And it slips through our fingers

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

The diminishing of things is one aspect of Tolkien's stories that has always fascinated me. The idea that things generally get worse or weaker over time certainly makes for less happy endings. It adds to the tragedy. There are numerous examples: the decline of Middle-earth in general; the Elves; Numenor; the race of Men; the Hobbits and the Dwarves. The zenith of their greatness was reached fairly swiftly - maybe Numenor was more complex - and the descent to the (perhaps illusionary) nadir took a much longer time.

I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious. I know almost nothing about Catholicism, Christianity or religion in general. Is it anything to do with the Garden of Eden?

What it does do is go against a staple of Romanticism or the Enlightenment, namely that human achievment, wisdom and greatness keeps increasing.

Any thoughts? As I suggested, I can hardly bear to imagine a Middle-earth with lots of happy and glorious endings. It wouldn't be right.

[the phantom]

I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious.
Somewhat.

Eden was perfect but man ruined it.

After that things got worse and worse until in Noah's day God was sorry he had ever made man and flooded everyone except Noah and his family.

And then in prophecies of the end times it says that it would be a lot like the days of Noah once again- in other words things would get worse and worse.

But of course the very very end is happy (the devil gets tossed, the church hangs out in heaven, etc).

[alatar]

Have thought about this too. Seems that Tolkien created a world in which things run down from a perfect start. Not sure exactly why he chose to do thus, but I can offer my thoughts:

I would say that some people look to the past as the "golden ages," seeing it glorified in some manner. This view obviously glosses over the rough and bad that also existed in those days. I always find it funny when people tell me that they would have liked to have lived during the pioneer or chivalry/knights ages. These same people can't eat something that an ant crawled on nor go camping without their portable generators.

His view does follow the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy.). From Eru to the present, we've gone from one to many many times over.

If Tolkien were writing a pseudo-history, well, then, he knew where the story had to end, which would be with us and our world as it is in its present state. No orcs, just jerks and sociopaths. No dragons, Balrogs (winged or otherwise), wizards, seeing stones, elves, etc. Surely some might look at dinosaur bones and think of old Glaurung, use cell phones and think of Fëanor, see people of a certain look and think hobbit or elf or dwarf or beornings, etc, but that would be those of us who know what to look for - traces of Middle Earth amongst us.

He also may have included his Christian viewpoint, but I'm not sure that the two map exactly. If one were to read Genesis (the first book of the Bible), one sees a perfect world created which then starts to fall from perfection. All is good until the first two humans sin, which then starts the world spiraling down and away from perfection. The same text speaks of mankind living hundreds of years (the oldest man being Methuselah who lived for 969 years!). Something changes after the noachian flood, afterwhich the average lifespan of man decreased (until recently, when it has started increasing again).

The historical view would be that the world is winding up, in regards to technology and knowledge, and a biological viewpoint would be that the world is simply changing. We might think that we're all that, but we haven't been here even a tenth of the time that the dinosaurs 'ruled the earth,' and just when was the last time you saw one of them boarding a tram?

Sometime in the future the Christian world will return to perfection, though the scientifc view is that the earth will be swallowed by the sun, which in turn will burn out, and if current physics has it right, the whole universe will run down into silence.

But not to worry, as that's at least a few years from now, and you should continue to save money for the 25th anniversary edition of the LOTR DVDs by Peter Jackson ;).

[Elianna]

*concurs with all the religious things phantom and alatar have said.*

But then the up side of all of this is "eucatastrophe." Yes, everything is getting horribly worse, but eventually it will all be set right. Yes, the Elves are going away, but look, there's still hope in people like Faramir and Eldarion. Yes, after five Battles with Morgoth, we're nowhere near defeating him, but look, the Valar have come to our rescue. Yes, Numenor was destroyed, but look, there's still the Faithful with their seven ships, and seven stones, and one white tree.

Probably, Tolkien is pointing to a grander, universal eucatastrophe. That these smaller eucatastrophes hardly make up for what was lost, and even looking at the bright side, it's nowhere near as bright as it used to be. But we can still look forward to the final eucatastrophe in the End. And this, I think, really is a Christian concept.

Yeats' "The Second Coming" also comes to mind, the gyre and things fall apart...

[Folwren]

I don't know that Tolkien was pointing directly to our world with his getting worse and worse but he could have been. I know that C.S. Lewis was aware of the deteroration of this world and the people therein, and I would guess that Tolkien was as well. But as to contuing to get worse and worse with no hope to ever regain the perfect glory that they began with, that much does not mirror what will happen here.

Alatar, I agree with most everything you said, so I won't go repeating it all.

The ending of our World, however, may be more glorious than that of Middle-Earth's ending. If you believe the Bible and study it and understand it at all, then you can see that when this World comes to an end, as we say, then the new world will be ten times more glorious and all the evil that has filled it will be removed, and all the perfect things we've messed up with be restored.

I don't see that as possible in Middle Earth. The things that were lost there may not be recoverable...least ways, that's the impression I've gotten from what I've read of his books.

-Folwren

[alatar]

I don't know that Tolkien was pointing directly to our world with his getting worse and worse but he could have been. I know that C.S. Lewis was aware of the deteroration of this world and the people therein, and I would guess that Tolkien was as well.

I would disagree. Surely things change, yet if you read history we're still the same humans (or not) that we were thousands of years back. The Christian Bible shows many examples of less than civilized/immoral behavior that could be taking place today.


I don't see that as possible in Middle Earth. The things that were lost there may not be recoverable...least ways, that's the impression I've gotten from what I've read of his books.

I would agree. To me it seems that each new age in Middle Earth is born with some loss. Within that age some beings may achieve some great things, yet when averaged and compared with the preceding ages, the achievements are never as lofty.

In the Fourth Age Minas Tirith may enter its glory, yet it will never be as it first was, or as Gondolin was before it. And as Gimli says to Legolas as they enter Minas Tirith, men seemingly will never live up to their own potential.

[Folwren]

[QUOTE=alatar]I would disagree. Surely things change, yet if you read history we're still the same humans (or not) that we were thousands of years back. The Christian Bible shows many examples of less than civilized/immoral behavior that could be taking place today. [QUOTE]

I would say that we are changed...quite. We've gotten very much extremely perverse in just about everything that anyone does...and not only the non-religious people, but also those who claim to be Christians.

Yes, to be sure, we are humans, but more than just our morality or immoratily has changed. And...I was going to say more, but my sister-in-law is shoving me off of here, so I can't.

But I'll be back! ... Somehow.

-Folwren

[alatar]

I would say that we are changed...quite. We've gotten very much extremely perverse in just about everything that anyone does...and not only the non-religious people, but also those who claim to be Christians.

Ever hear about someone named Caligula?

Today you hear/see an event in realtime that happens across the globe. The media, a bit bigger now than even a few decades back, shows you everything! And if that didn't shock you, they will show you everything+ tomorrow - just so that you will tune in and view the commercials.

Read the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, and see what fills God's book - one can only imagine what else happened that was not recorded (note that I mean no offence :( ). Wasn't Leviticus written as a result of what people may have had the tendency to do (or were doing, or did)?

[Holbytlass]

I don't see it as so much aligned with religion as just the way things are. All things come to an end..places, kingdoms, races and so forth. I suppose that's part of some scientific theory I couldn't name.
I also see it as Alatar pointed out that humans do tend to look back on things either in memory or stories (ie, history) with rose-colored glasses. Romanticizing the good and not dwelling on the bad parts.
In essence Tolkien did have to tie this story in with true history down to real life now. He being the author could (and did) write people and places as grander and better than the state of things he was living in his own life.

[Lathriel]

It always saddened me when I read the last few chapters of LOTR and came to realize that magic is truly leaving ME and the decay of many glorious things and places.
But I think this is exactly what life is about. Things can't always continue to be great and there are many examples in history.
To take an obvious example, The Roman Empire, it was great but it didn't last. However, something else will replace that which was lost. The renaisance (although it took some time) again helped the nations flourish. So it is only natural that certain things diminish. That is why LOTR can almost be seen as a historical book. It is because it stays true to these certain realities.

[Folwren]

[QUOTE=Holbytlass]I don't see it as so much aligned with religion as just the way things are. All things come to an end..places, kingdoms, races and so forth. I suppose that's part of some scientific theory I couldn't name.

Good point. Extremely good. I have heard, though I have not seen a direct quote from Tolkien, so don't take it for granted, that he didn't want it to be allegorical.

I've never heard of Caligula, Alatar. Sorry.

The media do go around broadcasting things, but that's also what makes it so bad. Without the media, TV, horrible movies, perverse commercials, and whatever else you wish to add, everyday life and everyday people would be a lot better. We've receeded a long, long ways from real Christianity (and other moral things). The pioneers (I use 'em because someone mentioned them earlier in this thread) didn't go around dressed as we do, they didn't go around talking about the things we do, they didn't go around thinking like we do, they were probably ten times as smart as most of us. We've deteriorted a long way in a matter of two hundred years or so...

But then you might argue that we've also become a lot more efficient and smarter in the fact that we have tons of machines that do every little thing for us (even eat, in some cases) and our technology that we have now wasn't even dreamed of a hundred years ago...I think, though, that even these great accomplishments have helped to corrupt us.

We are yearning for immortality. That's what these life supporting machines in hospitals, all the drugs that are out, and just about everything else are made for. Of course, people don't use the term 'immortality', but all in all, that's what we're searching for. And wasn't that what caused the destruction of Numenor? Wasn't that what ended up ruining everyone?

Okay, I think this has actually strayed from the point of the thread. *sigh* I could start up my own thread, but I don't know if we want discussions like that here.

Did I answer anything you said, Alatar? Reading over the last few posts, and yours, I don't know that I did. But I've spent too much time typing here as it is. I'll come back later and say more if you think it necessary.

[Formendacil]

As far as "decline" goes, I have to agree with Alatar that as a technologically-skilled race, we are rising not declining. We've almost reached the levels of Valinor, perhaps. :p

I would, however, disagree with his statement that we are biologically "simply changing, as stated here:

The historical view would be that the world is winding up, in regards to technology and knowledge, and a biological viewpoint would be that the world is simply changing. We might think that we're all that, but we haven't been here even a tenth of the time that the dinosaurs 'ruled the earth,' and just when was the last time you saw one of them boarding a tram?

Biologically, one could make the case (and I don't necessarily agree with it, I'm just playing devil's advocate...) that we are actually setting ourselves back biologically.

If you think about it, the abilities of our science to preserve our lives and make things liveable has made our biological bodies weaker. It has removed the pressures which kept our population down and weeded out the weaker individuals with undesireable (in a reproductive sense) traits. A few centuries ago, there were no severe asthmatics (they would die), no Type 1 diabetics (they died), no real allegeries, and obesity was a much rarer problem. On whole, the part of the human race that survived to adulthood and marriage was healthier than it is today.

That said, I'm not certain that a greater biological health means a great human health. After all, I'm one of those Type 1 Diabetics who would be dead.

Basically, my point is that one type of growth does not equal growth in all fields, and quite often leads to a decline in those fields. For instance, the growth of friendship between Gondor and Rohan led to the growth and prosperity of both populations, but it also led to the decline of the "high" knowledge of Gondor. And just as the defeat of Sauron lead to the growth of freedom and prosperity in Reunited Kingdom, it led to the decline of the Hobbits as men repopulated Eriador and (eventually) crowded the Halflings out.

Looking at the First Age, I think one can see similar parallels. The building of great, protected cities like Gondolin led to a flowering of art and peace, but it also led to a decline in the unity of the Elven kingdoms. And in another way, the decline in the health and population of the good people in Beleriand led to the rise of their relations with Valinor.

I guess it's a question of balance. As the evil of each Age is defeated and lost, so too must a good portion of the good. The imprisoning of Morgoth- the epitome of all evil, is balanced by the loss of the Elven kingdoms, massive Elven populations, most of Beleriand itself, and a decline in the great Elven art and technology in middle-earth. The destruction of the evil Numenoreans was balanced by the loss of Numenor itself. The defeat of Sauron and his separation from the One Ring was matched with a great decline in the power and influence of the Elven realms. His final defeat was met with an end of "Numenorean" Gondor and of Lothlorien and a true High Elven presence.

I guess one could say it is similar to the Christian view that it took the death of Jesus to match the sins of mankind.

A rambling Devil's Advocate,

~Michael A. Joosten - Formendacil~

[alatar]

Biologically, one could make the case (and I don't necessarily agree with it, I'm just playing devil's advocate...) that we are actually setting ourselves back biologically.

I understand what you're trying to say, yet my point was that we are neither advancing nor retreating. I don't think that biologically our bodies are far from the caves, yet we live in really shiny cities and have been to the Moon. We are adapting slowly to our environment, or more likely adapting our environment to our liking.


After all, I'm one of those Type 1 Diabetics who would be dead.

Glad to have you around. :)

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by alatar
I understand what you're trying to say, yet my point was that we are neither advancing nor retreating. I don't think that biologically our bodies are far from the caves, yet we live in really shiny cities and have been to the Moon. We are adapting slowly to our environment, or more likely adapting our environment to our liking.

Ah, is that your point? I can't really argue much with that, seeing as we aren't changed dramatically, but I would say that we have changed...for the worse.

Everything changes, except for the one who makes it so.

[Guinevere]

Very good points, Formendacil , Alatar and Elianna!
I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious
Here is what Tolkien wrote in letter #195
Actually I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect "history" to be anything but a "long defeat" - though it contains (and in legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.
I rather share his pessimistic view. But it is not without hope - although "hope without guarantees" (to use Tolkien's expression) - and the hope has its foundation in his religion, I guess.

originally posted by Alatar:
If Tolkien were writing a pseudo-history, well, then, he knew where the story had to end, which would be with us and our world as it is in its present state.
I think that that is just what he did! (I could dig out some quotations from the letters to prove it...)

[alatar]

I've never heard of Caligula, Alatar. Sorry.

Hmmm...anyway, he was a Roman emperor known for less than moral living.


We've receeded a long, long ways from real Christianity (and other moral things). The pioneers (I use 'em because someone mentioned them earlier in this thread) didn't go around dressed as we do, they didn't go around talking about the things we do, they didn't go around thinking like we do, they were probably ten times as smart as most of us. We've deteriorted a long way in a matter of two hundred years or so...

I would disagree. I tend to believe that we are not much different than we ever were - there's more of us, and if a subset of the population, say 5%, is loco, then you will find more examples of them today (that and the whole media thing). And then there's California...;)

Not sure how you conclude that people were smarter 200+ years ago. I might cite the giants that wrote the U.S. Constitution, as they were a pretty smart bunch and make many of today's pols look like dolts. However, these were not average people, and what they created was not your average document.

Today you can read what greater and lesser people write as it's all on the internet. You're reading what I've written, and I'm no Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Tolkien, etc. I'm not even in the same zip code as these greats (well, not all of the time - see repdrunk (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=395353&postcount=785)).

In regards to morality and Christianity, one might think that, though we may have fallen somewhat when compared to our recent past (the pendulum always swings one way then back), but if you consider Cain (kills brother), the reason for the Flood (humanity minus eight beyond redemption), Babel (another intervention), Gemorrah and Sodom (these cities aren't on Google maps), the Roman gladiators (man vs man or animal for entertainment), the Dark Ages, witchcraft trials (more about torturing people than redemption or evil), WWI, WWII, ad nauseum, then you might see that it's the same tired old story with new names and toys.

That was a pretty long sentence - phew! Sorry.


But then you might argue that we've also become a lot more efficient and smarter in the fact that we have tons of machines that do every little thing for us (even eat, in some cases) and our technology that we have now wasn't even dreamed of a hundred years ago...I think, though, that even these great accomplishments have helped to corrupt us.

Tools and trinkets are just extensions of our souls. If there's evil within you, a knife might be for more than cutting bread. And I consider us two-legged apes with shiny toys that most of us use yet don't understand.

Have considered what would happen if the world fell apart and we started to live in post-apocalyptic movie worlds. You would see just how human we are on that day as sometimes you can catch a glimpse when the weather channel predicts a more than light snow fall ("I need to get milk and bread - out of my way!").


We are yearning for immortality. That's what these life supporting machines in hospitals, all the drugs that are out, and just about everything else are made for. Of course, people don't use the term 'immortality', but all in all, that's what we're searching for. And wasn't that what caused the destruction of Numenor? Wasn't that what ended up ruining everyone?

Dunno. I try to keep in mind that the Numenorians were looking to add years to their allotment yet did not enjoy those that they had. We have today, and I've learned that a good day is one where I spend time playing with the kids not worrying about what's not getting done.

And, like Tolkien, I get tired of hearing the same old story and want to go somewhere where litter, TV, cell phones and headaches haven't found and dragons, elves, magic rings and kindly old wizards haven't left.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lots of good points and ideas on this thread! Given Tolkien's evident personal faith, no one could deny that much of the bittersweet flavor of the book stems from the author's Christian view that we live in a world where our occasional victories--even something as profound as the destruction of the Ring--can only be seen in the context of the ongoing 'long defeat', an historical process that will continue until the world meets its end and Arda or Earth is finally remade.

But I think we can view all this in an even wider context. There seems to be something in the nature of Man that yearns for the lost Golden Age. As Eomer alluded in his first post, we sense this in the Creation story of Genesis. The desire to escape the thorny cursed ground and return to the lost Eden haunts every human heart. But there is no return. The angel with a flaming sword is placed at the east of Eden to prevent us from going back. From this point on, there is an inevitable diminishing.

Nor is the Judeo-Christian tradition (or LotR) the only place where we find this sentiment. It seems to be rooted not in one particular set of religious beliefs but inside the very core of our being. So many of the world's myths seem to be saying the same thing: that we have fallen away from a golden time of goodness and continue to diminish.

Ancient Greek myth delineates a creation story that traces the lineage of mankind through five successive "ages" or "races" from the "Golden Age" to the present, which is described as "Iron". In the beginning everything was happy and easy, and mortals lived like gods. No one worked or grew unhappy. Spring never ended. According to Greek myth, this Golden Age only ceased when Zeus overcame the Titans. From there, we've been on a downward path.

Other traditions tell similar stories. Those who follow the "Mother Goddess" claim there was an ancient age of Matriarchy when women were revered but that we have since fallen away from this. The aboriginal tradition in Australia speaks of Dreaming and the Dreamtime, a way to connect with a wonderful Golden Age in the remote past when Gods were real Gods and anything was possible.

I think it could be argued then that the belief in an ancient golden time and the subsequent diminishing of Mankind is an attitude that is hardwired into our very souls, whatever religious traditions we follow. Tolkien is one voice among many that have articulated this universal yearning for what we have lost.

At the same time, I think it's possible to look at JRRT's life and see personal reasons why he placed such emphasis on loss. He had a tough childhood, losing both his parents, and he continued to struggle with feelings of depression through most of his life. This personal struggle surely helped shape the way that he looked at the world and this, in turn, was reflected in the tales he told.

There seem to be two kinds of people in the world: those who feel that the golden age or utopia lies somewhere in the future (followers of the enlightenment), and those who feel that our true utopia lies behind us, at least while this world continues (perhaps, they are the romantics at heart). Of course, the two ideas are not wholly mutually exclusive. It may be possible to have some days when we personally feel one way, and others when we feel the opposite. Yet all in all, I think we lean towards one viewpoint or the other. My gut feeling is that most admirerers of Middle-earth share the author's view that something lies behind us that we have lost and, despite a noble struggle (an effort that certainly must be made) we will never quite retrieve it through our own efforts. I would say that is closest to my personal view.

Just curious if others feel the same way, or am I off base?

[littlemanpoet]

I'm a romantic.

I think Child and alatar have expressed my view.

I do think there is an aspect of this that is tied to the nature of language and thought, which I have expressed at length on other threads and will not bore you with here. PM me if you're interested.

It is a strange world we go to, in which Eru has created something wondrous, knowing that it would become less and less with each age. Why would he do that? Because of a hope that lies beyond the walls of the world? Most Men cannot see that far.

In this, my latest rereading of LotR, I am struck by how the entire story is an elegy. Over and over again the reader is reminded of endings. We are told that Aragorn, who loves Lorien, will never see it again. The Ents will lessen in numbers and probably die out. Even so, there are the Glittering Caves of Aglarond, the Sea, and places the touch of the Elves has changed forever. Elegy.

[Celuien]

There seem to be two kinds of people in the world: those who feel that the golden age or utopia lies somewhere in the future (followers of the enlightenment), and those who feel that our true utopia lies behind us, at least while this world continues (perhaps, they are the romantics at heart). Of course, the two ideas are not wholly mutually exclusive. It may be possible to have some days when we personally feel one way, and others when we feel the opposite. Yet all in all, I think we lean towards one viewpoint or the other. My gut feeling is that most admirerers of Middle-earth share the author's view that something lies behind us that we have lost and, despite a noble struggle (an effort that certainly must be made) we will never quite retrieve it through our own efforts. I would say that is closest to my personal view.

Just curious if others feel the same way, or am I off base?

I'm going to have to be the odd one here, I'm afraid. While I share the view that we have lost something in the past, I also believe that our true utopia lies in the future. I wouldn't want to have lived 100 years ago because I feel that in many respects we have grown as a species. For example, the institutionalized discrimination against racial, ethnic and religious groups that was commonplace not too long ago is no longer tolerated. It's still around, but diminshed and (I hope) decreasing all the time as humans progress. And let's not forget women's rights. ;)

I'm in the midst of packing for a trip right now and have to head out the door pretty soon. I'll try to come back later (probably not until tomorrow)...

[the guy who be short]

Am I the only one to feel we are both diminishing and growing equally?

I don't believe in a Utopia, past or future, but looking at the state of mankind I feel we are managing to do both. As Celuien said, look at the decline in prejudices. We don't all understand the technologies around us, but when Archimedes came up with the idea of reflecting and focusing light onto enemy ships, I suppose the average Greek didn't know how that worked. Even if they did, our technologies have got so much more complex that it would be ridiculous to understand them all.

So how have we diminished, if I do not believe in a Utopia? We have diminished, if not in happiness, in ease of life and in peace. The world was a simpler place in the past, and the rise of complexities cause stress in our lives.

I think one of the main points Tolkien was picking up on was the diminishing of respect for Nature. Industrialisation caused the mass slaughter, as I'm sure Tolkien would have called it, of ridiculous amounts of vegetation. We diminish as we no longer fit into the environment; instead, we are its masters. Another Fall of man Tolkien was passionate about.

Similarly passionate about faith, Tolkien lived in a time when religion in Britain was beginning to fade. I'm not sure how noticable this would have been during the years in which he wrote LotR (I'm sure the decline in faith occurred after the writing of the novel), but perhaps he picked up on it.

We're fading in many ways as we are growing in others, and I think Tolkien too accepted and incorporated this into his work. The Fall was rivalled by The Rise. As the Elves and the Ents and the Hobbits faded from the world, Men Rose to take their place and to grow as a race. If Tolkien lamented the decline of Good in the form of Elves etc, surely he celebrated the Rise of Good in the growth of Man.

[Boromir88]

I'm gonna bring in another aspect of this growth/decline that could be a possibility as well...economics. The Economic struggles is something that Tolkien had to live through, so I wonder if there's any effect we get in LOTR?

It's the basic concept of the Business Cycle. It's always going to happen, there's no stopping it. There's going to be a rise, then when you reach the top, it's kind of bad, because that's the pinnacle, you can't get any higher, so you slip back down. There's no stopping the downfall either. There's ways to sort of stabilize how bad it gets, or how long we will be "in the hole," but you can't stop from that fall, because you can't stay on top forever. With the World Wide depressions early in the 1900's most countries had hit rock bottom, and the good news about being at rock bottom is, you can only go up. So, it sort of works both ways.

That sort of seems as what you are trying to say Eomer, if I missed the point, then my mistake. The fact that all these people weill have a rise, and reach this pinnacle, then they go into decline.

[littlemanpoet]

I feel that in many respects we have grown as a species. For example, the institutionalized discrimination against racial, ethnic and religious groups that was commonplace not too long ago is no longer tolerated. It's still around, but diminshed and (I hope) decreasing all the time as humans progress. And let's not forget women's rights.

Institutionalized racism is apparently a rather recent development in the history of the human race. It was unknown during the Roman Empire (as far as we know), which was an empire of mixed ethnic background. Religious Fundamentalism is on the increase. Not tolerated? By whom?

One of the things Tolkien (and Lewis) was reacting to was the myth of progress. He was born in an era that believed in the "romantic fallacy" that all humans are basically good. He lived and wrote in an era when most people believed that scientific progress was seen as virtually the new savior of humanity. Tolkien deplored the "splintered" human life that makes such moral choices as abortion, mercy killing, and so forth, necessary.

I think one of the main points Tolkien was picking up on was the diminishing of respect for Nature. Industrialisation caused the mass slaughter, as I'm sure Tolkien would have called it, of ridiculous amounts of vegetation. We diminish as we no longer fit into the environment; instead, we are its masters. Another Fall of man Tolkien was passionate about.

Not only for nature, but for humanity. Tolkien would have said that not industrialization (sorry for my non-Brit spelling ;)), but the Sarumanic mind behind it, caused the dehumanization of the workplace and daily life, that led to the kind of mindset that could produce mass slaughter. And Tolkien would have disagreed that we are nature's masters; he would have said that we are fools to think we are, and to think that we have somehow insulated ourselves from catastrophe with all our technology.

Similarly passionate about faith, Tolkien lived in a time when religion in Britain was beginning to fade. I'm not sure how noticable this would have been during the years in which he wrote LotR (I'm sure the decline in faith occurred after the writing of the novel), but perhaps he picked up on it.

The decline in faith, on a cultural level, had already begun in the 1700s with the Enlightenment, though its seeds can be found in the Renaissance. The growth of "natural science" as a branch of knowledge separated from "philosophy" was part of this. Darwin's theories aided an already burgeoning pull away from faith. The atrocity of World War One sharpened the focus. In fact World War Two, in both England and America, served to slow unbelief (in the cultural faith) for a little while. So Tolkien was quite aware of this, and I would of course be very surprised if it could was not a part of his writing.

As for economics, my sense from his Letters and the Biography is that Tolkien was really quite pragmatic about it, and there is no evidence that he gave much thought to economics as a field of study or of moral consideration.

The Age of Man seemed for Tolkien to mean that good and evil would no longer be so clear-cut. "We have orcs on both sides", he wrote to his son Christopher during WW2.

Lastly, the growth in the sheer number of humans, absent the moral underpinnings that Tolkien believed were being eroded by the rise of the machine,
has resulted in a perceived reduction in the value of individual human lives (not to mention animal and vegetative).

[Lathriel]

A little off topic here but...

Some of you began to talk about Utopia and all that. In general it seems that the idea of Utopia is a place where it is warm, where there is no hunger, no work and where everyone is equal.

Back on topic

I feel that we are in a decline in some respect whereas in other areas we have grown as a species. We have definitly grown in the way of technology and advanced science. But I think we are declining in other things. Nowadays our lives have become extremely hectic which has caused a lot more people to become stressed or depressed. We have also become more obese. Also all this grand technology has given us polution and the greenhouse effect. Plus the former family life is falling apart because everyone is so busy. Nobody has as much time to sit down to a family dinner. (My family somehow manages this while juggling with all of our other activities)There are even magazines who talk about scheduling family time into your busy life. (Which I think is absolute bull...)

So after this rant...
Tolkien didn't seem very happy about all this thecnology either. Especially when it came to all the industrialization.

[Angry Hill Troll]

So are things getting better or worse? Well, my personal view is that a plausible case can be made for either side, which to me indicates that the answer isn't all that clear cut: some aspects of life, the world, etc. seem to be getting better, and some seem to be getting worse.

For me personally, at a more fundamental level, I'm not sure the question is all that important:

"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But it is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

I have always found the quote above to be very inspiring and meaningful. We live at a certain point in time not of our choosing, nor can we control to any great extent the characteristics or history of our time on earth. But certainly it is important how we choose to live in our alloted time. Was Frodo any more or less noble than the heroes of the First Age, simply because he lived in a time in which Arda was diminished compared to what it had once been? I think Elrond is correct to equate Frodo's deeds with those of the Elf-friends of the First Age.

I think that apart from the philosophical implications of the 'entropic' nature of Middle-earth, it gives the narrative rather a pseudo-medieval feel. The idea that 'progress' was inevitably destined to make everything better in the future than it had been in the past (an idea which Tolkien clearly did not share) has only been around (in western civilization) roughly since the Renaissance. Before that people looked at the history and remnants of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman civilizations much as the people of late Third Age viewed the ruined works of the elvish and Númenorian civilizations, as examples of technology and achievement they could never hope to equal, and whose knowledge was lost. It was only when, during the Renaissance, that various discoveries unknown to the ancients were made, that a psychological shift occurred, leading in the extreme to a rather trite idea that 'progress' would inevitably make everything better.

I personally don't really buy into either idea. I put a disclaimer, that based on my actual career field (science) and outside interests (linguistics, among other things) in Arda, I would definitely be a Noldorin elf in the vein of Fëanor. That said, I think that science and technology are morally neutral: having more technology at your disposal doesn't make you a better, or a smarter, or a more morally upstanding person, it just makes you a person with more gadgets, however you may choose to use them. Of course, we are all having this conversation on the Net, so clearly none of us have such a dislike of this technology that we choose to run away from it. On the other hand, there are many uses to which the Internet is put which are better left unmentioned.

Cheers, everyone :)

[Lalwendë]

I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious. I know almost nothing about Catholicism, Christianity or religion in general. Is it anything to do with the Garden of Eden?

I think it is simply a sense of malaise.

People of any age experience longing for the past, and feel nostalgia. This takes the simple form of reminiscing about Chopper bikes and when Tucker was in Grange Hill, but at a deeper level it manifests as us really believing that the world is changing for the worse, and you only have to pick up The Daily Mail to see how many people think this way. I think it is one aspect of being mortal that as we age, we look back. Getting older means getting more worries, and we naturally think back with regret to the times when we did not have such burdens.

We also forget the bad things which have been and gone. Today we talk of how young people are 'feral' and run away from chavs but I remember the cries in my own youth of 'bring back the birch', and how anyone with a mohican was looked upon as possibly of criminal intent. The cycle will repeat itself backwards over and over, so that you can imagine a grown man in the Medieval period tutting about the new fashion for pointy shoes and how it was a herald of the downfall of civilisation.

I think Tolkien was just reflecting what we all feel as we get older. He himself was plunged into adulthood at an early age when he went to fight in WWI, and we can see this in his early writing which was even then tinged with sadness; maybe if this had not happened to him his writing would have been more hopeful, or maybe not? That melancholic music and literature (The Smiths, vampire fiction etc) can be so popular with young people suggests that even at a young age the malaise can set in?

It's the basic concept of the Business Cycle. It's always going to happen, there's no stopping it.

Ah, but you haven't got Gordon Brown in the US... :p

Still, I think that the human malaise can be cyclical. Just as we are moping about chavs and feral children, we can also be uplifted when we hear a child using good manners, or saying something amusing. We might yearn for The Shire but how many of us would put up with 'knowing our place' as Sam does?

Progress is bittersweet. On the one hand we are now able to go anywhere we please by car but on the other, we will soon destroy our own world by exercising this privilege, and maybe this is where our malaise comes from. So many of our pleasures are relatively fleeting, and the only lasting joy is to be found in the memory of them, like looking at holiday photos. :( I think I need a drink now... ;)

[davem]

Others have pointed out (Flieger for one) that Tolkien had an 'Elvish' aspect to his character, a yearning for a lost ideal past. Maybe that's what comes through in his writings. He can accuse the Elves of wishing to 'embalm' the world, fix it into an ideal state from which it can never move on, but he has this nostalgic tendency himself. For the Elves time itself was a kind of enemy, bringing change. The past was always the ideal place to which they strove to return. The writers of the Red Book - Bilbo, Frodo & Sam all seem to have had an extreme love of the Elves & perhaps this comes through in the Legendarium - it is not an unbiassed account of events, but one written by non Elves in an 'Elvish' mood. Perhaps if the original accounts had been written by others it would have been more 'positive' about the future.

Certainly many things are lost forever, & they are things worthy of being mourned by those left behind, but the story is not without hope & hope is always forward looking, as regret is always backward looking.

[Bêthberry]

The diminishing of things is one aspect of Tolkien's stories that has always fascinated me. The idea that things generally get worse or weaker over time certainly makes for less happy endings. It adds to the tragedy. There are numerous examples: the decline of Middle-earth in general; the Elves; Numenor; the race of Men; the Hobbits and the Dwarves. The zenith of their greatness was reached fairly swiftly - maybe Numenor was more complex - and the descent to the (perhaps illusionary) nadir took a much longer time.

I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious. I know almost nothing about Catholicism, Christianity or religion in general. Is it anything to do with the Garden of Eden?

What it does do is go against a staple of Romanticism or the Enlightenment, namely that human achievment, wisdom and greatness keeps increasing.

Any thoughts? As I suggested, I can hardly bear to imagine a Middle-earth with lots of happy and glorious endings. It wouldn't be right.

While it might be lots of fun, it is always problematic to posit psychological or biographical reasons for authors' point of view or particular stance in novels. Yet, it is so tempting! With all the references to death, including that of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices, I wonder if we can't say that the greatest affect of time, death, was something Tolkien felt keenly. And with loss comes remembrance, usually of the finest aspects lost rather than of the worst.

He lost his father while still a toddler (and then the land where he played) and then his mother in his early teens. That experience of death came sooner, earlier for Tolkien than it does for most other human beings. This is not necessarily an experience of things getter worse or weaker, but it is a profound experience of change and of loss.

Life is short, art is long.

[Lathriel]

Loss has always been a big part of life. I often think about it and sometimes about death as well.
But it is a human tendency to look at the negatives first. Sometimes the positives are even forgotten. So people who are always saying that the past was better might say so because they are negative about today's world and forget the positives.
Or at other times when they do see the positives of life they see them in the past and not in today or the future.

well, I am rambling but I hope that you understand what I am trying to say.

[Celuien]

Institutionalized racism is apparently a rather recent development in the history of the human race. It was unknown during the Roman Empire (as far as we know), which was an empire of mixed ethnic background. Religious Fundamentalism is on the increase. Not tolerated? By whom?

Well, my example probably applies more to American history than Roman. I'm referring to the various anti-discrimination and equal rights laws that have been put in place over the past 40 or so years. And Fundametalism does scare me sometimes.

From my own perspective, I do believe that the world has fallen from its original place (Eden and all). But I also believe that one day we will be able to repair the damage that has been done. Not in my lifetime or even in my grandchildrens' lives, but someday.

This is where I differ from Tolkien. He saw the world in a continual decline. I see a chance for us to salvage the good in this world and bring it together for a better future. Maybe it's a hopelessly idealistic view and I'm really just fighting the long defeat, but it's nice to think that the world isn't really doomed. :)

[the guy who be short]

This is slightly off-topic and slightly related:

Institutionalized racism is apparently a rather recent development in the history of the human race. It was unknown during the Roman Empire (as far as we know), which was an empire of mixed ethnic background.

I'd like to take this quote and consider it.

It is true that as far as we know, Romans didn't discriminate by ethnicity, but at least discrimination occurred. To give a well known example, the persecution of Christians. They also considered non-Romans to be lesser men - again, not Utopian.

The question in terms of human decline with relevance to the Romans and discrimination is then this: have we become more tolerant, or less? Well, identify the different types of discrimination.
The majority of people no longer discriminate according to faith. Growth.
The majority of people don't discriminate according to ethnicity or race. The Roman's didnt at all, though (as far as we know). Decline.
The majority of people don't discriminate according to nationality. Growth.
The vast majority of peopel no longer discriminate according to gender. Growth.
At least in the US, the majority of people discriminate according to sexuality. Decline.

So we see both Growth and Decline in those past two thousand years, merely in the field of tolerance (assuming that we all agree tolerance is positive). Factor in everything else about humanity - we grow and we decline.

I would say that hope is evident through ME, as decline is evident. There is hope that Men will live up to their expectation. There is hope that Gandalf will come at Helm's Deep. There is hope that Gollum may be saved. Often there is hope unlooked-for, in terms of Faramir coming to Frodo or the chance meeting with Treebeard.

With all this hope, I find it hard to believe that ME or LotR are primarily works about the Decline or Diminishment of Man or the World. Diminishing occurs, and we are sad. Growth occurs, and we are happy. Tolkien simply incorporated this into his works - I see no reason to believe that the Decline is greater than the Growth. With the end of each Age, there is both decline and growth. At the end of the Third Age, Elves fade away - decline - and this is neutralised by the Rise of Man - growth.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Sorry Cel but the world is doomed. We'll just be long dead by then. ;)

Thank you to everyone for making such brilliant posts. I have found it very hard until now to jump in with a thought of my own.

Well....it's not really my own. It's pretty much what Lalwende said, albeit twisted slightly and rendered less eloquent.

That being, the diminishing of the world, of a race, of an age, can be compared with the diminishing of a single human life. We have our childhood, we swiftly reach the peak of our physical powers and quite often our happiness; certainly the peak of our hope. Then these slowly decline. We get weaker physically, we stop hoping so much and start looking back much more. We often become more melancholy.

Not everyone, of course, but I think it can be applied to humans generally, at least with some argument.

[Folwren]

Originally posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim
That being, the diminishing of the world, of a race, of an age, can be compared with the diminishing of a single human life. We have our childhood, we swiftly reach the peak of our physical powers and quite often our happiness; certainly the peak of our hope. Then these slowly decline. We get weaker physically, we stop hoping so much and start looking back much more. We often become more melancholy.

That's depressing, Eomer. :( (Though true.)

And I have nothing else to say.

Except that the end of the World may be closer than you think.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I doubt it. Barring those wildcard asteroids, it's going to take a very long time for the world to fall apart or be pulled apart or whatever.

The human race, though, might well be reaching its end. I don't think we're going to seriously challenge the dinosaurs in that regard. But it will not fade away rather than burn out; it will just fade away.

I don't agree that the human race reached a high point and then fell from grace. I think that it just shifted and morphed slightly. So there will be nothing tragic about the end of human beings. It's going to be very unromantic.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Originally posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim
That being, the diminishing of the world, of a race, of an age, can be compared with the diminishing of a single human life. We have our childhood, we swiftly reach the peak of our physical powers and quite often our happiness; certainly the peak of our hope. Then these slowly decline. We get weaker physically, we stop hoping so much and start looking back much more. We often become more melancholy.

Do we stop hoping? Does hope even diminish as we age? I don't believe that. I might have said this when I was younger, but not now. I wonder if you will still feel this way as you get older.

I do sense melancholy in Tolkien, a wistfulness and an acknowledgment that there can never be complete victory, at least in the frame of this world. Yet I never sense loss of hope. Perhaps we are missing the boat on this thread. Yes, in Tolkien's mind the long defeat is there, but so too are the victories won at such a hard price. To take those away, to ignore or belittle them, is to wipe away what makes it all worthwhile. The diminishing is there, yet so is the meaning that stands behind our actions.

Frodo was injured, not just in his body but in his heart. Even so, there is no sense at the end of the book that his sacrifice was without meaning as I often get from reading so many other contemporary novels. We do not ultimately know what happens to Frodo, but we do know that his friends made sure that he would be taken some place where he would at least have another chance. If the diminishing and the melancholy are there in Middle-earth, so too are the flashes of meaning and a treasure like the phial of Galadriel that symbolizes light and hope and can help lead us down the path.

In the last analysis, when I set the book down, it is not the diminishing that sticks in my mind but rather that promise that Man will not give up trying, no matter how hard it gets. Whether we are talking about the course of history or a single individual who walks the open road, subject to the vagaries of life and aging, it is this presence of hope that draws me back to the story.

[Lalwendë]

I do sense melancholy in Tolkien, a wistfulness and an acknowledgment that there can never be complete victory, at least in the frame of this world. Yet I never sense loss of hope. Perhaps we are missing the boat on this thread. Yes, in Tolkien's mind the long defeat is there, but so too are the victories won at such a hard price. To take those away, to ignore or belittle them, is to wipe away what makes it all worthwhile. The diminishing is there, yet so is the meaning that stands behind our actions.

I see that there is a lot of hope too, indeed it comes through as strongly as the sense of sadness and regret. But this hope is very bittersweet. It is all that is left to cling on to when Middle Earth gets really difficult. There are few certainties, and for some of the characters at times they have no other certainty than their sense of hope; here I'm thinking of Frodo and Sam in particular.

The years have brought the same cycle to Middle Earth, slow descent into war, the feeling that all is lost, and then victory, brought about by hope building the courage of the people. But some people forget the lessons of the past. It brings to mind what Tolkien himself experienced, taking part in WWI, supposedly the war to end all wars, only to see his own son enlisted in an even more horrific war; and it was hope which bolstered the morale needed to acgieve victory in both situations. Sadly, war still goes on, as does persecution and suffering.

I think that this is what is meant by a 'long defeat'. People soon forget the struggles of the past and start new wars. In the 20th century conflicts happened one after the other. Middle Earth was luckier in that it did have extensive peace between wars, but it is the same endless cycle. The New Shadow shows just how Tolkien couldn't picture Middle Earth even in the early fourth age totally without troubles. Yes, it's a bleak picture, but hope is still vital, even if it is bittersweet.

[The Saucepan Man]

The diminishing of things is one aspect of Tolkien's stories that has always fascinated me. The idea that things generally get worse or weaker over time certainly makes for less happy endings. It adds to the tragedy. There are numerous examples: the decline of Middle-earth in general; the Elves; Numenor; the race of Men; the Hobbits and the Dwarves.The examples that you give all seem to point towards a progression from the "fantastical" to the "mundane", which I suppose is inevitable in a series of epic fantasy tales which are said to be set in our own pre-history.

Others have pointed out (Flieger for one) that Tolkien had an 'Elvish' aspect to his character, a yearning for a lost ideal past. Maybe that's what comes through in his writings. He can accuse the Elves of wishing to 'embalm' the world, fix it into an ideal state from which it can never move on, but he has this nostalgic tendency himself. This is an interesting point. The Elves yearn for a lost past and so attempt to "embalm" the world to preserve as much of that ideal past as they can. This tendency in Elves, together with their immortality, has always seemed rather "unnatural" to me, since it seems to work against and suppress the natural cycle of life, which is very much concerned with sweeping away the old to make way for the new. In this sense, Men in Tolkien's world come across to me as much more "natural" creatures than Elves (which is, I suppose, pradoxical in some ways, with Elves being portrayed as very much more in touch with "nature").

It is interesting, I think, that Tolkien to an extent recognised the "Elvish tendency" as a shortcoming, while (as davem states) very much sharing that tendency himself. As someone who is very much in favour of progress (although not necessarily always the way in which it is used), I find myself very much at odds with the approach of both Tolkien and his Elvish creations in this regard, since progress (the new replacing the old) seems very much a natural process to me. And yest here is another paradox. Although progress is a natural consequence of our development of intelligence, it can (and frequently does) put us at odds with nature.

[Bêthberry]

As someone who is very much in favour of progress (although not necessarily always the way in which it is used), I find myself very much at odds with the approach of both Tolkien and his Elvish creations in this regard, since progress (the new replacing the old) seems very much a natural process to me. And yest here is another paradox. Although progress is a natural consequence of our development of intelligence, it can (and frequently does) put us at odds with nature.

I share your hesitation over the elven nostalgia, SpM. I have never really been an enthusiastic admirer of elves because their concept of art or perfection is this embalming.

However, I do question an assumption you make here. It is one thing to accept and welcome the replacing of the old by the new, but is this necessarily progress or is it simply replacement, change, difference?

Progress I thought entails some movement towards a future goal or cummulative improvement, forward or onward movement. (Unless of course it means a royal journey. ;) )

I think you assume that the 'new' is better without logically arguing how or by what means.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think you assume that the 'new' is better without logically arguing how or by what means.I see progress as being very much on a par with evolution. It is a natural process, both in the sense that it is a product of nature (the development of human intelligence) and in the sense that it always seeks to replace the old with the new. But that does not necessarily mean that the "new" is inevitably better. Like evolution, it seeks to adapt and improve, but it does not always throw up the right results. ;)

[davem]

This is an interesting point. The Elves yearn for a lost past and so attempt to "embalm" the world to preserve as much of that ideal past as they can. This tendency in Elves, together with their immortality, has always seemed rather "unnatural" to me, since it seems to work against and suppress the natural cycle of life, which is very much concerned with sweeping away the old to make way for the new. In this sense, Men in Tolkien's world come across to me as much more "natural" creatures than Elves (which is, I suppose, pradoxical in some ways, with Elves being portrayed as very much more in touch with "nature").

I've always seen this paradox as inherent in Elvish nature - its not 'wrong' its simply the way they approach things. 'Eternity is in love with the productions of time' as Blake said. They are 'outside' nature - for all their love of it it is different. Everythin else dies, they remain. Art is their only refuge & it would seem that what drives them is a desire to make the natural world like themselves - immortal. That, I think, accounts for their sadness. It is also what drives them to create the Rings. Their 'fall' in this comes not from their yearning but from their desire to 'actualise' it. They seek to dominate what they love, & re-make it 'in their own image' - Tolkien says they 'flirted with Sauron' - & I don't think he was simply referring to accepting his aid in the making of the Rings. Rather, I think he meant they 'flirted' with what he symbolised - control & domination of all life.

Of course, in the context of your point, 'progree' itself can be motivated by the same desire - control, domination & coercion of the world. So, even Men can 'flirt with Sauron' - not in the Elvish sense of 'embalming' but in the sense of wishing to re-make the world in our own image, the way we think it ought to be. And at least the Elves were driven by the desire to make the world beautiful. We don't even have that. We are closer to Sauron than they in that. Sauron desired control of the world without any thought as to whether it was beautiful or ugly & if anything that sums Men up perfectly. Perhaps if we were more like the Elves then we could call our changes 'progress'. As it is, I don't think we can. The Elves love the world for what it was, we love it for what it could be. They look backward, we look forward. They are driven by regret, we by hope - but I don't think either of those things necessarily manifest in our actions. Which should we make our judgement of the different races on - what drives us, or what we actually do?

[Lathriel]

davem
Your post reminded me of a quote from The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

"tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther....And one fine morning----- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

In this qoute hope is strongly expressed. That we never give up hoping for something better to come along although we are never able to reach it. We look to the future with hope that things will become great. Possibly as great as they used to be.

[Bêthberry]

I see progress as being very much on a par with evolution. It is a natural process, both in the sense that it is a product of nature (the development of human intelligence) and in the sense that it always seeks to replace the old with the new. But that does not necessarily mean that the "new" is inevitably better. Like evolution, it seeks to adapt and improve, but it does not always throw up the right results. ;)

At the risk of going off topic, I would ask SpM if you know Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. He argues that different iconographies of evolution--the ladder, the march, the cone--create different interpretations of our current data, the "march of progress" being the most erroneous in his argument. He objects that


The history of life is a story of massive removal followed by differentiation within a few surviving stocks, not the conventional tale of steadily increasing excellence, complexity, and diversity. p. 25

The familiar iconographies of evolution are all directed--sometimes crudely, sometimes subtly--toward reinforcing a comfortable view of human inevitability and superiority. p. 28

The march of progress is the canonical representation of evolution--the one picture immediately grasped and viscerally understood by all. p. 31

Life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress. Most people may know this as a phrase to be uttered, but not as a concept brought into the deep interior of understanding. Hence we continually make errors inspired by unconscious allegiance to the ladder of progress, even when we explicitly deny such a superannuated view of life. p. 35



He has some great quotes from material which points towards European man as the ultimate pinnacle in this false ladder. He even argues that Lovejoy's classic The Great Chain of Being shows the pre-evolutionary pedigree of the idea.
I suppose in some degree Tolkien's sense of the passing away of the elves, dwarves and eventually hobbits with the concomitant rise of men is part of this concept.

But I don't wish to confuse Tolkien's Middle-earth race of Men with our world race of homo sapiens, which is what I think happens to davem's argument here.


Of course, in the context of your point, 'progree' itself can be motivated by the same desire - control, domination & coercion of the world. We don't even have that. We are closer to Sauron than they [ie, elves]in that. Sauron desired control of the world without any thought as to whether it was beautiful or ugly & if anything that sums Men up perfectly. Perhaps if we were more like the Elves then we could call our changes 'progress'. As it is, I don't think we can. The Elves love the world for what it was, we love it for what it could be. They look backward, we look forward. They are driven by regret, we by hope - but I don't think either of those things necessarily manifest in our actions. Which should we make our judgement of the different races on - what drives us, or what we actually do?

After all, if you establish a difference between our world and a fantasy world, and then criticise Rowlings for muddling up "our world" in comparison to an apparently self-contained secondary world of Tolkien's creation--


Problem being - the magic originates within this world. It does not have an external source. There is nothing beyond the circles of the world. Neither is there any other place to go to after death - Harry's parents merely hang around as ghosts - inevitably, as there is nowhere for them to go. Also, nothing can 'break in' to this world. This world is a closed system. If people are to be 'saved' they must save themselves, there is no external,objective standard of Good (or evil).

Tolkien's 'escape' includes (as it must if it is to be a true escape) the escape from death - ie the escape from the circles of the World, to a place where there is 'more than memory'. In HP all there is after death is memory - ghosts. What writers like Rowling do is not make this world more 'magical' they simply make it odder & more chaotic. The 'magic' has no logic, no explanation. In a fairy story set in a secondary world this would not be a problem - it would be simply a 'given'. When it happens in this world it requires an explanation in terms of the 'rules' of this world - or at least an explanation of why this world's rules are incorrect.


then perhaps it would be best to distinquish between Tolkien's "Men" and us.
At the very least, I think it is a great overexaggeration to treat of all "Men/homo sapiens" as lacking any sense of beauty in their desires for knowledge/change.

[davem]

After all, if you establish a difference between our world and a fantasy world, and then criticise Rowlings for muddling up "our world" in comparison to an apparently self-contained secondary world of Tolkien's creation--

then perhaps it would be best to distinquish between Tolkien's "Men" and us.
At the very least, I think it is a great overexaggeration to treat of all "Men/homo sapiens" as lacking any sense of beauty in their desires for knowledge/change.

I wouldn't claim that all 'Men' lack any sense of beauty. I do think beauty is out of fashion at the moment. The things we create are not designed to be beautiful - sometimes beauty is taken into consideration as an afterthought, but cost, functionality, & ease of production are foremost in the creator's & producer's minds. We live in a utilitarian age.

As to the seperation of the worlds...

Tolkien's secondary world was intended to be this world in the ancient past, but because of that it is by its nature a closed world that we cannot enter - other than imaginatively by reading about it. Mentally we do enter into that world, physically we cannot. It is seperate, self contained, but we may learn things about ourselves through our experience of it - though that is not its purpose, or it would be allegory.

The issue with Rowling is different - though I must admit that my playing of Devil's advocate in the Outrage thread has got me somewhat backed into a corner - my own position was best expressed in my first post on that thread. Rowling is presenting this world - & only this world - in her stories. Her characters live in this world & to that extent it is a contemporary novel with fantastical aspects - Magic realism as opposed to true Fantasy. I'm not saying that we cannot learn something about ourselves as a species from her books, just that we don't learn very much.

Tolkien's work - even The Hobbit, a'children's' book - deals with profound 'spiritual' questions. Rowling's doesn't, & the argument that it is only a children's book doesn't hold water - HDM is also a 'children's book' & while (in my opinion) it fails to deal with the themes it sets out to explore & Pullman's 'theology' is simplistic in the extreme, at least he makes the effort to ask, & offer answers to, meaningful questions. At least Pullman respects children (& Art) enough to try & deal with the eternal verites. Rowling offers a twee 'morality', asks banal questions & answers them with platitudes.

But this belongs on the other thread, so I apologise for straying...

[Lalwendë]

We don't know if the new age of Men in Middle Earth brought about the kind of progress which decimates the environment (as seen in the destruction of the environment around Tolkien's beloved Sarehole Mill), so he does not tell us whether he thought progress was in essence 'a good thing'. But he does show us that despite the Elves wishing to embalm their past, the envirnments they lived in were beautiful, and he does show us that Saruman's idea of progress was destructive.

Tolkien does not say that progress is good, but neither does he say that embalming the past is necessarily bad. What he definitely does tell us is that the wrong kind of progress is destructive.

However, I do question an assumption you make here. It is one thing to accept and welcome the replacing of the old by the new, but is this necessarily progress or is it simply replacement, change, difference?

I think that this is the kind of progress that Tolkien did not like. By way of example, in my own city they ceaselessly demolish and rebuild parts of the centre; in one case they have replaced a bland 60's office block with a bland 00's office block. This not progress, it is indeed just change.

I doubt that this kind of 'progress' is natural at all, or even appreciated. Having just spent a week in a place crammed with old buildings and equally crammed with tourists, while my own city is quite the opposite of a tourist destination, it suggests that as humans, we prefer an element of 'embalming' the past just as the Elves did.

I'd agree that I'd find the Elves' approach to Art incredibly stifling (being keen on hearing the latest music and seeing the latest films, especially where they stir up the 'establishment' a bit), but their approach to the environment is one which I think as humans we could learn from. Now where's a tree I can go and hug? ;)

[Bêthberry]

I wouldn't claim that all 'Men' lack any sense of beauty. I do think beauty is out of fashion at the moment. The things we create are not designed to be beautiful - sometimes beauty is taken into consideration as an afterthought, but cost, functionality, & ease of production are foremost in the creator's & producer's minds. We live in a utilitarian age.



This is your opinion or interpretation of events, but much could be said about it. For instance, does this reflect your idea of a falling away of an ideal, a long defeat?

But opinion remains just that--opinion--without evidence. I know writers for whom beauty is an important consideration of their work, artists and architects as well as engineers. And even more significantly, I could provide examples from ancient history up to the romantic age where so called 'utilitarian' concerns governed the creation and building of things, even if they weren't consciously or specifically entered into in the process. I'm willing to bet that more people now have access to 'beauty'--however they choose to understand that concept--than ever had it in the past, in their private lives and personal habitat.

Also, it is sometimes easily overlooked that economy of material plays an important role in the creation of an aesthetic of beauty, as, in fact, can functionality. The demarcation between 'utilitarian' and 'beauty' is not such a simple division as you suggest here, for mathematics plays an important role in concepts of proportion as well as function. This is where I likely do not develope much sympathy for the elves, as I regard the notion that the past had a sense of beauty whereas we do not as a false notion, derived from Romantic concepts (you did quote Blake), but concepts which do not necessarily reflect our actual working efforts.

And, furthermore, in our recognition that some previous standards of "Beauty" represented class and race concepts, I would argue that we are closer now to an understanding that beauty arises from a kind of wholistic or integral quality. Even that the pursuit of beauty itself as an object falsifies the notion. Which is, again, why I dislike the emphasis on the elves's grace, height and proportions as reflecting their beauty as a race. It smacks of old European values. The hobbits might proudly proclaim their worth, and the story might reflect their value, but for the narrator to uphold the elves as an epitome of beauty reflects a notion of beauty which does not pertain in our world--or which increasingly does not. Tastes change. ;)

called away before I can explain further....

Indeed, if there is "truth" in a design, then there also is beauty.

[davem]

This is where I likely do not develope much sympathy for the elves, as I regard the notion that the past had a sense of beauty whereas we do not as a false notion, derived from Romantic concepts (you did quote Blake), but concepts which do not necessarily reflect our actual working efforts.

But the 'fact' that 'the past had a sense of beauty whereas we do not' is a given in the story. In Middle earth the past (from the perspective of the Third Age) was more beautiful than the present, so its not 'false' or a product of romanticism, within the story. The lost beauty that the elves yearn for & strive to recreate & embalm is a fact. That says nothing about our world or what we know of 'real world' history & cultural development. From the perspective of Me the Elves were correct.

And, furthermore, in our recognition that some previous standards of "Beauty" represented class and race concepts, I would argue that we are closer now to an understanding that beauty arises from a kind of wholistic or integral quality. Even that the pursuit of beauty itself as an object falsifies the notion. Which is, again, why I dislike the emphasis on the elves's grace, height and proportions as reflecting their beauty as a race. It smacks of old European values. The hobbits might proudly proclaim their worth, and the story might reflect their value, but for the narrator to uphold the elves as an epitome of beauty reflects a notion of beauty which does not pertain in our world--or which increasingly does not. Tastes change. ;)


Again, the Elves' beauty is a given within Me. We don't have to agree with the aesthetic judgements of the characters within that world (or even of JRRT himself), merely accept that within that world those were the criteria on which aesthetic judgements were made.

Back to the 'baggage' thing.......

[Lalwendë]

And, furthermore, in our recognition that some previous standards of "Beauty" represented class and race concepts, I would argue that we are closer now to an understanding that beauty arises from a kind of wholistic or integral quality. Even that the pursuit of beauty itself as an object falsifies the notion. Which is, again, why I dislike the emphasis on the elves's grace, height and proportions as reflecting their beauty as a race. It smacks of old European values. The hobbits might proudly proclaim their worth, and the story might reflect their value, but for the narrator to uphold the elves as an epitome of beauty reflects a notion of beauty which does not pertain in our world--or which increasingly does not. Tastes change.

called away before I can explain further....

Hurry back, because I want you to explain this a little more. :) Are you suggesting that we have moved away from beauty as a signifier for 'class' or 'taste' or even virtue? As I find that the world is just as prejudiced a place as ever about 'beauty'. I've only to open a women's magazine and peruse the grot therein about suntans, diets and plastic surgery to have my suspicions confirmed. :(

As regards the beauty of the Elves within Arda, I simply go along with Tolkien's notions of their beauty, much as I accept the notions of beauty portrayed by artists from different periods in history reflect changing tastes which may not correspond with my own.

However, I would be slightly perturbed by the notion that beauty equals virtue in Tolkien's world. If Tolkien intended this to be the case then there are many exceptions. There are some Elves who are clearly not virtuous, just as there are some supposedly odd looking (according to our norms, which tend more towards the Elvish) characters such as Treebeard, Dwarves, Hobbits, Gandalf, Ghan-buri-Ghan etc who are virtuous.

[Bêthberry]

Back to the 'baggage' thing.......

davem, Eomer set up this thread to discuss a variety of ideas concerning the concept of the long defeat. He did not limit the discussion to textual matters.

The diminishing of things is one aspect of Tolkien's stories that has always fascinated me. The idea that things generally get worse or weaker over time certainly makes for less happy endings. It adds to the tragedy. There are numerous examples: the decline of Middle-earth in general; the Elves; Numenor; the race of Men; the Hobbits and the Dwarves. The zenith of their greatness was reached fairly swiftly - maybe Numenor was more complex - and the descent to the (perhaps illusionary) nadir took a much longer time.

I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious. I know almost nothing about Catholicism, Christianity or religion in general. Is it anything to do with the Garden of Eden?

What it does do is go against a staple of Romanticism or the Enlightenment, namely that human achievment, wisdom and greatness keeps increasing.

Any thoughts? As I suggested, I can hardly bear to imagine a Middle-earth with lots of happy and glorious endings. It wouldn't be right.

Therefore, this is thread in which we can discuss, if you will, the validity of the concept of the long defeat. It is not a matter of clarifying what Tolkien meant so much as considering concepts of history. It is thus not a thread in which you can throw baggage at others simply because they wish for discussion's sake to consider other ways of thinking about history. You, after all, did bring in Blake.


Hurry back, because I want you to explain this a little more. Are you suggesting that we have moved away from beauty as a signifier for 'class' or 'taste' or even virtue? As I find that the world is just as prejudiced a place as ever about 'beauty'. I've only to open a women's magazine and peruse the grot therein about suntans, diets and plastic surgery to have my suspicions confirmed.

As regards the beauty of the Elves within Arda, I simply go along with Tolkien's notions of their beauty, much as I accept the notions of beauty portrayed by artists from different periods in history reflect changing tastes which may not correspond with my own.

However, I would be slightly perturbed by the notion that beauty equals virtue in Tolkien's world. If Tolkien intended this to be the case then there are many exceptions. There are some Elves who are clearly not virtuous, just as there are some supposedly odd looking (according to our norms, which tend more towards the Elvish) characters such as Treebeard, Dwarves, Hobbits, Gandalf, Ghan-buri-Ghan etc who are virtuous.

Sorry, I was cross-posting and missed your earlier post. For now, quickly, I'll say that I don't think we can generalise that people enjoy embalming art and culture because I don't think the tourists who visit England and traipse around its ruins reflect the full range of people's interests. And, in fact, I think one reason why so many do traipse around your ruins is that in North America we tend not to have so many--and those we do have don't go back two thousand years!

I'll reply to this one now. :)

You are quite right that certain images of beauty are shoved down our throats via the mass media. But what has changed is that we are not culturally dependent upon one image, one form, one source any more, much as Madison Avenue or Hollywood would have us believe. There really is a wider appreciation (at least in my culture) of a variety of forms of beauty. IQ tests no longer have questions based upon prioritizing one form (white) over another (Amerind or Black), just as art no longer has to be "modern" in order to make it into art galleries and just as music has its alternative genres, even in country music! Cultural Studies has widened our concept of possibilities, as has Multi-culturalism. At least here.

As for the beauty/virtue thing, in one letter Tolkien discusses evil and beauty, but I am again rushed and cannot find it. I really have to start using sticky notes in my copy of the Letters as I can never find what I want at the right time.

The interesting point for me is which side of the physical beauty debate the narrator 'sides' with. We have the hobbits who rigorously defend their size and worth, but the narrator at least at certain places in the texts, does not show an appreciation of their pov. I must get my act together and post this more fully on the CxC thread.

But, I say again, I had understood Eomer's intent here as an open discussion of a variety of theories of beauty, progress, change, rather than simply one which regurgitates Tolkien's texts. "As a concept to live by..." sort of thing. After all, if we can compare Tolkien with Harry Potter, why can't we take Tokien's ideas and consider them in the light of those of other writers?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

By all means. :)

I'll just try my best to keep up.

[davem]

Therefore, this is thread in which we can discuss, if you will, the validity of the concept of the long defeat. It is not a matter of clarifying what Tolkien meant so much as considering concepts of history. It is thus not a thread in which you can throw baggage at others simply because they wish for discussion's sake to consider other ways of thinking about history. You, after all, did bring in Blake.

But are we considering the same things? Put aside the conceit that Middle earth is our world in the ancient past & can we make any direct comparisons between that world & our own, or between various theories about our own history & ones about Middle earth?

I think this applies equally to concepts of Beauty. The history of Me is a history of fall from perfection & the fight against the Long Defeat. The Elves were created by Eru to be the height of physical beauty. Those are givens, facts, which cannot be disputed. As such we are not dealing with a 'theory' but an objective 'statement' about the nature of that world. No reader of Tolkien's Legendarium could argue with those 'facts', though they may disapprove of the story as a whole & wish Tolkien had written a different one. By the end of the Third Age the Elves have lost all hope for themselves within Me. Again, 'fact'.

In our world there are competing theories & value systems about both history & beauty & they can be argued about & one can choose which one appeals over the others or is more 'accurate'. In Middle earth one can't do that, because we only have one account - that of Tolkien himself. We can argue that Tolkien's values & beliefs are incorrect or out of date, but within Middle earth itself we can't apply those primary world values without being wrenched out of that world & left with nothing but a few dead 'leaves' of literary criticism in its place.

Of course one can take that approach, & see LotR as an 'anti-enlightenment' work - or a 'Catholic' work - which is much the same thing, but I think that all that does is 'dismantle the Tower to see where the stones came from'. In short, we're focussing on the storyteller & analysing his motives & values, rather than listening to the story he is telling us. One is free to place LotR in the balance on the side of the 'anti-enlightenment & see if that balance is tipped sufficiently to claim that the Enlightenment was a mistake, or use it as an argument against 'modernism' & for traditional Christianity, but to my mind that is a mis-use of it, as it would be a mis-use of any artwork. The purpose of Art is to open us up to something deeper or higher than 'theories' - eternity.

Which is my theory...... :p

[Lalwendë]

You are quite right that certain images of beauty are shoved down our throats via the mass media. But what has changed is that we are not culturally dependent upon one image, one form, one source any more, much as Madison Avenue or Hollywood would have us believe. There really is a wider appreciation (at least in my culture) of a variety of forms of beauty. IQ tests no longer have questions based upon prioritizing one form (white) over another (Amerind or Black), just as art no longer has to be "modern" in order to make it into art galleries and just as music has its alternative genres, even in country music! Cultural Studies has widened our concept of possibilities, as has Multi-culturalism. At least here.

I think certainly for those who are culturally educated (for want of a better term) that this would hold true, but even if there are different ideals to choose from, there are still dominant ideals. And it takes a brave person to fly in the face of those; certainly for actresses, they are expected to conform to an ideal, witness what happened to Julia Roberts a few years ago when she went out with au naturel body hair! I think the difference now is that we are more aware of the pressures to conform, and aware of the sometimes sinister meanings behind cultural messages being forced upon us via seemingly innocent ideals of fashion.

I certainly appreciate that in terms of music and art in particular the idea of beauty has been turned on its head. Much of what we now enjoy is nothing short of brutalist, and art and music are all the better for it. Sometimes something more visceral makes us think. :) But in terms of fashion and beauty the ideal is still incredibly narrow.

And, in fact, I think one reason why so many do traipse around your ruins is that in North America we tend not to have so many--and those we do have don't go back two thousand years!

Hmm, many of those traipsing around our ruins (which aren't necessarily ruins :p ) are British people. When Prince Charles made his famous statement about modern architecture reminding him of 'carbuncles' the majority agreed with his statements. Alas much of the beauty in British architecture comprises of the seemingly 'low', the terraced street, the dry stone wall, the 19th century artisans' workshop, things that aren't protected. The 'ruins' are safe, it's the ordinary but charming that goes. :(

And I do think Tolkien admired the ordinary yet attractive features of our landscape. The Shire is quite 'ordinary', which is why it is so sad that it is almost destroyed. That Tolkien had little pleasures such as a 'favourite tree' rather than a favourite mansion sums his idea up.

[Lathriel]

I love old buildings and when I moved from Europe to Canada I really missed them. It is not because I want to embalm the past. It is because these old buildings show us how it used to be and it also partly shows how people used to live and how they progressed. I am always curious about how things used to be and it is not just because I want to embalm it. I think it is a good idea if people know and can see how we progressed. And conserving old buildings, furniture,clothing etc helps us (at least I hope so) understand ourselves better. So of all the tourists who visit heritage sites I am sure there are also quite a few who are simply interested in how it once was.

But of course there are also those who tend to romantisize the past and those are also the "embalmers".

[Lalwendë]

I love old buildings and when I moved from Europe to Canada I really missed them. It is not because I want to embalm the past. It is because these old buildings show us how it used to be and it also partly shows how people used to live and how they progressed. I am always curious about how things used to be and it is not just because I want to embalm it.

This what I love about ordinary buildings which are old. My own house has uneven floors and doors, and stairs so steep they would be illegal today. It has been updated with modern comforts, so it has not been completely 'embalmed' but it retains traces of the lives of those who once lived there with the worn back step, the nicer detailing in the front room which would at one time not have been used much, the fact that there are fireplaces upstairs which makes me think how cold it must have been in winter. Such houses are in demand here, despite all the modern flats being put up, as I think people search for a little 'character', which to me suggests that we like the possibility of stories having happened where we live. :)

[Bêthberry]

One is free to place LotR in the balance on the side of the 'anti-enlightenment & see if that balance is tipped sufficiently to claim that the Enlightenment was a mistake, or use it as an argument against 'modernism' & for traditional Christianity, but to my mind that is a mis-use of it, as it would be a mis-use of any artwork. The purpose of Art is to open us up to something deeper or higher than 'theories' - eternity.

Which is my theory......


And one is free to inquire what is this eucatastrophe, this eternity, this aesthetic experience, and consider if it is the same place other Art leads us to. Can only Tolkien lead us there?

You are very free in characterising various people's arguments. Once again, you insist upon this hoary chestnut of experience versus meaning. Telling us over and over again in every thread runs the risk of boring us, davem ;)

I see no point in replying further if this is just going to degenerate into another Romantic diatribe against analysis.

[davem]

And one is free to inquire what is this eucatastrophe, this eternity, this aesthetic experience, and consider if it is the same place other Art leads us to. Can only Tolkien lead us there?

One can - if one wants. I'd say all true Art leads us to the same place, so not only Tolkien can lead us there. As to your point, I'd say that you can enquire into the nature of Eucatastrophe, Eternity, Aesthetic Experience till the cows come home but only the experience of those things has any real worth, & the danger of too much inquiry is that it can bring down the Tower & stop you ever seeing the Sea - or at least cause you to get so caught up in analysing the architecture that you forget to go up. Whatever, I think climbing up & looking out is more important than any amount of inquiry & analysis.

I see no point in replying further if this is just going to degenerate into another Romantic diatribe against analysis.

Oh, you take me too seriously. I keep drawing you in to these discussions & you always end up going off in a huff (or if that's too soon a minute & a huff :p )

Remember, if you go away everyone will think I've won ;)

[Bêthberry]

Oh, you take me too seriously. I keep drawing you in to these discussions & you always end up going off in a huff (or if that's too soon a minute & a huff )

Remember, if you go away everyone will think I've won ;)

Oh hardly, I think, davem, particularly since I've drawn you to admit your MO here. :p :D

And in answer to Eomer's question about whether Tolkien's idea of the long defeat goes against Enlightenment ideas, my point about Gould's ideas on evolution and progress rather suggests no.

As to Tolkien's ideas about Eden, his letter #96 states his thoughts about perfection and its loss. It is probably one of his most explicit statements of his own personal hope.

[alatar]

Been thinking about this more and think that it all comes down to change.

Whether it is the fate of the world, art, architecture, etc, it's about change. As humans we not only detect patterns, we also detect 'change' in that some event has risen above some noise threshold to be consciously noticed by us. The caveat is that we have limited and biased viewpoints.

You may think that the world is spiralling down into moral muck, yet it may be that the world is changing (like it always does) and you are now aware that something is happening. On the other side it could be you that has changed, and so now the world now looks different. I know that my POV changed after leaving childhood and after having children. When I was leaving childhood I learned that the world wasn't just like my limited experience could have imagined, but actually a large and wonderful place with all kinds of new crazy people to meet and from whom to learn. When I had my first child, I started looking at the outside world differently yet again. The culture in which I live did not just get ugly, yet suddenly I was concerned about the future and more specifically the future in which my children will live.

We may think that we are living in the worst or best of times, but could it be, like the stock market, we are just experiencing a short-term peak or valley? Averaged over hundreds or thousands of years, our current peak/valley may not even be significant. Hate to say it, but as a species, we may not even be significant in the bigger scheme (did someone say mice?).

Sure, our technology is better - we have better stone tools - but how much have we changed emotionally/spiritually/physically over the past few thousands of years? It's still the same wants of a full stomach, a warm and safe place to sleep and a mate with which to create the next generation. With our advances we now have time to navel-gaze a lot more, yet on the other hand while we're not out gathering food we have to kill the time doing something, like even posting to forums and such. One thing that I've noticed is that many people have an almost instinctual fear of snakes, yet except for the zoo and excluding the two-legged species, just when was the last time most people have had an encounter let alone an adverse encounter with a snake?

We're still cave dwellers.

And though I won't debate global warming here, there was a time in the 70's when the big scare was global cooling. As a youngster I was sure that my house was going to be run down by a glacier and so me and my friends devised several strategies for pushing the ice back (it's always lasers).

Art changes. Note that my exposure to 'art' is limited, yet I've seen that in one era it's beautiful lifelike paintings of divine beings and then suddenly it's crazy-headed 2-D people then it's large soup cans. Each era's art has some temporal meaning (counterculture? etc), and then may have a different meaning to the next generation ("Those large soup cans sure would make nice planters...").

In 'Merica I'm sure that we have some 'old' architecture somewhere, but the issue with our culture is that we are always looking for the new (and note, fellow countrypersons, that I speak in generalities here in). The old is cool because it is different, but then again, we have the need to build a mega-mart every three miles or so, and the parking lots must be big enough for our SUVs (I believe that my British cousins would call these vehicles 'buses' ;) ), and so sometimes those 25 year old buildings have to be torn down to make way. Again my experience is limited but I would say that my culture is generally focused on the future.

I live in a neighborhood with some old beautiful houses, yet these are falling into ruin as many people have left the city (Did I say city? That might not be the best word...please insert the word that means "a place that should be torn down and be replaced with a slum as an improvement") due to high taxes, poor government and the loss of the steel industry, and so the houses are vacant, ill-kept or ill-used. It's a shame as my parents tell of a completely different place. And they surely thought that steel was going to live forever, and yet here we are.

And to get back on topic (or off my tangent), looking over the ages of Arda, one would see a downward slope if the measure were 'perfection,' yet other variables may have positive slopes (non-embalmage, humanity, diversity).

[Lalwendë]

the issue with our culture is that we are always looking for the new

Maybe this is down to money. There is little money to be made if we hang on to the past, especially the recent past. Clothing being a case in point - if we all kept our old clothes they would come back into fashion again and we would get more use from them (if indeed we are even interested in such things as fashion at all), recently things seem to come 'in' and 'out' as quickly as every three years. But we are constantly sold 'new' trends and feel we have to buy them, so we have no room for the old things and chuck them out/give them away, only to find that we could have got more use from them.

I'm not talking of Art here - that this develops and changes is a good thing, but even here the pursuit of the new can be harmful. I remember when a new band would spend a few years struggling before they made it big, giving them time to grow and develop; nowadays they are snapped up right away and have burned out by the time their second or third album is released. :(

It is also wasteful. Both of resources and our own money - and where does that money come from? Our time, which by extension we are also wasting, trying to work a few more hours to earn that latest cool 'thing' instead of having a few more hours to read and think.

Which leads me on to another thing:

With our advances we now have time to navel-gaze a lot more, yet on the other hand while we're not out gathering food we have to kill the time doing something, like even posting to forums and such.

Have we really got more time these days? One of the greatest ironies is that with the rise of new technology, from the automatic washing machine to the mp3 player, instead of taking advantage of these tools and giving ourselves more free time, we instead fill up that free time with more work, or we have to work longer to get the next gadget, or even spend time looking after said gadget. It was ironic that as things like automatic washing machines freed women to seek work outside the home, our lives did not become any easier, instead we have ended up with even more work to worry about, more expectations to fulfill. And I wonder how many households now bicker about who's going to fill/empty the dishwasher instead of who's going to wash and who dry?

From this culture comes the logical idea that anything (or anybody? :eek: ) old and used is no longer useful. As seen in the Scouring of the Shire - the old Mill is replaced for something much more efficient, and the old smials are dug up to be replaced with new houses. I wonder how long they would have lasted in comparison to the old ones? It would have been no matter to Saruman, as long as the Hobbits had kept wanting the latest 'thing' and paying more money for it.

Now I must go and find my hair shirt after that little rant... ;)

[Lathriel]

I feel that because technology is becoming more widly available to everybody and that it is cheaper the importance of quality has lessened.
E.G everyone is getting an ipod or discman but nobody tries to (or cares) to figure out if the sound quality of their headphones are any good.

With the war machine that Saruman created, quality also did not seem to matter, as long as everybody had a sword that could do damage.

Maybe Tolkien also felt that with the introduction of machines and cars etc. the quality of life would decrease.

But I am rambling and I am mixing up my thoughts. Still this is just a little idea.

[Angry Hill Troll]

Going back to the original discussion on the thread a little, one quote that popped into my head (and I can't quite remember for the life of me where it appears, probably in ROTK) that someone asks Gandalf whether everything in ME will fade or be corrupted, and Gandalf says simply "That is its fate."

Thinking about this statement a bit, Gandalf has just spent 2000 years combating Sauron, trying to preserve all that is fair (or at least something that is fair, as his statement to Denethor about he (Gandalf) also being a Steward indicates), even though he knows his effort is ultimately "futile" in the sense that nothing he manages to save is destined to ultimately endure. Furthermore, he never seems to act as if he's consigned to a futile task (melancholy, as Elrond and Galadriel both appear at times)

Since it seems that Gandalf in many ways represents Tolkien's ideals, it may be interesting to speculate on how Gandalf's statement reflects or embodies Tolkien's own view on the Long Defeat, and on the necessity and rationale behind fighting an unwinnable struggle.

BTW, I'm not sure that the religious or Catholic view would necessarily imply the concept of the Long Defeat. Certainly one of the tenets of Christianity is that Man will always be flawed, and a utopia cannot be achieved without divine intervention. But it doesn't seem clear (to me, anyway) that this implies that the world must necessarily get continually worse, just that it has severe limitations on its ability to get continuously better. The religious view antithetical to the Enlightenment, is certainly not the only one which has ever existed in Christianity (Scholasticism comes to mind), and if one looks closely either at the historical record of world history or religious scripture, one sees that in times past, things have often been extremely problematic. It's just that we tend to be more preoccupied with the problems of our own time.

[littlemanpoet]

I'm not sure that the religious or Catholic view would necessarily imply the concept of the Long Defeat. Certainly one of the tenets of Christianity is that Man will always be flawed, and a utopia cannot be achieved without divine intervention. But it doesn't seem clear (to me, anyway) that this implies that the world must necessarily get continually worse, just that it has severe limitations on its ability to get continuously better.

Actually, orthodox Christianity (both Roman Catholic and Protestant forms) have in common an "eschatology" (teaching on 'last things') saying that things will get worse until the glorious end.

I will not quote at length from Scripture; you can take a look for yourself. There is some of this type of writing in Daniel and Zechariah in the Old Testament. But this eschatology is derived especially from the New Testament: Matthew 24 and 25, Luke 21, the first letter to the Corinthians, ch. 15, 2 Peter 3, and, of course, Revelation (the whole book).

[Guinevere]

Going back to the original discussion on the thread a little, one quote that popped into my head (and I can't quite remember for the life of me where it appears, probably in ROTK) that someone asks Gandalf whether everything in ME will fade or be corrupted, and Gandalf says simply "That is its fate."
I think I know where your quote comes from: in the "History of Galadriel and Celeborn" in U.T. there are 2 versions of the origin of the second Elessar:
In the first, Galadriel speaks with Gandalf because she longs for Aman and yet is unwilling (or not permitted) to leave ME:
She sighed and said: "I grieve in Middle-earth, for leaves fall and flowers fade; and my heart yearns, remembering trees and grass that do not die. I would have these in my home." Then Olórin said: "Would you then have the Elessar?" And Galadriel said: "Where now is the Stone of Eärendil? And Enerdhil is gone who made it." "Who knows?" said Olórin. "Surely," said Galadriel, "they have passed over Sea, as almost all fair things beside. And must Middle-earth then fade and perish for ever?" "That is its fate." said Olórin. "Yet for a little while that might be amended, if the Elessar should return. For a little, until the Days of Men are come."
Then Gandalf (Olórin) gives her the Elessar, as a gift, or rather a loan, from Yavanna.
( In the other version this talk is between Galadriel and Celebrimbor, and the words are very similar, but then Celebrimbor makes the second Elessar and gives it to Galadriel out of love for her..)

Galadriel is grieved because the living things around her that she has loved fade and die - "So that the land of my dwelling is filled with regret that no spring can redress." (as she tells Celebrimbor)
But that's the way it is : all living thing must fade and perish - but new life is continually born - after every winter there is a spring with new leaves and flowers. But this seems apparently no comfort to the exiled Elves. They want no change, they want to keep things exactly as they were.
Angry hill troll wrote:
Thinking about this statement a bit, Gandalf has just spent 2000 years combating Sauron, trying to preserve all that is fair (or at least something that is fair, as his statement to Denethor about he (Gandalf) also being a Steward indicates), even though he knows his effort is ultimately "futile" in the sense that nothing he manages to save is destined to ultimately endure. Furthermore, he never seems to act as if he's consigned to a futile task (melancholy, as Elrond and Galadriel both appear at times)

I don't think this particular quote is meant to mean that everything on Earth will continually deteriorate, and that all the efforts of Gandalf are in vain.

And in general I think it is so too: many species have been extinct, but others have succeeded them, much that was beautiful and good is lost for ever, (but of course not everything in the past was good and beautiful! and many evil things have have been overcome as well.) but there are always new good and beautiful things too.(But new ugly and evil things as well, alas! Humanity as a whole doesn't seem to have learnt much: the same mistakes are made all over again. ) The older one gets the more things that one cares for, change or have vanished for ever, and one tends to remember mostly the good things, and to gloryfy the past. I think the mentality of the Elves in the third age is a bit like those of old people, though their bodily appearance is still unchanged.
I must say that I rather sympathize with their view, and what Tolkien wrote in his essay "On Fairy-stories" about "escape" resonates deeply with me:
It is indeed an age of "improved means to deteriorated ends". It is part of the essential malady of such days - producing the desire to escape, not indeed from life, but from our present time and self-made misery - that we are acutely conscious both of the ugliness of our works and of their evil.

[Lalwendë]

The older one gets the more things that one cares for, change or have vanished for ever, and one tends to remember mostly the good things, and to gloryfy the past. I think the mentality of the Elves in the third age is a bit like those of old people, though their bodily appearance is still unchanged.

I like the analogy of Elves being a little like old people in that they lament the passing of things they have known well. Though with Elves I sometimes think that they experience grief in a wholly different way to how a mortal might experience it. Not only do Elves see the natural world around them changing, they also see or have seen (now they shut themselves off from it) how Men also wither and die.

These things simply cannot be saved in any way, there is simply nothing that they can do about it. When Men see such things wither away then it may bring to mind their own withering and passing, but for Elves, they can only see an eternity where those things will never be seen again. Elves, being detached from Death, I think cannot understand how withering is a part of the world, so their grief is different.

Maybe it is a demonstration of Gandalf's wisdom that he has at least some understanding of how mortality might feel, while the Elves have a different perception. Perhaps it is because Gandalf has received some kind of knowledge from Eru?