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

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Lal

It might be helpful to know what we mean by 'modernist'.

Exactly. And the same thing should be asked about 'humanism' as well... and about their relationship

There has been discussion about literary modernism in here but mostly I'd say that with modernism people have meant the socio-cultural ethos of the twentieth century (beginning late 19th) western liberal democracies. The first surely presupposes the latter but they are not the same thing.

Also the word humanism is quite confusing here as some people seem to just toy about with a strawman they have created - and the word itself has a history of six hundred years (from the renaissance umanista) - and the humanisms of the literati back then, the chrstian humanism, secular humanism, etc. do differ a lot.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Lastly I really don't know about the merits of humanism and modernism; I certainly think, nonetheless, that the world is a far more complex place than such philosophies allow for.

Here there has to be a kind of misunderstanding? Thinking of different worldviews or philosophies I couldn't imagine modernists to take the world as an uncomplex place - quite the opposite. Mythlogical worlds, religious worlds, conservative worlds (at least those of the style: "oh how everything was nice and neat back then") tend to carry the simple explanations. It's not a new idea that fex. fantasy may be so popular these days when it offers simple solutions and escape from this modern complex world in which we people have learned the modern way of thinking with no easy certainties and questions lurking all around.

I myself am quite much a secular humanist. So I don't believe in God - at least in any god some humans could name or know something about. Sure there can be even a god somewhere (whatever she/he/it is) - there is a lot things in the universe we people don't understand, like the being of the existence itself, or the concept of infinity.

But that doesn't stop me loving the works of Tolkien. Even if I can relate the prof's place in the chain of ideas within our cultural history it doesn't deny me slipping into his world as piece of masterly fiction or to admire his creativity and learning. And surely there's the little romantic in me as in most of us "modern westerners" who loves to dwell in all those medieval-smelling ideals, heroisms, virtues and vices, the plain living and culture... you name it.

But when I'm in this world of real people the humanist in me demands that I do fex. honour every human being as having a equal moral worth as a human being to begin with - with no über- or untermenschen, or higher and lower cultures according to which individual people would be judged etc... In this world there are no genetical master-races of the Dunedain even if some people have tried to advance that kind of ideas, or master-cultures like the elves - or unworthy Dunledings... These are very unmodern ideas - and unhumanist ideas.

There may be more virtuous or nicer individuals as there seems to be fouler or colder people. There may also be unhealthy trends in any one culture (like the overindividualism in the western culture or the rising fundamentalism in both islamic and western cultures) or good trends. But cultures as such are not bad or good - and people only become good or bad by what they do. But in the beginning they're all equal. Every newborn is sinless.

That's modernist humanism I'm proud to advocate.

[tumhalad2]

[QUOTE=Nogrod;548687]

... In this world there are no genetical master-races of the Dunedain even if some people have tried to advance that kind of ideas, or master-cultures like the elves - or unworthy Dunledings... These are very unmodern ideas - and unhumanist ideas.

There may be more virtuous or nicer individuals as there seems to be fouler or colder people. There may also be unhealthy trends in any one culture (like the overindividualism in the western culture or the rising fundamentalism in both islamic and western cultures) or good trends. But cultures as such are not bad or good - and people only become good or bad by what they do. But in the beginning they're all equal. Every newborn is sinless.

That's modernist humanism I'm proud to advocate.[/QUOTE

Firstly I don't believe the Dunedein were a 'genetic' master race-though they are 'talked up' in the LOTR it is also true that they themselves are capable of sin and vice. So, the Dunedain are not morally superior humans, nor particularly phyical, but, if anything, their history is more connected with the elves which makes them 'culturally superior'. As to the Elves themselves-they are difficult. Brin calls them ubermenshen-indeed in a sense they are, though perhaps in light of Tolkien's entire legendarium it would be more exact to say that their civilisation is inherently different, rather than superior, to the cultures of Men or Dwarves (something the Dwarves would certainly say!)

Reading Tolkien I don't really get the idea that the Elves are in fact 'superior'-just 'different' in some way...

[Nogrod]

Most old mythologies are keen to point out the weaknessess in the We - even if we are the sons of gods or centers of the universe... So Tolkien only follows a traditional path there by making Dunedain and elves having vices. The idea of the "chosen ones" being (needing or striving to be) perfect is later Christian addendum.

In the old world of mythologies you could be superior but still imperfect.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Most old mythologies are keen to point out the weaknessess in the We - even if we are the sons of gods or centers of the universe... So Tolkien only follows a traditional path there by making Dunedain and elves having vices. The idea of the "chosen ones" being (needing or striving to be) perfect is later Christian addendum.

In the old world of mythologies you could be superior but still imperfect.

Indeed. Nonetheless, I do not believe that modern applicability should so lightly be thrust upon Tolkien's races and cultures. As Skip Spense points out, the supposed 'immortality' of the elves is juxtuposed against the mortality of men so that the dialogue of death, if you will, can be played out.

"Which should envy the other?" asks an Elven ambassador to Numenor in the Akallabeth. Who indeed. If Tolkien had absolutely, really valued the Elves above humans, made them true 'ubermenschen' surely he would have validated their immortality as something men do not have, for example because of the "fall"

Interestingly, Tolkien does an about turn on Christian mythology at this point and says that both the mortality of Humans and the immortality of Elves is simply "the fulfilment of their being" no more a 'punishment' than death is in real life. The drama plays out precisely because the Numenorians, who you call 'superior' perceive the Elves to be ubermensche pretty much. The Numenorians attempt to forcibly take immortality and they fail because of it. They fail not because they are 'lesser' beings, or 'unworthy' or 'deserving of punishment', they fail because they desire something entirely unnatural to them, something entirely foreign, somthing that is in no way a fulfillment of their being. Were men to step upon Valinor they would (something like this) die a quicker death as moths do when exposed to bright light.

Similarly, the 'ubermensche' Elves fail, ultimately, in their quest to impose immortality and unchangefullness on the finite world, Middle Earth, about them. With the breaking of their magic, they must leave Middle earth or accept it for what it is and wither away. Slowly, the Elves of middle earth would 'fade' away, unable to control the change of the world around them that is in reality utterly foreign to them.

My point is that social ideas about ubermensche and the like are not particularly relevant to Tolkien, and if the ideas are superficially there, they are so to fulfill a purpose other than simply to say : these guys are superior to the rest of you.
Often they are there as a result of other themes.

Words like "superiority", "ubermensche" etc fall short of explaining Tolkien's characters and races-ultimately it is for reasons of the theme, generally speaking, of 'death and the desire for deathlessness' on the part of Humans and Elves, that is responsible for much of this.

I believe Tolkien was in fact more aware of what he was doing than perhaps many would think...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

"Which should envy the other?" asks an Elven ambassador to Numenor in the Akallabeth. Who indeed. If Tolkien had absolutely, really valued the Elves above humans, made them true 'ubermenschen' surely he would have validated their immortality as something men do not have, for example because of the "fall"

Interestingly, Tolkien does an about turn on Christian mythology at this point and says that both the mortality of Humans and the immortality of Elves is simply "the fulfilment of their being" no more a 'punishment' than death is in real life. The drama plays out precisely because the Numenorians, who you call 'superior' perceive the Elves to be ubermensche pretty much. The Numenorians attempt to forcibly take immortality and they fail because of it. They fail not because they are 'lesser' beings, or 'unworthy' or 'deserving of punishment', they fail because they desire something entirely unnatural to them, something entirely foreign, somthing that is in no way a fulfillment of their being. Were men to step upon Valinor they would (something like this) die a quicker death as moths do when exposed to bright light.

.

And you can answer this by looking at Tolkien in the light of Modernism (the theory). How was a Catholic to make sense of the mindless slaughter of millions in WWI? Many people simply turned away from faith altogether because they could not square the slaughter with the existence of any kind of 'good' God. Tolkien didn't do what a lot who did keep their faith did do, and ascribe the slaughter to some fall of mankind - no he came to view Death in a more Northern way, as a kind of inevitability, as part of the very nature of humanity is to die.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Skip

*Edit: I see I crossposted with tumhalad2 and this is a question to you:
You seem like an intelligent and reasonable guy, well able to form your own opinion. Yet, in the op you appear concerned that the criticism of this Brin fella might put you off Tolkien. But seriuosly... this Brin, who I've never heard of btw, sounds like a pretentious but not very bright tosser to be honest. Why would you listen to him?

Even if it will make myself look like a total ignoramus here as well I must confess I have never heard of this Brin-guy before either until reading this thread. So I definitively have not been listening to him.

Originally Posted by Skip

a culture can't ever change unless we're allowed to critisize it.

I don't see the point of this here... I'm all for demanding changes in cultures, like getting the Western culture less individualistic without falling back to religious or nationalistic fundamentalisms etc.

Talking about the subject then...

I do agree with your points about there being "inside tensions" between the "races" in Tolkien's work. And surely the question about the benefits of mortality / immortality have been questioned long before the Christian thought in Gilgamesh or Greek legendarium in written form and in many earlier myths to top that fex.

But to me the question here is more what kind of worldview Tolkien brings forwards in his "mythology for England"? It coincides with these mythological strata of our history... and that is natural as he was the scholar who tried to make it look like an arcane mythology.

But the question now remains how we should tune ourselves with it? Should we treat is as an original mythology (no!), should we treat it as a piece of the most ingenuine piece of fiction based on traditions (yes!), should we treat it as a way guiding us to a moral and good life in today's society and world (yes/no?).

I think it's the last question - or the interpretation of what it means - that may divide many of us.

I tend to agree with Lal that Tolkien had much more modernistic views about things many of you are ready to grant him. Thence I think we should be able to think about his views much more seriously - but in another vein than just championing his "traditionalism" or basic "christian values".

The things and ideas Tolkien brings forwards in his work are those of the mythological era and thought but he does it in a way that demands a modern reader an effort to think it her/himself - a mark of a purely modernist attitude in itself.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Even if it will make myself look like a total ignoramus here as well I must confess I have never heard of this Brin-guy before either until reading this thread. So I definitively have not been listening to him.

Sorry mate, you must have misunderstood me (no wonder, my post was a bit of a mess). The questions was to tumhalad2.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I don't see the point of this here... I'm all for demanding changes in cultures, like getting the Western culture less individualistic without falling back to religious or nationalistic fundamentalisms etc.

Agreed. Just a thought I had at the time. Never mind that.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But the question now remains how we should tune ourselves with it? Should we treat is as an original mythology (no!), should we treat it as a piece of the most ingenuine piece of fiction based on traditions (yes!), should we treat it as a way guiding us to a moral and good life in today's society and world (yes/no?).

I think it's the last question - or the interpretation of what it means - that may divide many of us.

Perhaps. My answer is that if you do find a moral guideline in his works, that's great. Tolkien certainly had a lot to say about morals. Personally, although I also appreciate much of his more philosofical and theological stuff, I read his books because I love the stories and the language.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The things and ideas Tolkien brings forwards in his work are those of the mythological era and thought but he does it in a way that demands a modern reader an effort to think it her/himself - a mark of a purely modernist attitude in itself.

I dunno if the ideas are those of a mythological prehistoric era. I highly doubt that the people in the actual 'mythological' era ever reached the subtlety of Tolkien or of his characters.

As for the debate of how modernistic Tolkien was I'm afraid I can't add much. I was under the impression that 'modernism' was the much akin to positivism, the belief that logical reasoning based on observable facts (the method of the natural sciences) is the best, if not the only way forward into the future. Based on this belief I did not think Tolkien would appriciate a modernistic agenda with scientific progress and rationalisation as a top priority. But I also knew that 'modernism' had other applications in other fields, and some posters have argued that Tolkien indeed was modernistic. To be honest, I find concepts such as modernism, post-modernism, symbolism to be rather silly and restrictive and the people who like to use them often do so in a vain attempt to appear more clever than they really are. But please note that I'm not talking about the people writing on this thread.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And you can answer this by looking at Tolkien in the light of Modernism (the theory). How was a Catholic to make sense of the mindless slaughter of millions in WWI? Many people simply turned away from faith altogether because they could not square the slaughter with the existence of any kind of 'good' God. Tolkien didn't do what a lot who did keep their faith did do, and ascribe the slaughter to some fall of mankind - no he came to view Death in a more Northern way, as a kind of inevitability, as part of the very nature of humanity is to die.

Yes!!! This point is of critical import. The Children of Hurin, especially in the opening chapters, discusses these points as well, from the point of view of a little boy, then a man captured by a diabolical Dark Lord (my hate shall persue them...etc etc rant rant) If this is not 'modern' im not sure what is...

[Bêthberry]

No time for anything other than a quick scan of this interesting thread, so I'll have to refrain from making any large scale declarations. (Lucky you!)

I notice, however, that writers such as Joyce, Lawrence, Eliot and Peake are mentioned as exemplars of literary modernism. One writer who hasn't been mentioned is Virginia Woolf.

Just a few titles in case anyone is interested in checking out her presentation of consciousness: Mrs. Dalloway, To the Lighthouse, and, particularly, The Waves.

Given that Tolkien does not present--and is not interested in depicting--this form of the interiority of thought--he would seem to fall on t'other side from Woolf--but I'm not getting into any definition wars!

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But when I'm in this world of real people the humanist in me demands that I do fex. honour every human being as having a equal moral worth as a human being to begin with - with no über- or untermenschen, or higher and lower cultures according to which individual people would be judged etc... In this world there are no genetical master-races of the Dunedain even if some people have tried to advance that kind of ideas, or master-cultures like the elves - or unworthy Dunledings... These are very unmodern ideas - and unhumanist ideas.

I'm not sure whether you attribute these ideas to Tolkien or not, but if you do, I'd have to disagree. On first glance I can see how Tolkien's work can be interpreted as racist and in fact, I believe his work is celebrated by some neo-nazi groups for this reason (although others groups don't seem to appreciate his apparent admiration of the jews to which he once likened to the dwarves on an altogether off-topic discourse). You do notice that nobility seem to be connected with being tall and blonde while the invading Easterling scum seem to be 'swarty and squat'. But then again there are far to many exceptions to make a good case for racism.
Lots of tall characters with fair skin and noble hertiage do terrible things in his books (ex. the numerorians) and many 'swarty and squat' characters do good things (ex. the druadain (sp?) or that fat guy who fought for Gondor at the battle of Pellenor). And besides, doesn't the whole basic idea to make up a mythology for England stipulate a white man's perspective? And I don't see anything wrong with that. As for the Elves, they have no relation whatsoever with Nietzche's 'übermench' or later fascist applications to the word and any attempt to connect them with a racist agenda is way off the mark IMO. I think tumhalad2 has a good point when he see them and their 'immortality' as an important contrast to the fate of mortal men and their fear of death.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

There may be more virtuous or nicer individuals as there seems to be fouler or colder people. There may also be unhealthy trends in any one culture (like the overindividualism in the western culture or the rising fundamentalism in both islamic and western cultures) or good trends. But cultures as such are not bad or good - and people only become good or bad by what they do. But in the beginning they're all equal. Every newborn is sinless.

That's modernist humanism I'm proud to advocate.

This is pretty much what Tolkien advocated too, unless I'm mistaken. But I don't see why some cultures or even peoples as a whole can't be considered better than others. To say so is no doubt just an opinion (as with all social or theological subjects) but I still reserve the right to have one, even if it isn't considered politically correct. Individuals should, of course, be treated as unique without any stigmas attached, but a culture can't ever change unless we're allowed to critisize it.

*Edit: I see I crossposted with tumhalad2 and this is a question to you:
You seem like an intelligent and reasonable guy, well able to form your own opinion. Yet, in the op you appear concerned that the criticism of this Brin fella might put you off Tolkien. But seriuosly... this Brin, who I've never heard of btw, sounds like a pretentious but not very bright tosser to be honest. Why would you listen to him?