The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - J.R.R. Tolkien -- enemy of progress ?

Man-of-the-Wold · 12-31-2002, 10:26 PM

Well to Mr. Bill Ferny, you obviously read the article and a great deal more very, closely.

Of course, the label "romantic" fits Tolkien's works, although that label has many applications. It's what he wanted to write about. I'm not sure to whom he compares. Likely, he'd have been flattered to be compared with giants such as Goethe or Beethoven, but I don't really see his works in the Sturm und Drang tradition, which is what romanticism usually means to me, much less Wagnerian excess, despite the Teutonic commonalities.

As for democracy, free press, and all the rest, I consider those in many ways gifts of the modern world, which if far from perfect, may be the best of all possible worlds right now. So then, I agree Mr. Brin's pitfall is to raise these gifts to dogma, for which any glorifications of past orders is somehow apostasy.

Whatever the merits of Mr. Brin's philosophy, I think he really misses the boat in that there is nothing political about JRRT's work. I'm not even certain if he was much of Monarchist for Britain. He took as his context ancient legendary traditions, for which a somewhat idealized model of early middle-ages (or earlier) societies is simply taken for granted, including noble/dynastic lineage, gender-determined roles, and so forth. It is a setting, not a recommendation.

He wanted to write about High Romance to fill what he saw as a void in the truly "English" heritage of England. He ended up identifying with and loving most his Hobbit creation, and that was perhaps the only society that he thought worth emulating, and not for its politics, social customs, or the obvious inequality between many common hobbits and the more well-to-do families such as the Baggins, Tooks, Brandybucks, but rather he preferred it for its simplicity, closeness to nature and all that, about which he may have been overly romantic, as well.

His points were really about moral choices and ethics, and other things in which he attempted, I feel, to find common ground between Christian values and pre-Christian, Northern European virtues.

But here I have been dismissing Mr. Brin. To take him head on, it is worth noting that Tolkien's countries are not really advanced feudalistic societies, the populations are miniscule by even 11th century standards, there is no apparent slavery of any kind in the good areas, and much of the production seems to account for decent living, fair if unequal distribution and even a level of communalism. Not too bad in my book, even as a hard-core capitalist.
[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

12-31-2002, 10:26 PM	#19
Man-of-the-Wold Wight Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: With Tux, dread poodle of Pinnath Galin Posts: 239	Well to Mr. Bill Ferny, you obviously read the article and a great deal more very, closely. Of course, the label "romantic" fits Tolkien's works, although that label has many applications. It's what he wanted to write about. I'm not sure to whom he compares. Likely, he'd have been flattered to be compared with giants such as Goethe or Beethoven, but I don't really see his works in the Sturm und Drang tradition, which is what romanticism usually means to me, much less Wagnerian excess, despite the Teutonic commonalities. As for democracy, free press, and all the rest, I consider those in many ways gifts of the modern world, which if far from perfect, may be the best of all possible worlds right now. So then, I agree Mr. Brin's pitfall is to raise these gifts to dogma, for which any glorifications of past orders is somehow apostasy. Whatever the merits of Mr. Brin's philosophy, I think he really misses the boat in that there is nothing political about JRRT's work. I'm not even certain if he was much of Monarchist for Britain. He took as his context ancient legendary traditions, for which a somewhat idealized model of early middle-ages (or earlier) societies is simply taken for granted, including noble/dynastic lineage, gender-determined roles, and so forth. It is a setting, not a recommendation. He wanted to write about High Romance to fill what he saw as a void in the truly "English" heritage of England. He ended up identifying with and loving most his Hobbit creation, and that was perhaps the only society that he thought worth emulating, and not for its politics, social customs, or the obvious inequality between many common hobbits and the more well-to-do families such as the Baggins, Tooks, Brandybucks, but rather he preferred it for its simplicity, closeness to nature and all that, about which he may have been overly romantic, as well. His points were really about moral choices and ethics, and other things in which he attempted, I feel, to find common ground between Christian values and pre-Christian, Northern European virtues. But here I have been dismissing Mr. Brin. To take him head on, it is worth noting that Tolkien's countries are not really advanced feudalistic societies, the populations are miniscule by even 11th century standards, there is no apparent slavery of any kind in the good areas, and much of the production seems to account for decent living, fair if unequal distribution and even a level of communalism. Not too bad in my book, even as a hard-core capitalist. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] __________________ The hoes unrecked in the fields were flung, __ and fallen ladders in the long grass lay __ of the lush orchards; every tree there turned __ its tangled head and eyed them secretly, __ and the ears listened of the nodding grasses; __ though noontide glowed on land and leaf, __ their limbs were chilled.