The Scourge of The Dark Side...Tolkien and Modernism - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Ibrîniðilpathânezel · 02-23-2008, 11:45 PM

My thoughts? David Brin, and anyone else, is just a person. Celebrity status does not give his opinion any more weight than anyone else's opinion. He's entitled to his, I'm entitled to mine, and neither his nor mine is superior. It just is.

I was once a Star Wars fan, back in the days when we had to wait three years for the next part of the story to come out. I had been a Tolkien fan for over 10 years by the time the first SW movie was released, and I had no trouble being a fan of both. By then, I was also an ex-Catholic, and knowing that Tolkien was a devout Catholic in no way troubled me. Again, he had his point of view, and I had mine. I had also been a science fiction and fantasy fan for a good long time. The secular humanist movement had always been strong in SF fandom, but I and most of my fan friends weren't a part of it (I may no longer be a Catholic, but I still believe in God). The "humanist" vs. "religious" argument has striking similarities to another argument in SF fandom, that of "books" vs. "media." To make a long story short, when Star Wars came along and made SF acceptable to the mainstream audience, some of the more vocal and eminent pre-Star Wars SF fans, feeling threatened by the massive influx of fans of science fiction movies and TV shows, began to decry all "media" SF as inferior to "book" SF. It had a profound effect on the fan community, and as someone who at the time was on both sides of it, I can say from sad experience that it got pretty ugly.

The issue of secular humanism vs. religious belief in SF may well have a similar history. When the internet came into the picture as part of the SF community, I think something was unsettled in what some people saw as the status quo. Time was, there were SF fans of all kinds of beliefs, from very religious to agnostic to atheist, and it was fine so long as nobody was perceived as pushing their beliefs as the only "right" way the think. I know that I have participated in a number of discussion groups where people's religious beliefs are made quite plain; you see it in screen names and sig files and such all the time. I've even run across people who automatically assume that everyone on a given board is a Christian, just because they seem nice and behave politely. I'm sure that this is sticking in a number of craws in the SF community, and some of those people will feel a need to respond by making their own beliefs equally clear. Almost inevitably, I fear, intolerance rears its ugly head. Just as it did 30 years ago when Star Wars changed the way the world looks at and accepts science fiction and fantasy.

What all this means, at least from my point of view, is that something happened that shook up or irritated the Star Wars fans with a humanist point of view, and they now feel they must defend their position more forcefully (no pun intended). That they are aiming at LotR is not surprising to me, because of the popularity of Jackson's movies. Star Wars was once the preeminent SF movie series, held all the records for attendance, etc. -- and Jackson's LotR came along and changed that. I've seen (and known) a lot of fans of popular works who were profoundly upset when something knocked their favorite from the Number One spot. They react almost angrily, with a vigorous statement of why what they love is and will always be superior, and why "the enemy" is inferior. What strikes me as odd about this particular humanist vs. religious argument is that it sounds like a repeat performance of what happened when the massive popularity of Star Wars shook up the SF community so many years ago. (It also strikes me as odd because part of what I didn't care for about Jackson's version of LotR was that, to me, it felt like he was trying to interpret Tolkien through the lens of secular humanism, downplaying or eliminating virtually all the "religious" aspects in favor of adventure, but that's another discussion entirely.)

When all is said and done, Tolkien's works were intended to be mythology, and by its nature, myth tends to be what some would call religious or spiritual. It's a way of explaining the inexplicable in the world, in nature. I have loved mythology and comparative religion since I was a little kid, and I've found great inspiration in many things I have read and learned. That doesn't mean I have to be a card-carrying believer, so to speak. All just my opinion, for what it's worth.

tumhalad2 · 02-24-2008, 01:36 AM

Ibrin that was an absolutely fascinating and enlightening response-thank you and I greatly enjoyed reading it.

As to medernism and its virtues, yes, I would agree, having taken some time to think about it, that it is fundementally reactive and flawed. Postmodernists *chuckle*, well, lets not get into that...

Anyhow yes, Tolkien's world does admit to sadness and loss as a reality, and denying this is indeed I think futile on the part of the Star Wars forumers and their utopic vision...

Nerwen · 02-24-2008, 02:16 AM

As a general reply to the last few posts, I should say that The Lord of the Rings in my opinion does explore quite a number of themes. It is however, not a primarily didactic work (or what I sometimes call a "How To Vote Story"). Neither is Star Wars. That– in a way– is the joke.

Ibrin, the whole thing began, as far as I can work out, because some posters on another forum declared their contempt for both Star Wars AND The Lord of the Rings, on the grounds that neither was sufficiently progressive. The response from the crew at stardestroyer.net was to a.) distance themselves from LotR and b.) think up some hair-splitting reasons why the criticisms of it were valid but the ones of SW weren't.

As I said, it's rather pathetic.

tumhalad2 · 02-24-2008, 03:24 AM

or that LOTR is MORE conservative than Star Wars and thus deserving to be ruthlessly attacked....lol

Ibrîniðilpathânezel · 02-24-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Ibrin, the whole thing began, as far as I can work out, because some posters on another forum declared their contempt for both Star Wars AND The Lord of the Rings, on the grounds that neither was sufficiently progressive. The response from the crew at stardestroyer.net was to a.) distance themselves from LotR and b.) think up some hair-splitting reasons why the criticisms of it were valid but the ones of SW weren't.

As I said, it's rather pathetic.

No kidding. With that history, I see very clearly what probably happened: rather than just defend their own turf, someone in the SW forum decided to turn LotR into a sort of common enemy. "We aren't bad, but these other guys are." It IS quite pathetic. It's rather like something I was told by many authors who were both friends and people whose opinions I respect: If in writing, the only way you can make your hero look good is by making everyone else look like witless fools and buffoons, your hero isn't a real hero at all. An argument intended to support your position that relies on bashing someone else is not a well-constructed argument. When dealing with the kind of contempt you describe, you're best to either ignore it utterly, or just defend your own part of it and leave others to their own defense.

tumhalad2 · 02-24-2008, 10:46 PM

Thats it Ibrin. Nonetheless, are there any valid criticisms these people bring up? They defend the Force in Star Wars by saying that Sauron is a 'two dimensional Satan figure'-while another forumer denounced LOTR as being inherently racist, not at Tolkien's behest, but in terms of the fundemental nature of the book...should we as Tolkien fans accept some of this? Or is it too modernist trash?

Gwathagor · 02-24-2008, 10:53 PM

If one only read The Lord of the Rings, I can understand how one would get the impression that Middle-earth is inherently racist. On one level, I think that is mistaken. It's obvious in Unfinished Tales that Tolkien thinks the Druedain are pretty cool, and they are about as far removed from the Numenorean race as one can get. On the other hand, aren't all mythologies sort of "racist", because they revolve around one particular culture/race? Yet no one ever criticizes Greek or Norse or Hopi mythology of marginalizing other civilizations.

tumhalad2 · 02-24-2008, 11:00 PM

I suppose, modernists being modern, they would say that the world no longer has need for, nor room for, stories of that sort, exactly because they are exclusive, or 'racist'. I too think that if one takes Tolkien's legendarium in its entirety, there is in fact a great deal of compassion directed at those who have been misplaced and unjustly done by. From the Children of Hurin (my favourite of Tolkien's works) the Petty-Dwarves come to mind.

02-23-2008, 11:45 PM	#1
Ibrîniðilpathânezel Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Back on the Helcaraxe Posts: 733	My thoughts? David Brin, and anyone else, is just a person. Celebrity status does not give his opinion any more weight than anyone else's opinion. He's entitled to his, I'm entitled to mine, and neither his nor mine is superior. It just is. I was once a Star Wars fan, back in the days when we had to wait three years for the next part of the story to come out. I had been a Tolkien fan for over 10 years by the time the first SW movie was released, and I had no trouble being a fan of both. By then, I was also an ex-Catholic, and knowing that Tolkien was a devout Catholic in no way troubled me. Again, he had his point of view, and I had mine. I had also been a science fiction and fantasy fan for a good long time. The secular humanist movement had always been strong in SF fandom, but I and most of my fan friends weren't a part of it (I may no longer be a Catholic, but I still believe in God). The "humanist" vs. "religious" argument has striking similarities to another argument in SF fandom, that of "books" vs. "media." To make a long story short, when Star Wars came along and made SF acceptable to the mainstream audience, some of the more vocal and eminent pre-Star Wars SF fans, feeling threatened by the massive influx of fans of science fiction movies and TV shows, began to decry all "media" SF as inferior to "book" SF. It had a profound effect on the fan community, and as someone who at the time was on both sides of it, I can say from sad experience that it got pretty ugly. The issue of secular humanism vs. religious belief in SF may well have a similar history. When the internet came into the picture as part of the SF community, I think something was unsettled in what some people saw as the status quo. Time was, there were SF fans of all kinds of beliefs, from very religious to agnostic to atheist, and it was fine so long as nobody was perceived as pushing their beliefs as the only "right" way the think. I know that I have participated in a number of discussion groups where people's religious beliefs are made quite plain; you see it in screen names and sig files and such all the time. I've even run across people who automatically assume that everyone on a given board is a Christian, just because they seem nice and behave politely. I'm sure that this is sticking in a number of craws in the SF community, and some of those people will feel a need to respond by making their own beliefs equally clear. Almost inevitably, I fear, intolerance rears its ugly head. Just as it did 30 years ago when Star Wars changed the way the world looks at and accepts science fiction and fantasy. What all this means, at least from my point of view, is that something happened that shook up or irritated the Star Wars fans with a humanist point of view, and they now feel they must defend their position more forcefully (no pun intended). That they are aiming at LotR is not surprising to me, because of the popularity of Jackson's movies. Star Wars was once the preeminent SF movie series, held all the records for attendance, etc. -- and Jackson's LotR came along and changed that. I've seen (and known) a lot of fans of popular works who were profoundly upset when something knocked their favorite from the Number One spot. They react almost angrily, with a vigorous statement of why what they love is and will always be superior, and why "the enemy" is inferior. What strikes me as odd about this particular humanist vs. religious argument is that it sounds like a repeat performance of what happened when the massive popularity of Star Wars shook up the SF community so many years ago. (It also strikes me as odd because part of what I didn't care for about Jackson's version of LotR was that, to me, it felt like he was trying to interpret Tolkien through the lens of secular humanism, downplaying or eliminating virtually all the "religious" aspects in favor of adventure, but that's another discussion entirely.) When all is said and done, Tolkien's works were intended to be mythology, and by its nature, myth tends to be what some would call religious or spiritual. It's a way of explaining the inexplicable in the world, in nature. I have loved mythology and comparative religion since I was a little kid, and I've found great inspiration in many things I have read and learned. That doesn't mean I have to be a card-carrying believer, so to speak. All just my opinion, for what it's worth. __________________ Call me Ibrin (or Ibri) :) Originality is the one thing that unoriginal minds cannot feel the use of. — John Stewart Mill

02-24-2008, 02:16 AM	#3
Nerwen Wisest of the Noldor Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: ˙˙˙ssɐןƃ ƃuıʞooן ǝɥʇ ɥƃnoɹɥʇ Posts: 6,694	As a general reply to the last few posts, I should say that The Lord of the Rings in my opinion does explore quite a number of themes. It is however, not a primarily didactic work (or what I sometimes call a "How To Vote Story"). Neither is Star Wars. That– in a way– is the joke. Ibrin, the whole thing began, as far as I can work out, because some posters on another forum declared their contempt for both Star Wars AND The Lord of the Rings, on the grounds that neither was sufficiently progressive. The response from the crew at stardestroyer.net was to a.) distance themselves from LotR and b.) think up some hair-splitting reasons why the criticisms of it were valid but the ones of SW weren't. As I said, it's rather pathetic. __________________ "Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." –Elmo.

02-24-2008, 10:53 PM	#7
Gwathagor Shade with a Blade Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: A Rainy Night In Soho Posts: 2,512	If one only read The Lord of the Rings, I can understand how one would get the impression that Middle-earth is inherently racist. On one level, I think that is mistaken. It's obvious in Unfinished Tales that Tolkien thinks the Druedain are pretty cool, and they are about as far removed from the Numenorean race as one can get. On the other hand, aren't all mythologies sort of "racist", because they revolve around one particular culture/race? Yet no one ever criticizes Greek or Norse or Hopi mythology of marginalizing other civilizations. __________________ Stories and songs.

02-24-2008, 01:36 AM	#2
tumhalad2 Haunting Spirit Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 95	Ibrin that was an absolutely fascinating and enlightening response-thank you and I greatly enjoyed reading it. As to medernism and its virtues, yes, I would agree, having taken some time to think about it, that it is fundementally reactive and flawed. Postmodernists chuckle, well, lets not get into that... Anyhow yes, Tolkien's world does admit to sadness and loss as a reality, and denying this is indeed I think futile on the part of the Star Wars forumers and their utopic vision...

02-24-2008, 03:24 AM	#4
tumhalad2 Haunting Spirit Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 95	or that LOTR is MORE conservative than Star Wars and thus deserving to be ruthlessly attacked....lol

02-24-2008, 10:46 PM	#6
tumhalad2 Haunting Spirit Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 95	Thats it Ibrin. Nonetheless, are there any valid criticisms these people bring up? They defend the Force in Star Wars by saying that Sauron is a 'two dimensional Satan figure'-while another forumer denounced LOTR as being inherently racist, not at Tolkien's behest, but in terms of the fundemental nature of the book...should we as Tolkien fans accept some of this? Or is it too modernist trash?

02-24-2008, 11:00 PM	#8
tumhalad2 Haunting Spirit Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 95	I suppose, modernists being modern, they would say that the world no longer has need for, nor room for, stories of that sort, exactly because they are exclusive, or 'racist'. I too think that if one takes Tolkien's legendarium in its entirety, there is in fact a great deal of compassion directed at those who have been misplaced and unjustly done by. From the Children of Hurin (my favourite of Tolkien's works) the Petty-Dwarves come to mind.