A Song of Ice and Fire (no HBO GOT spoilers post-season 5, please)

[WarriorPoet 352]

A thread for anyone else like me who wants to stay free from spoilers in the HBO show starting with this new season, but still be able to discuss the phenomenon that is A Song of Ice and Fire. I'm somewhat OCD about staying spoiler-free on things I care about, and also something of a purist on storylines (e.g., no Special Edition for my wife and kids, thank you very much George Lucas!), but I still want to be able to talk about the books and speculate about the world G.R.R.M. has created and speculate about what may happen in his work, as distinct from the show.

That being said, if anyone wants 0 spoilers from the books, say so and we can use spoiler tags in here.

 

My first question, if anyone wants to discuss (this came to me yesterday when I was listening to Game of Thrones on audiobook): does Westeros have months? Can Westeros have months, since seasons are of irregular length (i.e., something's "wrong" with their orbit such that they don't have a standard revolutionary pattern)? How do they divide their time periods and know when to celebrate name-days? Is it just that they have years of standardised length, and then winter comes and happens to last for multiple years? What's the standard for dividing time?

 

Related: how can entire planets in the Star Wars galaxy have homogeneous environments? An entire planet that's always frozen/dessert/jungle? What kind of orbit and chemical make-up could create that, if any?

[Dagonet 7,246]

Months derive not from seasons but from rotations of the moon, both here and there. Same as the length of year, a year there is as long as it is here.

Seasons and the length of a year are not necessarily linked, it was until the Julian calendar that the Romans had to intercalate extra days from time to time (as we still do, with leap years).

 

As for Star Wars, there is but one real reason: story. 

Though frozen planets aren't impossible, look at Titan for instance, and Mars might well qualify as a habitable desert planet if you add an atmosphere. 

 

Tatooine appears to have no polar ice caps, unlike Dune's Arrakis or Mars, but single environment planets might not be too strange. Without humanity, most of the world would still be covered in various types of forest

[Robin Graves 6,054]

LOL Song of ice and fire thread and less than two posts in we're on about star wars.

 

As to the single enviroment worlds: Here's my two cents.

 

Hoth is probably the most plausible: long ice age, orbit just far away from it's sun , maybe elliptic orbot so that it has cold and slightly warmer seasons. Or maybe the events of "Empire" justv took place during the winter.

 

Tatooine is probably something like Mars, it once had more water on than it has now and has been slowly becoming more arid over the centuries.

 

The problem with Endor is that there appear to be no large bodies of water to evaporate and irrigate the forrests. Maybe there are large underground water supositories that the trees have their roots in?

 

Still Ol George sure likes his one enviroment type worlds. Later we would get City and Lava types. Naboo is probably the most diverse planet from the movies.

[Dagonet 7,246]

Only 8% surface water on Endor, that doesn't seem like a lot, if you look at orbital shots.

[WarriorPoet 352]

[D]oes Westeros have months? Can Westeros have months, since seasons are of irregular length (i.e., something's "wrong" with their orbit such that they don't have a standard revolutionary pattern)? How do they divide their time periods and know when to celebrate name-days? Is it just that they have years of standardised length, and then winter comes and happens to last for multiple years? What's the[ir] standard for dividing time?

[Emphasis added]

 

Months derive not from seasons but from rotations of the moon, both here and there. Same as the length of year, a year there is as long as it is here.

Seasons and the length of a year are not necessarily linked, it was until the Julian calendar that the Romans had to intercalate extra days from time to time (as we still do, with leap years).

 

Thanks for clarifying, Dagonet - sorry I phrased that so poorly. See the sections from my original post that I bolded in the quote, and clarified - viz., how does Westeros divide their time? Do they have a moon off of which to base months?

[Dagonet 7,246]

 

[D]oes Westeros have months? Can Westeros have months, since seasons are of irregular length (i.e., something's "wrong" with their orbit such that they don't have a standard revolutionary pattern)? How do they divide their time periods and know when to celebrate name-days? Is it just that they have years of standardised length, and then winter comes and happens to last for multiple years? What's the[ir] standard for dividing time?

[Emphasis added]

 

Months derive not from seasons but from rotations of the moon, both here and there. Same as the length of year, a year there is as long as it is here.

Seasons and the length of a year are not necessarily linked, it was until the Julian calendar that the Romans had to intercalate extra days from time to time (as we still do, with leap years).

 

Thanks for clarifying, Dagonet - sorry I phrased that so poorly. See the sections from my original post that I bolded in the quote, and clarified - viz., how does Westeros divide their time? Do they have a moon off of which to base months?

 

 

Yes, there is a moon, mentioned in the books a bunch of times.  A year is a year, you measure a year by the position of the sun. A month is based on the position of the moon. Westeros works the same as Earth in that respect.  A year is twelve months.

 

Our year is not based on the cycle of spring/summer/fall/winter, if that were the case, we'd not start a new year in the middle of one season but at the transition. .

 

The climate will be explained at the end of the series, according to George Martin.

[WarriorPoet 352]

 

 

[D]oes Westeros have months? Can Westeros have months, since seasons are of irregular length (i.e., something's "wrong" with their orbit such that they don't have a standard revolutionary pattern)? How do they divide their time periods and know when to celebrate name-days? Is it just that they have years of standardised length, and then winter comes and happens to last for multiple years? What's the[ir] standard for dividing time?

[Emphasis added]

 

Months derive not from seasons but from rotations of the moon, both here and there. Same as the length of year, a year there is as long as it is here.

Seasons and the length of a year are not necessarily linked, it was until the Julian calendar that the Romans had to intercalate extra days from time to time (as we still do, with leap years).

 

Thanks for clarifying, Dagonet - sorry I phrased that so poorly. See the sections from my original post that I bolded in the quote, and clarified - viz., how does Westeros divide their time? Do they have a moon off of which to base months?

 

 

Yes, there is a moon, mentioned in the books a bunch of times.  A year is a year, you measure a year by the position of the sun. A month is based on the position of the moon. Westeros works the same as Earth in that respect.  A year is twelve months.

 

Our year is not based on the cycle of spring/summer/fall/winter, if that were the case, we'd not start a new year in the middle of one season but at the transition. .

 

The climate will be explained at the end of the series, according to George Martin.

 

Oh, duh, there's a moon - just listened to the chapter where they tell Daenerys that the moon was an egg from which the original dragons hatched... I've read the books before, just wasn't thinking of that.

 

I thought the year was calculated based not on the position of the Sun per se, but the position of the earth in relation to the Sun - that is, the rotations (days) we travel around the Sun in one revolution (year). From there, we get seasons based on our perigee and apogee as well as axial tilt, no?

So, my thinking with Westeros is that their orbit must be like a slingshot or something in that they're close to their Sun for a while (summer), and then suddenly far away from their sun for an irregular period of time (winter).

Yes, I know our year is not based on seasons; again, I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my original post (I haven't edited it simply to avoid causing more confusion now that we're having this clarifying discussion); it was simply the thought of Westeros' irregular seasonal cycle that made me wonder how they calculate time since their years might not be standard.

But if G.R.R.M. has decided that the seasonal irregularity is caused by something other than orbit, so be it - he made the world, not me!

[Dagonet 7,246]

The seasons are apparently magical in behaviour, is what he said in interviews. Also, Essos is more southernly and doesn't have the seasonal swings Westeros has (and we know next to nothing about Ulthos and Southoryos, but it seems the seasons are more usual as well, with Ulthos being covered in jungle). 

 

And yes, we calculate the position of the earth in relation to the sun now, . But way back when we calculated it by when the sun hit a certain spot in the sky at a certain time. You know, stick a pole in the sand and watch the shadows and stuff.

[Dagonet 7,246]

To recap:

 

The world of Westeros (which is nameless at this time) has a moon.

A month is the same length as our month. 

A year is twelve months

Only Westeros has such pronounced swings in seasons. That may be because Westeros is the only one that reaches so far north. 

The climate will be explained later.

[Dagonet 7,246]

Now, I personally think the seasons have to do with the eternal battle between Azura Mazda Rhlorr and the Dark who obviously rules over the Others. Who the old gods are, the seven, and the drowned, is up for grabs.

[WarriorPoet 352]

Okay, now that's cleared up...

 

Now, I personally think the seasons have to do with the eternal battle between Azura Mazda Rhlorr and the Dark who obviously rules over the Others. Who the old gods are, the seven, and the drowned, is up for grabs.

 

That, I think, is the best consensus we can come to, and I like how very much Martin has made deities an active force in his (unnamed) world. I know he's said that he likes Tolkien, but thinks he needed to include religion in his world; I am of the opinion that Tolkien did not overtly include much organised religion in Middle-earth, but that deities are active behind the scenes and there is a moral order to the universe, but I like that Martin's world feels so much more authentic to human nature (i.e., characters are not archetypal paragons of virtue [who happen to be of a particular race] or demonic bad guys [who also happen to be of a certain race...]).

Edited April 25, 2016 by WarriorPoet

[Hawkstrike 5,410]

Tatooine may be physically viable; IIRC there's only a relatively small habitable region as the rest is too hot.

Westeros' planet (does the world have a name? Essos is the eastern continent, right?) I don't think has a viable physical reason for the irregular seasons -- so, magic.

[Dagonet 7,246]

Martin differs from Tolkien more in that for both side the deities seem to be active (who's good and who is evil remains to be seen of course ).

 

Whereas Tolkien had a more classic storytelling view where Evil was incarnate and actively in control (Sauron in LotR, Morgoth in Silmarillion) Eru had strictly forbidden direct interference by the Valar after the destruction wrought in the wars with Morgoth. Which is why Saruman, Gandalf and Radagast were so much less powerful than Sauron when back home they were of the same order and it can be argued that Galadriel was more powerful than any of the Istari who had to forego most of their powers. Though Eru broke his own command by sending Gandalf back after he fell in Moria.

 

Though my personal theory there is that Eru had an avatar in Middle Earth, Tom Bombadil.

 

"Eldest, that's what I am... Tom remembers the first raindrop and the first acorn... He knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless - before the Dark Lord came from Outside."

Melkor entered Middle Earth soon after its creation.

 

I also think that it is Tom Bombadil who angers Caradhras so the Fellowship had to go through Moria.

 

Sorry, I sometimes miss the days of alt.fan.tolkien

[Dagonet 7,246]

(i.e., characters are not archetypal paragons of virtue [who happen to be of a particular race] or demonic bad guys [who also happen to be of a certain race...]).

 

The race is quite happenstance though, as Faramir ponders.

And as Pratchett put it:

 

Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because -- what with trolls and dwarfs and so on -- speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green.

That would well go in Middle Earth as well, there's enough evidence of tension between species and countries but skin colour is hardly mentioned.

[heychadwick 11,357]

Now, I personally think the seasons have to do with the eternal battle between Azura Mazda Rhlorr and the Dark who obviously rules over the Others. Who the old gods are, the seven, and the drowned, is up for grabs.

 

Yeah, it's all this.  The Winter is brought on by the Darkness.  We don't know too much, but I'm looking forward to it.  GRR does like his Ice Spiders in stories, so I'm sure we will see one in the series.  

 

 

That, I think, is the best consensus we can come to, and I like how very much Martin has made deities an active force in his (unnamed) world.

 

Yes.....but what I love is that not ALL of the religions are true.  Look at the Seven.  It's a hollow religion!  I love it.  It's really the Old Gods and the Red God that are actually true.  The Seven is just a false religion.  I love that aspect of it.  

[FTS Gecko 24,135]

Yes.....but what I love is that not ALL of the religions are true.  Look at the Seven.  It's a hollow religion!  I love it.  It's really the Old Gods and the Red God that are actually true.  The Seven is just a false religion.  I love that aspect of it. 

 

Actually, there is only one true god, although he has many faces.

 

And there is only one thing we say to him...

[heychadwick 11,357]

I don't think the Good of Many Faces is a monotheist.  I thought he was just the one god that was in all the different pantheons.  Every one has a death god, like the Stranger in the Seven.  

[TasteTheRainbow 8,726]

I think the seasons are probably related to the greater magic battle of light and dark, but there's a little cosmology sprinkled in there as well. A wandering red dwarf with an eccentric orbit was my first thought when the books mention a "red star" called "the stranger" being associated with the long night.

[WarriorPoet 352]

 

(i.e., characters are not archetypal paragons of virtue [who happen to be of a particular race] or demonic bad guys [who also happen to be of a certain race...]).

 

The race is quite happenstance though, as Faramir ponders.

And as Pratchett put it:

 

Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because -- what with trolls and dwarfs and so on -- speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green.

That would well go in Middle Earth as well, there's enough evidence of tension between species and countries but skin colour is hardly mentioned.

 

 

Part of the reason I'm listening to ASoIaF on audiobook is to do a comparative study between three major fantasy works, the first of which was LotR. When I went back and listened to it, I was shocked by how much (even though it's not blatant) racism is actually present. To be clear, I never would have thought claims of racism were any more valid than that Tolkien was simply a reflection of his time. And I do grant Faramir's reflection upon race being happenstantial, but you have to admit - is it happenstance that all of the heroes are White?

Tolkien consistently uses "dark" and "swarthy" to describe bad guys, refers to Uruk-Hai as "slant-eyed" (yes, they're Orcs, not humans - but that they share a physiological feature with a human race that was oppressed in Tolkien's lifetime is disconcerting at the least), and I believe there's at least one instance where either Easterlings or Southrons are described as having bronze rings contrasted with their copper skin.

[FTS Gecko 24,135]

The seasons are apparently magical in behaviour, is what he said in interviews. Also, Essos is more southernly and doesn't have the seasonal swings Westeros has (and we know next to nothing about Ulthos and Southoryos, but it seems the seasons are more usual as well, with Ulthos being covered in jungle). 

 

And yes, we calculate the position of the earth in relation to the sun now, . But way back when we calculated it by when the sun hit a certain spot in the sky at a certain time. You know, stick a pole in the sand and watch the shadows and stuff.

....or build a circle of giant granite monoliths...

[heychadwick 11,357]

Oh, one thing to ask (since we can't talk about spoilers from tv show)....can we talk about the leaked chapters that GRR Martin has released?  There are about 5 of them and they are really good.  

 

 

 

 

(i.e., characters are not archetypal paragons of virtue [who happen to be of a particular race] or demonic bad guys [who also happen to be of a certain race...]).

 

The race is quite happenstance though, as Faramir ponders.

And as Pratchett put it:

 

Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because -- what with trolls and dwarfs and so on -- speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green.

That would well go in Middle Earth as well, there's enough evidence of tension between species and countries but skin colour is hardly mentioned.

 

 

Part of the reason I'm listening to ASoIaF on audiobook is to do a comparative study between three major fantasy works, the first of which was LotR. When I went back and listened to it, I was shocked by how much (even though it's not blatant) racism is actually present. To be clear, I never would have thought claims of racism were any more valid than that Tolkien was simply a reflection of his time. And I do grant Faramir's reflection upon race being happenstantial, but you have to admit - is it happenstance that all of the heroes are White?

Tolkien consistently uses "dark" and "swarthy" to describe bad guys, refers to Uruk-Hai as "slant-eyed" (yes, they're Orcs, not humans - but that they share a physiological feature with a human race that was oppressed in Tolkien's lifetime is disconcerting at the least), and I believe there's at least one instance where either Easterlings or Southrons are described as having bronze rings contrasted with their copper skin.

 

 

I go back and forth on the racism aspect of things when viewed through Tolkien.  I mean...he's trying to portray something akin to Olde Timey Europe...especially being British.  So, of course everyone is going to be white.  I get that.  To then think that there are people with a darker complexion who live further south and closer to the equator isn't really racist, especially if you view it through the idea of recreating a Europe that didn't exist.  Sauron is there and everything past him is just swathed in mystery and a good place to pull up some bad guys.  Their geography will dictate that their skin is darker.  Is it some inherent racism that made Tolkien make the bad guys darker skin?  Or was he just trying to come up with something that made sense geographically?  Does his intent matter when viewed through the culture?  

[WarriorPoet 352]

Oh, one thing to ask (since we can't talk about spoilers from tv show)....can we talk about the leaked chapters that GRR Martin has released?  There are about 5 of them and they are really good.

Hmmm, I'm fine with that, I suppose - though I haven't read those yet. I should get on that. Link?

 

 

 

 

(i.e., characters are not archetypal paragons of virtue [who happen to be of a particular race] or demonic bad guys [who also happen to be of a certain race...]).

 

The race is quite happenstance though, as Faramir ponders.

And as Pratchett put it:

Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because -- what with trolls and dwarfs and so on -- speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green.

That would well go in Middle Earth as well, there's enough evidence of tension between species and countries but skin colour is hardly mentioned.

 

 

Part of the reason I'm listening to ASoIaF on audiobook is to do a comparative study between three major fantasy works, the first of which was LotR. When I went back and listened to it, I was shocked by how much (even though it's not blatant) racism is actually present. To be clear, I never would have thought claims of racism were any more valid than that Tolkien was simply a reflection of his time. And I do grant Faramir's reflection upon race being happenstantial, but you have to admit - is it happenstance that all of the heroes are White?

Tolkien consistently uses "dark" and "swarthy" to describe bad guys, refers to Uruk-Hai as "slant-eyed" (yes, they're Orcs, not humans - but that they share a physiological feature with a human race that was oppressed in Tolkien's lifetime is disconcerting at the least), and I believe there's at least one instance where either Easterlings or Southrons are described as having bronze rings contrasted with their copper skin.

 

 

I go back and forth on the racism aspect of things when viewed through Tolkien.  I mean...he's trying to portray something akin to Olde Timey Europe...especially being British.  So, of course everyone is going to be white.  I get that.  To then think that there are people with a darker complexion who live further south and closer to the equator isn't really racist, especially if you view it through the idea of recreating a Europe that didn't exist.  Sauron is there and everything past him is just swathed in mystery and a good place to pull up some bad guys.  Their geography will dictate that their skin is darker.  Is it some inherent racism that made Tolkien make the bad guys darker skin?  Or was he just trying to come up with something that made sense geographically?  Does his intent matter when viewed through the culture?

 

 

Right, I think that's about the only valid argument for excusing it. It's severely Anglo-centric, so naturally the good guys would be White. But to associate the incarnate lord of all evil (at least, post-Melkor) with other races more than blurs the line between Anglo-centrism and overt racism, IMHO. That is, his intent does matter because his cultural assumptions inform his intent - i.e., his intent to create a characteristically English monomyth means that his good guys must be White, but it does not require that his bad guys be Black, since, for example, England was historically at war with France, not Libya (though he does have overtones of the Crusades throughout his work; Osgiliath could easily be Byzantium, and in some senses Minas Tirith parallels Jerusalem besieged {hmm, or Minas Ithil...that could be an interesting interpretation of Jerusalem being overtaken by "infidels."}).

So, geographically speaking, people from those regions (of both our world and Middle-earth) would have darker skin - but Tolkien did not have to choose to cast them as the bad guys (or as allies of evil). The argument that Tolkien grew up in South Africa and therefore was participating in apartheid with his work is an overstatement, I think, but I think he carried those assumptions with him.

[heychadwick 11,357]

UMMMM...I had to kind of dig for those.  I had them all downloaded....at another job.  I don't really have the links anymore.  I know there is a mobile app that has a bunch of them in the app.  Some of them are really easy to find and some are kind of hard.  Then again, that was a year ago.  I'm sure someone has compiled a list of them since then. The main themes are:

 

1) Fight w/ the slaver cities around Maureen.  Tyrion is with mercenaries on wrong side and old King's Guard is leading the fight from the city.  They are going to attack.  Danny isn't there.  

 

2) Stannis is marching towards Winterfell and they bump into Theon Greyjoy.  From Theon's perspective about what is happening.  

 

3) Story from Sansa at the Eirie and learning manipulation from Little Finger. 

 

I can't recall if there is anything else.

 

 

 

 

Right, I think that's about the only valid argument for excusing it. It's severely Anglo-centric, so naturally the good guys would be White. But to associate the incarnate lord of all evil (at least, post-Melkor) with other races more than blurs the line between Anglo-centrism and overt racism, IMHO. That is, his intent does matter because his cultural assumptions inform his intent - i.e., his intent to create a characteristically English monomyth means that his good guys must be White, but it does not require that his bad guys be Black, since, for example, England was historically at war with France, not Libya (though he does have overtones of the Crusades throughout his work; Osgiliath could easily be Byzantium, and in some senses Minas Tirith parallels Jerusalem besieged {hmm, or Minas Ithil...that could be an interesting interpretation of Jerusalem being overtaken by "infidels."}).

So, geographically speaking, people from those regions (of both our world and Middle-earth) would have darker skin - but Tolkien did not have to choose to cast them as the bad guys (or as allies of evil). The argument that Tolkien grew up in South Africa and therefore was participating in apartheid with his work is an overstatement, I think, but I think he carried those assumptions with him.

 

 

I don't think you can really point to specific countries and refer them to real world ones.  I think it's more just the mentality of the Shire being England and there being other countries between them and the evil.  

 

Yes, the enemies don't have to be dark skinned, but doesn't it add some exotic elements?  Maybe some oriental feel to it all?  Some form of strange and unknown peoples that are involved.  Is that racist?  It adds something unique to the story.  Just because they are the enemy, does it have to be racist?  I mean, pulling in elements of something exotic and foreign adds a bit of excitement. Does it really mean that the darker skins are LESS than the whites?  That's what racism is, though, right?  That one is better than the other?  If adding in something that's meant to be exotic for excitement that is another race....does that make it racist just for doing that?  I admit it's not exactly enlightened, but I don't think it's meant as a better than attitude.  I always thought it was a way of adding in Oliphants and unusual foes, but not that they were less than whites.  Sure, they were corrupted by evil, but so were enough whites throughout the movies.  

[heychadwick 11,357]

Also, has anyone read the "Knight of the Seven Kingdoms" novella?  GRR wrote a few graphic novels that are 200 years before current books, but it seems he has converted them into novellas, too?  The graphic novels are pretty good and I liked them.  They are about Dunk and Egg, or Ser Duncan the Tall and Eagon Targaryen.  The first is all about how there are red apple Fossoways and green apple Fossoways.  Well, that's part of it.  

[WarriorPoet 352]

UMMMM...I had to kind of dig for those.  I had them all downloaded....at another job.  I don't really have the links anymore.  I know there is a mobile app that has a bunch of them in the app.  Some of them are really easy to find and some are kind of hard.  Then again, that was a year ago.  I'm sure someone has compiled a list of them since then. The main themes are:

 

1) Fight w/ the slaver cities around Maureen.  Tyrion is with mercenaries on wrong side and old King's Guard is leading the fight from the city.  They are going to attack.  Danny isn't there.  

 

2) Stannis is marching towards Winterfell and they bump into Theon Greyjoy.  From Theon's perspective about what is happening.  

 

3) Story from Sansa at the Eirie and learning manipulation from Little Finger. 

 

I can't recall if there is anything else.

 

 

 

 

Right, I think that's about the only valid argument for excusing it. It's severely Anglo-centric, so naturally the good guys would be White. But to associate the incarnate lord of all evil (at least, post-Melkor) with other races more than blurs the line between Anglo-centrism and overt racism, IMHO. That is, his intent does matter because his cultural assumptions inform his intent - i.e., his intent to create a characteristically English monomyth means that his good guys must be White, but it does not require that his bad guys be Black, since, for example, England was historically at war with France, not Libya (though he does have overtones of the Crusades throughout his work; Osgiliath could easily be Byzantium, and in some senses Minas Tirith parallels Jerusalem besieged {hmm, or Minas Ithil...that could be an interesting interpretation of Jerusalem being overtaken by "infidels."}).

So, geographically speaking, people from those regions (of both our world and Middle-earth) would have darker skin - but Tolkien did not have to choose to cast them as the bad guys (or as allies of evil). The argument that Tolkien grew up in South Africa and therefore was participating in apartheid with his work is an overstatement, I think, but I think he carried those assumptions with him.

 

 

I don't think you can really point to specific countries and refer them to real world ones.  I think it's more just the mentality of the Shire being England and there being other countries between them and the evil.  

 

Yes, the enemies don't have to be dark skinned, but doesn't it add some exotic elements?  Maybe some oriental feel to it all?  Some form of strange and unknown peoples that are involved.  Is that racist?  It adds something unique to the story.  Just because they are the enemy, does it have to be racist?  I mean, pulling in elements of something exotic and foreign adds a bit of excitement. Does it really mean that the darker skins are LESS than the whites?  That's what racism is, though, right?  That one is better than the other?  If adding in something that's meant to be exotic for excitement that is another race....does that make it racist just for doing that?  I admit it's not exactly enlightened, but I don't think it's meant as a better than attitude.  I always thought it was a way of adding in Oliphants and unusual foes, but not that they were less than whites.  Sure, they were corrupted by evil, but so were enough whites throughout the movies.  

Frankly, the terms "oriental" and "exotic" have inherently racist connotations. Your point stands that nowhere does Tolkien explicitly state that any species or race is less than another. However, given the connexions between species and colour that I mentioned before, he seems to be implying some value statements.

 

 

Also, has anyone read the "Knight of the Seven Kingdoms" novella?  GRR wrote a few graphic novels that are 200 years before current books, but it seems he has converted them into novellas, too?  The graphic novels are pretty good and I liked them.  They are about Dunk and Egg, or Ser Duncan the Tall and Eagon Targaryen.  The first is all about how there are red apple Fossoways and green apple Fossoways.  Well, that's part of it.  

 

I've read the novella, but not the graphic novels. The novella is excellent! I'll have to check out the graphic novels. For my birthday, I'm hoping to get a copy of A World of Ice and Fire; maybe I'll search for the graphic novels if I get any cash.