacial politics, because the desert is doing some heavy lifting lmao… and this isn’t much of a difference from book canon, in which there’s a general lack of information about the Easterlings at large, their general coding and desert setting being enough to fill in the blanks in a, well, Lawrence of Arabia sense. The adaptation takes this and dials it up to 2000, with perfect awareness of how exactly a desert setting functions in post 9/11 visual cultures, ie as an “everywhere war” space (Derek Gregory term iirc), where it’s simultaneously nowhere (outside civilisation, beyond the polis) and everywhere (the frontier or boundary requiring vigilance and intervention). 

Contrast this with how Lindon, Númenor, Eregion and Khazad-dûm are shown in the adaptation: spaces of architecture, culture, history, law, hallmarks of sovereignty and civilisation… there was even that bit at the end of the second season where Elrond cries out about the burning of Celebrimbor’s books and centuries of research. Not so with the Gaudrim. These guys emerge from this vacantly violent desert space, existing in a state of exception from the other groups… the only culture and lifestyle seen in the desert belonging to the Stoors, who ostensibly leave the desert at the end. There's no room for understanding Gaudrim culture as legitimate or any proof of their position in a meaning-making system. Meanwhile, the elves' devotion to the Valar, the dwarves' relationship to Aulë, even the Harfoots' folk traditions, are all treated as enriching cultural practices. 

And Gandalf’s journey was made fun of by critics as faux Lawrence of Arabia for a reason! Because it is! It’s a narrative of penetration into an ungovernable space, Bombadil’s oasis (don’t get me started oh my fucking god) and Gandalf’s presence the only instances of order/knowledge/‘proper’ magic as opposed to chaotic dark arts. This is textbook civilising mission stuff filtered through counterinsurgency logic!!!

Again, this isn’t Tolkien’s Orientalism reproduced uncritically, this is a deployment of those tropes in a specifically USAmerican sense. I think it was Rey Chow who coined the phrase “the protestant ethnic”, but it basically describes how liberal multiculturalism insists on cultural and ethnic differences being performed in legible, consumable ways.  And so it is here! The "good" diversity in the show (Black elves, dwarves of colour etc) operates within palatable Anglo frameworks: they all wear clothes recognisable as ‘typical Western fantasy’ costumes with a Byzantine/Southern European influence, they speak RP English, all except the proto-Hobbits have Sindarin as a common tongue, they all participate in courtly politics (dwarves) or engage in traditional militaristic pursuits (Adar), value individual achievement but act in the interests of a legible cause. And the cause might be ‘evil’, eg with Sauron, but it’s comprehensible: they all are depicted as people who think of themselves as righteous. Their racial difference is epidermal, their cultural logic is functionally Western. 

The riders, by contrast, are illegibly Other: their dress, their language, their social organisation all mark them as outside modernity. There’s no ‘fantasy robing’ here, they’re what ChatGPT would spit out if you asked it to make you a fantasy jihadi, and their motivations are ‘compensation’ and ‘put under a curse of the flesh’. And crucially, the show never does the work of making them legible as it does for its other populations, makes no effort to translate their difference into something even approaching complex subjectivity. 

And so what this kind of simplistic racialised portrayal of these anonymised people who blindly ‘serve’ every evil that comes around does is naturalise ‘intervention’ as a permanent necessity in places like Rhûn and Harad… a position that the books carry uncritically into the Fourth Age. The Easterlings aren’t a one-time-threat to be defeated, they’re a population perpetually susceptible to radicalisation. Such a region doesn’t call for militaristic defeat but for population management, not the winning of a single war but the maintenance of indefinite security operations. The Westerly men and elves cannot just fix the ‘problem’ of Harad/Rhûn and leave, their presence is permanently necessary… from the First Age to the Fourth, world without end…

Sound familiar? 🤡🇺🇸🇦🇫 

And let's be clear about what gets disappeared in this framework: any possibility of understanding the riders as responding to actual material conditions or histories of domination. Even in Tolkien's texts (and this is saying something!!!), there are at least hints that the Easterlings and Haradrim have been conquered, deceived, or coerced by Sauron… that their enmity toward the West might have explanations beyond simple evil. The Rings of Power forecloses this entirely. The Gaudrim riders appear racialised and threatening from the outset, with no backstory that might complicate the good guys/bad guys binary aside from a flesh-curse inflicted by a single character… just like all the other ‘simplistic’ reasons for the Easterlings’ evil across the legendarium, it is weak on its own and clear as day when viewed as a pattern. And I’m sorry but imo this is identical to how War on Terror discourse severed terrorism from any connection to US foreign policy / economic imperialism / support for authoritarian regimes. 

The terrorists hate us for our freedom, not because of anything we did to them. The Haradrim serve darkness because they're vulnerable to evil, not because they have historical grievances.

Finally, there's the question of rehabilitation and redemption: who gets offered the possibility of real internal change? Galadriel can be consumed by vengeance and find her way back. Isildur can be an arrogant dickhead and learn humility. Sauron gets a whole seduction-and-corruption arc that grants him psychological depth. Adar and orc-rights are a major plotline. But the Gaudrim are either threats to be eliminated or victims to be saved, with no middle ground where they might be political actors making strategic decisions within constrained circumstances. This is the fundamental violence of how a ‘terrorist’ is constructed in the post 9/11 imagination, ie not as a political subject with agency, but as either monster or dupe, either evil mastermind or brainwashed footsoldier. Either way, not fully human in the way that grants political legitimacy.

What all this, and the muted reaction to it aside from the people who already talk about race in Tolkien, told me was just… how deeply the biopolitics of the War on Terror have been naturalised into our reception of a story, the way tons of people who praise the show for its surface level representation and hold themselves as somehow more antiracist than the rest for such a veneration, only acknowledge the Gaudrim’s depiction as a blip in otherwise progressive narrative… at best. 

I genuinely don’t have the energy to go deeper into it now because I and others have been beating this drum for ages but like man. Man. I’m not surprised by Serkis’ comment. I don’t really give a shit about what Andy Serkis says and does because if I was the kind of person who gave a fuck about Andy ‘I felt like an ethnic minority on the Black Panther set’ ‘I somehow interpreted Animal Farm in the most ridiculous way possible’ Serkis’ opinions on anything, let alone race, my life would be much sadder. I think the adaptation will be an enshittified money-grab, and I will probably embrace cannibalism when McDonalds inevitably starts giving out little Gollums with every Happy Meal. Again.

What I am surprised and disappointed by is how the liberal-left reaction to this shit is to always and forever just either pretend it doesn’t exist in the text, or is the result of a complete misreading. So seldom is the response ‘fuck me, this book has some real wild thoughts on race, let’s see how we can engage creatively with that in an adaptation’. Which has never happened. In fact, all your thoughts on Amazon and lore faithfulness and other adaption criticism or applause aside, TROP, the only Tolkien interpretation that has directly engaged with race has thus far done so very, very badly, and only on a surface level. Why?

Because the loudest parts of liberal Tolkien fandom is not interested in exploring race as it exists in the text, to explore it progressively, to engage creatively with the structural conservatism present within the very construction of Middle Earth. They’re interested in concessions that change very little: you can have your brown elves, as long as we don’t have to think about the implications of foundational aspects of our beloved world, which we relate to greatly and do not wish to think about why we relate to it beyond our own experience of encountering the text.

No, it’s always either an insistence that the Racists are Wrong because the Text is Pure, or a slight, grudging concession that Tolkien had ‘a few racist elements’ but ‘nothing like the racism of today’. Of course it’s nothing like the racism of today. Tolkien isn’t writing in 2026. It was the racism of yesterday, and it is very clearly written into the text. Tolkien is not your mildly problematic grandpa. Tolkien was an Oxford don with an enormous, wide-ranging cultural impact, and refusing to acknowledge that is the misreading, not the pointing out of or engagement with structural racism within the text.

There's also a version of this where people cite Tolkien's 1938 letter to the German publisher, ie the one where he refuses to confirm he's of "Aryan" descent and basically tells them to fuck off, as the other canonical "proof text" that Tolkien Was Not Racist, and it does the same flattening as the valedictorian quote. It's a great letter, very ‘get thee gone from my gate’ but it is also a letter about refusing a specific, legally coded Nazi racial category, not a statement about the internal racial logic of his own fiction.

Nobody is saying Tolkien was a fascist white supremacist Nazi. Hell, Tolkien’s own thoughts on military atrocity is pretty clear in the depictions of the escalating kinslayings. But people love to conflate "hated actual fascism, said so on the record and is very evident in his fiction" with "therefore the legendarium contains no racialised hierarchy," as though those two things have to rise or fall together, when they don't. You can be sincerely, personally opposed to Nazi race science and apartheid violence and still write a mythology where moral and aesthetic worth consistently map onto a Northern-European somatic ideal. Because the racialisation Tolkien both inherited and passed on wasn't Nazi race science, it was the broader Edwardian/interwar philological raciology he was actually swimming in, hell, drowning in, considering the Oxford environment. And I find it so, so frustrating how fandom keeps failing to make this distinction: structural racialisation and personal bigotry are not the same axis, and refusing to be measured on one doesn't clear you on the other.

The Southrons/Easterlings material is obviously the part most quoted when it comes to Tolkien’s ‘problematic elements’ except it's imo super telling how rarely it actually gets quoted compared to how often it gets vaguely waved at (except Charles E Mills. I love you Charles E Mills). Anyway “Black men like half-trolls," swarthy, slant-eyed, riding out of the south and east to serve Sauron… it’s the same mapping of good-north/evil-south-and-east you get in a dozen other early-twentieth-century adventure texts. And this imo actually undermines the "it's just medievalism, calm down" defense, because medievalism is a selectively retrospective construction of which past you're claiming and which one you're othering, not some sort of static, neutral historical styling.

Tolkien's medievalism is specifically Northern European heroic-elegiac medievalism, the "Northernness" he talks about loving as a kid, and that aesthetic preference is not extractable from the racial hierarchy it produces on the page. You cannot keep the aesthetic and disclaim the politics because as in all art, the aesthetic is the politics, that's what "structural" means as opposed to "incidental”, and I just wish that many extremely clever people who understand this in a contemporary sense would allow themselves to feel uncomfortable and look at it in a beloved text.

Jackson's trilogy didn't invent racialisation in Tolkien, hell I think he even softened some of it because the Scouring is straight up impossible to adapt without it being very clear about its politics, but his adaptation does go quite some way make the existing racism legible… casting, costuming, choreography and cinematography does the same racialised sorting the text does, and does it visually: Uruk-hai as a kind of grunting brutalised, brutalistic mass, Haradrim on oliphaunts as a fairly straightforward Orientalist boogeyman, and the Fellowship itself photographed like a Pre-Raphaelite fantasy lmfao. Serkis isn't introducing a new interpretive layer with his commentary, hell Serkis was in all those Jackson films as well! Serkis is being very clear about what aspects of the legendarium matter to him, and that aspect happens to be the whiteness of it all. And I genuinely cannot understand why the huge ‘scandal’ around his comment is not that someone said the quiet part, but that saying it out loud is what became the scandal, taken as some kind of transgression against Tolkien and all his readers with Good Politics™️, rather than the quarter-century of adaptations, readings, and analysis of the text that wordlessly encoded the racism and got called faithful and dedicated for it.

I didn’t want to go to author is dead territory but. Fandom discourse keeps reaching for authorial intent as the arbiter of textual meaning in exactly the way most of these same people would reject in any other context. Everyone is a massive New Critic the second the author in question is someone they love. But Tolkien doesn’t need to have consciously intended a racial hierarchy or a white nationalist mythology for the text to functionally produce one, for it to be so loved by conservatives and ethnonationalists who come fifty years after his time.

Intent is not even a contested position in literary theory, it's just the very basic understanding that "text has ideology independent of authorial intent". The insistence on relitigating Tolkien's personal feelings as though that settles the structural question is wild to me, and I find it so extremely unproductive how liberal fandom reaches for this constantly, repeatedly chanting Tolkien’s few vaguely liberal statements that read far less liberally in context. But I guess the alternative, ie reading the actual construction of race in the legendarium on its own terms, requires giving up the fantasy that the thing you love is politically inert. And it’s just so sad man. Like I fucking love the legendarium, and I think insisting on its moral purity is the worst thing you can do to it.

I think my entire argument can be summed up in a few questions. Why do conservatives keep saying "I love Tolkien" completely unashamedly, in a way they don’t realy say about most other ‘canonical’ twentieth-century texts, while we on the left have to perform a whole apologetic dance before we say it? What is it that they embrace about the text, that we have to occlude in order to express an unproblematic ‘love’? Why do we have to disavow parts of a text to claim we love it? Who are we performing to? What are we losing in focusing so hard on this performance?

This is why the Serkis-style comment, or the Rings of Power casting discourse, ends up being the deepest engagement we collectively get in fandom terms. Because both "sides" of that fight are actually shallow in the same way, just from opposite ends. The right-wing backlash to diverse casting is, repulsively, responding to something absolutely present in the text: a defensive crouch around a racial aesthetic it identifies as being under threat. The liberal-left response, the "just add brown elves" gesture, claims the problem to be one of representation and casting rather than structure, which is precisely why the racial elements of The Rings of Power satisfies no one and changes nothing.

You can put actors of colour in Númenor and Harfoot villages and yet the underlying moral framework of who is coded as inherently noble and who as inherently monstrous, whose skin colour the textual narrative uses as a standin for corruption, stays completely untouched. Again, see my TROP link above, with the jihadi-coding of the villains. Because that framework isn't located in the casting of an adaptation, it's located in the construction of Arda itself and physiognomy-as-morality at the level of the prose itself, constantly present throughout the text. Casting a Black actor as an elf doesn't do anything to the fact that "evil race coded as racially other" is still sitting right there in the Southrons and the orcs, unadapted, undiscussed, doing exactly the same work it always did, and this work takes on a new look in post-2001 adaptations.

So what you get is two adaptations of the same tiresome insanemaking discourse rather than two different arguments: the right defends the racial aesthetic as the substance of their love, and the liberal mainstream defends the fantasy that representation-level tweaks constitute engagement with race. And so, nobody actually produces the adaptation that takes seriously what nonwhite Tolkien scholars have been saying for decades, which is that you'd have to touch the orc/Southron/Valar/Valinor/blondeness architecture itself to ever productively have this conversation. Not diversify who plays the good guys, but interrogate why "evil" in this legendarium has a face and a hair colour and points compass east.

But if the talk about this goes on as it does, and continues between Tolkien the Pure versus Tolkien the Misread, there will never be anyone willing to make that adaptation, and we’ll go on forever in a sisyphean climb, where both the reactionary embrace and the progressive denial are just two versions of refusing to read the same damn book. Basically, I think we on the left etc need to stop treating "is Tolkien racist" as a yes/no gate you have to clear before you're allowed to enjoy the books, and stop acting like enjoying problematic media makes you a fascist. We need to start treating the racialised architecture within Tolkien’s world as the actual object of study, same way you'd read imperial romance or Forster or Kipling or Haggard, without needing to acquit or convict the author first.

Which means we have to name the conservatism specifically rather than gesturing at "some outdated attitudes," trace where it comes from historically (the philological Northernness Tolkien grew up steeped in, not some special personal failing that reflects badly on you), and then ask what an adaptation would look like which dramatised that rather than smoothing over it or weaponising it. We have to let go of the idea that critical engagement is disloyalty, and let go of the idea that loving something requires defending its honour. We need to get the resilience needed to engage with the idea that a work can be both formative and ideologically compromised at the same time.