The Scourge of The Dark Side...Tolkien and Modernism

[tumhalad2]

The Dark Side indeed-the dark side of Tolkien apparently. I am a Star Wars fan and while trawling the boards of StarDestroyer.net I came across this particular topic-discussing the cultural merits of 'Star Wars'. However (and readers will be wondering at this point where this is going, but hang in there!) the topic quickly degenerated into a bashing session aimed at the perceived conservatism and racism in the Lord of the Rings.

Read it for yourself, but for me it raises some questions, questions that have to a degree been discussed here before in relation to David Brin's critique and to an extent Phillip Pullman's. The discussion that was had on this particular board, stardestroyer.net, in many ways summed up their central argument: That Tolkien is not a modern writer, that he is inherently conservative and anti-modern, that this worldview has been influenced profoundly by his Catholicism, and that as a result he should not be taken seriously-at least not by readers who have a 'modern' worldview. Whatever that means. One forumer even went so far as to say that the Jackson films, and by extension the books, have clouded the general populace's mind and in doing to have lessened their capacity to take on the modern, "preferred" worldview, that, to these people it would seem, holds all the answers.

Now, firstly I would like to say I have struggled with this side of Tolkien for some time. I still enjoy his books, very much so, though my enjoyment has been tampered by these sorts of ideas, coming from the seemingly indestructible David Brin and the like. I find myself asking...how could these people be wrong? Their analysis appears to make sense, from a social point of view. Can the modernist worldview and Tolkien be reconciled? To these people, I think not. Can we, as Tolkien fans, come to some sort of reconciliation with it? Or are the 'modernists' right and Tolkien and his books are conservative, bigoted, past looking and juvenile? Certainly these people would argue that is the case.

I’m sorry to scare people, but this has been getting on my nerves, from the point of view of my ability to enjoy Tolkien. The trouble is, there is something that always pulls me back, that seems to transcend this 'social analysis' that these seemingly emotionless 'smart people' heave onto the book.

Thoughts?

ooo and here's the link to the discussion. Please feel free to tear it apart for me!!:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=114257&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Nerwen]

Oh Gawd, not this again.:rolleyes:

It's rather ironic this time. They're responding to an attack on Star Wars by some people on another board (probably Trekkies, given the context) who denounce it as backward-looking and fascist.

That's a favourite ploy by a certain type of fan– decide that the only measure of a novel or film is how "modern" or "progressive" or whatever it is. Then attack your perceived rival for failing to live up to those qualities. This allows you to bypass questions of worldbuilding, plotting, dramatic interest, characterization, visual or literary style– and well, any other point on which a work of fiction is usually judged.

Unfortunately, in order to defend Star Wars, this lot have taken the tactic of finding a third party to beat up. It looks like Tolkien just got caught in the crossfire.

What's sad about this is that Warsies and Ringers should really be sticking together– our fandoms tend to be attacked by the same people and on the same grounds. Note that David Brin has made targets of both Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings. I have read both critiques and I'm not inclined to take either seriously– each involves blatant distortion of the work in question. I mean, David Brin isn't a bad writer, judging from short stories of his that I've read, but I wouldn't call him "indestructible". His articles seem to me to be breathtakingly naive about history and politics.

Now, I myself feel Tolkien's a bit of a Luddite in some ways– so what? Likewise, the Jedi thing is a tad elitist. That only matters if you think the sole purpose of art is to promote the "right" political and social agenda (i.e. the one you happen to agree with).

As for the old "denounce your rival as Fascist/Communist" trick– ever hear of Godwin's Law?

Finally: this lot, and the unnamed board they're quoting from, seem to have by and large accepted David Brin's simple old vs new model: either you're conservative and anti-technology (bad) or progressive and pro-technology (good). Anyone not see the flaw in this?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Of course, tumhalad, you're starting from a premise that the 'modernist worldview' is a good thing.......

[tumhalad2]

haha, well, that's the question isn't it. I mean, there is something frighteningly un-human about humanism, if you catch my drift. Humanism is really what these people are talking about I suppose-a worldview unencumbered by gods or higher powers, one in which all humans are morally equal, one in which there is no 'ubermenschen', as David Brin likens the Elves to (I think that is taking it a bit far).

I want to say that I do not necessarily believe 'modernism' to be a good thing; I do believe progress, technological and otherwise, is good, and I believe that an eternal focus on the 'past' is a bad thing. Modernism is simply a highly seductive philosophy, and David Brin's technocratic utopianism is an example of that.

I suppose the greatest difficulty I have, in light of all this, is reconciling Tolkien with Humanism-the kind they talk about in this thread. Humanism appears to be their guiding, all encompassing philosophy, one that according to them Tolkien did not adhere to. Fundly enough, of coarse, there are examples in Tolkien's work where humanistic conclusions are reached, (Frodo destroying the ring, lol!) though this appears to escape these Star Wars forumers.

I read one day in a review of the Silmarillion that, quote "Tolkien repudiates humanism" with the War of Wrath; ie having the Valar interfere rather than allow the Humans to defeat Morgoth. Whether this has any merit im not sure, but undoubtedly it would add to the argument of these humanistic modernists.

Lastly I really don't know about the merits of humanism and modernism; I certainly think, nonetheless, that the world is a far more complex place than such philosophies allow for.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

one in which there is no 'ubermenschen'

Like the Jedi aren't?

[tumhalad2]

"Finally: this lot, and the unnamed board they're quoting from, seem to have by and large accepted David Brin's simple old vs new model: either you're conservative and anti-technology (bad) or progressive and pro-technology (good). Anyone not see the flaw in this?[/quote]


The problem is that they would argue that Tolkien is doing exaclty the same thing, equating evil with technological progress and good with the simple, hobbitic lifestyle.

This of coarse is in fact an assumption on there part-they assume Tolkien is making some sort of social statement. However, it may not even be this concious...they would and do say that regardless of Tolkien's intentions the work is inherently infused with these "conservative" "bad" "backward" ideas, that yes they equate at least with antiprogress and badness.

Therefore, they (Im using 'they' a lot) say that Tolkien's book, regardless of his intent, is inherently backward, conservative, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a 'retard'(to quote the star wars board)!!

This subtle argument is the most difficult to tackle.

[tumhalad2]

Like the Jedi aren't?

well no, i suppose the point is that the star wars forumers are attempting to defend their own interest by means of attacking another which they perceive to be inherently more conservative, and thus bad.

Perhaps it makes them feel better, lol

[Nerwen]

The problem is that they would argue that Tolkien is doing exaclty the same thing, equating evil with technological progress and good with the simple, hobbitic lifestyle.

I guess I didn't make myself clear: what I was trying to say is that as well as being simplistic in itself, this model does not represent reality in that the world is not just divided into two camps of "the old" vs "the new".

For example– very many people who consider themselves left-wing and therefore socially progressive are highly suspicious of technology, medicine and science in general. Where do they fit? (Note that Tolkien has always been beloved of hippies.)

This of coarse is in fact an assumption on there part-they assume Tolkien is making some sort of social statement. However, it may not even be this concious...they would and do say that regardless of Tolkien's intentions the work is inherently infused with these "conservative" "bad" "backward" ideas, that yes they equate at least with antiprogress and badness.

Therefore, they (Im using 'they' a lot) say that Tolkien's book, regardless of his intent, is inherently backward, conservative, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a 'retard'(to quote the star wars board)!!

This subtle argument is the most difficult to tackle.

Not really. What they seem to be saying is that no work which does not actively promote their own particular views can be taken seriously.

Frankly, I think that's a pathetic attitude– and I am a humanist!

[tumhalad2]

I would agree with that...I suppose my trouble is that Brin et al write convincingly and with a great deal of conviction. Its rhetorically good, one might say. But yes, sorry I see what you are saying and I take your point.

I want to point out I am not FOR these people, I do not agree with them, I am just working through these issues in my head, because I do enjoy Tolkien very much.

As I say, despite all of Brin and other's rants, I keep coming back to Tolkien, I keep returning to this universe that in so many ways inspires me. :D

[Nerwen]

well no, i suppose the point is that the star wars forumers are attempting to defend their own interest by means of attacking another which they perceive to be inherently more conservative, and thus bad.

Perhaps it makes them feel better, lol

Certainly... but I think they're falling into a trap: instead of addressing the argument properly, they're putting forward a substitute victim... then using a lot of special pleading and nitpicking to "prove" that what applies to Lord of the Rings somehow doesn't apply to Star Wars. It's not an easy position to sustain. If you ask me, they're laying themselves wide open to future attacks.


I want to point out I am not FOR these people, I do not agree with them, I am just working through these issues in my head, because I do enjoy Tolkien very much.

As do I... but I'm mainly arguing because I'm a.) a Star Wars fan and b.) probably fairly close to most of these people in a lot of my views... which is why I find their lack of faith... er, I mean tolerance... disturbing.;)

[tumhalad2]

haha yes well, I was rather flaberghasted with the vitriocity that the Star Wars forumers were displaying...they seemed to be pretty desperate lol. Yes, I'm upset by attacks on Star Wars as well, though I suppose I was particulary peeved to see fellow fans attacking the Lord of the Rings to offset their own insecurities.

[Boromir88]

I only skimmed through the link because I really don't see much merit in what many of the posters were saying. They seem only to have a vague idea with what they are talking about and others miss the mark completely.

I just had to get that out of the way, they're not why I'm writing a post. Tumhalad you have brought up some very good questions and I think this is going to become a "hot" thread. ;)

Can there be a reconciliation between Tolkien and modernists? I don't see why there has to be one, as this "clash" between Tolkien and modernism is I think one that is non-existant (and is made up in the minds of critics like David Brin).

I will point out another author I greatly enjoy to read, I love his books (even though they are "children's books") and that is Terry Pratchett. Who happens to be a humanist. Pratchett has had both and admiring and critical view, of Tolkien. I think Pratchett can put his admiration in words better than I could:
"I can't remember where I was when JFK was shot, but I can remember exactly, where and when I was when I first read JRR Tokien. It was New Years eve 1961."
And this one...which has often been taken out of context as Pratchett slamming Tolkien as merely writing "children's stories," yet he wasn't downplaying what Tolkien wrote at all:
If you don't believe that Tolkien is the greatest writer there ever was when you are 13 years old there is something wrong with you. If you still believe that when you are 53 there really is something wrong with you.
I say this has been taken out of context because Pratchett is:
1. An author who primarily write's children's stories...his famous Discworld novels are targeted for the young fantasy audience
2. When saying this Pratchett was 53 years old himself.
So, Pratchett, as is his normal style, was poking fun at himself and not "downgrading" Tolkien's stories by any means.

In fact, Pratchett is a staunch defender of the fantasy genre and believes that fantasy authors can wield a lot of influence...it certainly had a strong influence on him:
"Fantasy isn’t just about wizards and silly wands. It’s about seeing the world from new directions."
And in an interview Linda Richards she makes the comment that Practchett:
"...believes he owes a debt to the science fiction/fantasy genre which he grew up out of..."
So, Pratchett is at least one humanist author (although he jokes he's a "bad humanist" because he can be "persuaded.") who credits Tolkien not only the influence that Tolkien had on him, but what Tolkien had done for the fantasy genre.

Pratchett is critical of Tolkien's books, but not for it being "anti-modern," or simply "childrens stories," just some things he didn't like. For instance, he explained to BBC's Mark Lawson when he first read The Lord of the Rings he didn't like how as an orc or a troll you were stuck, there was "no redemption" for you, and he believed the Elves were evil tricksters that were up to no good. So, Pratchett's always been a voice for the fantasy genre and has always admired the author who had a profound impact on his own writing...despite being a humanist.

With that said, I'd also like to put the Lord of the Rings into a historical context, because then you can see and understand the time Tolkien was writing in, is greatly different than our world now.

Tolkien lived in a time when "new technology" meant "new weapons that could kill hundred, thousands, and millions of people almost instantly" (machine guns, chemical weapons, the H-bomb...etc). "New technology" meant "production tycoons stripping the land of all its resources and moving on to the next piece of land." The idea of "conservation of nature" was pretty much unheard of. I don't know much about the rest of the world, but in the States the idea of "conservation" didn't take action until Teddy Roosevelt was persuaded by his friend John Muir and Roosevelt established a National Parks system. Yes, technology did (and has) led to progression, but technology has been a major destroyer of life and nature (especially during Tolkien's life).

Let's also look at Tolkien's feelings of the "chateaux generals" (as termed by Sir John Keegan) that sprung up during World War I, because these generals (as opposed to fighting on the fronts with their men), stayed miles from the front lines in nice chateaux. In Janet Brennan Croft's War and the Works of JRR Tolkien she makes the astute remark:
Leadership in the forefront of battle is a moral duty for generals and others in Middle-earth.
Leading from behind is morally suspect in Middle-earth and tactically flawed as well.
Then let's not forget that after World War I democracies all over Europe were struggling, they were failing, and falling apart. Democracies were being seen as "weak" and "unable to fix the problems" Europe faced after World War I.

Putting it in a historical perspective, is it really a wonder than that Tolkien writes a story where "technology" is linked to destruction (Saruman), the great generals (Aragorn and Theoden) are the ones who lead from the front and in Theoden's case die in "glory" while the bad generals (Denethor) stay cut off from their soldiers and in their towers to "think," and that Gondor, Rohan, Erebor...etc are ruled by Kings?

[tumhalad2]

That is an interesting take on it...and I suppose I find much merit in it.

I'd like to bring up another aspect of Tolkien at this point, add it to the boiling pot:

The primary theme of his book, Tolkien said, was "death and the desire for deathlessness"...I was thinking about this the other day and it occured to me that Brin and his disciples largely miss the entire point about the Lord of the Rings. On top of that they assume Tolkien has included certain themes and ideas in his work because they assume he was writing, conciously or unconciously, on his social worldview.

Now, that may be the case with much modern literature, though I do not in fact believe Tolkien was, conciously or unconciously, injecting much of his worldview into the Lord of the Rings.

Allow me to explain: to begin lets look at some examples where that IS the case; where Tolkien's experiences or social outlooks have flavoured some scenario. Perhaps the most obvious is the Scouring of the Shire, which he says in the Foward to the Lord of the Rings can be attributed to his experiences as a child. Of course, this would all add to the point Brin et al are trying to make: Tolkien is anti-technology. I think it is a leap of faith to make that jump, and other forumers have already said much about technology and Tolkien's times. From the point of view of his experience then, some aspects of the work can be said to have been 'flavoured' in such a way that Brin would find, and does find, repulsive. It is also perhaps to be acknowledged, therefore, that technological progress was not Tolkien's favourite idea, though what form this distrust of technology took is not always clear and has indeed I think been wrongly manipulated by Brin and his compatriots.

From starting point, in a sense, Brin and the Star Wars forumers have 'deduced' that Tolkien was antimodern and his work infused with conservatism. As other forumers have more succinctly pointed out, this was, to a large degree, not the case and a misjudgement. However I have another idea about why Brin et al were entirely wrong.

They have a social agenda, and therein they trawl through Tolkien's books on the merits of its social outlook. However, I think they fail to realise that not all fiction is motivated, whether concious or uncouncious, by social concerns or themes. Rather, I believe Tolkien was almost entirely motivated by his concern for human nature and specifically the quest for human being to 'understand' death.

Thus, I believe the 'backward looking' elves and Numenorians are less products of Tolkien's love for the past, and more products of one side of the 'death' coin.

Elves are immortal; the elves of Lothlorien lived in a mortal world, thus naturally they attempted to keep that which would inevitably die from doing just that. For the elves, the death of any life, in a sense was unnatural. Similarly the Numenorians were concerned with the preservation of their own beings-also an unnatural act for them. So, these 'good' nations were ultimately pursuing policies unnatural to Middle Earth, hence the 'long defeat'. With the War of the Ring, the ability of the elves to preserve their world was diminished. Essentially the Elves were concerned with transcending time, for they were immortals in a wholly mortal and finite world, and so their nature was to attempt to transcend that.

Though I am a rather insuccinct writer and a little circumlocutory, I suppose I am trying to get across the point that Tolkien was conciously motivated by ideas wholly unrelated to 'social' themes, and while ultimately events, peoples and worldviews may appear 'backward' to those who wish to interpret the world that way, Tolkien's writings are more about exactly what he said they were, an exploration of 'death and the desire for deathlessness':smokin:

[Nerwen]

They have a social agenda, and therein they trawl through Tolkien's books on the merits of its social outlook. However, I think they fail to realise that not all fiction is motivated, whether concious or uncouncious, by social concerns or themes.

Yes... I was trying to say something like that earlier:

That only matters if you think the sole purpose of art is to promote the "right" political and social agenda (i.e. the one you happen to agree with).

and,

What they seem to be saying is that no work which does not actively promote their own particular views can be taken seriously.

I suppose I am trying to get across the point that Tolkien was conciously motivated by ideas wholly unrelated to 'social' themes, and while ultimately events, peoples and worldviews may appear 'backward' to those who wish to interpret the world that way, Tolkien's writings are more about exactly what he said they were, an exploration of 'death and the desire for deathlessness':smokin:

That's very well put, tumhalad.

I'd say, though, that abuse of technology is at least a secondary theme of Tolkien's work (especially if you count the Ring itself)– but then, it's one of the major themes of science fiction!

I'm really not sure why he's such a favoured target of certain people.

In this case it looks almost like an automatic response: "Aaarrrgh! They're after us! Quick, throw them The Lord of the Rings!":D

[skip spence]

To my mind, Tolkien was indeed conservative and not a follower of 'modenism' at all. He was also a devout christian. And he certainly infused his works with many 'messages' taken from his personal worldview and religious beliefs, some of which Boromir88 have taken up in his excellent post. Nerwen also mentioned how the hippies of the 60's and 70's loved LOtR. One reason why they did so was (I imagime) their agreement with the anti-war message and the ideals of living in harmony with nature expressed in the books.

But do you have to agree that monotomy is a moral obligation to enjoy Tolkien's books? Do you have to share Tolkien's religious beliefs? And can't you favour a secular, capitalist society with focus on technological development but at the same time appreciate nostalgia over past days (real or imagined)?

My answer is no, no, and yes.

I don't judge books according to how well they confirm my opinions. I have a lot of sympathy for Tolkien's ideas but certainly don't agree with all of them. I'm not a religious man nor am I very monogamous. But I love Tolkien's books nevertheless, and the conservative 'messages' in them take nothing away from that.

[tumhalad2]

To my mind, Tolkien was indeed conservative and not a follower of 'modenism' at all. He was also a devout christian. And he certainly infused his works with many 'messages' taken from his personal worldview and religious beliefs, some of which Boromir88 have taken up in his excellent post. Nerwen also mentioned how the hippies of the 60's and 70's loved LOtR. One reason why they did so was (I imagime) their agreement with the anti-war message and the ideals of living in harmony with nature expressed in the books.

But do you have to agree that monotomy is a moral obligation to enjoy Tolkien's books? Do you have to share Tolkien's religious beliefs? And can't you favour a secular, capitalist society with focus on technological development but at the same time appreciate nostalgia over past days (real or imagined)?

My answer is no, no, and yes.

I don't judge books according to how well they confirm my opinions. I have a lot of sympathy for Tolkien's ideas but certainly don't agree with all of them. I'm not a religious man nor am I very monogamous. But I love Tolkien's books nevertheless, and the conservative 'messages' in them take nothing away from that.

Well put, though once again I do not believe Tolkien's books are so 'infused' with so many conservative ideas to take it seriously as a social treatise, or social commentary at all. I suppose what Im saying is that even you're interpretation, to me, is in some way missing the point as well. I do not believe that Tolkien's books are in fact concerned with this subject matter, though as Nerwen mentioned there are indeed themes relating to the missuse of technology.

This idea that Tolkien was a Christian who's faith influenced his worldview I think is overrated as well; indeed he was a Catholic but I think the influence was less in terms of infusing his work with doctrine and more about reconciling aspects of Christianity with Norse myth etc. This hybrid, I believe, we find in the Lord of the Rings, though perhaps even more so in the Silmarillion.

In closing, I don't really believe that Tolkien has to be read as some outdaited pariah of the past; I simply don't think, in reflecting on his letters and his works as a whole, that 'nostalgia' was his point. If that is to be found in the Lord of the Rings I believe it is in the interpretation of the reader, not in the intent of the author. I also believe that ultimately, the Lord of the Rings is not about society, not even good or evil, it is fundementally about life and death, and how these things are dealt with by different races and characters in the legendarium.

[skip spence]

^Fortunately, Tolkien's books are first and foremost an attemt to tell good stories and in this he succeeded in spectacular fashion, I think we can all agree.

There are obviously many part of his books that can be read as a comment on contemporary issues, as in any good work of literature. I have never read any books about Tolkien or any of his letters and I'm sure there are many here who know much more than me about what Tolkien really wanted to convey with his work or at least what pretentious academics think he wanted to say.

I have read Tolkien's books myself however and made my own interpretations, and I think he is quite explicit on what ideals he as a writer represents. "Nostalgia" is not an ideal but he does seem smitten by it nevertheless. Tolkien never comes across as preachy though and his works are not meant to be primerly "a social treatise, or social commentary". There is social commentary in it, and it deserves to be taken seroiusly too, but Tolkien's main objective was the telling of a good tale. And like I said, judging by the almost unrivalled popularity of his works, he certainly succeded with this.

And btw, to accuse Tolkien of racsism is petty, false and reeking of political correctness coupled with a complete lack of historical knowledge. Not saying you did of course. :)

[tumhalad2]

haha no I understand...and yes those forumers should be told! I see what you're saying and I suppose there is little I can say against it. Ultimately, as you say, all literature is infused with some kind of social outlook, though with Tolkien I think it is, if anything, a byproduct of his concious attempts to explore entirely unrelated themes.

Though The Lord of the Rings may be infused with "nostalgia" I believe it would be dangerous to simply assume that this was because Tolkien had a particular fetish with it for its own sake; I don't think it is this simple and I believe people like Brin have manipulated this to their own advantage. Taking Tolkien's works as a whole, I think a lot more can be said not only for his 'telling a tale' but also for the themes of 'death and the desire for deathlessness' . I know I keep going on about it but I think theres something to be said for it.:)

[Gwathagor]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks for the interesting and insightful points.

I have a couple things to say about the Star Wars guys who have been abusing Tolkien:

1) Modernism is retarded and doesn't work. Unfortunately, modernists are, and will probably remain, oblivious to the fact that their brilliant cosmology hasn't worked since 1914. I'm actually surprised. I thought everyone knew that modernism is a proven failure. "Reason," they say, "Will bring us progress, prosperity, and peace." Progress is terrific, but reason is limited. It CAN'T bring us everything. (Post-modernists figured this out, but they've rather taken it to the opposite extreme.) This is why Tolkien's world is more realistic that the one the modernists have desperately tried to will into being for the last couple of centuries. Despite the fantastic setting, Tolkien paints the world as it is: change/progress is good and proper, but often involves a great deal of sacrifice and sadness. Middle-earth is a threat to the "modern" world, because it doesn't lie to us. The world isn't "modern".

2) I'm also surprised that Star Wars fans are trying to espouse modernism. They must not be doing it very seriously, or they'd realize that hardcore modernists would find Star Wars pretty useless.

3) What's wrong with fascism?:p

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

My thoughts? David Brin, and anyone else, is just a person. Celebrity status does not give his opinion any more weight than anyone else's opinion. He's entitled to his, I'm entitled to mine, and neither his nor mine is superior. It just is.

I was once a Star Wars fan, back in the days when we had to wait three years for the next part of the story to come out. I had been a Tolkien fan for over 10 years by the time the first SW movie was released, and I had no trouble being a fan of both. By then, I was also an ex-Catholic, and knowing that Tolkien was a devout Catholic in no way troubled me. Again, he had his point of view, and I had mine. I had also been a science fiction and fantasy fan for a good long time. The secular humanist movement had always been strong in SF fandom, but I and most of my fan friends weren't a part of it (I may no longer be a Catholic, but I still believe in God). The "humanist" vs. "religious" argument has striking similarities to another argument in SF fandom, that of "books" vs. "media." To make a long story short, when Star Wars came along and made SF acceptable to the mainstream audience, some of the more vocal and eminent pre-Star Wars SF fans, feeling threatened by the massive influx of fans of science fiction movies and TV shows, began to decry all "media" SF as inferior to "book" SF. It had a profound effect on the fan community, and as someone who at the time was on both sides of it, I can say from sad experience that it got pretty ugly.

The issue of secular humanism vs. religious belief in SF may well have a similar history. When the internet came into the picture as part of the SF community, I think something was unsettled in what some people saw as the status quo. Time was, there were SF fans of all kinds of beliefs, from very religious to agnostic to atheist, and it was fine so long as nobody was perceived as pushing their beliefs as the only "right" way the think. I know that I have participated in a number of discussion groups where people's religious beliefs are made quite plain; you see it in screen names and sig files and such all the time. I've even run across people who automatically assume that everyone on a given board is a Christian, just because they seem nice and behave politely. I'm sure that this is sticking in a number of craws in the SF community, and some of those people will feel a need to respond by making their own beliefs equally clear. Almost inevitably, I fear, intolerance rears its ugly head. Just as it did 30 years ago when Star Wars changed the way the world looks at and accepts science fiction and fantasy.

What all this means, at least from my point of view, is that something happened that shook up or irritated the Star Wars fans with a humanist point of view, and they now feel they must defend their position more forcefully (no pun intended). That they are aiming at LotR is not surprising to me, because of the popularity of Jackson's movies. Star Wars was once the preeminent SF movie series, held all the records for attendance, etc. -- and Jackson's LotR came along and changed that. I've seen (and known) a lot of fans of popular works who were profoundly upset when something knocked their favorite from the Number One spot. They react almost angrily, with a vigorous statement of why what they love is and will always be superior, and why "the enemy" is inferior. What strikes me as odd about this particular humanist vs. religious argument is that it sounds like a repeat performance of what happened when the massive popularity of Star Wars shook up the SF community so many years ago. (It also strikes me as odd because part of what I didn't care for about Jackson's version of LotR was that, to me, it felt like he was trying to interpret Tolkien through the lens of secular humanism, downplaying or eliminating virtually all the "religious" aspects in favor of adventure, but that's another discussion entirely.)

When all is said and done, Tolkien's works were intended to be mythology, and by its nature, myth tends to be what some would call religious or spiritual. It's a way of explaining the inexplicable in the world, in nature. I have loved mythology and comparative religion since I was a little kid, and I've found great inspiration in many things I have read and learned. That doesn't mean I have to be a card-carrying believer, so to speak. All just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[tumhalad2]

Ibrin that was an absolutely fascinating and enlightening response-thank you and I greatly enjoyed reading it.

As to medernism and its virtues, yes, I would agree, having taken some time to think about it, that it is fundementally reactive and flawed. Postmodernists *chuckle*, well, lets not get into that...

Anyhow yes, Tolkien's world does admit to sadness and loss as a reality, and denying this is indeed I think futile on the part of the Star Wars forumers and their utopic vision...

[Nerwen]

As a general reply to the last few posts, I should say that The Lord of the Rings in my opinion does explore quite a number of themes. It is however, not a primarily didactic work (or what I sometimes call a "How To Vote Story"). Neither is Star Wars. That– in a way– is the joke.

Ibrin, the whole thing began, as far as I can work out, because some posters on another forum declared their contempt for both Star Wars AND The Lord of the Rings, on the grounds that neither was sufficiently progressive. The response from the crew at stardestroyer.net was to a.) distance themselves from LotR and b.) think up some hair-splitting reasons why the criticisms of it were valid but the ones of SW weren't.

As I said, it's rather pathetic.

[tumhalad2]

or that LOTR is MORE conservative than Star Wars and thus deserving to be ruthlessly attacked....lol:eek:

[skip spence]

haha no I understand...and yes those forumers should be told! I see what you're saying and I suppose there is little I can say against it. Ultimately, as you say, all literature is infused with some kind of social outlook, though with Tolkien I think it is, if anything, a byproduct of his concious attempts to explore entirely unrelated themes.

Though The Lord of the Rings may be infused with "nostalgia" I believe it would be dangerous to simply assume that this was because Tolkien had a particular fetish with it for its own sake; I don't think it is this simple and I believe people like Brin have manipulated this to their own advantage. Taking Tolkien's works as a whole, I think a lot more can be said not only for his 'telling a tale' but also for the themes of 'death and the desire for deathlessness' . I know I keep going on about it but I think theres something to be said for it.:)

Well, nostalgia is to me a negative concept as a nostalgic person concerns himself with something already lost and prefers to remember and cherish an often idealised past rather than trying to do something about the present situation.
Then again, most people (myself included) have a tendency towards bittersweet nostalgia and I certainly don't hold it against Tolkien if he harboured a wistful longing for a lost idealised English conuntyside. I didn't use to think that death and deathlessness was a major theme in LotR but now thinking about it I certainly see your point. These themes become even more important in his post LotR writings on ME, like what can be found in HoME X: Morgoth's Ring. Much of this book to me reads like the contemplations of an aging christian with a curious mind, trying to come to terms with his own mortality and religious beliefs.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Ibrin, the whole thing began, as far as I can work out, because some posters on another forum declared their contempt for both Star Wars AND The Lord of the Rings, on the grounds that neither was sufficiently progressive. The response from the crew at stardestroyer.net was to a.) distance themselves from LotR and b.) think up some hair-splitting reasons why the criticisms of it were valid but the ones of SW weren't.

As I said, it's rather pathetic.

No kidding. With that history, I see very clearly what probably happened: rather than just defend their own turf, someone in the SW forum decided to turn LotR into a sort of common enemy. "We aren't bad, but these other guys are." It IS quite pathetic. It's rather like something I was told by many authors who were both friends and people whose opinions I respect: If in writing, the only way you can make your hero look good is by making everyone else look like witless fools and buffoons, your hero isn't a real hero at all. An argument intended to support your position that relies on bashing someone else is not a well-constructed argument. When dealing with the kind of contempt you describe, you're best to either ignore it utterly, or just defend your own part of it and leave others to their own defense.

[tumhalad2]

Thats it Ibrin. Nonetheless, are there any valid criticisms these people bring up? They defend the Force in Star Wars by saying that Sauron is a 'two dimensional Satan figure'-while another forumer denounced LOTR as being inherently racist, not at Tolkien's behest, but in terms of the fundemental nature of the book...should we as Tolkien fans accept some of this? Or is it too modernist trash?

[Gwathagor]

If one only read The Lord of the Rings, I can understand how one would get the impression that Middle-earth is inherently racist. On one level, I think that is mistaken. It's obvious in Unfinished Tales that Tolkien thinks the Druedain are pretty cool, and they are about as far removed from the Numenorean race as one can get. On the other hand, aren't all mythologies sort of "racist", because they revolve around one particular culture/race? Yet no one ever criticizes Greek or Norse or Hopi mythology of marginalizing other civilizations.

[tumhalad2]

I suppose, modernists being modern, they would say that the world no longer has need for, nor room for, stories of that sort, exactly because they are exclusive, or 'racist'. I too think that if one takes Tolkien's legendarium in its entirety, there is in fact a great deal of compassion directed at those who have been misplaced and unjustly done by. From the Children of Hurin (my favourite of Tolkien's works) the Petty-Dwarves come to mind.

[Gwathagor]

Yes! "Compassion" is exactly right. Good point.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

It's actually very easy to call Sauron a two-dimensional villain because he is never seen in the flesh LotR. But I believe it really doesn't matter how one perceives Sauron because in closer analysis, he isn't the real "villain" of LotR. Evil itself is, especially as embodied in the One Ring. The struggles and hardships through which the protagonists must endure to reach their victory are more subtle than those faced when one faces a single, clearly identifiable foe. If LotR were constructed in the same way as most adventure stories, the "villain" can be defeated by taking out specific individuals, decimating their forces, destroying their armament. But Tolkien created a "villain" that didn't follow this formula. Yes, we see the forces of "good" planning their war against the enemy, the forces and allies of Sauron -- but even they know that victory in battle will not truly destroy their foe. The Ring at this point is more powerful than Sauron. It can live without him -- and even spread its evil without him -- but he cannot live without it. Sauron cannot be truly defeated so long as the Ring exists, and while the strength of evil is greatest when they are united, it is the Ring that is, so to speak, the linch pin of villainy in this story. It is the source of the greatest temptation and corruption -- in a way, it corrupts even Sauron, who allows his need for it to goad him into hasty and unwise actions and presumptions that are to his ultimate detriment.

So is Sauron a two-dimensional villain? Likely so, in my opinion. But is the Ring two-dimensional? I think as villains go, it is vastly more subtle and insidious.

As far as the "Tolkien is a racist" cant goes... That argument will probably go on forever. I don't believe he was, but I have learned that this is an argument one cannot win. People who are determined to see his writings as racist will stick to their guns no matter what I or anyone else says. It's that kind of an issue. For myself, I believe that if he had been truly racist at heart, he could never have written Sam's very compassionate reaction to his sight of the dead Haradrim. A bigot would have thought "there's no good Haradrim but a dead Haradrim," and rejoiced in seeing one dead -- and would have written that kind of a reaction into his story. He didn't. The orcs are the closest he comes to wholly vilifying a race (if they can be called that), and even they are not exempt from some expression of compassion from the author. "For me, I pity even his slaves." (Gandalf, at some point or another :) ).

Perhaps a "modernist" point of view requires all writings to conform to whatever is the politically correct mode of expression in current times, but if that is so, then I believe it does the unwise thing of throwing out the wisdom of past ages, expressed in its own language and in its own way. There is value in that as well as in modern ways of doing things, and something is lost if everything must be reinterpreted to conform to current standards and practices.

All just my humble opinion, as ever.

[Lalwendë]

3) What's wrong with fascism?:p

Everything?

I saw this thread and thought "Ah, at last, a discussion on how Tolkien's work can be compared with the likes of Eliot and Joyce." But no, it's about how 'modern' he was with a small m. Still, of course the aspects of the modern world and of modern culture are a major feature in Modernist literature.

It might be helpful to know what we mean by 'modernist'. Are we merely assuming Tolkien is 'old school' because he writes of Kings, Elves and people who live a simpler lifestyle on the technological scale of development? Or are we also considering what messages his work conveys?

Because on that latter point, Tolkien is an out and out Modernist - with a capital M.

Just taking one aspect of his work, his approach towards warfare, Tolkien is in the company of the WWI poets, of Peake, of Lawrence. He presents us with ordinary people who are confronted with a far-off war; they go out of duty, because their friends go, because they believe that in some small way, they can play a part. Unlike WWI, these ordinary people are not forced to go, and this war is one which needs to be fought (unlike about 99% of wars in real life!) as there simply is no diplomatic facility to reason with Sauron! However, even though this war is about as 'just' as any war can get, Tolkien doesn't give us returning muscular heroes. No, he brings us back broken people. He kills some characters. He shows us the consequences.

That's a major feature of Modernism. Questioning authority and the idea that war is inherently our 'duty' to take part in, a duty which will glorify us - that's something which has been passed down from the ancient Greeks but never came under serious questioning until the 20th century and Modernist thinking. Tolkien himself went through all of this - how could he not have come out of that madness without questioning it? It even shook his faith to the core - with the result that the god he created in his work was a terrible god, a truly omnipotent creation.

You could discuss many, many aspects of Tolkien's work in the light of Modernism - as scholars are doing (there was recently a TS seminar on Tolkien & Modernism) already. And I think Shippey has done some work comparing Tolkien to Joyce?

I'm afraid Brin and the Star Wars geeks et al have latched onto Tolkien's faith as making him some kind of pseudo-Lewis figure when this couldn't be further from the truth. It's grossly unfair to condemn Tolkien as a has-been in the literary stakes just because of his religion when he doesn't exactly beat you over the head with it but instead in his clearly Modernist take on a lot of aspects of human existence, he raises interesting questions.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Lalwende, it sounds as if Brin and Co. don't know what true Modernism is. They appear to have cobbled together their own version of it, from the points you have made. What a world... :)

[Nogrod]

It might be helpful to know what we mean by 'modernist'.Exactly. And the same thing should be asked about 'humanism' as well... and about their relationship

There has been discussion about literary modernism in here but mostly I'd say that with modernism people have meant the socio-cultural ethos of the twentieth century (beginning late 19th) western liberal democracies. The first surely presupposes the latter but they are not the same thing.

Also the word humanism is quite confusing here as some people seem to just toy about with a strawman they have created - and the word itself has a history of six hundred years (from the renaissance umanista) - and the humanisms of the literati back then, the chrstian humanism, secular humanism, etc. do differ a lot.

Lastly I really don't know about the merits of humanism and modernism; I certainly think, nonetheless, that the world is a far more complex place than such philosophies allow for.Here there has to be a kind of misunderstanding? Thinking of different worldviews or philosophies I couldn't imagine modernists to take the world as an uncomplex place - quite the opposite. Mythlogical worlds, religious worlds, conservative worlds (at least those of the style: "oh how everything was nice and neat back then") tend to carry the simple explanations. It's not a new idea that fex. fantasy may be so popular these days when it offers simple solutions and escape from this modern complex world in which we people have learned the modern way of thinking with no easy certainties and questions lurking all around.

I myself am quite much a secular humanist. So I don't believe in God - at least in any god some humans could name or know something about. Sure there can be even a god somewhere (whatever she/he/it is) - there is a lot things in the universe we people don't understand, like the being of the existence itself, or the concept of infinity.

But that doesn't stop me loving the works of Tolkien. Even if I can relate the prof's place in the chain of ideas within our cultural history it doesn't deny me slipping into his world as piece of masterly fiction or to admire his creativity and learning. And surely there's the little romantic in me as in most of us "modern westerners" who loves to dwell in all those medieval-smelling ideals, heroisms, virtues and vices, the plain living and culture... you name it.

But when I'm in this world of real people the humanist in me demands that I do fex. honour every human being as having a equal moral worth as a human being to begin with - with no über- or untermenschen, or higher and lower cultures according to which individual people would be judged etc... In this world there are no genetical master-races of the Dunedain even if some people have tried to advance that kind of ideas, or master-cultures like the elves - or unworthy Dunledings... These are very unmodern ideas - and unhumanist ideas.

There may be more virtuous or nicer individuals as there seems to be fouler or colder people. There may also be unhealthy trends in any one culture (like the overindividualism in the western culture or the rising fundamentalism in both islamic and western cultures) or good trends. But cultures as such are not bad or good - and people only become good or bad by what they do. But in the beginning they're all equal. Every newborn is sinless.

That's modernist humanism I'm proud to advocate.

[tumhalad2]

[QUOTE=Nogrod;548687]

... In this world there are no genetical master-races of the Dunedain even if some people have tried to advance that kind of ideas, or master-cultures like the elves - or unworthy Dunledings... These are very unmodern ideas - and unhumanist ideas.

There may be more virtuous or nicer individuals as there seems to be fouler or colder people. There may also be unhealthy trends in any one culture (like the overindividualism in the western culture or the rising fundamentalism in both islamic and western cultures) or good trends. But cultures as such are not bad or good - and people only become good or bad by what they do. But in the beginning they're all equal. Every newborn is sinless.

That's modernist humanism I'm proud to advocate.[/QUOTE

Firstly I don't believe the Dunedein were a 'genetic' master race-though they are 'talked up' in the LOTR it is also true that they themselves are capable of sin and vice. So, the Dunedain are not morally superior humans, nor particularly phyical, but, if anything, their history is more connected with the elves which makes them 'culturally superior'. As to the Elves themselves-they are difficult. Brin calls them ubermenshen-indeed in a sense they are, though perhaps in light of Tolkien's entire legendarium it would be more exact to say that their civilisation is inherently different, rather than superior, to the cultures of Men or Dwarves (something the Dwarves would certainly say!)

Reading Tolkien I don't really get the idea that the Elves are in fact 'superior'-just 'different' in some way...

[Nogrod]

Most old mythologies are keen to point out the weaknessess in the We - even if we are the sons of gods or centers of the universe... So Tolkien only follows a traditional path there by making Dunedain and elves having vices. The idea of the "chosen ones" being (needing or striving to be) perfect is later Christian addendum.

In the old world of mythologies you could be superior but still imperfect. :)

[skip spence]

But when I'm in this world of real people the humanist in me demands that I do fex. honour every human being as having a equal moral worth as a human being to begin with - with no über- or untermenschen, or higher and lower cultures according to which individual people would be judged etc... In this world there are no genetical master-races of the Dunedain even if some people have tried to advance that kind of ideas, or master-cultures like the elves - or unworthy Dunledings... These are very unmodern ideas - and unhumanist ideas.


I'm not sure whether you attribute these ideas to Tolkien or not, but if you do, I'd have to disagree. On first glance I can see how Tolkien's work can be interpreted as racist and in fact, I believe his work is celebrated by some neo-nazi groups for this reason (although others groups don't seem to appreciate his apparent admiration of the jews to which he once likened to the dwarves on an altogether off-topic discourse). You do notice that nobility seem to be connected with being tall and blonde while the invading Easterling scum seem to be 'swarty and squat'. But then again there are far to many exceptions to make a good case for racism.
Lots of tall characters with fair skin and noble hertiage do terrible things in his books (ex. the numerorians) and many 'swarty and squat' characters do good things (ex. the druadain (sp?) or that fat guy who fought for Gondor at the battle of Pellenor). And besides, doesn't the whole basic idea to make up a mythology for England stipulate a white man's perspective? And I don't see anything wrong with that. As for the Elves, they have no relation whatsoever with Nietzche's 'übermench' or later fascist applications to the word and any attempt to connect them with a racist agenda is way off the mark IMO. I think tumhalad2 has a good point when he see them and their 'immortality' as an important contrast to the fate of mortal men and their fear of death.


There may be more virtuous or nicer individuals as there seems to be fouler or colder people. There may also be unhealthy trends in any one culture (like the overindividualism in the western culture or the rising fundamentalism in both islamic and western cultures) or good trends. But cultures as such are not bad or good - and people only become good or bad by what they do. But in the beginning they're all equal. Every newborn is sinless.

That's modernist humanism I'm proud to advocate.


This is pretty much what Tolkien advocated too, unless I'm mistaken. But I don't see why some cultures or even peoples as a whole can't be considered better than others. To say so is no doubt just an opinion (as with all social or theological subjects) but I still reserve the right to have one, even if it isn't considered politically correct. Individuals should, of course, be treated as unique without any stigmas attached, but a culture can't ever change unless we're allowed to critisize it.

*Edit: I see I crossposted with tumhalad2 and this is a question to you:
You seem like an intelligent and reasonable guy, well able to form your own opinion. Yet, in the op you appear concerned that the criticism of this Brin fella might put you off Tolkien. But seriuosly... this Brin, who I've never heard of btw, sounds like a pretentious but not very bright tosser to be honest. Why would you listen to him?

[tumhalad2]

Most old mythologies are keen to point out the weaknessess in the We - even if we are the sons of gods or centers of the universe... So Tolkien only follows a traditional path there by making Dunedain and elves having vices. The idea of the "chosen ones" being (needing or striving to be) perfect is later Christian addendum.

In the old world of mythologies you could be superior but still imperfect. :)

Indeed. Nonetheless, I do not believe that modern applicability should so lightly be thrust upon Tolkien's races and cultures. As Skip Spense points out, the supposed 'immortality' of the elves is juxtuposed against the mortality of men so that the dialogue of death, if you will, can be played out.

"Which should envy the other?" asks an Elven ambassador to Numenor in the Akallabeth. Who indeed. If Tolkien had absolutely, really valued the Elves above humans, made them true 'ubermenschen' surely he would have validated their immortality as something men do not have, for example because of the "fall"

Interestingly, Tolkien does an about turn on Christian mythology at this point and says that both the mortality of Humans and the immortality of Elves is simply "the fulfilment of their being" no more a 'punishment' than death is in real life. The drama plays out precisely because the Numenorians, who you call 'superior' perceive the Elves to be ubermensche pretty much. The Numenorians attempt to forcibly take immortality and they fail because of it. They fail not because they are 'lesser' beings, or 'unworthy' or 'deserving of punishment', they fail because they desire something entirely unnatural to them, something entirely foreign, somthing that is in no way a fulfillment of their being. Were men to step upon Valinor they would (something like this) die a quicker death as moths do when exposed to bright light.

Similarly, the 'ubermensche' Elves fail, ultimately, in their quest to impose immortality and unchangefullness on the finite world, Middle Earth, about them. With the breaking of their magic, they must leave Middle earth or accept it for what it is and wither away. Slowly, the Elves of middle earth would 'fade' away, unable to control the change of the world around them that is in reality utterly foreign to them.

My point is that social ideas about ubermensche and the like are not particularly relevant to Tolkien, and if the ideas are superficially there, they are so to fulfill a purpose other than simply to say : these guys are superior to the rest of you.
Often they are there as a result of other themes.

Words like "superiority", "ubermensche" etc fall short of explaining Tolkien's characters and races-ultimately it is for reasons of the theme, generally speaking, of 'death and the desire for deathlessness' on the part of Humans and Elves, that is responsible for much of this. :)

I believe Tolkien was in fact more aware of what he was doing than perhaps many would think...

[Lalwendë]

"Which should envy the other?" asks an Elven ambassador to Numenor in the Akallabeth. Who indeed. If Tolkien had absolutely, really valued the Elves above humans, made them true 'ubermenschen' surely he would have validated their immortality as something men do not have, for example because of the "fall"

Interestingly, Tolkien does an about turn on Christian mythology at this point and says that both the mortality of Humans and the immortality of Elves is simply "the fulfilment of their being" no more a 'punishment' than death is in real life. The drama plays out precisely because the Numenorians, who you call 'superior' perceive the Elves to be ubermensche pretty much. The Numenorians attempt to forcibly take immortality and they fail because of it. They fail not because they are 'lesser' beings, or 'unworthy' or 'deserving of punishment', they fail because they desire something entirely unnatural to them, something entirely foreign, somthing that is in no way a fulfillment of their being. Were men to step upon Valinor they would (something like this) die a quicker death as moths do when exposed to bright light.

.

And you can answer this by looking at Tolkien in the light of Modernism (the theory). How was a Catholic to make sense of the mindless slaughter of millions in WWI? Many people simply turned away from faith altogether because they could not square the slaughter with the existence of any kind of 'good' God. Tolkien didn't do what a lot who did keep their faith did do, and ascribe the slaughter to some fall of mankind - no he came to view Death in a more Northern way, as a kind of inevitability, as part of the very nature of humanity is to die.

[Nogrod]

*Edit: I see I crossposted with tumhalad2 and this is a question to you:
You seem like an intelligent and reasonable guy, well able to form your own opinion. Yet, in the op you appear concerned that the criticism of this Brin fella might put you off Tolkien. But seriuosly... this Brin, who I've never heard of btw, sounds like a pretentious but not very bright tosser to be honest. Why would you listen to him?Even if it will make myself look like a total ignoramus here as well I must confess I have never heard of this Brin-guy before either until reading this thread. So I definitively have not been listening to him. :)

a culture can't ever change unless we're allowed to critisize it. I don't see the point of this here... I'm all for demanding changes in cultures, like getting the Western culture less individualistic without falling back to religious or nationalistic fundamentalisms etc.

Talking about the subject then...

I do agree with your points about there being "inside tensions" between the "races" in Tolkien's work. And surely the question about the benefits of mortality / immortality have been questioned long before the Christian thought in Gilgamesh or Greek legendarium in written form and in many earlier myths to top that fex.

But to me the question here is more what kind of worldview Tolkien brings forwards in his "mythology for England"? It coincides with these mythological strata of our history... and that is natural as he was the scholar who tried to make it look like an arcane mythology.

But the question now remains how we should tune ourselves with it? Should we treat is as an original mythology (no!), should we treat it as a piece of the most ingenuine piece of fiction based on traditions (yes!), should we treat it as a way guiding us to a moral and good life in today's society and world (yes/no?).

I think it's the last question - or the interpretation of what it means - that may divide many of us.

I tend to agree with Lal that Tolkien had much more modernistic views about things many of you are ready to grant him. Thence I think we should be able to think about his views much more seriously - but in another vein than just championing his "traditionalism" or basic "christian values".

The things and ideas Tolkien brings forwards in his work are those of the mythological era and thought but he does it in a way that demands a modern reader an effort to think it her/himself - a mark of a purely modernist attitude in itself.

[tumhalad2]

And you can answer this by looking at Tolkien in the light of Modernism (the theory). How was a Catholic to make sense of the mindless slaughter of millions in WWI? Many people simply turned away from faith altogether because they could not square the slaughter with the existence of any kind of 'good' God. Tolkien didn't do what a lot who did keep their faith did do, and ascribe the slaughter to some fall of mankind - no he came to view Death in a more Northern way, as a kind of inevitability, as part of the very nature of humanity is to die.

Yes!!! This point is of critical import. The Children of Hurin, especially in the opening chapters, discusses these points as well, from the point of view of a little boy, then a man captured by a diabolical Dark Lord (my hate shall persue them...etc etc rant rant) If this is not 'modern' im not sure what is...

[skip spence]

Even if it will make myself look like a total ignoramus here as well I must confess I have never heard of this Brin-guy before either until reading this thread. So I definitively have not been listening to him. :)


Sorry mate, you must have misunderstood me (no wonder, my post was a bit of a mess). The questions was to tumhalad2.


I don't see the point of this here... I'm all for demanding changes in cultures, like getting the Western culture less individualistic without falling back to religious or nationalistic fundamentalisms etc.

Agreed. Just a thought I had at the time. Never mind that.


But the question now remains how we should tune ourselves with it? Should we treat is as an original mythology (no!), should we treat it as a piece of the most ingenuine piece of fiction based on traditions (yes!), should we treat it as a way guiding us to a moral and good life in today's society and world (yes/no?).

I think it's the last question - or the interpretation of what it means - that may divide many of us.

Perhaps. My answer is that if you do find a moral guideline in his works, that's great. Tolkien certainly had a lot to say about morals. Personally, although I also appreciate much of his more philosofical and theological stuff, I read his books because I love the stories and the language.


The things and ideas Tolkien brings forwards in his work are those of the mythological era and thought but he does it in a way that demands a modern reader an effort to think it her/himself - a mark of a purely modernist attitude in itself.

I dunno if the ideas are those of a mythological prehistoric era. I highly doubt that the people in the actual 'mythological' era ever reached the subtlety of Tolkien or of his characters.

As for the debate of how modernistic Tolkien was I'm afraid I can't add much. I was under the impression that 'modernism' was the much akin to positivism, the belief that logical reasoning based on observable facts (the method of the natural sciences) is the best, if not the only way forward into the future. Based on this belief I did not think Tolkien would appriciate a modernistic agenda with scientific progress and rationalisation as a top priority. But I also knew that 'modernism' had other applications in other fields, and some posters have argued that Tolkien indeed was modernistic. To be honest, I find concepts such as modernism, post-modernism, symbolism to be rather silly and restrictive and the people who like to use them often do so in a vain attempt to appear more clever than they really are. But please note that I'm not talking about the people writing on this thread.

[Nogrod]

As for the debate of how modernistic Tolkien was I'm afraid I can't add much. I was under the impression that 'modernism' was the much akin to positivism, the belief that logical reasoning based on observable facts (the method of the natural sciences) is the best, if not the only way forward into the future. Based on this belief I did not think Tolkien would appriciate a modernistic agenda with scientific progress and rationalisation as a top priority. But I also knew that 'modernism' had other applications in other fields, and some posters have argued that Tolkien indeed was modernistic. To be honest, I find concepts such as modernism, post-modernism, symbolism to be rather silly and restrictive and the people who like to use them often do so in a vain attempt to appear more clever than they really are. But please note that I'm not talking about the people writing on this thread.The terms... the terms... Everyone seems to use it one way or another... But in humanities like philosophy, cultural studies and aesthetics the word 'modern' means the enlightenment and positivism as well as Baudelaire, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche - or Cézanne, Malevitch, Ravel or T.S. Eliot; or Durkheim and de Saussure... as opposed to both classical attitude or romanticism.

The words themselves are not silly. They try to point out to actual differences. They just sadly seem to have a multiple meanings depending on the author who talks about them. But still there is some common ground one could see in all those modernisms in comparison with the classical stance or the romantic way of looking at things.

Tolkien certainly had a lot to say about morals. Absolutely. And I think he had a crush on past morals of virtue exemplified by the authors of Antiquity and of the old tales of lesser known civilisations. And there's nothing bad in it in itself. To a modern reader the virtue-ethics looks refreshing indeed! It's just a question whether we can avoid taking all the loads of that generally chauvinistic background thinking with them as well when we cherish the ethics of virtue so appealing to the modern man who has lost the sense of purpose in this world we live in.

Personally, although I also appreciate much of his more philosofical and theological stuff, I read his books because I love the stories and the languageAs well as I do, even if I find his philosophical ideas quite common or "basic-romantic" and his theology tied to his age and prejudices as well. But there are those funny modernist things in between his writing that keeps his work from falling down to the oblivion of standard "classical romanticism". And the stories and the language... well there he's the champion with no one to compare him with! Unless our long gone elders make the claim...

[Nogrod]

I was under the impression that 'modernism' was the much akin to positivism, the belief that logical reasoning based on observable facts (the method of the natural sciences) is the best, if not the only way forward into the future.That's the basic principle of something that is today called 'naturalism' and which has its roots in the enlightenment... but also in the speculation of the 17th century philosophes and earlier "scientists" and even theologians... and the engineers of the Middle-Ages (like Leonardo da Vinci who was first and foremost an engineer and only secondarily a painter at that time)... :)

The positivists were self-critical enough to cancel their own project during the twenties when they realised that their motto "anything that can not be verified empirically can't be taken as a knowledge" was itself not verifiable empirically... :D

[Bêthberry]

No time for anything other than a quick scan of this interesting thread, so I'll have to refrain from making any large scale declarations. (Lucky you!)

I notice, however, that writers such as Joyce, Lawrence, Eliot and Peake are mentioned as exemplars of literary modernism. One writer who hasn't been mentioned is Virginia Woolf.

Just a few titles in case anyone is interested in checking out her presentation of consciousness: Mrs. Dalloway, To the Lighthouse, and, particularly, The Waves.

Given that Tolkien does not present--and is not interested in depicting--this form of the interiority of thought--he would seem to fall on t'other side from Woolf--but I'm not getting into any definition wars!

[Nerwen]

But getting back to the original question– by what logic does Star Wars exemplify modernism? Any ideas?

[tumhalad2]

Some incredibly intersting stuff there guys-wow! Philosophy is so interesting!

As to Star Wars, Nerwen, I'm not sure it exemplifies modernist values any more that the Lord of the Rings, and though Im a fan of Star Wars I will go so far as to say that Tolkien, with his inserted, somewhat surprising, modernist ideas about death and the like perhaps takes his universe to a level Lucas never achieved.

However, I do not want to get into a debate about the merits of each franchise; that is what these other forumers did and look how that turned out!! Not that that would happen here, but still...

In response to your question, skip spense David Brin may be a little pretentious but I do not think he is a fool-his opinions need to be considered, in other words. At times I have thought that his ideas were so overwhelmingly 'right' that Tolkien seemed a blemish on my palate of interest, but then I quickly come to...It was probably in such a downcast mood that I wrote the first post!:smokin:

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Star War's 'depth' in a nutshell: Obi-Wan screaming at Anakin/Vader that he was sworn to defend.... democracy!


Now if Lucas can't figure out that democracy is not a goal but merely a system directed towards that goal, then he has no claim on depth of thought.

[Nerwen]

Say what you like about StarDestroyer.net, it brings much joy. What follows is a genuine, unaltered quote.

I often tell people Shakespeare sucks because there is no way a real human being ever spoke like that.

[Bêthberry]

But getting back to the original question– by what logic does Star Wars exemplify modernism? Any ideas?

Since my post in reply to this was lost out on Route 69, I'll repost it here:

Star Wars exemplifies modernism through a glorious delight in machinery and a broad faith in technology as well as The Force.

[Nerwen]

Since my post in reply to this was lost out on Route 69, I'll repost it here:

Star Wars exemplifies modernism through a glorious delight in machinery and a broad faith in technology as well as The Force.

Must be why I love it so much...:D

However, the technology in Star Wars tends to be more of a backdrop to the story. In fact some purists consider it not to be "real" sci-fi for this reason. (Well, that, and the way the laws of physics get flouted.)

[Bêthberry]

Must be why I love it so much...:D

However, the technology in Star Wars tends to be more of a backdrop to the story. In fact some purists consider it not to be "real" sci-fi for this reason. (Well, that, and the way the laws of physics get flouted.)

I'm not so sure it is a backdrop. Luke's fascination with flying his racer through the canyons is one important aspect of his character and also one that ensures his victory at the conclusion of A New Hope. That fascination comes straight out of Lucas' love affair with the automobile--think American Graffitti. Think also of Han Solo's "special modifications" made to the Millenium Falcon and how that is highlighted when Leia treats it to a sarcastic remark--was that the start of their love affair? I can't imagine Tolkien or Frodo or any of the other hobbits engaging in that kind of love affair with machinery. There could be dwarves who might delight in sledding down cave tunnels, but it wouldn't be powered the same. :D

I suppose R2D2 and 3PO could be Mutt and Jeff or a human comedic duo, but for me part of the delight in their characters lies in their robotic nature--or its interface with their human aspects. I dreamed of having my own R2D2 to do housework and still have an R2D2 cookie jar which lovingly has never been used, but is carefully wrapped and put away like good china. I don't think 3PO would be as funny if he were merely an abnoxious human, but being a robotic linguist as well as an English butler makes him delightfully entertaining.

Granted lots of the technology, especially the wonky bits, beongs to the Dark Side, but even the great glorification of special effects which Star Wars initiated represents a paen to technology. Someday, and someday soon, a Gollem won't need an Andy, and the current fascination with that began with SW.

As for the laws of gravity, they're a bit like Rodney Dangerfield, eh? ;)

[Nerwen]

I'm not so sure it is a backdrop. Luke's fascination with flying his racer through the canyons is one important aspect of his character and also one that ensures his victory at the conclusion of A New Hope. That fascination comes straight out of Lucas' love affair with the automobile--think American Graffitti. Think also of Han Solo's "special modifications" made to the Millenium Falcon and how that is highlighted when Leia treats it to a sarcastic remark--was that the start of their love affair? I can't imagine Tolkien or Frodo or any of the other hobbits engaging in that kind of love affair with machinery.

Yes, but I said "more of a backdrop". Obviously Lucas loves technology... but the story isn't really about it, not in the way "hard SF" is. I mean, you could transplant much of the plot into a pure fantasy setting with minimal changes. (Isn't A New Hope supposed to be based heavily on a samurai film?)

EDIT: Perhaps I should say, "pure sci-fi". "Hard sci-fi" is supposed to be actually plausible– with the result that practically nothing qualifies.

[tumhalad2]

ok guys here is another ingredient we can add to the mix: some intersting articles that contrast somewhat to Brin et al..

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/ID24Aa01.html

there are links to this guys two other articles at the bottom of that page

[Bêthberry]

Yes, but I said "more of a backdrop". Obviously Lucas loves technology... but the story isn't really about it, not in the way "hard SF" is. I mean, you could transplant much of the plot into a pure fantasy setting with minimal changes. (Isn't A New Hope supposed to be based heavily on a samurai film?)

EDIT: Perhaps I should say, "pure sci-fi". "Hard sci-fi" is supposed to be actually plausible– with the result that practically nothing qualifies.

Well, even if we could--and I'm not so sure I would concede that, as I think the love of technology is essential to the story--just as we might cross out the "children's passages" in TH to create a dark TH, that wouldn't remain Lucas' work any more than it would remain Tolkien's work: it would be ours.

Definitions are always tricky, as they end up excluding writers who usually are accepted as belonging to the genre. Saying Science Fiction is about technology would eliminate Ursula Le Guin, Judith Merrill, and other writers who also want to consider how technology impacts society, culture, psychology.

I myself prefer the designation Speculative Fiction, as that seems more encompassing--it includes writers who strive to push the edges of the genre.

We also can't overlook the aspects of the cowboy genre in Star Wars. It seems to encompass so many different kinds of stories while weaving its own adventure. In that sense, it is much like LotR, which holds so many earlier narratives in its sight while producing something unique.

[Nerwen]

I'm sorry, I seem to have conveyed almost exactly the opposite of what I meant here.:(

Saying Science Fiction is about technology would eliminate Ursula Le Guin, Judith Merrill, and other writers who also want to consider how technology impacts society, culture, psychology.

Well no, because I was referring to the definition of science fiction that says it is primarily concerned with exploring the impact of technology on society, etc. Whereas the technology in Star Wars, important as it is, isn't the essence of the story. Does that make more sense?

Mind you, I don't really hold with these strict definitions myself– the setting in my mind does make it science fiction– but I know not everyone agrees. What I do mean is that Star Wars is not exactly at the cutting edge of SF, and indeed gets looked down on as "space opera" or "science fantasy".

I myself prefer the designation Speculative Fiction, as that seems more encompassing--it includes writers who strive to push the edges of the genre.

We also can't overlook the aspects of the cowboy genre in Star Wars. It seems to encompass so many different kinds of stories while weaving its own adventure. In that sense, it is much like LotR, which holds so many earlier narratives in its sight while producing something unique.

...Which is actually roughly what I was trying to say.

[Bêthberry]

I'm sorry, I seem to have conveyed almost exactly the opposite of what I meant here.:(

My apologies for any misunderstandings. :(



Well no, because I was referring to the definition of science fiction that says it is primarily concerned with exploring the impact of technology on society, etc. Whereas the technology in Star Wars, important as it is, isn't the essence of the story. Does that make more sense?

Well, part of the story is the idea that the Dark Side misuses technology in its worship/pursuit of power, so I think it is part of the essence. For Tolkien, I think, modern machinery is a blight but for SW, it has a glorious side. But perhaps I should ask what you understand by the essence of the story?


Mind you, I don't really hold with these strict definitions myself– the setting in my mind does make it science fiction– but I know not everyone agrees. What I do mean is that Star Wars is not exactly at the cutting edge of SF, and indeed gets looked down on as "space opera" or "science fantasy".

Sounds to me like SF must have its purists as well as Tolkien. ;) I think Blade Runner is probably closer to what you mean by the cutting edge of SF, right? Yet even there the element of Romance creeps in.

Nice to discuss SF with someone who appreciates it!

[Nerwen]

Well, part of the story is the idea that the Dark Side misuses technology in its worship/pursuit of power, so I think it is part of the essence. For Tolkien, I think, modern machinery is a blight but for SW, it has a glorious side. But perhaps I should ask what you understand by the essence of the story?

Perhaps if I quote both of us?:

I mean, you could transplant much of the plot into a pure fantasy setting with minimal changes.

We also can't overlook the aspects of the cowboy genre in Star Wars. It seems to encompass so many different kinds of stories while weaving its own adventure.

And these stories could be taken from, or brought into, almost any genre– there's very little there that's exclusive to science-fiction.

Yes, misuse of technology is a theme– and as you say, perhaps it is part of the essence– but for some people that doesn't let Star Wars off the charge of being a disguised fantasy. (And after all, it's a secondary theme of The Lord of the Rings too.)

Another example: A "pure" science-fiction story might deal with the development of faster-than-light travel, and how it changes society, etc., whereas in Star Wars it's really just the way people get around– spectacular space battles notwithstanding.

Sounds to me like SF must have its purists as well as Tolkien. ;)

I'll say.:rolleyes: I couldn't care less myself... but purists there are, and they consider Star Wars to be not quite kosher, so to speak. The sort of people I'm talking about are fond of rating fiction according to minute gradations of "hardness"– the harder the better. The crew at StarDestroyer.Net must know this perfectly well, which may be why they're jumpy.

Nice to discuss SF with someone who appreciates it!

Same to you!:)

[Boromir88]

Just popping in to say hello and adding perhaps a couple things of interest.

The general conception (of Brin and others) is that Tolkien was a technophobe, and thus should not be taken as a serious author. I wonder where they ever got that idea? I mean sure Tolkien loathed the RAF, and in Letter 75, written to his son Christopher, he doesn't have too many kind words about "The Machine":
Unlike art which is content to create a new secondary world in the mind, it attempts to actualize desire, and to create power in this World; and that cannot really be done with any real satisfaction.Labour-saving machinery can only create endless and worse labour. And in addition to this fundamental disability of a creature, is added the Fall, which makes our devices not only fail of their desire but turn to new and horrible evil.
That's particularly funny after seeing that perhaps planes had some good uses:
Well, I have got over two thousand words onto this little flimsy airletter; and I will forgive the Mordor-gadgets some of their sins, if they bring it quickly to you.~ibid
I believe "The Machine" Tolkien often speaks of is more than "technology" or actual machines, but it's more of a state of mind. "The Machine" is all about control, something Tolkien was most certainly against. And as Lalwende astutely observed in a thread talking about Orcs (take a look at Gorbag and Shagrat) that even Orcs can't always be "cogs in The Machine."

Tolkien does seem to quite often rant about technology (I believe he had a problem with typewriters too), so it's not shocking that Brin paints Tolkien as a technophobe. I would like to point out, however, that the most modern (and dominant!) view in the world is the idea of the "West." I don't think our modern-day West is Tolkien's idea the "The West." But my point is that our West is the dominant, modern way of thinking, and I think we see some of that in Tolkien's writing.

We have the Greeks to thank for this revolutionary way of thinking (at least back in their days), the hebrews added there own contributions, and the Romans spread the their ideas to the rest of the world. Democracy, the idea that the rights of an individual outweigh the "good of Society" was Greek thinking. Hebrews added Christianity, and stories of the "small" overcoming great trials, because the "mighty" were unable to do so, to the "Western" way of thinking. That last bit is one thing which is very strong and evident in Tolkien's story:
The road must be trod, but it will be very hard. And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far upon it. This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.~The Council of Elrond

It's interesting that now when asked what is "Modern?" Technology seems to be the number one answer, but technology is actually only a recent addition to our West. That's rather funny because the Greeks were pretty horrible engineers, they just liked to sit around and think and argue about how to do things, not actually doing things. The Greeks didn't have roads, besides temples most of their buildings were made of mud bricks, the Greeks biggest contribution (besides democracy) to the West, was Science. It was the Romans who were the great technological engineers. Now it seems like technology has replaced Sciece as the #1 answer to what is "Modern?"

[Eönwë]

It's interesting that now when asked what is "Modern?" Technology seems to be the number one answer, but technology is actually only a recent addition to our West. That's rather funny because the Greeks were pretty horrible engineers, they just liked to sit around and think and argue about how to do things, not actually doing things. The Greeks didn't have roads, besides temples most of their buildings were made of mud bricks, the Greeks biggest contribution (besides democracy) to the West, was Science.

How about the Antikythera Mechanism (http://www.answers.com/topic/antikythera-mechanism?cat=technology)?

But other than that I must agree. Technology is only part of Modernity. But also, going back to your point, Boromir88 (you're back!)Athenian democracy was different to what we today call "democracy".

[Groin Redbeard]

I think you are really underestimating the Greeks here Borormir. Not only were they great in the subject of Science but especially Philosophy and Mathematics (do you remember Archimedes). They are the cornerstone upon which Western Civilization was founded!

Tolkien and Modernism
Tolkien was a traditionalist, a man who looked to the past for guidance. His age was the era of technology and great change. Now in general people don't like change, but I think that when you are a traditionalist it's even worse.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Historians would beg to defer from the view that traditionalist are worse. Christopher Columbus set out to prove that he could sail all the way to China based on the then-modern view of the round Earth. He discovered another land instead. Chairman Mao set out to prove that humanity can triumph over nature. His revolution faltered when he attempted to tame the Yellow River.

It is a gift of post-modernism to allow individuals the benefit of doubt, including that of oneself.

[Morthoron]

First, I find it humorous that this entire Tolkien critique originated on a Star Wars site. The mythos of Star Wars (backstory actually -- it would give too much credit to Lucas to define his plot as mythos, even though he lifted the greater part of his plot devices from Joseph Campbell) is banal New-Age pablum, a shallow bowl in which was dipped pseudo-Eastern blather with Sci-fi gadgetry, then veneered with a Hollywood candy-coated shell meant for mass-consumption by juveniles. It is neither literate nor insightful filmmaking. The dialogue is wretched and the primary actors (Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness, Ewan MacGregor, Liam Neeson, etc.) had far more meaningful and memorable roles in other films (ones that actually had scripts written by professionals). For those still strident in their acclaim for glorified B-movie science fiction, I suggest they read Dune or Foundation to get a proper grasp of the true immensity and brilliance of effective and thought-provoking science fiction literature.

Second, there is certainly an absence of 'modernity' (or the post-modern intellectual worldview) in Tolkien's Middle-earth corpus primarily because it is not in the least applicable to the ancient world Tolkien created, and I am rather amused that these supposed intellectuals cannot grasp such a simple fact. It would be just as ludicrous to impose such standards of modernity on Cervantes, Mallory, or Shakespeare, for that matter. To demean a classic piece of literature because it does not fit nicely into the jaded, atheistic norms of post-modern intellectuals (who, from personal experience, are just as fascistic in their near-sighted zealotry as those they attempt to minimize) is a disservice to younger readers who have not yet formulated a literary view of their own, but who are force-fed this arrogant and elitist prattle in schools and universities, and are expected to follow the party line like good little Bolsheviks.

Third, Tolkien was indeed conservative, but in the truest sense of conservation, whether that lay in his fascination for ancient languages and epics, or in his distrust of technology and its negative effects on the environment. He watched, year after year, the none-to-gradual erosion and destruction of his beautiful countryside, the places of his childhood revelry, as I myself have seen the rapid urbanization, suburbanization and exurbanization of those places I once held dear. Now we are facing Global Warming, dwindling natural resources and an energy crisis, and one has to agree with Professor Tolkien that perhaps too much technology is too much of a good thing, and that we may well technologize ourselves into extinction.

In the end, it must be said that much of what Tolkien devised seems archaic and colloquial by the standards of the snide post-moderns (but wouldn't you really rather be in Elessar's court in Minas Tirith than in court on Trial with Kafka?). Tolkien created an incredibly detailed world based on those things he loved the most: Anglo-Saxon literature, the Eddas and Sagas, the Kalevala, and infused it with his faith (but with any religiosity subsumed as undercurrents in the text, so as not to appear allegorical or preachy), and his harrowing experiences in WWI. The valor, camaraderie, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and, yes, a clearly defined sense of good and evil were to be found in the foxholes and trenches of France, just as the grim specters in the Dead Marshes were the silent, floating corpses staring blankly up from flooded bomb craters of the Somme.

We read of Middle-earth as wide-eyed innocents and yearn for the simple fellowship and bright promise of by-gone ages. But the tale also inspires us to fight the long defeat against all odds, and hope to make our world a better place, if not for us, perhaps for those who survive us. Unfortunately, we cannot go back to a time when evil was more clearly delineated. There is no longer a central evil, but evil is in everything. It pervades all governments, it oozes forth from multi-national corporations who no longer hold allegiances save for the propagation of their own profit, it erodes our sensibilities through mass-media, and it haunts our steps through the senseless and insane violence bred in the name of religion, race, poverty or political persuasion.

Screw your modernity, give me Middle-earth anyday.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

It is, of course, understandable that in every epoch, there would be people who detest another worldview. It is certainly much more pervasive that this other worldview is glorified in an ocean of discourse we call the Internet. But I can't agree with the notion that "the past is better, and it only exists in books these days". Think Black Death which wiped out more than 30% of Europe's population.

Tolkien's work only embraced the ideals, not the details.

[Morthoron]

Tolkien's work only embraced the ideals, not the details.

Actually, what I was saying is that the ideal was better then than the idealogues now.

But I can't agree with the notion that "the past is better, and it only exists in books these days". Think Black Death which wiped out more than 30% of Europe's population.

I think we can all honestly say that we could do without looking like a peasant from a Bruegel painting ("Awww, look...Junior's got his first goiter! That'll hide his pock marks."). Neither would we wish to be subjected to polio or death by a simple toothache. Technology has its place, but rampant technology and its encroachment on the environment is heading us towards a global disaster so profound that one day we might look back on the era of the Black Death as a Golden Age for humanity. 'Tis all relative, and one could say that Tolkien was prophetic in his environmental views.

It is certainly much more pervasive that this other worldview is glorified in an ocean of discourse we call the Internet.

In another discussion somewhere on this fora, we were discussing college curricula and the fact that many American colleges (I can't speak for the Europeans) have adopted the current worldview with a militancy that would make Stalin blush. Classicism in literature is eschewed for what amounts to an extended Sociology course.

The University where I graduated from -- which once had a vibrant variety of professors and literary views (from almost Stoic Classicists to Kerouac-addled ex-hippies to avant-garde post-moderns), has now been so thoroughly saturated with the post-modern worldview that a post-graduate English lit. syllabus has more to do with marxism, absurdism, feminism, class and racism, lesbianism, and a horde of other isms which, in and of themselves, are fine discussion points and pertinent to current world affairs, but are more applicable to sociology, psychology or poli-sci. One can only scratch their head and ask, 'Excuse me, is their anything that actually pertains to literature in any of these courses? I'd really like to read a poem, if that's alright with you.' I am sure the query would only be met with derision: 'If you don't have an ism, you can't read any poetry. How can you read your poetry without any isms?'

The world-weary cynicism, blanket disapproval of literature for its own sake, and the almost oppressive reliance on psychological motivations which tends to be the primary focus of the current worldview was summed up by C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man. Lewis spoke disapprovingly of an English lit. school book authored by two individuals wherein they quoted a well-known story regarding Samuel Coleridge listening with interest to two tourists regarding their impressions of a waterfall:

...one called it 'sublime' and the other 'pretty'; and that Coleridge mentally endorsed the first judgement and rejected the second with disgust.

The authors of the book Lewis was deriding comment as follows:

'When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really I have feelings associated in my mind with the word "Sublime", or shortly I have sublime feelings...This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something; and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.'

Lewis then goes on to question the author's woodenheadedness, and the obvious assumptions that arise when using such narrow thinking; he states that there is an objective beauty and not merely a subjective use of predicates to mirror one's psychological mood. That is what seems to be missing from the current equation.

I am rambling and have consumed far too much coffee this morning, which I must admit is sublime.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Ludwig Wittgenstein

The "father" of post-modernism would probably shrugged at the current worldview embraced by US academia. (He probably would not even bother to shrug) It is however one thing to rand about technology and quite another to wince at pseudo-sophism in literature. (I won't even call that post-modernism)

It is hardly rampant technology that encroached upon the environment. It is simple economics. One simple example is that of industrial development in 3rd world countries. Rather than manufacturing a "green" vehicle in a technologically advanced country (where environment-friendly technology is more readily available), a multi-national corporation would rather chop down a few hundred hectares of tropical rainforest and build a dozen of low-cost factories in a rural undeveloped country with virtually zero environmental policies.

The governments of undeveloped countries would naturally be pleased with the arrangement, as would the families of factory workers. This is the realistic view of the world with nothing to do with literature. It is doubtful, however, that Tolkien had such things in mind when he described the devastations in "the Scouring of the Shire".

[Nogrod]

"Guns don't kill people, people do." (NRA)

"Technology isn't to blame of the state of the world but people using it are."


Somehow I disagree strongly with the first declaration and agree with the second one even if my reason tells me I should treat both accordingly.

How is the reason of those thinking the opposite: guns good, technology bad?

A typical European "leftist intellectual" then? Not able to admit his own shortcomings and blaming others?

Maybe... well I try to argue against myself now... (typical leftist rhetorical-posture?)

And what has this to do with Tolkien?


I think the most important thing is the cohesion of the society, the prevalent trust inside a community - and the way it defines itself as a community - the way people see the world and the options open to them as well as those honourable and/or discraceful or outright bad ways to behave in it.

Let me make an example.

Had I a gun I would never ever dream of killing anyone. In Finland there are something like second most guns per capita around the world but only something like 1/100 kills with a firearm compared to the U.S.. But still Finns are the "second most violent" (well, third, fourth or something) nation in the world. People here kill each other by a knife, an axe, or by a fist (or a foot)... basically when they are drunk... :rolleyes:

But.

The guns in Finland are hunting-guns owned by the rural people, about 10 each... and we have no gun-culture where people carry guns when they are walking down the street or one in their bedroom-drawer just in case. And we are not afraid of each other constantly and all of the time. We trust each other - looking at the statistics that's a bad guess but still it's the one we tend to make - and that's good...

There is a difference as to how a culture defines how some things are used.

The question of technology seems to follow that line of thought. If the leading idea of what the technology is for is fast money / immediate gains for me, it's certain we have the world we have right now. If the general attitude towards the technology would be "let's see how it can help us to sustain a balanced planet" all would be different.

So in a funny sense the conservatives and the leftists join hands in here. A global capitalism that the media (owned by the mega-rich) and the top-politicians (owned by the mega-rich) shows us encourages us to think that it is a game where everyone needs to guard his own and try to make a maximum profit whether it be wealth, sexual experiences, power, a newest brand-items or quartiary profits etc...

It's easy to see how Tolkien would have reacted to that...

More than guns or technology themselves this crazy desire for individual fulfillment - based on unnatural models drawing from a thwarted basic assumption of competition of one against each other (like those of the beauty-queens, athletic-heroes, so called "reality-tv"; or those ridiculous ideas of Hobbes the new right so happily endorses) and of personal experiences as the meaning of life as the primordial human condition - has really poisoned the western societies today.

And Tolkien would howl and whine today for these developements.


Try a test.


Not the one whether Tolkien confessed the same religion you do - or was a christian anyway - or whether his ideas of gender-roles fit your own. Or whether you still think in chivalric terms about things like friendship or courtly love (typical conservative notion of an idolised past that has actually never been) or if you distaste Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera...


But would you change extra money for more free time?

Would you walk to your school or your working-place? And if you live in a suburbs and use a car everyday - would you acknowledge the way of your living is the downfall of us all and do something about it?

Would you live without the telly, sitting with a friend / friends in a tavern every night rather than watching TV?

Would you love rather than gain?


I think I know what Tolkien would have answered... :)

[Morthoron]

It is hardly rampant technology that encroached upon the environment. It is simple economics. .

How one can divorce technology from industrialism is beyond me, for they have walked together in lock-step -- these twin sons of different mothers of invention --from Blake's Satanic Mills to the current denuding of the Amazon. Tolkien's aversion to technology is directly linked to the industrial pollution that billows in its wake (in his letters he often complains of fumes and reek).

In letter #328, Tolkien describes "the horror of the American scene...polluted and impoverished to a degree only paralleled by the lunatic destruction of the physical lands which Americans inhabit." Don't worry that Tolkien had only disparaging words for the U.S., he also described Britain as "this polluted country of which the growing proportion of inhabitants are maniacs."

It is doubtful, however, that Tolkien had such things in mind when he described the devastations in "the Scouring of the Shire".

Perhaps not, but I think his description of the ugly brick mill belching forth smoke, the defoliation of Hobbiton and the mean shacks erected in place of traditional Hobbit holes bears a striking resemblance to any shift from agrarian, pastoral lifestyle to a more industrial, 'technologically advanced' society.

[Lush]

Great thread. You know, I think it's perfectly healthy to be uncomfortable with certain aspects of Tolkien's work, just as it is healthy to be uncomfortable with certain aspects of Pullman's work (An entire village of horrible, drunk, smelly Slavs! So much more progressive that J.R.R.T., Mr. Pullman!).

What I don't understand is the utter dismissal of a genuine work of art and a reductive reading that merely dismembers the material.

The University where I graduated from... has now been so thoroughly saturated with the post-modern worldview that a post-graduate English lit. syllabus has more to do with marxism, absurdism, feminism, class and racism, lesbianism, and a horde of other isms which, in and of themselves, are fine discussion points and pertinent to current world affairs, but are more applicable to sociology, psychology or poli-sci.

I don't agree with you on Star Wars, but I think you're pretty spot-on here. I'm a feminist, but this was one of the several reasons as to why I decided against getting a PhD. And don't get me started on how those who are genuinely interested in Tolkien are often treated in academia...

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Actually technology comes before industrialism, if one takes the stance that technology is the knowledge of developing and using tools for survival. Of course, people can survive with much less than sticks and stones. (much like beavers and chimpanzees) But the inconvenient truth is that nature is not divine, and that technology (thus industries) keeps the human race surviving.

A comet may wipe out all 99.99% of lifeforms on Earth, and the single-cell lifeforms left would probably be less bothered about saving the rainforests and whales than humans. And yet while things last, people would enjoy living in an unpolluted environment. This, sadly, can only be maintained at the cost of either less material comfort (thus less industries), or the invention of more restorative technology. As always, it seemed to boil down to simple economics.

[Nogrod]

Actually technology comes before industrialism, if one takes the stance that technology is the knowledge of developing and using tools for survival.Absolutely.

Etymologically technology comes from the old Greek tekhne (skill, "know-how", knowledge) and logos (truth, wisdom, knowledge, language, discipline) and thence can be tracked back to the Greeks. And surely it's an older phenomenon dating back to the stone-age or what have you...

It seems self-evident that there can be no industrialism without technology. But the question remains whether there could be an alternative present with technology without industrialism... :D

As always, it seemed to boil down to simple economics.That's a question of the viewpoint. Interpreting subsistence as kind of economics backs the argument and those engaged in the technology like to bring forwards the idea that wealth could be produced in "nature-friendly" ways. In Tolkien's times that was pure fantasy - and I'm afraid it's that in our days as well.

Anyhow. Leaving subsistence aside economy can be put on the second place, or third, or fourth...

Then it becomes a question of values. :rolleyes:

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

I'm afraid I can't agree more... :D (Economics may be considered the balance of values). I suppose Tolkien did have ideals of regenerative technology. This is instanced by the presence of the elesser, the green elf-stone of Celebrimbor/Feanor wielded by Galadriel which made things grew beautifully in the Lorien. At the end of the Scouring, Samwise also used the soil of Lorien to restore the Shire.

I guess if there's a restorative technology in modern days, it would be Botox, though I won't really want to know what goes into its making... :rolleyes:

"Like butter spread on too much bread..." - Bilbo, on the effects of plastic surgery

On another note, something had really gone wrong with arts for arts sake. Maybe a scouring of US academia should be in order...

[Nogrod]

(Economics may be considered the balance of values)It can indeed! But how do we pick our vocabulary is always a political choice... or at least value-carrying one.

So do we call the equilibrum of values the truth, the right, the peace on earth, God's will, the at last enlightened humankind... or economics... :rolleyes: :D

This world of ours throws economics to our eyes 24/7.

But we're not obliged to use those terms.

Like in the schools the board of education talks of students as "customers" and schools as "providers of educational services" today... Who decided that we should talk that way? We ourselves?

What would have Tolkien thought of that? What if he had been told that he would have to make haste in the university, concentrating only on a narrow field to graduate in minimal time possible to be "efficient" from the point of economics, and not just study all those futile old languages which are not to be turned into instant profit by the markets? :(

Like I said, that's a question of values...

[Groin Redbeard]

What would have Tolkien thought of that? What if he had been told that he would have to make haste in the university, concentrating only on a narrow field to graduate in minimal time possible to be "efficient" from the point of economics, and not just study all those futile old languages which are not to be turned into instant profit by the markets? :(
I've read your posts several times over, Nogrod, and I'm not sure if I'm getting the right message from you.

So far I think that you're saying that the rich control the government and the economies, selling old languages for their profits, that guns are bad for society, and Tolkien would dissapprove of this all. I'm a bit confused as you see,:rolleyes: could you elaborate on this a little more? I really want to understand what you are saying but I can't make it out (I learn better not visually) :)

[Morthoron]

What would have Tolkien thought of that? What if he had been told that he would have to make haste in the university, concentrating only on a narrow field to graduate in minimal time possible to be "efficient" from the point of economics, and not just study all those futile old languages which are not to be turned into instant profit by the markets?


I've read your posts several times over, Nogrod, and I'm not sure if I'm getting the right message from you.

So far I think that you're saying that the rich control the government and the economies, selling old languages for their profits, that guns are bad for society, and Tolkien would dissapprove of this all. I'm a bit confused as you see,:rolleyes: could you elaborate on this a little more? I really want to understand what you are saying but I can't make it out (I learn better not visually) :)

Well, no, that's isn't what Nogrod was saying in the passage you quoted. He was saying that what if Tolkien had been told to be 'successful' at university, and choose a field in which he would have a 'sucessful career' (success in this case translating directly into a large salary -- it's simple economics), rather than wasting time on dead languages and centuries-old stories that no even reads anymore. So, he blows through his classes, gets an MBA in Economics, is hired by the local what-not manufacturer, and devises the means to make more what-nots with non-union workers, and after he breaks the union and lowers wages to below poverty level, he becomes chairman of the board, buries all of England's Lake District in a landfill for the toxic what-nots he's created, is knighted for his success and dies of gout after a long successful career.

And no one will have ever heard of The Lord of the Rings.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Somehow, much hostility seemed to have sprung from the notion that economics is ammoral and political. To me (or, for that matter, to anyone who has to earn a living), the term has nothing after it other than the necessities of life. Taking this defintion, the term economics would have about just as much meaning to a savage as to a businessman.

But values, however, force people to choose: often between efficiency and equity. Again, that is simple economics... only this time there's a moral (some call political) ring to it. So why not keep things simple?

[Morthoron]

Somehow, much hostility seemed to have sprung from the notion that economics is ammoral and political. To me (or, for that matter, to anyone who has to earn a living), the term has nothing after it other than the necessities of life. Taking this defintion, the term economics would have about just as much meaning to a savage as to a businessman.

But values, however, force people to choose: often between efficiency and equity. Again, that is simple economics... only this time there's a moral (some call political) ring to it. So why not keep things simple?

You have a very quaint view of economics. One would think there were never any Federal Reserve, oil cartels, money devaluations, inflation, stock fraud or market speculations and fluctuations. I think the savage would be scratching his head and asking for his beads back.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

That'd depends on whether you're looking at micro or macro-economics. :D Orks know the value of a mithril shirt, and its not just because its useful armour.

[Groin Redbeard]

Well, no, that's isn't what Nogrod was saying in the passage you quoted. He was saying that what if Tolkien had been told to be 'successful' at university, and choose a field in which he would have a 'sucessful career' (success in this case translating directly into a large salary -- it's simple economics), rather than wasting time on dead languages and centuries-old stories that no even reads anymore. So, he blows through his classes, gets an MBA in Economics, is hired by the local what-not manufacturer, and devises the means to make more what-nots with non-union workers, and after he breaks the union and lowers wages to below poverty level, he becomes chairman of the board, buries all of England's Lake District in a landfill for the toxic what-nots he's created, is knighted for his success and dies of gout after a long successful career.

Could you please summerize your view points! :eek: Are you saying that modern bussiness people are bad because they seek to gain money and better jobs, while unwillingly destroying things in the process? :confused: I am so confused here!

[Morthoron]

Could you please summerize your view points! :eek: Are you saying that modern bussiness people are bad because they seek to gain money and better jobs, while unwillingly destroying things in the process?

But Groin, summarizing what I just said would be like having to explain the punch line of a joke. Where's the fun in that?

You see, in this case the chicken did not cross the road because it cannot walk. This is because the poultry industry performs debeaking and toe-clipping of the birds and then puts them into tiny cages 16-18 inches wide with 5 or 6 birds crammed into each cage.

Debeaking is a painful procedure whereby the bird’s sensitive beak is sliced off with a hot blade. Poultry meat and egg producers that use battery cages and crowded floor systems remove one-half to two-thirds of the birds’ beaks to discourage cannibalistic pecking, a behavior that occurs when birds are kept in close confinement with no regard for their natural behaviors. Behavioral studies indicate that debeaked birds are often unable to eat, drink, and preen properly. They also exhibit behaviors associated with chronic pain and depression.

Toe-clipping is the amputation of a bird’s toes just behind the claw. This painful procedure is performed to reduce claw-related injuries on factory farms.

In conclusion, the only way the chicken will cross the road is via a truck, cut up into bite size chunks for mass-consumption at your local McDonalds.

See? The joke loses much of its humor in translation.

[Gwathagor]

Screw your modernity, give me Middle-earth anyday.

:smokin:

[Boromir88]

Well we are the civilized race, and just think of modernity the way I think of stairs, and you might realize it's not so bad. Stairs are my friend, not my enemy.

Groin, sorry if it sounded like I was short-changing the Greeks, that wasn't my intention. Without question we owe our way of thinking and living to the Greeks. We will forever be in their debt. My point I was trying to make was the Greeks came up with the ideas, while the Romans put them into practice and spread them (for the most part). The Greeks weren't too practical and they thought the only people who could understand their ideas were other Greeks. It were the Romans who put their "Western" ideas into practice and spread them to other cultures/those they conquered. (I'm a very biased Roman lover, just so you know that :D - and no that does not mean I am a single-minded lover who hails from Rome :rolleyes: )

I'm not sure how much of an uber-conservative Tolkien was, and the intellectuals claim him to be. I think Tolkien writes a lot about coming to terms with change, and the fact that change is a "fact of life." In several letters Tolkien comments that the Elves greatest weakness was their inability to accept change:

But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right… they were ‘embalmers’.~Letter 154
the Elvish weakness is…to become unwilling to face change...~Letter 181

A character such as Frodo is one who, at first, is very resistant to the change that he is faced with right in the beginning. That is, being burdened with the Ring of Power. He actually delays his departure from The Shire, because he doesn't want to leave. He comes right out and tells Gandalf, he wishes the Ring never came to him, he just wants to stay and live in peace. Albeit in a much more eloquent way Gandalf pretty much tells Frodo "Stop whining, everyone wants to be left alone. But guess what? Crap happens deal with it." Frodo accepts the journey, accepts the burden, because he has to. While he might grit his teeth and hate every step of the journey, he knows what has to be done, and does it. The entire fate of Middle-earth lies on Frodo's neck (quite literally!) Did Frodo want this burden? No, but he accepts the change and deals with it.

In fact, many of Tolkien's villains are people who are static, they don't change in any way. One of the first things that gets associated with Sauron is Barad-dur. Saruman through most of LOTR stays fixed in Orthanc. Denethor is someone who is so controlled by his "wants" and his desire to hold on to the "past" that it drives him to insanity:
"I would have things as they were in all the days of my life," answered Denethor, "and in the days of my longfathers before me: to be the Lord of this City in peace, and leave my chair to a son after me, who would be his own master and no wizard's pupil."~The Pyre of Denethor

It can be quite reasonably argued that Faramir was a romantic conservative. He wanted Gondor restored to the peaceful glory days:
For myself," said Faramir, "I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as the queen among other queens..."~The Window on the West
This sounds like Faramir wanting Gondor to be brought back into the "throwback" days where everything was all utopian and rosy. However, the key difference between Denethor and Faramir, is Faramir is accepts "different" where Denethor is controlled by his longing for the past.

Faramir wants Gondor to be restored to the glory days, but he is also very realistic. We see this in his rejection of the Ring:
Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs~ibid
Faramir has a glorious vision of Gondor, but it his acceptance of change (highlighted by his acceptance of Aragorn) which makes him different from his father and brother. Faramir outrightly rejects the Ring, and based on his words above, Faramir understands...

1. the Ring in a way Denethor (or Boromir) didn't. He knows the Ring is deceitful and thus it would only lead to Sauron's goal, not his own.

2. while Faramir has a peaceful and flowery vision of Gondor, he accepts this is an unrealistic fantasy and at times you just got to accept the brutal reality:
"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all,..."~ibid

So, while Faramir seems like a hopeless romantic, he is very realistic and knows that change is something we all must accept and adapt to.

[Gwathagor]

So, while Faramir seems like a hopeless romantic, he is very realistic and knows that change is something we all must accept and adapt to.

Yes! There isn't any real contradiction between realism and romance (the general kind); in fact, reason, realism, and ordinary-ness are at the heart of true romance.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Romantism and realism seems pretty contradictory, at least from an economic point of view.

Romantism - Glorious sacrifice of the self, or selfish interests, for greater good, definition of "greater good" being lasting beauty, peace, prosperity, friendship.

Realism - Preservation of the self and selfish interests, for survival. If sacrifice of self is required, the individual should ensure that survivors know and remember the act of sacrifice so as to ensure a more lasting immortality.

From a completely cynical point of view, Faramir gave up the use of the Ring to save Gondor because he realised that he could not possibly have gained complete control of Sauron's power (having seen Gollum). Since the chance of Frodo completing his quest with Faramir's help would be higher, he decided to attain greater nobility in others' eyes, by offering his aid.

The scenario at the top of Mount Doom was also pretty conclusive as to the limits of ideals. Frodo failed in his quest. One can only imagine what went through his mind as he put the ring on and claim it for himself: "Screw Gandalf, the Shire and all the rest of Gondor! Give me the one Ring anyday"

[Groin Redbeard]

Thanks for clearing everything up Boromir!:) I finally get what everyone was saying.

[Gwathagor]

Romantism and realism seems pretty contradictory, at least from an economic point of view.


Not at all. Romance is real.

[Groin Redbeard]

OK, I'm confused again!:o Why is everyone talking about things from a economic point of view? It's not like economic is apart of modernism, economics has been around since before the Greeks. ;)

[Morthoron]

The scenario at the top of Mount Doom was also pretty conclusive as to the limits of ideals. Frodo failed in his quest. One can only imagine what went through his mind as he put the ring on and claim it for himself: "Screw Gandalf, the Shire and all the rest of Gondor! Give me the one Ring anyday"

I don't think ideals failed in the least; in fact, ideals allowed Gollum to be present at that ultimate moment when Frodo faltered. The opportunity to slay Gollum was in easy reach of both Bilbo then Frodo, but pity and the innate goodness of hobbits stayed their hands (and particularly in Frodo's case, the ideals of Gandalf -- of mercy and fate -- were the primary reason Gollum survived). Such things as mercy and pity do not fit into your rigid and economical stance for preservation and self-interest, and certainly Gollum would have been slain had the Hobbits taken your professed tact, to the utter destruction of the Free Peoples.

In addition, regarding Frodo's claim on the Ring, I would say that at that moment in Mount Doom the Ring claimed Frodo and not vice versa. The claim was akin to profound addiction, wherein any personal objective or ideal falls subservient to the drug (or in this case, the Ring). That Frodo had reached his objective was in itself astonishing, and beyond the wills of stronger beings (Isildur, Boromir or even Saruman, for instance). Frodo did indeed fail ultimately in destroying the Ring, but his compassion and mercy brought about a fateful conjunction of events that completed the task.

[Lush]

Such things as mercy and pity do not fit into your rigid and economical stance for preservation and self-interest, and certainly Gollum would have been slain had the Hobbits taken your professed tact, to the utter destruction of the Free Peoples.

Hmmm. I'm reading your posts here, Morthoron, and I'm disagreeing with the notion that it's an "either or" scenario in regards to Gollum, or that mercy is always at odds with self-interest. We are merciful to others, because we are good and because we'd like to treat others the way we would like to be treated ourselves. Gandalf, meanwhile, felt that Gollum had a part to play yet.

I think there is such a thing as pure altruism, but it's a state we strive for, not a state we necessarily achieve as human beings. And I think that there is blessing and providence in the act of striving. I'm not entirely sure if Tolkien would agree with me here, but I saw shades of that in Gollum's story.

[Morthoron]

Hmmm. I'm reading your posts here, Morthoron, and I'm disagreeing with the notion that it's an "either or" scenario in regards to Gollum, or that mercy is always at odds with self-interest. We are merciful to others, because we are good and because we'd like to treat others the way we would like to be treated ourselves. Gandalf, meanwhile, felt that Gollum had a part to play yet.

Did I say that mercy is always at odds with self-interest? I am sorry if it seemed like an implication; however, given Tolkien's predisposition regarding spirituality, it would seem that, rather than enightened self-interest, mercy, pity and forgiveness are a matter of faith (ideals if you will), meant to be practiced even if danger or death are a likely outcome (such as Jesus forgiving those who crucified him, or Gandhi forgiving his assassin). In like case, and following Tolkien's thought processes, I don't believe Gandalf was being utilitarian or necessarily self-interested in saying Gollum had a part to play, because he added the caveat 'for good or ill'. Fate plays heavily in the outcome of the novel, not enlightened self-interest.

I think there is such a thing as pure altruism, but it's a state we strive for, not a state we necessarily achieve as human beings. And I think that there is blessing and providence in the act of striving. I'm not entirely sure if Tolkien would agree with me here, but I saw shades of that in Gollum's story.

As I stated previously, Frodo striving towards the ideal expounded by Gandalf was the determinate factor in a serendipitous outcome; that Frodo failed in his personal objective was overcome by his adherence to the ideal throughout the books. Sam, who wanted Gollum dead, was the voice of reason, utility and self-interest (and in the heat of the moment, one can't blame Mr. Gamgee for wishing an untimely end for the treacherous Gollum); however, Frodo looked beyond the present danger and overcame the human penchant for violent short-term advantage for something that borders on the altogether altruistic (again, given the clear and present dangers presented to the Hobbits).

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will. But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

[Boromir88]

Sam, who wanted Gollum dead, was the voice of reason, utility and self-interest (and in the heat of the moment, one can't blame Mr. Gamgee for wishing an untimely end for the treacherous Gollum); however, Frodo looked beyond the present danger and overcame the human penchant for violent short-term advantage for something that borders on the altogether altruistic~Morothoron
So, were the Hobbits morally unjust in their rash and revengeful execution of Grima? But, perhaps that is a discussion for a different thread, different day. ;)

[Gwathagor]

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will. But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

First, in what way are you sounding opportunistic? Second, how are moral values (debatable or not) different from ideals? Third, how does the existence of fate preclude the existence of ideals? Fourth, doesn't the ultimate success of the quest demonstrate that, in the end, the forces of good (defined by their virtue and ideals) triumph over the forces of evil, even if by the unwitting aid of their enemies? Fifth, how do the lines regarding the Ring "it would possess him" and "he had no will left in the matter" allow for the possibility that Frodo freely abandoned his Quest in favor of the persuasion of the Ring out of disillusionment with his ideals, as opposed to simply succumbing to the dominating power of the Ring?

[Lush]

Fate plays heavily in the outcome of the novel, not enlightened self-interest.

I think you're right to bring up fate, Morthoron, though I would also remind you that what we are looking at is a world that has been marred, and those who are in it are marred as well. I also didn't say that it was necessarily enlightened self-interest (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, so perhaps if you'd like to explain, I would be interested) - just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless. Which is alright, really, because that's what human nature (or hobbit nature, if you will) is all about.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Guns don't kill people, spinning bullets discharged at high velocity do.

It sounds more like a figure of speech to describe Frodo as having "no will left in the matter". A drug addict who did bloody murder to feed his addiction would be just as responsible.

"My Precccioousss." - Bilbo, on tobacco rehab.

It is an accident which saved Middle Earth, just as it was a boating accident which killed Frodo's parents. (Unless, the gossips are true) One flinches at the prospect of pronouncing moral judgement at the death of Frodo's parents, but ascribes divine intervention at the other. Doesn't that seem like moral values are different from ideals?

"I did all that for my Children. It's not right to deprive my cute li' goblins of a land of milk and honey..." - Melkor, on Trial during the First Chaining.

[Gwathagor]

- just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless.

This is not strictly true. Frodo's sacrifice of his own enjoyment of the Shire for the sake of his fellow hobbits was entirely selfless. In the end, he had the opportunity to visit Aman as a result, but only retrospect could have shown him that chain of events. Though virtue sometimes does lead to a good end, that end is rarely foreseeable, which is why virtue is always best practiced for its own sake: for the sake of one's soul, as well as for the sake of others.

Perhaps looking after the condition of one's soul could be considered true self-interest, in which case virtue really isn't selfless at all...:cool: Though, the condition of one's soul is hardly what most people would term one's highest interest these days, so maybe we only agree because we define our terms differently.:p

[Gwathagor]

Guns don't kill people, spinning bullets discharged at high velocity do. :D

This is off-topic, but here's a good one: if guns kill people, then silverware makes Michael Moore fat (assuming he doesn't eat with his fingers...which may be assuming too much). Ha!

[Morthoron]

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It would seem that the author disagrees with your cynical take on the ideals of his book...

But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

As far as Gollum gloating, Tolkien referred to Gollum as a "mad thing" capering along the precipice. At that point in time he was completely insane, because "The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol." Gollum could do nothing else but gloat at that point in time, trapped in blind ecstasy, a prisoner more so than a failing heroin addict shooting his last lethal dose. His only words were: "Precious, precious, precious!" Gollum cried. "My precious! O my precious!" He was unconcerned with danger, oblivious to the two hobbits nearby, and hadn't the faintest foresight that he was in Sauron's lair and that the Great Eye was upon him. In his madness he failed to see his predicament, and even the ledge looming to awaiting disaster.

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will.

Fate and predestination are two separate issues. There is certainly a great measure of fate that applies to the book, but predestination (as you are using the term) does not require free will on the part of characters, whereas fate does. You are speaking from a Calvinist view of predestination (where even heaven's elect is a small, finite number), and not a Catholic one (to which Tolkien would certainly adhere). The Catholic doctrine holds Calvinist predestination as heretical because it does not include the free will of the individual to choose good or evil (which is certainly an aspect of Tolkien's corpus). Here is a summarization of the Catholic view (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607). Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795).

Eru Iluvatar certainly knows the entire song that was partially hidden from the Ainur; however, I believe there is only one direct intercession on Eru's part in the entire chronology (when the Valar surrendered their governance to Eru in the wake of the Numenorean invasion). If predestination were a fact and the outcome certain, then the Valar would not have deemed it necessary to send the Istari out to do their missionary work to reinvigorate the hearts of the Free Peoples (it would seem that the Valar would have had at least an inkling of such a doctrinal truth). Iluvatar's interference would have been made manifest at other critical junctures in Middle-earth history if that were Tolkien's means in storytelling. Free will and choices are a foundational aspect of LotR, as are the 'altruistic' views of mercy, and the old-fashioned chivalric values of valor, humility and self-sacrifice (beyond any economy or self-interest).

But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

But the insidious nature of the Ring, and perhaps one its greatest evils, is that it erodes free will, to the point where the wise (like Gandalf) would not even touch it. At this point I am wondering if you are merely arguing for argument's sake, or whether you merely fail to grasp the insistent and grave tone Tolkien uses regarding the properties of the Ring. Lesser Rings sent great lords and kings to eventual wraithdom, the One Ring destroyed Isildur and Gollum (and nearly so Boromir), and we marvel at the nobility and fortitude of Faramir for refusing it (well, you don't; I guess you merely consider his refusal as a utilitarian piece of strategy). And here we have Frodo the Hobbit -- bitten, speared and stabbed -- blindly flailing at the air in an attempt to ward off the great fiery circle in his waking nightmare, coming at last to Mount Doom, wherein pulses the apex and pinnacle of the Rings arcane power, and you merely assign Frodo's failure to disillusionment? Sorry, that's just plain silly.

Assigning the psychological crudities of modernity (precluding the evil propensities and the dominating magic inherent in the Ring, for instance) to a fantasy written in a traditionalist mode brings us right back to the demeaning and woodenheaded nature that the intellectuals of the current worldview have for Tolkien, or any classical literature for that matter. Rather than synthesize and embrace various literature and come to terms with the norms presented at the time the piece was written (as well as reveling in the historical intonations reverberating from the past), they instead berate entire eras of literature and parade their own addlepated notions as the end-all, be-all to what is correct and aesthetically pleasing.

*The Dark Elf steps down from his well-worn soapbox*

Ummm...yeah, whatever.

I think you're right to bring up fate, Morthoron, though I would also remind you that what we are looking at is a world that has been marred, and those who are in it are marred as well. I also didn't say that it was necessarily enlightened self-interest (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, so perhaps if you'd like to explain, I would be interested) - just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless. Which is alright, really, because that's what human nature (or hobbit nature, if you will) is all about.

By enlightened self-interest, I meant that a moral imperative such as ""Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" takes on the added dimension of "By doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, you have a better chance of not having others do unto you as they will", (ie., if you don't treat people like crap, they probably won't treat you like crap). The ideal (the one not requiring self-interest) is a goal that not everyone attains, but assuredly I have met those who adhere to it quite remarkably (I, unfortuantely, am too curmudgeonly and lack the patience to be in that rarified sphere of sanctification).

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

It's nothing personal, but I find it ironic that you should call the modern process of chicken rearing cruel, whereas attribute absolute dominating evil power to the Ring. Nobody really likes the idea of eating cruelly tortured chicken flesh, but then nobody likes the idea of soaring chicken meat prices either. (With that pretty much everything which comes with inflation of commodity prices) On the other hand, the individuals that you mentioned, (Boromir, Bilbo, Frodo) clearly had a choice in claiming the Ring for themselves, failed to resist and yet epitomized heroism and triumph of ideals. (Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?)

Besides, madness (i.e. the mad Gollum) pretty much absolved his guilt in snatching the Ring, doesn't it?

"I pleeeead inssssaaanniityyy...." - Gollum

[Morthoron]

It's nothing personal, but I find it ironic that you should call the modern process of chicken rearing cruel, whereas attribute absolute dominating evil power to the Ring. Nobody really likes the idea of eating cruelly tortured chicken flesh, but then nobody likes the idea of soaring chicken meat prices either. (With that pretty much everything which comes with inflation of commodity prices)

Your use of the term 'ironic' does not apply to what you are saying. I find no incongruity in my statements; therefore to imply irony is in error. It seems you are saying you condone cruelty and torture when it is expedient to do so. To each his own, I suppose.

On the other hand, the individuals that you mentioned, (Boromir, Bilbo, Frodo) clearly had a choice in claiming the Ring for themselves, failed to resist and yet epitomized heroism and triumph of ideals. (Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?)

Again, either you are simply arguing for arguments sake, or you really do not grasp the concepts of Tolkien's work. Boromir repented of his misdeed, and gained forgiveness through repentance (an integral part of Catholic doctrine). Bilbo? I am not sure exactly where he failed to resist, can you? It was difficult for him to surrender the Ring, but he did so (and with Sam as another example, giving up the Ring of one's own free will must have been a harrowing experience). Frodo? Yes he did fail, didn't he? I believe I've stated that on several occasions, but since you fail to comprehend the mitigating circumstances surrounding his ordeal, then this conversation is irredeemable. I will repost a quote from Tolkien and then refrain from further posting in this thread (unless of course you have an epiphany or someone adds something worthwhile):

But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

Besides, madness (i.e. the mad Gollum) pretty much absolved his guilt in snatching the Ring, doesn't it?

"I pleeeead inssssaaanniityyy...." - Gollum

No, he was not absolved because he died unrepentant (again, a Catholic doctrine that Tolkien would adhere to).

[skip spence]

Fate and predestination are two separate issues. There is certainly a great measure of fate that applies to the book, but predestination (as you are using the term) does not require free will on the part of characters, whereas fate does. You are speaking from a Calvinist view of predestination (where even heaven's elect is a small, finite number), and not a Catholic one (to which Tolkien would certainly adhere). The Catholic doctrine holds Calvinist predestination as heretical because it does not include the free will of the individual to choose good or evil (which is certainly an aspect of Tolkien's corpus). Here is a summarization of the Catholic view (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):


This I find interesting. I do understand that Tolkien's view of faith, or rather, the view expressed in LotR and his other works, is separate from predestination. What I don't understand is why.

According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607

Is that not an oxymoron? How can God infallibly foresee and preordain all future events and man still be free? This idea I can't even begin to grasp. If God knows all future choices a man will take, how can he then be free? There's only one path for him and it's predestined. Or does this mean that God can preordain all futire events if he wants too, but doesn't, in respect to man's free will? I'd appreciate if you, or anyone else, can help me understand this concept.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Okay, Skip, look at it from your human, synchronic point of view. Suppose you see a car wreck. You didn't cause it, there's nothing you can do to prevent it, you just see it as it happens.

The classic philosopher's answer to your conundrum applies that model to the Deity's infinite vision: seeing everything happen in His omnipresent Now is not the same thing as causing or ordaining it.

[Galin]

I don't know if this will help, but the following is from the Mere Christianity Leaders' Notes over at Opendiscipleship.org, and looks at Lewis' thoughts in Mere Christianity (I can't seem to find my copy).

Chapter 3: "Time and Beyond Time" This chapter discusses Time as it relates to Prayer. We live through time. In this reality, we flow in one direction with time. All that is behind us is lost to us, except in our memory. All that is before us is unknown to us. What Lewis is attempting to address here is, "How can God listen to everyone in the world praying at the same time?"

1) God created time
2) God exists beyond time ("outside and above")
3) God is not restricted to time
4) We live in this tiny window of Now, the past behind us, the future before us
5) God can see all of the "Nows" all of all time
6) Example of the author writing the book with the character in the book living in a separate, independent timeline.
7) "But God has no history. He is too completely real to have one."
8) In human language we use terms like "foreknowledge," and "foresaw," and "predestined." These terms are all locked into human reason and human language. We really don't have language to adequately deal with God's presence outside of time.
9) Because of God's presence beyond time, He is able to tell the prophets what is in their future because it is not future to God, but present reality. This allows a view of foreknowledge and predestination that does not violate, in any way, free will and human responsibility. Humans retain personal responsibility in light of "predestination" without the two conflicting.'

'Now' is a good word to try and describe it, as WCH already has. See also 8 regarding language and etc., as we can only try to describe such a concept.

[Gwathagor]

Divine predestination and human action are two different perspectives on the same thing, but you can't really consider them alongside each other on the same plane. It's as if God is an author writing a story. On one level, He determines everything that happens. On another level, the characters in the story are held responsible for their actions within the story.

This isn't, of course, to say that God is totally outside of the story, as an author is. He is perpetually involved, and that's where my analogy breaks down.:p

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

I beg your indulgence for your misunderstanding, Morthoron. (Though I'd refrain commenting on personal attacks in the posts...)

Assigning the psychological crudities of modernity (precluding the evil propensities and the dominating magic inherent in the Ring, for instance) to a fantasy written in a traditionalist mode brings us right back to the demeaning and woodenheaded nature that the intellectuals of the current worldview have for Tolkien, or any classical literature for that matter.

But by deeming the modern chicken rearing process as evil, you practically ignored all the beneficial aspects of the chicken flesh industry, which efficiently supplies chicken meat to more than 60% of the world (McDonald's not the only corporation catering chicken meat).

To feed cities and towns, meat needs to be processed quickly and hygenically. A breakdown in the rearing process drastically reduces the supply of chicken meat. The price of meat foodstuff ultimately increases because alternative meat foods such as beef and pork experience greater demand. Of course, it's not the end of the world for USA or many European countries. God/Budda/Allah forbids though, that commodity prices should rise higher in developing countries, which imports their foodstuff.

On the other hand, the One Ring is seen as embodying all-consuming evil power without any redeeming qualities. The irony lies in the fact that evil chicken meat corporation managers have more in common with our hero Frodo than villian Gollum: they can't stop the torture once it began, and certainly didn't get a good rep for it.

I guess it had to be to each his/her own in the regard of the evils of the chicken sandwich. Since modernists probably won't even read LOTR more than twice (due to the mind boggling logic of magic), you'd bet that I agree more with your other arguements than you expected. ;)

Tolkien's work only embraced the ideals, not the details.

[Morthoron]

I beg your indulgence for your misunderstanding, Morthoron. (Though I'd refrain commenting on personal attacks in the posts...)

'Woodenheadedness' is a term I picked up from Barbara Tuchman in her book "The March of Folly". She applied it as a characteristic of political and social leaders who, through the shortsightedness of their policies, engaged in folly: acts clearly counterproductive to the country or group they represented when clear alternatives existed to act to the contrary. It is very apt in the case referenced, although I wasn't necessarily accounting you as one of those who stolidly supports the current wordlview (unless of course you are and then I do).

But by deeming the modern chicken rearing process as evil, you practically ignored all the beneficial aspects of the chicken flesh industry, which efficiently supplies chicken meat to more than 60% of the world (McDonald's not the only corporation catering chicken meat).

I eat Amish chicken from farms in Ohio and Indiana (if I eat chicken at all), which is processed in an entirely different manner than the beakless cannibal birds shot up with antibiotics and steroids. It may cost a bit more, but the taste difference is noticeable and it is healthier for you. There are always alternatives, my dear. *shrugs*

On the other hand, the One Ring is seen as embodying all-consuming evil power without any redeeming qualities. The irony lies in the fact that evil chicken meat corporation managers have more in common with our hero Frodo than villian Gollum: they can't stop the torture once it began, and certainly didn't get a good rep for it.

First, let's set the record straight, and refrain from further fowl discussions. The chicken comments were an aside regarding the explanation of a punch line to a joke. Analogies between Frodo and real world butchers in poultry abbatoirs are rather incidental; particularly since you ignored the meat of the discussion, and decided instead to snack on appetizers, which I suppose would be chicken fingers (which is ironic terminology, considering they clip the chickens toes off).

Is that not an oxymoron? How can God infallibly foresee and preordain all future events and man still be free? This idea I can't even begin to grasp. If God knows all future choices a man will take, how can he then be free? There's only one path for him and it's predestined. Or does this mean that God can preordain all futire events if he wants too, but doesn't, in respect to man's free will? I'd appreciate if you, or anyone else, can help me understand this concept.

It is paradoxical rather than oxymoronic, I should guess. But knowing the actions that will take place is entirely different than interfering in the actions to change the outcome. I am reminded of the movie Time Bandits, where a boy (Kevin) and a dwarf (Randall) are having a discussion regarding Evil with the Supreme Being (played by Sir Ralph Richardson):

Kevin: "Do you mean you knew what was happening to us all the time?"

Supreme Being: "Well, of course. I am the Supreme Being. I'm not entirely dim."

Randall: "Oh, no sir. We weren't suggesting that, sir. It's just that. . ."

Supreme Being: "I let you borrow my map. Now, I want every bit of evil placed in here, right away."

Kevin: "You mean you let all those people die just to test your creation?"

Supreme Being: "Yes. You really are a clever boy."

Kevin: "Why did they have to die?"

Supreme Being: "You might as well say, 'Why do we have to have evil?'"

Randall: "Oh, we wouldn't dream of asking a question like that, sir."

Kevin: "Yes, why do we have to have evil?"

Supreme Being: "Ah. . .I think it has something to do with free will.

And there you have it. Everything you wanted to know from the Supreme Being, but were afraid to ask.

[Lush]

Frodo's sacrifice of his own enjoyment of the Shire for the sake of his fellow hobbits was entirely selfless.

Agreed. But I'm pretty sure that making that sacrifice and showing mercy are not necessarily 100% the same. Obviously, they're good actions. I'm not calling that into question. :)

[Eönwë]

Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?

But Tolkien uses "doom" to mean "fate" a lot of the time so aybe what he actually means is that even if his fate is to go to Mount Doom then whatever happens there is only governed by free will, and he might not even be able to give the ring up, even though it's his fate.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

There seems to be a generally unequivocal stance on the moral implications of choices. But what about the moral implications of having no choice? Let's rephrase the question: Evil is said to be a by-product of free-will, but people do not choose to be born with free-will. And rectifying the phenomenon of free-will (i.e: through slavery, capital punishment and martial law) would be generally considered tyranny (and thus evil).

The slaves of Sauron and Morgoth are condemned for imitating the characteristics of their masters. And yet, being born under the yoke and thus having known nothing else other than the teachings of their forebears, they were probably the least evil of the lot. Of course, they get tempted by power and prestige like other "Free Peoples", but they should not be held responsible for their evil characteristics like Gollum or Bill Ferny. Aragorn did not hold Butterbur and Bree as ingrates because they did not give the Rangers credit for their protection.

Again, it seems like that the traditional stance did not offer any migitations for evil caused from being granted free will. (I believe Tolkien did write in HoME about having the need of some "Christ" coming to save the Edain under Morgoth, but that certainly did not materialise).

[skip spence]

It is paradoxical rather than oxymoronic, I should guess. Well, yes, that's a better word.

But knowing the actions that will take place is entirely different than interfering in the actions to change the outcome.

Sure. And there would be no need to interfere for an allmighty God, "seeing everything happen in His omnipresent Now" (quote from WCH).

Gwathagor used the analogy of a novelist. You might say the novelist is outside of the timeline in his book. Reading his finished work, he knows everything that is going to happen, because he is the author of the story. If you look upon God and his creation this way you can talk about predestination, right? With this view however the characters aren't free to act inside of the story as they can only do only what the writer wrote, be that good or evil. In other words, they lack free will, and can not be held accountable for their actions - at least not fairly.

Fate you say (and that's a general you, not you Morth), is different, as it depends on free will. And free will is of course imperative for a story like LotR or for Christianity. Without free will no one is morally culpable, and chioces are just an illusion. So there must be free will, or Frodo wasn't brave at all, he merely did the only thing he could have done. But still you say that God, or Eru if you wish, can forsee all future events. I just can't make this out, I'm sorry. If Eru is able to forsee all future events, and hear the entire Music to the last note, there can be only one possible outcome. And with only one possible outcome, time is a straight line, just like in the metaforical novel above, and Frodo isn't brave, he is a mere puppet, albeit unknowingly. Why even get out of bed? What else can you do?

8) In human language we use terms like "foreknowledge," and "foresaw," and "predestined." These terms are all locked into human reason and human language. We really don't have language to adequately deal with God's presence outside of time.

On first sight, this might be a valid argument. Ants, to use a blunt analogy, can never understand astrophysics as they don't have the intellectual capabilities required. How can we, being finite creatures, fully understand the designs of a limitless God? The answer of course is: no, we can't. But isn't that exactly what we are trying to do here? To assume knowledge of something (in this case, the statement that God sees everything is His omnipresent Now) that we, or in this instance C.S. Lewis rather, in all likelyhood, are not able to understand by nature?

When reading Tolkiens works I detect a delicate balance between two views of the world; one being "everything's preordained", the other being "faith and responsibility lies in our own hands". In my mind, these two views can never be joined together. I really wonder what Tolkien thought of it.

[Boromir88]

Just a comment on this:

It would seem that the author disagrees with your cynical take on the ideals of his book...~Morthoron
It's tricky using Tolkien's Letters, because it was his thoughts and reflections after writing the story....as Norman Cantor argues:
“The LotR exists, apart from what Tolkien said at one time or another it was supposed to mean. It was largely a product of the realm of fantasy in the unconscious: that was the ultimate source. Therefore, what Tolkien later consciously thought about it is interesting, but not authoritative as to the work’s meaning”
And Tolkien's take on it:
I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.~Letter 211
Isn't it ironic how I use a "letter" to question Tolkien's Letters? :D

But seriously, it's tricky, because as Tolkien says some of this he wrote as long as 20 years ago, he doesn't have all the answers, and his Letters are his thoughts after (sometimes LONG after) writing the story. So, even though in various Letters Tolkien talks about Eru's intervention at Mount Doom, it's just as conceivable to argue it was an accident. There are some cases where he is just forgetful in Letter 210 he says (while criticizing Zimmerman's screenplay) that the Balrog doesn't make any noise. Yet going back and reading The Bridge of Khazad-dum the Balrog clearly does make noises! ;)

Now, in Letter 156 Tolkien says that it was Eru who sent back Gandalf, and this is the only possible answer, because going back to the book (The White Rider) Gandalf talks about being out of "thought and time" and then being sent back. Anyway, you got to be careful when using Tolkien's Letters, because he contradicts himself and it was his thoughts after writing the story.

What's really amazing is the adaptability of Tolkien's story, and I whole-heartedly disagree with Brin and the others who argue there is no reconciliation between Tolkien and modernism:
Of course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes , as a person would of a child.~Letter # 328
The Lord of the Rings reminds me of the U.S. Constitution, it was left vague and very debatable. The U.S. Constitution is so short because the framers didn't want to "tie the hands" of the future generations. They wanted to leave lots of room for movement when the times changed.

The Lord of the Rings is a very long story, but many parts of it are left vague and for the readers' imagination. No wonder why the story has withstood the test of time and still remains an enjoyable, popular read, in this horribly wicked modern world. :rolleyes:

skip spence, excellent stuff! I just want to say perhaps the word that could be used is "luck." Tolkien thought he had been a lucky man...
"I have always been undeservedly lucky at major points."
And in Tom Shippey's The Road to Middle-earth he discusses a lot about "Providence" and "luck."
However, ‘chance’ was not the word which for Tolkien best expressed his feelings about randomness and design. The word that did is probably ‘luck’....‘change their luck’, and can in a way say ‘No’ to divine Providence.

[Morthoron]

Excellent research, Boromir88, and points well taken. I think we can all now admit that Tolkien didn't know what he was bloody talking about, or rather, enjoyed the art of writing letters more than worrying about the veracity of the contents. As Hot and Crispy Hobbit Fingers said on several occasions: "Tolkien's work only embraced the ideals, not the details." Who knew that also applied to his letters?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

One wonders whether, when Tolkien wrote phrases like "his fate drove him" and the like, he was thinking of 'fate' not as Latin fatum or Fata, but as a translation of OE wyrd, which doesn't carry that same implication of intention, but comes closer to "that which happens"- T certainly knew that fatum originally meant the ruling or pronouncement of a god, and in that sense was much closer to OE dom, modern doom.

[Gwathagor]

Gwathagor used the analogy of a novelist [...] With this view however the characters aren't free to act inside of the story as they can only do only what the writer wrote, be that good or evil. In other words, they lack free will, and can not be held accountable for their actions - at least not fairly.


I disagree. Within the context of a story, the characters are considered free of will and are held responsible for their action. Nobody blames JRR Tolkien for Saruman's betrayal, but Tolkien gave him that part to play nonetheless.

(Keep in mind that this is an analogy, and as such has its limitations. Don't try to take it farther than it's meant.)

[Morthoron]

One wonders whether, when Tolkien wrote phrases like "his fate drove him" and the like, he was thinking of 'fate' not as Latin fatum or Fata, but as a translation of OE wyrd, which doesn't carry that same implication of intention, but comes closer to "that which happens"- T certainly knew that fatum originally meant the ruling or pronouncement of a god, and in that sense was much closer to OE dom, modern doom.

Ne mæg werigmod wyrde wiðstondan,
ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
For ðon domgeorne dreorigne oft
in hyra breostcofan bindað fæste;

A weary mood won't withstand wyrd,
nor may the troubled mind find help.
Often, therefore, the fame-yearners
bind dreariness fast in their breast-coffins.

That's a stanza from the OE poem The Wanderer. It basically relates that one can try to hide from troubles, or bravely fight on and win in the face of adversity. Interesting concept (sort of an Anglo-Saxon Self-Help manual).

At first blush, one would think that the OE definition of wyrd (which has a prominent place in Beowulf as well) would be Tolkien's primary linguistic focus. He seems to use the words doom and fate interchangeably, and wyrd is a closer approximation of Catholic Predestination dogma in that one has a personal wyrd which is subject to one's free will; where it variates slighty from Catholicism is that one's personal wyrd is inhibited or affected by another person's wyrd, and I can see many cases in the books where this is the case.

[skip spence]

I disagree. Within the context of a story, the characters are considered free of will and are held responsible for their action. Nobody blames JRR Tolkien for Saruman's betrayal, but Tolkien gave him that part to play nonetheless.

(Keep in mind that this is an analogy, and as such has its limitations. Don't try to take it farther than it's meant.)

My point is that Sauruman is a traitor every time you read the book. His path has been chosen by Tolkien, not by himself, and can therefore not be held responsible for his actions. If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.

What's really amazing is the adaptability of Tolkien's story, and I whole-heartedly disagree with Brin and the others who argue there is no reconciliation between Tolkien and modernism:

I fully agree, although I'm not quite sure what definition of "modernism" this Brin fella uses. I do think too much is made of Tolkien's Catholic faith and his purported "conservatism". While undoubtedly some of his personal values shine through in his books, the values expressed in the books aren't those of the Catholic Church or of modern day conservatives. As for conservatism, it is a word which has taken on many different meanings of course. When I hear the word, I primarly think of value-conservative people favouring God, country and the established authority, while strongly disliking "modern" ideas like socialism, gay-rights, rock'n'roll or abortions. You know the indignated, Hippie-bashing, what-would-Baby-Jesus-think crowd...

I see little or no conservatism of this kind in Tolkien's books. If anything, the ideals expressed is those of Liberalism in it's original meaning, that is "Do as you wish, as long as you don't hurt anyone else". Aragorn, as a representation of a just ruler, never forces anyone to follow him or claims that they should because it's their duty and that he is in the right. He doesn't tell anyone what to do, instead he says: Those who are willing, follow me! This is what I believe in. Invading Orcs or Easterlings will be treated harshly of course, but he makes no claim to dictate their lives as long as they stay away or act nicely. Of course there are no references to for example gays in LotR (thank god for that!) but if there were I'm certain Aragorn wouldn't make any judgement on their liftestyle.

I think a strong message in the books is tolerance, tolerance and humility. You may not have all the answers, Tolkien seems to say, and your will isn't more important than others peoples'. The evil of Sauron and Morgoth is that they try to bend everyone's will to theirs: they have no tolerance for other opinions. Arrogance and greed is also a common flaw among the "good" characters such as Turin, Feanor or Thorin. Are these ideals of tolerance applicable in today's modern society? I would think so.:)

Those of religious inclination may also appreciete the strong message of faith in a good God expressed in the books. This message is not specifically a Catholic or Christian one however, at least not in those works published by JRRT himself.

[Gwathagor]

My point is that Sauruman is a traitor every time you read the book. His path has been chosen by Tolkien, not by himself, and can therefore not be held responsible for his actions. If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.

My point (which I evidently did not make clear) is that there are two perspectives on history: a divine perspective and a human perspective. From the former, we see that all is foreordained, and from the latter, we see individuals making choices and taking responsibility for those choices; you have the author, and the characters. They are two sides to the same coin. Consider the characters on their own level, and you will see that WITHIN THEIR STORY, they have what you would call free will.

[skip spence]

Consider the characters on their own level, and you will see that WITHIN THEIR STORY, they have what you would call free will.

No, if everything is preordained, the characters may belive they make choices and that they are free, but they can't be. To make an actual choice there must be different options available and with a future already decided there can be only one option: that what the characters do. They can do nothing else.

Or can they? Please explain to me how they can. How can the book character Sauruman repent, and do what he was sent to do?

[Gwathagor]

It's a matter of which perspective you take: divine or human.

[McCaber]

If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.
That assumes that God experiences time in the same way we do. We see the timestream as a flow moving in one direction, but God could see it as an outside observer, like us looking at a drawn timeline; or he could experience all time as Now.

I love tough theological questions.

[skip spence]

That assumes that God experiences time in the same way we do. We see the timestream as a flow moving in one direction, but God could see it as an outside observer, like us looking at a drawn timeline; or he could experience all time as Now.

I don't think it matters whether God sees time as a drawn line or if he experiences all time as now. The key point is whether there is randomness, or if all things can be predicted and understood if you only knew every single factor influencing the event. If the latter is true, and there is a grand equation for all of existance into which an allmighty being can insert all the - for us - unknown numbers, and predict all that is to come until the end of time, I can see how this deity could see into the future without messing with the free will. But then again, he would know everything his children would do at the very moment he created them too, and they would not be free in any actual sense.

Or is it perhaps chaos that governs the universe? Think of the butterfly effect. Every event, although seemingly uninportant, has the potential to change the world. Had fex. Hitler succeeded as a painter the world might have been a very different place. Will a mouse in a maze always choose the same path, given the exact same conditions? If the answer is no, the future must be uncertain, and no amount of omnipotence could get around that.

I love tough theological questions.
I certainly don't know the answers to these questions but they are intriging nonetheless.:)

[Gwathagor]

You are still confusing the divine and human perspectives, skip. What looks like free will to us looks like something else to God. Two sides of the same coin.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

There is also a scientific theory that postulates time as a construct of the human mind, a means by which we relate to the universe around us to give it some kind of order we can understand, but which doesn't actually exist. (I shall have to ask my husband to dig up the material he gave me on this, as I've lost track of it.) If this theory is true, then the concepts of some being outside this human imposed system "knowing" what "will happen in the future" becomes a moot point from the human perspective, since we know the world as we perceive it, and not necessarily as it really is. Some of its functions may well be beyond our grasp, because of the limitations we have as we exist in this flesh, but once outside the restrictions and perceptions of a finite body, that perception might be considerably different, and aspects of the infinite in its reality easier to comprehend. It may well be possible for an omniscient Eru, outside the limits of Time, to coexist with free will, but perceiving how this could be so within the construct of Time may not be possible.

Did that make any kind of sense? This is what I get for going online too soon after waking up.... :)

[skip spence]

Did that make any kind of sense? This is what I get for going online too soon after waking up.... :)
No, I get what you're saying. :)
It may well be possible for an omniscient Eru, outside the limits of Time, to coexist with free will, but perceiving how this could be so within the construct of Time may not be possible.
That may very well be true, but I'm not willing to accept it as a solution without proof or real comprehension. If we do, "God works in mysterious ways" might well be the universal explanation to anything we don't understand (although he/she/it/xxx certainly does). But as I said before, and you suggested, seeing things from a limitless God's perspective is impossible for finite beings like ourselves. To continue my earlier analogy, it would be as fruitless as an ant trying to see things from a man's perspective, while burying it's fangs deep into his bare pinky toe.

But what is time? I for one take it for granted and can't imagine it in any other way than we perceive it. But I remember from my physics-classes that time isn't as fixed as one is tempted to believe (fex. it passes more slowly for an object travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light). But I'm out of my depth here. If there are any students or scientists with knowledge of advanced physics around, I'd appreciate their input.

Edit: I did a quick search and found this discussion which pretty much mirrors my earlier thoughts, although with much more knowhow obviously (haven't read much of it myself yet though): http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=245197

Here's a teaser:

Q: "Are not these very words, written by myself, nothing more than a consequence of the initial conditions?"

A: "I don't think we yet really know the answer to that question. In the classical/newtonian era before qm theory was developed; most phycists would probaby hedge for a Deterministic universe. Now with qm it's a very contentious issue."

[Kin-strife]

[QUOTE=Ibrîniðilpathânezel;563090]There is also a scientific theory that postulates time as a construct of the human mind, a means by which we relate to the universe around us to give it some kind of order we can understand, but which doesn't actually exist.[QUOTE]

This sounds kinda like Kant's theory that time and space aren't necessarily properties of the outside world but rather the only means we have of perceiving it. We perceive everything as being extended in space and time. Is this because everything is or because its the only way we can make sense of it? If you think of the outside world as being a computer code and we are a type of computer programmed to interpret that code in a certain way. If we interpret the code in such away that it causes a lovely graphic of The One Ring spinning on our screen, how much is this a property of the code itself and how much our own hardwiring (I confess I don't know much about computers). Kant, (who lived in the 18th Century so certainly didn't know jack about computers), believed that time and space existed in our minds prior to our experience of the world, and that it shaped our experience of the world, and that therefore we don't experience the world as it really is in itself. Also he believed that worldly phenomena that is unable to be interpreted spatially or temporally we don't experience at all.

I know this is a tough concept to get your head around but I've always found the idea facinating. If this were the case then God or Eru (I don't believe in either by the way) would not suffer such limitations and perceive everything as a whole. We have no way of knowing what this would be like as we can't even imagine anything without spatial or temporal extension. But where does this leave free will?

I would not imagine that Eru's concept of time would be like a long tapestry that He could see all at once, tracing the initial event A right through to the inevitable end consequence Z. Thus leaving human history as nothing more than an extremely complicated document of cause and effect, so that from the first human action He could predict every human action that would follow. Rather perhaps free will would be like a moment of spontanoues imporvisation in a paint-by-numbers picture, a surprise ingredient in a cake. He wouldn't know the end result before adding it but immediately after he would see its every effect. But then "before" and "after" are temporal concepts which may undermine my argument.

The above is a bit of a mess but I'll have a think about it and try to clarify my meaning.

[tumhalad2]

Well, well, well...Long time no post!

This thread certainly took an interesting turn! For some time I've been rather ignorant of Tolkien, being absorbed in my last year of high-school. I'm about half way through now (yay) and I've just started rediscovering Tolkien, as it were. By chance I stumbled upon this thread (I had quite forgotten about it) and was most pleased to see it had been rather popular.

I've also been returning to many of the ideas, thoughts and insecurities I felt back then.

I guess I am still trying to sort all these issues out-to catagorise and explain Tolkien's rather unusual work in my own mind. To kick of the discussion again, here is a radio broadcast on Tolkien and his imagination:


http://gnosis.org/tolkien/lecture2/index.html :smokin:

[tumhalad2]

Here is a scathing review I found upon amazon:

Decades after its initial publishing, The Lord of the Rings still enjoys a devoted fandom as strong as it was during the trilogy's conception. The amount of glitz associated with the books has grown too, with editions consisting of shiny paper, tons of maps, and all kinds of memorabilia. It's appropriate really considering these books are all style but no substance.

The Hobbit Frodo discovers from his friend the wizard Gandalf, that the magic ring that his adopted uncle Bilbo used to have is actually the key to unlocking the power of the Dark Lord Sauron, who seeks it once more. He flees his homeland the Shire with his friends, Merry, Pippin, and Sam, who discover they were right to flee since Sauron's most trusted lieutenants have already gone into the Shire to retrieve the ring. His goal is the elves' city of Rivendell to entrust the ring and Middle-Earth's safety under the jurisdiction of wiser powers but as events play out, Frodo's journey does not end there.

Pondering how these books succeeded is an ambivalent affair. On the one hand, Tolkien took elaborate measures in describing the medieval landscapes of Middle-Earth and designing all sorts of legends in its history so you'll feel like you're really in another world full of beauty and wonder. I was often left awash in awe after reading, delighted in my dreams of visited by visions of traveling through expanses of land on my own journey of danger and purpose alike the leagues traveled in these books. On the other hand, the characters are wretchedly mapped out and are extraordinarily dull save for brief moments of emotion and wit. The joy initially experienced in reading about the beautiful landscapes and intricately described locations proves that there can be too much of a good thing as it goes on for pages on end to the point of boredom. In the beginning of the book depicting the Hobbits' flight from the Shire, whole pages are devoted to describing the scenery of the weeks they spent in escaping the Shire. This is more than just a chance phenomena however as it goes on and on, even in the final book when bloody war is just a day away. Voltaire's Candide traveled across the entire world with not much of a fuss made over the scenery and the story was better for it, not even taking into account that Candide was a satire.

Even then for all the text, Tolkien's prose is rudimentary at best. The usage of clichés like, "Suddenly he jumped back like a frightened woodland animal," is painfully elementary. It's not surprising given that Tolkien was an academic first and a writer second but all the same considering that this is the Bible of fantasy we're discussing here, it falls painfully short.

The characters are all boring black and white stereotypes. All of the bad guys are ugly, stupid, and weak while the good guys are beautiful, smart, and undefeatable. These criticisms go beyond the normal route of complaining against all good versus all evil however, and venture into the realms of just plain dull characters. Apologists will respond that's how it was in myth but I can only say their experience is limited to Beowulf (a large influence on Tolkien appropriately enough) and like stories or that they have a very shallow understanding of myth. For example, the Odysseus of The Odyssey was typified as someone smart and cruel when he wanted to be. His brains alongside brawn made him an interesting character, much as the quirks of other mythical characters made them interesting, such as the angsty Achilles and the noble Hector of The Iliad, just to name a few. But even though mythical characters were typically classified as larger than life and not conflicted, they were still interesting, still perhaps even depicted with questionable moralities. Again consider Odysseus. Clearly he was the protagonist but though the subject of his morality was left relatively untouched within the telling of The Odyssey, it is not hard to imagine how one can see his virtues in a distorted light. His hubris was his downfall and he had real consequences to suffer for it.

Contrast this to the protagonists of The Lord of the Rings, who are incorrigible. Oh sure, Frodo does have issues with the Ring's darkness but that's the problem. The Ring is a naturally corrupting artifact on its own so we expect Frodo to fall. Expecting otherwise is like not expecting the laws of gravity to work. On the other hand if Frodo never got hold of the Ring, he would be perfectly unblemished, both in appearance and in spirit. Even then, even the Hobbits all become extraordinarily powerful too since they all acquire magic swords early on, not exactly ranking with actual angelic figures like Gandalf, but hardly weaklings anyway. Likewise the antagonists are all completely corrupted and filthy. Ironically enough, the Ring and other cursed magical artifacts are all responsible save the plights of Denethor, Theoden, and the wild folk. Even the grotesque Gollum is only perverted through enchantment.

Beyond issues of character complexity, pertaining to interest, you will not find a single character like Odysseus in these books or anything resembling some of the crazier mythical stories out there, paradoxically enough. Sure there are hints of actual emotion like the conflicts between Denethor and Faramir alongside Theoden's struggles with his family against the slimy advice of Wormtongue. In the final encounter between the Hobbits and Saruman, the wizard comments on how Frodo has changed into something vile over the course of his journey and we believe him. But these stories are given far too little respect for the drama they convey and they are introduced in the second and third books. Diamonds in the rough really, and that is totally unacceptable.

The issues of racism and sexism within the story are not unfounded either. The Easterlings serving underneath Sauron are the equivalent of Asian stereotypes not peoples, littered with a troubled history of consistently siding with evil, with one of the ghoulish Ringwraiths counted both among their number and leader. The Middle-Earth equivalent of African and Arabic peoples, the Haradrim, faithfully serve Sauron without question. On the other hand, all the good guys are unquestionably white. The female characters are all given little mention save Eowyn and even then her success is only one compared to the myriad victories of her male counterparts. Tolkien denied racism when white supremacists utilized his stories to reinforce their doctrine but when the Narnia stories of his colleague C.S. Lewis are observed, with their villainous depiction of Arabs and women who were tomboyish, to say the least, were denied salvation, it's not that hard a vision to entertain.

When Saruman's fall is revealed by Gandalf, Saruman says he has turned from Saruman the White to Saruman of Many Colors. His robe now constantly shifts with all colors. I understand Tolkien was making a point, that Saruman became a parody of himself with such an ugly robe alongside his alliance to the darkness, but with how charismatic and old Saruman was, I could only imagine him as a sugar daddy wearing the Technicolor dream coat with hot Elf chicks hanging on his shoulders, ready to toss out bling and have his hoes perform tricks for everyone. It's sort of like these books, not only in how each new edition becomes spiffier but also how Tolkien makes a lot of pretty pictures and background history that is just a distraction from how ugly the reality is.

[Nerwen]

Eh... tumhalad... are you worried again? It ought to be fairly obvious that the reviewer is applying quite a double standard when judging the merits of stories he likes vs stories he doesn't... and, anyway, who cares?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, he's just rehashing the same tripe Bunny Wilson said (more articulately) half a century ago. If you feel your faith needs buttressing, read Shippey's skewering of this sort of ignorant 'criticism.'

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Somehow, this makes me think of Anton Ego's speech near the end of Pixar's Ratatouille. Critics can have fun ripping apart the work of others, while they themselves create nothing and thus are risking nothing. Especially armchair critics like this, who are venting themselves not on a literary forum or in a reputable magazine or newspaper or such, but in what amounts to the aisles of a retail store. Very impressive credentials. :rolleyes:

[Morthoron]

So, if I follow up the scourge's critique with a glowing review, will that make a difference for you? Or, I can merely offer Neil Gaiman's interview on the Colbert Report. Gaiman was hawking his Newberry Medal-winning children's book 'The Graveyard Book', and Gaiman mentions Tolkien as his major influence. So, you can listen to the drivel of some mall-rat critic spouting Homeric platitudes, or you can rely on a bestselling author. *shrugs*

Oh, and the bit about Tom Bombadil is hilarious...

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/03/18/watch-neil-gaiman-take-on-stephen-colbert-on-the-colbert-report/

[Bêthberry]

So, if I follow up the scourge's critique with a glowing review, will that make a difference for you? Or, I can merely offer Neil Gaiman's interview on the Colbert Report. Gaiman was hawking his Newberry Medal-winning children's book 'The Graveyard Book', and Gaiman mentions Tolkien as his major influence. So, you can listen to the drivel of some mall-rat critic spouting Homeric platitudes, or you can rely on a bestselling author. *shrugs*

Oh, and the bit about Tom Bombadil is hilarious...

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/03/18/watch-neil-gaiman-take-on-stephen-colbert-on-the-colbert-report/

Bravo, Morth. I had been wondering where/how to get a link here on the Downs to Gaiman's acknowledgement of Tolkien, and, more particularly, his audacious comments about Bombadil.

What that blog link leaves out, though, was Colbert's other criteria for an illustrator besides being American, one without any sense of hope. Says something about Gaiman's sense of Art Spiegelman that Gaiman suggested him.

It was an intriguing interview, well sparred by both of them.

[littlemanpoet]

As to the initial question, I find this quote from Tolkien interesting and germaine:

If there is any contemporary reference in my story (The Lord of the Ring) at all it is ... the most widespread assumption of our time: that if a thing can be done, it must be done. This seems to me wholly false. The greatest examples of the action of the spirit and of reason are in abnegation.

This from the Letters. As usual, Tolkien is very careful and precise in his use of words, and shows that he understands modernism better than modernists do.

Suffice it to say, I think Tolkien is right.

And no, modernism is not dead. It just keeps morphing ... into new modes.

[dreeness]

In "The Violence of the Fantasy" Slavoj Žižek said (emphasis added):


It goes to Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s credit that a century ago he spelled out the properly perverse nature of the way Christianity relates to paganism; he turns around the standard (mis)perception according to which the ancient pagan attitude is that of the joyful assertion of life, while Christianity imposes a sombre order of guilt and renunciation. It is, on the contrary, the pagan stance that is deeply melancholic: Even if it preaches a pleasurable life, it is in the mode of “enjoy it while it lasts, because, at the end, there is always death and decay.” The message of Christianity is, on the contrary, that of infinite joy beneath the deceptive surface of guilt and renunciation: The outer ring of Christianity is a rigid guard of ethical abnegations and professional priests; but inside that inhuman guard you will find the old human life dancing like children, and drinking wine like men; for Christianity is the only frame for pagan freedom. (Chesterton, 1995, p. 164) Is not Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings the ultimate proof of this paradox? Only a devout Christian could have imagined such magnificent pagan universe, thereby confirming that paganism is the ultimate Christian dream. Perhaps this is why the conservative Christian critics who recently expressed their concern at how books and movies like Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potter series undermine Christianity through their message of pagan magic miss the point, the perverse conclusion that is unavoidable here: You want to enjoy the pagan dream of pleasurable life without paying the price of melancholic sadness for it? Choose Christianity!