What does the sixpence = ?

[littlemanpoet]

Is not the expectation amongst the literati some combination exclusively of low mimesis & irony? Is it not the supposed failure of Tolkien's works to meet this expectation that has caused the literati to reject it without due consideration?

mayhap:
"I want my ironic characters to be human, not some kind of d****d fairy hobbit!"
or:
"A hero? What kind of good story that means anything for today have a bloody hero who wields a sword? What, am I expected to read Conan the Barbarian next?" (sneeringly)
or:
"If I'm expected to read about gods and goddesses, the least he could do is have sex or some kind of Freudian issue; or at the very least, make it politically relevant. I mean, really!"
et cetera....

[drigel]

In any group, there are always some who always take an inverse philosophical approach. The eternal outsider, as the Brin article suggests, will decry the uplifting of any civilization, as it will inevitably do so on the backs of others, especially from the persepective of an easterner or an orc. The very fact that that the subject of the works is western European in scope automatically causes ire to some.

[davem]

LotR (& the Legendarium as a whole) does present 'traditional' Western (ie 'Christian') values without irony or condemnation. I think this is enough for most critics to condemn it. It is the epitome of 'dead white male' culture (& from our perspective most of the characters are dead white males, being that the events of the story took place 7 or 8 thousand years ago.

Aragorn tells Eomer that moral & ethical values do not change, & are the same among Elves & Dwarves as they are among Men. This is a clear rejection of moral & cultural relativism, that all moral codes are equally valid. In short, Tolkien is stating that some values are better than, suerior to others, - even worse, that some are Right & some are Wrong.

It seems to me that this is at the heart of the reason some critics so dislike Tolkien's works - they may like irony, but are not offended by its absence to that degree.

Of course, this eternal moral value system does pre-suppose some ultimate source exterior to Mankind. If accepted, Tolkien's position requires people to aknowledge an objective moral code, (& an objectively existing 'source' of that code). Hence, LotR belongs with 'pre-Enlightenment' works - as Tolkien said it is a 'heroic romance'. I think this is why many of the very same critics who condemn LotR have taken HDM to their hearts.

What I find most interesting though, is that these critics are not able to accept Tolkien's philosophical position even within the secondary world. They are incapable of not projecting it onto the primary world. Shippey has said that many of Tolkien's early critics read the book, responded to it, but then realised they didn't like the fact that they had responded to it & so turned on Tolkien (paraphrasing his words in the documentary 'JRRT: A Film Portrait'). The work touches a chord in them that not only do they not want touched, they hadn't even believed that chord was there to be touched. Its like an extreme form of reaction-formation

Or something like that....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, this eternal moral value system does pre-suppose some ultimate source exterior to Mankind. If accepted, Tolkien's position requires people to aknowledge an objective moral code, (& an objectively existing 'source' of that code). Hence, LotR belongs with 'pre-Enlightenment' works - as Tolkien said it is a 'heroic romance'. I think this is why many of the very same critics who condemn LotR have taken HDM to their hearts.

I think another root may be that we exist in a world where we are growing increasingly smug and self satisfied that we know; one of the drawbacks to the Age of Reason is that Reason has simply replaced wonder and become as dogmatic as wonder once could be. The critics seek out the clever, the self-referential, the knowing. In contrast to this, Tolkien is not knowing, he leaves it for us to discover the answers in his work - he encourages wonder, which is a most dangerous thing to someone happy in their own self-knowledge, such as a critic can be.

Originally Posted by davem

Aragorn tells Eomer that moral & ethical values do not change, & are the same among Elves & Dwarves as they are among Men. This is a clear rejection of moral & cultural relativism, that all moral codes are equally valid. In short, Tolkien is stating that some values are better than, suerior to others, - even worse, that some are Right & some are Wrong.

I've got to say, I think there is quite a lot of moral relativism in LotR; I think it is no mistake that Gandalf is the Grey wizard given how he makes Frodo think for himself about Gollum and whether he is evil enough to be put to death. I also think that in the shape of Gollum we see a mass of contradictions such as we see in real people. Other characters reflect this to a lesser extent, e.g. Denethor and Boromir. While the text sets out what each of these characters do and how it leads to their downfall, it is not didactic; Tolkien merely shows the consequences, he leaves it to us to 'judge'.

However, what Tolkien draws upon in his work are values which are indeed universal, among them ideas of sacrifice, service, honour. For many of these values there are right and wrong ideals. Maybe some are uncomfortable with the idea that there are things which are right and wrong, which in turn makes me uncomfortable that these people might be opinion formers in our world.

[Bergil]

This seems an example of several wel-thought-out, invalid arguments.

Sauron's army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth

l
no, it wasn't. Sauron's army consisted of Ainuir, Men, Orcs, and trolls, if you count trolls. the good guys had Ainuir, Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Hobbits, if you count Hobbits.

If the guardians of wisdom kept their wonders locked up in high wizard towers, instead of rushing onto PBS the way our unseemly "scientists" do today?

Hey, quick, tell me how a computer works. unless you can explain everything from the atomic level up, the point is invalid. and how many nobles and royalty are in the Fellowship? 3.5. Legolas, Boromir, and Gimli. (Aragorn is the .5, he doesn't really count).

The thing is, neither of these arguments are stupid, just wrong. The people who write these things genuinely beleive it. POLITICAL STATEMENT WARNING The best point about progress in any Lord of the Rings was made accidentaly, by Peter Jackson in that scene where Aragorn and Frodo are on the stairs in moria and have to fall forward or back, or they'll die. That's us. we have to either ditch our technology and all the fun we have, develop it better fast, for a great life or 2112, or die from enviromental problems. now it's looking like we'll end up in the abys. END WARNING.

What am I trying to say? I don't know.

[drigel]

Just to keep it going, ill play a little you-know-who's advocate, in the sprirt of the Brin article - which struck me as more of alternative observation than critique - but that may be just me (yea i actually do [as per usual] agree w/the consensus of posters here)

If accepted, Tolkien's position requires people to aknowledge an objective moral code, (& an objectively existing 'source' of that code).

Ah, but who's code is it? It seems to me that some of Aragorns Numenorian ancestery was not wholly Good per say. Much of the time when they came to ME "...they appeared now rather as lords and masters and gatherers of tribute than as helpers and teachers..." What would those tributee's opinion be of the mighty Numenoreans?

We know why the Edain were favored by the Vala, but why were the generations of decendants of the other tribes punished for their forefather's sins? The sons of Amandil after all were not directly of royal decent, rather 2nd cousins removed. So what right did they have to rule? And why would someone from Rhun honor that right?

However, what Tolkien draws upon in his work are values which are indeed universal, among them ideas of sacrifice, service, honour.

Individual heroic romantic ideals. But like the Exiles, does might make right?

Sauron's army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth


no, it wasn't. Sauron's army consisted of Ainuir, Men, Orcs, and trolls, if you count trolls. the good guys had Ainuir, Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Hobbits, if you count Hobbits.

umm I may be once again all alone, but with the exception of the incredible (Wizards, ents, trolls, eagles etc.), I would submit that all of the above mentioned really are just expressions of us. Children all of us

edit

What I find most interesting though, is that these critics are not able to accept Tolkien's philosophical position even within the secondary world. They are incapable of not projecting it onto the primary world.

quite so. I can find no counter in my bag o' tricks for that one.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by drigel

We know why the Edain were favored by the Vala, but why were the generations of decendants of the other tribes punished for their forefather's sins? The sons of Amandil after all were not directly of royal decent, rather 2nd cousins removed. So what right did they have to rule? And why would someone from Rhun honor that right?

Permit me a moment to sidetrack the main discussion and correct a bit of an incorrect statement you have made regarding the legitimacy of the House of Elendil to rule Middle-Earth.

You state that Amandil and his offspring were not of direct royal descent, but were in fact 2nd Cousins Removed. While this may be the case regarding their most direct kinship with the last of the Numenorean sovereigns, Ar-Pharazon and Tar-Miriel, it was not this "joint ancestry on their mother's sides" sort of kinship that Elendil based his claim to the Kingship of the Realms in Exile, but on his descent from Tar-Elendil's ELDEST child, Silmarien.

Furthermore, as the leaders of the Elendili, Elendil and his sons were already the leaders of the founding fathers of Gondor and Arnor. Why would they have lost this right to rule their followers after the destruction of Numenor? A destruction that they only escaped due to the foresight of Elendil.

As for your final statement, regarding why the Easterlings would acknowledge the rule of the Heirs of Elendil, the answer is the same as why the Welsh acknowledge the Queen of England, or the Puerto Ricans the rule of the American President, or the people of Rome the rule of the Italian government: Conquest by the peoples who DID acknowledge those parties as their proper rulers.

Okay, I've made my point...

You may return to your main discussion.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bergil

no, it wasn't. Sauron's army consisted of Ainuir, Men, Orcs, and trolls, if you count trolls. the good guys had Ainuir, Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Hobbits, if you count Hobbits.

I read very recently somewhere in the Opus that Sauron's army contained menbers of every race save Elves. but I can't quite remember where.