Power to the People

[the guy who be short]

In that case, I will actually need to read some non-Narnian Lewis. It'll be interesting to see if anybody here has read Out of the Silent Planet or anything else.

As for Narnia; I'm not really sure a direct comparison can be made between Narnia and Midde-Earth. The former was aimed specifically at younger children, the latter at, to generalise a little, the oddballs in society.

But more importantly than that is the religious message behind Narnia. Narnia is accepted as a rewriting of the Bible, more or less. That makes Peter and co. divinely appointed rulers rather than dictators. And - though Medieval kings may have claimed this - the difference here is that the children were appointed as rulers directly by Aslan. Their rule is a theocratic one.

However, they are benevolent dictators. In this respect, Lewis doesn't differ from Tolkien. As Elessar rules in name but gives regions a lot of autonomy, so the Children rule in name but, I presume, let the inhabitants of Narnia go about their business. Certainly we see no Big Government, whether dictatorial or communistic, but an appreciation of individuality.

So, by my method of rambling about the first thing to come to mind, I have determined that their political views were more or less that same. Which means the difference is not in terms of political outlook or stance on authority, but in rewards.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

It will take some thought to make a more reasoned
analysis. off hand, the various aspects of Narnia
(rulership?) seem to be, as noted above, variants
of benevolent dictatorship--- with apparently no
noted dissension or rebellions. Middle-earth,
or the other hand, is interestingly varied, and more
in tune with the history of humanity. You do have
non-regal societies (Laketown, and the Shire)
and even more interesting, M-e peoples get
dissatisfied for various reasons and seek to change
their governmental organizations. And even Gondor after
the War of the Ring requires at least a pro forma
ratification of Strider's kingship. Much of the cause of
strife in Middle-earth, indeed, seems to come from
human restlessness and interest in change
(often just for the sake of change, even Numenor
not being exempt).

[Son of Númenor]

One thing that's always fascinated me about Tolkien is, to put it crudely, his politics.

My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) -- or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy. Letters, 51

We see, roughly, an example of enlightened 'Anarchy' in Rivendell, and King Elessar's realm is nothing if not the model for Tolkien's ideal monarchy. What I find interesting is the vast chasm between Tolkien's political and social views and the reality of his (and our) time. The idea of self-sustaining anarchy in the time of WWII would have been laughable, and monarchy in any form was rapidly becoming archaic. Tolkien, I think, spurned 'practical' politics altogether, in the sense that his confessed "political opinions", as well as his almost regressive (not necessarily in a negative sense of the word, mind you) social ideals, seem divorced from the reality of the time . Tolkien, it seems to me, lived in the political idyll of his mind--and, to an extent, of Middle-earth.

These thoughts are cursory at best. I do not claim to have great insight into the subtlety of Tolkien's values. And I have said nothing of C.S. Lewis, who I am far less familiar with; I will leave it to others to comment on his beliefs.

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien always seems somewhat politically confused to me. I always explain it away to myself by comparing his views to those of a lot of the traditionally middle-class English people, as opposed to liberal, Guardian reading middle class people. They like tradition, and approve of monarchy, just so long as they can have 'their say'. Structures such as the police are important, but the state is not always looked upon that fondly, usually where it interferes in freedom of choice and taxes!

However, we cannot assume Tolkien's views. He may have believed something entirely different. This idea of his about 'anarchy' still intrigues me. Tolkien clearly has no time for those who desire to rule. I get the impression that power and authority are something of a burden in Middle-earth, a duty which must be borne as well as possible. In that respect, party politics must have been something he disliked - in all ages party politics has been a cut-throat business concerned with getting power.

I think I'll wait and see what pans out from this, it looks interesting.

[Nogrod]

I'm not sure, if I'm just too easy-going with this one - all you Tolkien-connoisseurs', beat me up for a cause.

But wasn't Tolkien just a child of his time (and the understandable follow-up of his child- & adulthood - as we all are ours')? He seems to have ideas about a good community / society in line with all the basic insights of the romantic / utopian western world, from Plato and More onwards (- even clinging to Lenin?), combined with the kind of chivalric notion of a noble leader. You know, "noblesse oblige"? There are those who are more worthy, and those who are not, and the first ones should reign over the latter.

So the society is not democratic, but aristocratic (being greek, and meaning, the power of the best ones), and the romantic side of it comes from thinking, that there is a justified leader, who is pure at heart, and wise etc., eg. could take the position that is given to him at right (acknowledge the pronoun, him - it surely would not have been "her" for Tolkien!).

So, why is Aragorn the right & real heir to the throne? Because of his lineage, and because of his deeds. So we have taken one step forwards from a primitive (?) heritage-ruler -system. We combine the birth and the actions, the virtues, to a mix. So we combine the old-world heriditiary system with greek / roman virtue-ethics. As the famous sociologist, Max Weber, would have said, we combine the traditional power with charismatic power. What we come up with? The romantic hero of the 19th. century, the one that Wagner was calling for? The pure, the brave, the hero of a nation (nation itself being an idea deliberately formed by the 16th. century warlords to fight over the church, and to be called kings after that: compare to Afghan warlords of today!)?

Tolkien surely was conservative enough, not to have liked very much of democracy.

= Lalwendë
Tolkien always seems somewhat politically confused to me. I always explain it away to myself by comparing his views to those of a lot of the traditionally middle-class English people, as opposed to liberal, Guardian reading middle class people. They like tradition, and approve of monarchy, just so long as they can have 'their say'. Structures such as the police are important, but the state is not always looked upon that fondly, usually where it interferes in freedom of choice and taxes!

You seem to be at the roots of the so called basic "political-conservatism"! I don't think there is anything confusing about that. Political conservatism is propably best described in that famous phrase (at least in Finland): "home, country & religion". Now liberalism (f.ex. economical liberalism with its global markets) do not fit very well with that one. It's a new reality with money without a "fatherland", and leading to traditions needing to meet other traditions, with equal claims to be the "original ones" (bye-bye for the conservative dream of being "the only one that counts"). That sure would be a nightmare for Tolkien, and his world.

Could Tolkien stand a democratic society? Propably he wouldn't like it. (and who would like a society where Beck's & Posh are the most noteworthy people around?)

PS. Sorry, if this went too political. It was not my meaning - undestanding this is a non-political site. But this thread really calls for some "taking sides". If any-one of you find this aggressive, I'll promise to be easier with this kind of topics after this one....

[littlemanpoet]

Maybe I'm being merely naive here, but aren't Lewis's and Tolkien's writings, er, stories of mythic scope? Don't mythic stories usually contain such archetypes as kings and queens? Can we really garner anything at all regarding their personal politics from stories they've written that necessarily reward (most of) their heroes with rulership? Just thought I'd ask.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Elempí

Maybe I'm being merely naive here, but aren't Lewis's and Tolkien's writings, er, stories of mythic scope? Don't mythic stories usually contain such archetypes as kings and queens? Can we really garner anything at all regarding their personal politics from stories they've written that necessarily reward (most of) their heroes with rulership? Just thought I'd ask.

When you write, you write what you feel. It's notable that all of Tolkien's absolute leaders - Sauron, Morgoth, Saruman - fell on the side of evil.

Tolkien's positive monarchies and leaderships - From Elessar down to the Thain of the Tooks - assumed the form of benevolent dictators respecting individualism. This is evident in the Mayorship of the Shire - a leader with no actual duties. Likewise, the Thain of the Tooks and the Master of Buckland exerted no real authority. Elessar, at the top of the ladder, felt no desire to force his rule onto others nor for domination; one sees the Shire given autonomy, peace with Harad, etc.

So, while there may be archetypical monarchs, they aren't typical in any other way.


As for Narnia's monarchs, I contest the view that they were any more absolutist than Tolkien's Thain Peregrin or Master Meriadoc. Both worlds offer benevolent dictatorships.


Now to answer the question of hereditary rule. I don't think Tolkien at all endorses it. Over and again, we see hereditary rule fail, from King Earnur to Gondor to Denethor to the warring kingdoms of Arnor. Tolkien did not make a blanket statement: Hereditary monarchy is good.

On the contrary, we can see Tolkien's view that monarchy or leadership has to be proved. Elessar had to prove himself to the world before he could both become King and marry Arwen. The earlier claim of his answer to Kingship of Gondor was rejected because he had done nothing to deserve it. Merry, Pippin and Sam proved themselves worthy of the limited rulership that existed in Middle-Earth.