“My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remain obstinate!… Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people… The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.”
I don't understand why the mere suggestion of this, which is well-supported (it's something Lewis has explicitly said as well), seems to offend you.
Edit: I also think you're under the impression that I hold Tolkien in a more negative light than I actually do. I think Tolkien is awesome. I don't think he's above reproach, I think his writing has flaws, and I think he is the product of his times.
cheezy what the fuck are you doing on a forum if that's your perspective?
you do understand that "there are better more worthwhile things to do with your time" does not invalidate or even address the argument that is being set forth and is in fact a common logical fallacy?
and that you posting on a forum multiple times to convince someone that they're wasting their time is ludicrous hypocrisy?
the thread's not about what qingu should do with his time. qingu does plenty with his time. among these things is posting on a forum. this thread is about lord of the rings.
I'm not a huge Lord of The Rings fan, but calling Tolkien a racist or pro genocide is silly. As someone pointed out, there are documeted accounts of his outrage at the percecution of the Jews by germany.
I like dichotomous good vs. evil in my fiction. Sure, the more ambigious conflicts can be good too, but I see nothing wrong with a cut and dried these are the good guys, these are the bad guys. I haven't seen a convincing argument for why one is "better" than the other. Most arguments, no matter how wordy, basically boil down to "well I like it more, so that means its objectively better, nyah."
I also think Qingu's perception of quality writing is skewed because, I read a bit of his novel and it reads like a fifth grader's work.
Cliff on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
The idea that you can't critique something unless you can do better is complete bullshit. And the extra insult thrown on just makes you an goosefucker.
While the racial lay-out of LotRs has... unfortunate implications, I think it's far too simplistic to simply dismiss it as "racism".
There are no unfortunate implications nor undertones unless one is insecure enough in their own racial identity to project their own self-loathing into the work.
There is no need to defend such themes because there are none. Suggestions that there are racist themes says more about the frustrations of those searching for them than the work itself.
While the racial lay-out of LotRs has... unfortunate implications, I think it's far too simplistic to simply dismiss it as "racism".
There are no unfortunate implications nor undertones unless one is insecure enough in their own racial identity to project their own self-loathing into the work.
There is no need to defend such themes because there are none. Suggestions that there are racist themes says more about the frustrations of those searching for them than the work itself.
All the good people are white and all the black people are evil. That has unfortunate implications. At the very least it's insensitive.
EDIT:
Also what the fuck is wrong with you people that you apparently can't have a civilized discussion about LotR? WTH
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
There are none in the story, so that would be quite a feat. Unless, of course, one wished to assign such a status where it is not stated one way or the other. Such an interpretation would again say much about the person making the interpretation. Desiring black people to appear in the story in order to be victimized.
There are none in the story, so that would be quite a feat. Unless, of course, one wished to assign such a status where it is not stated one way or the other. Such an interpretation would again say much about the person making the interpretation. Desiring black people to appear in the story in order to be victimized.
You're making it too easy on yourself. While I think that people tend to overstate the racist elements of Lord of the Rings, it is at least noteworthy that the evil races and characters are dark-skinned or sallow of skin and have slanted eyes. You'd have to be willfully blind not to see that there's something dodgy going on here.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
There are none in the story, so that would be quite a feat. Unless, of course, one wished to assign such a status where it is not stated one way or the other. Such an interpretation would again say much about the person making the interpretation. Desiring black people to appear in the story in order to be victimized.
Well, southrons and easterlings are more brown than black, but same diff.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
You're making it too easy on yourself. While I think that people tend to overstate the racist elements of Lord of the Rings, it is at least noteworthy that the evil races and characters are dark-skinned or sallow of skin and have slanted eyes. You'd have to be willfully blind not to see that there's something dodgy going on here.
The assortment of thugs and various lowlifes? It has been some time since I read Lord of the Rings in detail, as it is my least favorite of Tolkien's work. I remember scouring it for information on both the Easterners and the Southerners, however. There is, essentially, nil.
Or were you describing the Orcs, which are always an interesting case?
As far as racism goes? Not even close. But that is besides the point, as neither are the villains of the story. They are peripheral actors and background information. Their leader is described vaguely in a detached manner, and they play no large part in the story.
They are merely men who are deceived by the Dark Lord. As were the Numenorians(the ancestors of Aragorn, who, under the influence of Sauron, fell into the most depraved ways of any race of men), as was Boromir, and as was Denethor.
There are none in the story, so that would be quite a feat. Unless, of course, one wished to assign such a status where it is not stated one way or the other. Such an interpretation would again say much about the person making the interpretation. Desiring black people to appear in the story in order to be victimized.
You're making it too easy on yourself. While I think that people tend to overstate the racist elements of Lord of the Rings, it is at least noteworthy that the evil races and characters are dark-skinned or sallow of skin and have slanted eyes. You'd have to be willfully blind not to see that there's something dodgy going on here.
It's like you guys aren't even trying here. He's racist because his book has made-up beings in it, some of which are good and some of which are evil? Because most of the protagonists are white? Except for all the white minions of Sauron who are totally evil but let's not count those because let's just not count those?
Man, a WHOLE LOT of sci-fi writers are terrible goddamned racists then. Someone call up the guy who came up with Alien/Aliens. The aliens are browned skinned. Coincidence easily explained by the fact that they're fictional fucking creatures? NO SIR. SUPER RACISM. Aliens=blacks=OMGTHERACISM. And you know how they're always trying to kill the aliens? That's pro genocide sentiment right there.
It's much more likely that LOTR reflects a european bias than racism. Which is pretty much where academia has settled on the 'was Tolkien a racist because OMGORCS?' issue. There's lots of other shit not to like about the books, you don't have to call the author a racist to knock the work down if you don't like them.
You're making it too easy on yourself. While I think that people tend to overstate the racist elements of Lord of the Rings, it is at least noteworthy that the evil races and characters are dark-skinned or sallow of skin and have slanted eyes. You'd have to be willfully blind not to see that there's something dodgy going on here.
The assortment of thugs and various lowlifes? It has been some time since I read Lord of the Rings in detail, as it is my least favorite of Tolkien's work. I remember scouring it for information on both the Easterners and the Southerners, however. There is, essentially, nil.
Or were you describing the Orcs, which are always an interesting case?
As far as racism goes? Not even close. But that is besides the point, as neither are the villains of the story. They are peripheral actors and background information. Their leader is described vaguely in a detached manner, and they play no large part in the story.
They are merely men who are deceived by the Dark Lord. As were the Numenorians(the ancestors of Aragorn, who, under the influence of Sauron, fell into the most depraved ways of any race of men), as was Boromir, and as was Denethor.
So, outside of what, twelve people, all the white people to fall to sauron lived in the heathen past? That isn't suspect at all.
I thought the big underlying theme of these books was the horror of war, and the loss of innocence, not racism.
I thought the orcs were black, because black has been a color denoting evil in european mythology forever. I also thought he orcs were symbolic of Germany, the great war machine that it was and that he was demonizing other white people, not africans. I do think that the easterlings and such were supposed to be representative of the turks, but more for their role in WWI than because Tolkien had a hate on for brown skinned folks.
I mean, it seems like it can be read in a racial way, but is there much evidence that's how it was intended? Like, do we honestly suspect that Tolkien was a huge racist and made his orcs black with the intention of being analogous to africans?
Also, isn't the black color of orcs and goblin people pretty standard pre-warhammer? In folk lore weren't these kind of creatures always black skinned? They didn't have green orcs, if I remember correctly. Might all be a bunch of hooey though. If not, that easily explains the black in a totally non-racist light.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
Well, southrons and easterlings are more brown than black, but same diff.
They're never portrayed as evil though... they're just men, under the coercion of Sauron. Not even corrupted, not like the orcs, more cowed and threatened.
lu tze on
World's best janitor
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
So, outside of what, twelve people, all the white people to fall to sauron lived in the heathen past? That isn't suspect at all.
This is fucking stupid... All people fall to Sauron, ALL. Read the fucking books, there are no great civilizations left, just the remnants desperately clinging on, fighting a losing battle.
The Corsairs of Umbar were white (Numenorian, even! With magic blood and everything.) Also, the Hill Folk Sauruman sent after Rohan were white as well.
I thought the big underlying theme of these books was the horror of war, and the loss of innocence, not racism.
I thought the orcs were black, because black has been a color denoting evil in european mythology forever. I also thought he orcs were symbolic of Germany, the great war machine that it was and that he was demonizing other white people, not africans. I do think that the easterlings and such were supposed to be representative of the turks, but more for their role in WWI than because Tolkien had a hate on for brown skinned folks.
I mean, it seems like it can be read in a racial way, but is there much evidence that's how it was intended? Like, do we honestly suspect that Tolkien was a huge racist and made his orcs black with the intention of being analogous to africans?
Also, isn't the black color of orcs and goblin people pretty standard pre-warhammer? In folk lore weren't these kind of creatures always black skinned? They didn't have green orcs, if I remember correctly. Might all be a bunch of hooey though. If not, that easily explains the black in a totally non-racist light.
Tolkien vehemently denied that his text was an allegory of WWII, though.
Cameron_Talley on
Switch Friend Code: SW-4598-4278-8875
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
Well, he's made comments regarding his opinions of nazi's and jews, and he's made comments regarding his opinion of the treatment of blacks outside England in the world at large, that generally make him sound like not much of a racist. I'm pretty sure from other comments he's made that he had a european bias. He himself seems to have admitted as much in interviews when asked about the creation process of different species in the book.
The book itself sure doesn't seem to evoke racism, though. It just doesn't seem like a reasonable route for criticism.
I thought the big underlying theme of these books was the horror of war, and the loss of innocence, not racism.
I thought the orcs were black, because black has been a color denoting evil in european mythology forever. I also thought he orcs were symbolic of Germany, the great war machine that it was and that he was demonizing other white people, not africans. I do think that the easterlings and such were supposed to be representative of the turks, but more for their role in WWI than because Tolkien had a hate on for brown skinned folks.
I mean, it seems like it can be read in a racial way, but is there much evidence that's how it was intended? Like, do we honestly suspect that Tolkien was a huge racist and made his orcs black with the intention of being analogous to africans?
Also, isn't the black color of orcs and goblin people pretty standard pre-warhammer? In folk lore weren't these kind of creatures always black skinned? They didn't have green orcs, if I remember correctly. Might all be a bunch of hooey though. If not, that easily explains the black in a totally non-racist light.
Tolkien vehemently denied that his text was an allegory of WWII, though.
Tolkien despised allegory all together and always denied LOTR being an allegory of any sort.
I think Mieville said it best on this subject here:
John H.’s analogy, I think, is a good one: Tolkien is an outsider artist. His genius lay in his neurotic, self-contained, paranoid creation of a secondary world. That act of profoundly radical geekery reversed the hitherto-existing fantasy subcreation: unlike Eddison’s Mercury and Leiber’s Newhon, Middle Earth comes before the stories that occur within it. It’s precisely this approach, the subject of most scorn from the ‘mainstream’, which is Tolkien’s most truly radical and seminal moment. His literalised fantastic of setting means an impossible world which believes in itself, and has no truck with the tedious symbolism which mars so much ‘magic realism’, for example, in which the fantastic does not trust itself, and which the author is keen to stress is ‘really about’ insert-theme-here.
Tolkien’s ‘cordial dislike’ of allegory does not, as some of his followers, most of his detractors, and the man himself seems to think, imply a fiction divorced from reality – a fiction ‘about’ nothing real. What it means is a fantasy that is not reducible to a kind of philistine, simplistic, moralising, fabular representation of soi-disant ‘meaningful’ concerns, as with fiction that despises its own fantastic. Dispensing with allegory cannot mean dispensing with metaphor:[4] fantasy that believes itself is about itself and also about other things.
The rest of the little section on Tolkien there could be interesting to the discussion too:
1. NEVER MIND THE BALROGS.
Tolkien looms over this conversation (as he always seems to). It may sound disingenuous, but I’d like to get to the point where I can stop talking about him. It’s generous of John H. to offer me the get-out clause that my PSS-era attacks on JRR were punk kickings against the pricks, not to be dwelt on any longer. Tempting as it is to agree, though, it would be untrue.
Which isn’t to say there was no punk posing in my sneers. The wen on the arse of fantasy…? These days, of course, I wince a little at that. (Not least because I’ve had it pointed out that wens are a kind of boil exclusive to faces. There is no such thing as an arse-wen. D’oh!)
But as a few of my later pronouncements have tried to make clear, my piece was less an attack on Tolkien than on his influence. Not that I’m distancing myself from specific critiques of Tolkien’s work (none of them original to me, of course. For the last few years I’ve been riffing off Mike Moorcock’s essay ‘Epic Pooh’).
The thing is that I did want to take on Tolkien, in PSS, which was conceived in radical antipathy to as much of his aesthetic and thematic furniture as I could think of. As far as I was concerned I was then done. Tolkien loomed over PSS, but he did not – consciously at least – over TS or IC (though of course it would be naïve to imagine that I’ve ‘escaped’ his influence, or that I’m not a descendent of his).
1.1: In Grudging Defence of Tolkien
John H.’s analogy, I think, is a good one: Tolkien is an outsider artist. His genius lay in his neurotic, self-contained, paranoid creation of a secondary world. That act of profoundly radical geekery reversed the hitherto-existing fantasy subcreation: unlike Eddison’s Mercury and Leiber’s Newhon, Middle Earth comes before the stories that occur within it. It’s precisely this approach, the subject of most scorn from the ‘mainstream’, which is Tolkien’s most truly radical and seminal moment. His literalised fantastic of setting means an impossible world which believes in itself, and has no truck with the tedious symbolism which mars so much ‘magic realism’, for example, in which the fantastic does not trust itself, and which the author is keen to stress is ‘really about’ insert-theme-here.
Tolkien’s ‘cordial dislike’ of allegory does not, as some of his followers, most of his detractors, and the man himself seems to think, imply a fiction divorced from reality – a fiction ‘about’ nothing real. What it means is a fantasy that is not reducible to a kind of philistine, simplistic, moralising, fabular representation of soi-disant ‘meaningful’ concerns, as with fiction that despises its own fantastic. Dispensing with allegory cannot mean dispensing with metaphor:[4] fantasy that believes itself is about itself and also about other things.
Fundamentally, that is why I think fantasy at its best doesn’t have to choose between John H.’s two poles: political economy vs. puppeteering expressionism. Because the realism of concern and the weird of expression are each their own end, but through metaphor, that magic dialectical glue, they are also, in a critical fantasy, functions of each other. (None of which, of course, is to say that I’ve got it right).[5]
This is not, of course, to repudiate any of the rude things I’ve said about Tolkien’s themes, prose, women, class politics, moralism, etc. In focusing on the way fantasy thinks of itself, the way a self-believing fantasy impacts the reader, I’m arguing to nurture the baby of Tolkien’s phenomenology of fantasy while chucking out the bathwater of his ideas. It’s very dirty by now.
1.2. An Admission on War.
I want to agree with John H. over Tolkien and the war. My criticism of him as falling prey to a boys-own-adventurism was misplaced. I still hold that Tolkien’s battles are ‘morally disordered’, but as John H. says, ‘the disorder is of a different order’.
Instead, the overwhelming tone reads as a kind of melancholic glorying, faintly elegiac, Tragic-with-a-capital-T, with swords a-flashing and valiant steeds a-galloping, not Just William but Light Brigade. Rather than the product of never having seen modern war, this in fact seems to me an attempt to forget. Tolkien’s modernophobia manifests in the attempted invocation of a nobility he knows doesn’t exist.
It’s interesting to compare him to that other great outsider artist of the fantastic, Lovecraft. Though Lovecraft never saw war, he did see, quite clearly, the social chaos that the First World War ushered in. The ‘Great War’ was the most shattering event in Modernity’s conception of itself as a rational, humane system: the paradox is that Tolkien, who experienced that carnage first-hand, attempted to turn his back on the truth of post-traumatic Modernity, whereas Lovecraft was thousands of miles away from the heart of horror, but was a neurotically acute barometer of society’s psychic disorders.
These different approaches manifest in their fantasies. To put it with unfair crudeness, Tolkien’s is the fantasy of a man murmuring to himself ‘it’s alright, it’s alright’, but not believing it; Lovecraft’s of a man shrieking ‘none of it is alright, nor will it ever be’. Unconvinced forgetting versus psychotic fixation: both are the results of trauma.
Tolkien almost explores this angle with Sauron in the Silmarillion, but it's pretty thin. In LoTR, Sauron is simply "the Dark Enemy." What is Sauron's motivation? What does Sauron want? What does Sauron think he is doing? Does he think he's improving the world? Tolkien never says, except that Sauron is a servant of Morgoth whose motivation was, if I remember, basically to fuck up the Ainur's symphony and get power for himself.
Sauron isn't a proper character. He's more of a force.
He's a giant floating eye! He is all but formless. All he wants is to conquer everything and increase the power at his command.
The ring is a symbol for power and the story is about how power corrupts. Frodo couldn't have enough willpower to get rid of it. The only thing that could destroy the ring was it's own corrupting influence.
Ok, so, I won't write "deus ex machina" 48 times in this post, I hope that's ok. My take on LotR is that it was not as good as The Hobbit. The Hobbit was awesomely magical and fanciful. LotR tried to hard to build a complex universe around it and retconned some things in the process. It was good, but it kinda ruined the original work for me.
The only irredeemable evils in Tolkien are the orcs, which I find rather odd. Sauron was spared after the fall of Melkor but was too cowardly to return for judgement. It was his choice to make, however. The orcs do not seem to have any control over their fate or even an ability for independent thought. Their inherent evil isn't really comparable to anything else. Especially as they are not creations of Melkor (who does not have the power), but corrupted elves.
I read somewhere that Tolkien recognized this problem, although he never reached a solution, but am I not sure if this is true.
Also...I don't really care for the Lord of the Rings. Odd thing to say, but I just find it bland. The Hobbit is a fantastic childrens' story the Silmarillion is a fantastic legend but the Lord of the Rings just doesn't do it for me.
Posts
I don't understand why the mere suggestion of this, which is well-supported (it's something Lewis has explicitly said as well), seems to offend you.
Edit: I also think you're under the impression that I hold Tolkien in a more negative light than I actually do. I think Tolkien is awesome. I don't think he's above reproach, I think his writing has flaws, and I think he is the product of his times.
you do understand that "there are better more worthwhile things to do with your time" does not invalidate or even address the argument that is being set forth and is in fact a common logical fallacy?
and that you posting on a forum multiple times to convince someone that they're wasting their time is ludicrous hypocrisy?
the thread's not about what qingu should do with his time. qingu does plenty with his time. among these things is posting on a forum. this thread is about lord of the rings.
I like dichotomous good vs. evil in my fiction. Sure, the more ambigious conflicts can be good too, but I see nothing wrong with a cut and dried these are the good guys, these are the bad guys. I haven't seen a convincing argument for why one is "better" than the other. Most arguments, no matter how wordy, basically boil down to "well I like it more, so that means its objectively better, nyah."
I also think Qingu's perception of quality writing is skewed because, I read a bit of his novel and it reads like a fifth grader's work.
This is totally uncalled for and you should apologize to Qingu.
The idea that you can't critique something unless you can do better is complete bullshit. And the extra insult thrown on just makes you an goosefucker.
There are no unfortunate implications nor undertones unless one is insecure enough in their own racial identity to project their own self-loathing into the work.
There is no need to defend such themes because there are none. Suggestions that there are racist themes says more about the frustrations of those searching for them than the work itself.
All the good people are white and all the black people are evil. That has unfortunate implications. At the very least it's insensitive.
EDIT:
Also what the fuck is wrong with you people that you apparently can't have a civilized discussion about LotR? WTH
There are none in the story, so that would be quite a feat. Unless, of course, one wished to assign such a status where it is not stated one way or the other. Such an interpretation would again say much about the person making the interpretation. Desiring black people to appear in the story in order to be victimized.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Well, southrons and easterlings are more brown than black, but same diff.
The assortment of thugs and various lowlifes? It has been some time since I read Lord of the Rings in detail, as it is my least favorite of Tolkien's work. I remember scouring it for information on both the Easterners and the Southerners, however. There is, essentially, nil.
Or were you describing the Orcs, which are always an interesting case?
As far as racism goes? Not even close. But that is besides the point, as neither are the villains of the story. They are peripheral actors and background information. Their leader is described vaguely in a detached manner, and they play no large part in the story.
They are merely men who are deceived by the Dark Lord. As were the Numenorians(the ancestors of Aragorn, who, under the influence of Sauron, fell into the most depraved ways of any race of men), as was Boromir, and as was Denethor.
It's like you guys aren't even trying here. He's racist because his book has made-up beings in it, some of which are good and some of which are evil? Because most of the protagonists are white? Except for all the white minions of Sauron who are totally evil but let's not count those because let's just not count those?
Man, a WHOLE LOT of sci-fi writers are terrible goddamned racists then. Someone call up the guy who came up with Alien/Aliens. The aliens are browned skinned. Coincidence easily explained by the fact that they're fictional fucking creatures? NO SIR. SUPER RACISM. Aliens=blacks=OMGTHERACISM. And you know how they're always trying to kill the aliens? That's pro genocide sentiment right there.
It's much more likely that LOTR reflects a european bias than racism. Which is pretty much where academia has settled on the 'was Tolkien a racist because OMGORCS?' issue. There's lots of other shit not to like about the books, you don't have to call the author a racist to knock the work down if you don't like them.
So, outside of what, twelve people, all the white people to fall to sauron lived in the heathen past? That isn't suspect at all.
I thought the orcs were black, because black has been a color denoting evil in european mythology forever. I also thought he orcs were symbolic of Germany, the great war machine that it was and that he was demonizing other white people, not africans. I do think that the easterlings and such were supposed to be representative of the turks, but more for their role in WWI than because Tolkien had a hate on for brown skinned folks.
I mean, it seems like it can be read in a racial way, but is there much evidence that's how it was intended? Like, do we honestly suspect that Tolkien was a huge racist and made his orcs black with the intention of being analogous to africans?
Also, isn't the black color of orcs and goblin people pretty standard pre-warhammer? In folk lore weren't these kind of creatures always black skinned? They didn't have green orcs, if I remember correctly. Might all be a bunch of hooey though. If not, that easily explains the black in a totally non-racist light.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Tolkien vehemently denied that his text was an allegory of WWII, though.
3DS Friend Code: 0404-6826-4588 PM if you add.
The book itself sure doesn't seem to evoke racism, though. It just doesn't seem like a reasonable route for criticism.
Tolkien despised allegory all together and always denied LOTR being an allegory of any sort.
I think Mieville said it best on this subject here:
http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/11/with-one-bound-we-are-free-pulp-fantasy-and-revolution/
The rest of the little section on Tolkien there could be interesting to the discussion too:
Sauron isn't a proper character. He's more of a force.
He's a giant floating eye! He is all but formless. All he wants is to conquer everything and increase the power at his command.
The ring is a symbol for power and the story is about how power corrupts. Frodo couldn't have enough willpower to get rid of it. The only thing that could destroy the ring was it's own corrupting influence.
I read somewhere that Tolkien recognized this problem, although he never reached a solution, but am I not sure if this is true.
Also...I don't really care for the Lord of the Rings. Odd thing to say, but I just find it bland. The Hobbit is a fantastic childrens' story the Silmarillion is a fantastic legend but the Lord of the Rings just doesn't do it for me.