Academic Vs Popular Writing: Critics Examine Racism in Lord of the Rings

The motive of an author can have a great affect on his or her work, and information can be conveyed in several different ways, especially when being used for diverse purposes. When faced with the task of writing to a group of people who are knowledgeable in a certain subject area, yearning to learn more, an author must dig deeper into data and produce factual results. On the other hand, an author who is writing simply to entertain his readers with interesting information can take a more laid-back approach, dishing out information in a humorous yet capable manner. The article "'Lord' of racism? Critics view trilogy as discriminatory" written by David Ibata, is known as a popular article, and "Why is the Only Good Orc A Dead Orc? The Dark Face of Racism Examined in Tolkien's World" written by Anderson Rearick III, is academic. The thesis, or claim, of Ibata is that the director Peter Jackson may have displayed racial views in the newest Lord of the Rings movie, and popular culture directly influences this, making the issue worse (1). Rearick's claim, however, is that the director, Jackson, did make some mistakes producing the movie, but people should not think that the author of the books, Tolkien, is a racist because of that (864). These two styles of writing have a few similarities, but still contrast greatly, in conventions of language, reference, purpose, and credibility, as well as in the author's stance on his or her claim. Though it is ridiculous for the context of this film to turn into a racial debate in the first place, I believe Rearick does a great job of supporting his claim, while Ibata is overly emotional and lacks support for his argument.

The first contrast in these articles is that they each contain a different purpose. The purpose of the academic article is to disprove others views on the subject of racism or racial views, and to give more factual evidence. The purpose of the popular article is to entertain the reader, and also to give an opinion about an issue in our culture, especially pertaining to the Lord of the Rings. It is easily recognizable that the purpose of the popular article is to entertain because the article itself has an exciting title, "'Lord' of racism? Critics view trilogy as discriminatory", as well as pictures. The language of this article is much more laid back and down to earth than that of the academic article. Speaking on the issue of race in the film, Ibata easily states, "The screenwriters who adapted Tolkien's book to film sometimes muddied things further." Rearick, however, responding to the same topic, goes on to say "One comment that especially mixes up text and film interpretation is Shapiro's claim that Tolkien's dwarves reflect an English prejudice against Scotsmen" (863). The academic article contains documentation throughout, which automatically signifies research and information, rather than amusement. This article is over ten pages longer than the popular article, and has information from a variety of sources, which are used to convey a point to one who is truly interested in this topic.

There is diversity in the rhetorical situation of these two articles. Though they are discussing a similar topic, the main subject is different in each. In the popular source, it is the issue of racism in The Lord of the Rings movies, especially in The Two Towers, that is being talked about. This article was written for the purpose of entertainment, and therefore the audience becomes anyone interested in The Lord of the Rings, racial disputes, or just someone who wants to read about something new. With that in mind, the author assumes that the audience may or may not have any prior knowledge of the topic, and wishes to inform them, while keeping the article short and exciting. In the academic writing, the subject can be identified as discussing the issue of racism and popular culture, and particular associations with The Lord of the Rings movies. The audience of this article is meant to be an academic community, and people and critics involved and familiar with The Lord of the Rings. The author is not only assuming that his readers have seen these movies and read the books, but also that they are familiar with epic stories. The purpose of this academic article is to disprove others views on the subject of racism or racial views, and to give more factual evidence.

The conventions of reference, including amount of references used, and credibility of the authors contrast as well. The academic article has a works cited with over 20 sources, and the popular article does not even contain one. This is proof that the academic article is meant to discuss the topic with more intensity, simply because it involves research and carefully documented information. The author of this work is very precise with his quotations and references, using internal documentation. The popular article does not contain many specific quotations and references because the author is basing his work more on personal opinion than other sources.

Conventions of language contrast greatly between these two articles. Even in word choice, the popular article contains easier diction and is written so that every day people can understand and comprehend the subject. The academic article contains more difficult words, some of which are specific to the topic being addressed. In Ibata's popular writing, he uses no real language of conviction. He uses words such as "may", which show a lack of care and feeling about the subject in which he is discussing in expressions such as, "Unhappily, in "The Two Towers," Jackson may reflect the "Rings'" racial view of the world as well (Ibata). Rearick, on the other hand, definitely uses language of conviction, speaking strongly in what he believes, as in, "Thus, Tolkien's connection is more historically linguistic and cultural than racial" (864). Sentence structure is another part of the conventions of language that is different in the popular source than in the academic source. In the popular work, there is no proper sentence structure. Instead, ideas are written randomly, and paragraphs are formed wherever needed to make the paper work, such as with the paragraph, "No connection can be made between ordinary people and these malformed uglies. No problem here" (Ibata). In the academic article, sentence structure is efficient and put together nicely so that the paper will flow and make sense. Although popular and academic articles deviate greatly, they each fulfill a specific purpose and revolve around a different audience.

These articles each have a different argument, though they are addressing a similar subject. Though Rearick is biased because he supports Tolkien, he presents a better argument, simply because he has information to back it up. His thorough research and amount of sources give him the credibility to display his point. Ibata, contrastingly, lacks this support, and spends his time writing emotionally, without conviction or drive to enforce the claim. The whole idea being discussed by both of these authors is one that I feel should have no place in society because it is ridiculous to turn a book or movie about fantasy into a racial debate. However, since racism is a common argument in our world today, the information that was given is important for readers to acknowledge, because it presents them with ideas, but allows them to make their own decisions about racism and racial views today in popular culture.