What does the sixpence = ?

[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.

[drigel]

good points Formendacil i stand corrected.
So, might does mean right? that was the point I was trying to stumble towards.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by drigel

So what right did they have to rule? And why would someone from Rhun honor that right?

Unfortunately, the statement I'm going to make is the selfsame used by some to accuse Tolkien of racism, and still by some to vindicate their 'white supremacy'

The right of Kings of Men to rule was based upon unity of Three Races blood (and the Third Union of Elves and Man through Aragorn/Arwen was uniting that bloodline into one House again) - that is, Maiar, Evles, Men. Kings of Men were partly 'divine'. The 'divinity' and 'right to rule' was confirmed by Eru's intervention into Beren-Luthien matter. It may be argued that since Eru granted that union, He granted rule of its descendants likewise. So answer is 'no' - 'might' does not equal
right'.

Yet not only bloodlines, mind you, but the 'right thing' too (and that's why Tolkien ain't racist) for the truth about ME is that in ME there actually is a Paragon of Good - Eru. Those who confrom to that Paragon more than others are more in the right and have more of the right. Ar-Pharazon was no less 'pure-blood' than Amandil, but he chose the wrong path.

I suppose this is one of the indirect reasons for literati to be at diggers with Tolkien (see the points made about religion in posts above)

Also, the fact is, Aragorn was not forcing himself and his realm upon unwilling peoples:

LoTR

In the days that followed his crowning the King sat on his throne in the Hall of the Kings and pronounced his judgements. And embassies came from many lands and peoples, from the East and the South, and from the borders of Mirkwood, and from Dunland in the west. And the King pardoned the Easterlings that had given themselves up, and sent them away free, and he made peace with the peoples of Harad; and the slaves of Mordor he released and gave to them all the lands about Lake Núrnen to be their own.

Hard to see 'expansionism' here, ain't it?

There are certain rules:

LoTR

Men of Gondor hear now the Steward of this Realm! Behold! one has come to claim the kingship again at last. Here is Aragorn son of Arathorn, chieftain of the Dúnedain of Arnor, Captain of the Host of the West, bearer of the Star of the North, wielder of the Sword Reforged, victorious in battle, whose hands bring healing, the Elfstone, Elessar of the line of Valandil, Isildur’s son, Elendil’s son of Númenor. Shall he be king and enter into the City and dwell there?’
And all the host and all the people cried yea with one voice.

Despite all his blood and all his right, Aragorn needs approval of his future people to 'be king' first.

Besides,

Pippin to Denethor's servants:

And as for orders, I think you have a madman to deal with, not a lord.

Implication is as follows: when the lord has turned aside from the 'right path', even if he be 'rightful' lord, there is no obligation any more to follow his orders.

Just another 'besides':

'Behold! I go forth, and it seems like to be my last riding,' said Théoden. 'I have no child. Théodred my son is slain. I name Éomer my sister-son to be my heir. If neither of us return, then choose a new lord as you will.

I.e. Lords are 'chosen'. Criteria of choice may count on 'bloodlines' and may, again, not.

And more - when people is unwilling, the ruler may be 'sent forth' (case of Felagund)

Short summary - 'right to rule' is based on three factors - blood, people's will and following Eru's will. While 'blood' is a matter of importance, and people's will counts, Eru's will if by far superior.

Again, combination 'indigestable' for some, I suppose.

Originally Posted by mithalwen

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.

See the link in my previous

[drigel]

I suppose this is one of the indirect reasons for literati to be at diggers with Tolkien (see the points made about religion in posts above)

Heren I totally agree - my views are the same, and my submissions were to (I hoped) spark discussion, because those are the lines of thought that are out there. reletivism - ugh thats why the critisism is there - right and wrong are so clear and uncomplicated in the works, to the dismay of the critics. And as i sit here and think about the works in total, the complications that do arise are seldom self inflicted, rather the result of an agent of the devil, example: Glaurung & Turin. This was a time and a place where good was really good and evil very evil.

[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.