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

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will. But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

First, in what way are you sounding opportunistic? Second, how are moral values (debatable or not) different from ideals? Third, how does the existence of fate preclude the existence of ideals? Fourth, doesn't the ultimate success of the quest demonstrate that, in the end, the forces of good (defined by their virtue and ideals) triumph over the forces of evil, even if by the unwitting aid of their enemies? Fifth, how do the lines regarding the Ring "it would possess him" and "he had no will left in the matter" allow for the possibility that Frodo freely abandoned his Quest in favor of the persuasion of the Ring out of disillusionment with his ideals, as opposed to simply succumbing to the dominating power of the Ring?

[Lush]

Fate plays heavily in the outcome of the novel, not enlightened self-interest.

I think you're right to bring up fate, Morthoron, though I would also remind you that what we are looking at is a world that has been marred, and those who are in it are marred as well. I also didn't say that it was necessarily enlightened self-interest (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, so perhaps if you'd like to explain, I would be interested) - just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless. Which is alright, really, because that's what human nature (or hobbit nature, if you will) is all about.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Guns don't kill people, spinning bullets discharged at high velocity do.

It sounds more like a figure of speech to describe Frodo as having "no will left in the matter". A drug addict who did bloody murder to feed his addiction would be just as responsible.

"My Precccioousss." - Bilbo, on tobacco rehab.

It is an accident which saved Middle Earth, just as it was a boating accident which killed Frodo's parents. (Unless, the gossips are true) One flinches at the prospect of pronouncing moral judgement at the death of Frodo's parents, but ascribes divine intervention at the other. Doesn't that seem like moral values are different from ideals?

"I did all that for my Children. It's not right to deprive my cute li' goblins of a land of milk and honey..." - Melkor, on Trial during the First Chaining.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Guns don't kill people, spinning bullets discharged at high velocity do.

This is off-topic, but here's a good one: if guns kill people, then silverware makes Michael Moore fat (assuming he doesn't eat with his fingers...which may be assuming too much). Ha!

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Lush

- just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless.

This is not strictly true. Frodo's sacrifice of his own enjoyment of the Shire for the sake of his fellow hobbits was entirely selfless. In the end, he had the opportunity to visit Aman as a result, but only retrospect could have shown him that chain of events. Though virtue sometimes does lead to a good end, that end is rarely foreseeable, which is why virtue is always best practiced for its own sake: for the sake of one's soul, as well as for the sake of others.

Perhaps looking after the condition of one's soul could be considered true self-interest, in which case virtue really isn't selfless at all... Though, the condition of one's soul is hardly what most people would term one's highest interest these days, so maybe we only agree because we define our terms differently.