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

[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]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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...

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]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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."

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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).

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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*

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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).

Originally Posted by skip spence

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.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It is paradoxical rather than oxymoronic, I should guess.

Well, yes, that's a better word.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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?

Originally Posted by Galion quoting C.S.Lewis

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?

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.

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?

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by skip spence

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.)

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

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.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Screw your modernity, give me Middle-earth anyday.

[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 - and no that does not mean I am a single-minded lover who hails from Rome )

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]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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! 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]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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.