And it slips through our fingers

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

Originally Posted by davem on the "Outrage" thread

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

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

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

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

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

As to the seperation of the worlds...

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

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

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

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

[Lalwendë]

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

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

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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

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

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

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

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

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

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

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

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

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

called away before I can explain further....

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

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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

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

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

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

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

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

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

called away before I can explain further....

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

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

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