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

[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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lush

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.

Did I say that mercy is always at odds with self-interest? I am sorry if it seemed like an implication; however, given Tolkien's predisposition regarding spirituality, it would seem that, rather than enightened self-interest, mercy, pity and forgiveness are a matter of faith (ideals if you will), meant to be practiced even if danger or death are a likely outcome (such as Jesus forgiving those who crucified him, or Gandhi forgiving his assassin). In like case, and following Tolkien's thought processes, I don't believe Gandalf was being utilitarian or necessarily self-interested in saying Gollum had a part to play, because he added the caveat 'for good or ill'. Fate plays heavily in the outcome of the novel, not enlightened self-interest.

Originally Posted by Lush

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.

As I stated previously, Frodo striving towards the ideal expounded by Gandalf was the determinate factor in a serendipitous outcome; that Frodo failed in his personal objective was overcome by his adherence to the ideal throughout the books. Sam, who wanted Gollum dead, was the voice of reason, utility and self-interest (and in the heat of the moment, one can't blame Mr. Gamgee for wishing an untimely end for the treacherous Gollum); however, Frodo looked beyond the present danger and overcame the human penchant for violent short-term advantage for something that borders on the altogether altruistic (again, given the clear and present dangers presented to the Hobbits).