Fantasy Morality

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I have an emotional and perhaps irrational dislike for the academic perspective that holds the First and Second Age stuff as canon, as cleanly trumping interpretation of the Third Age stuff.

And who exactly do you think has been putting forward this position?

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

And who exactly do you think has been putting forward this position?

I have spent a good deal of time on the Fourth Turning web site, a forum that discusses a modern theory of cyclical history. (Little to do with Dakêsîntrah's ancient cyclical perspective. These cycles last about four score and seven years.) I learned there to discuss ideas rather than name names. I'd be pleased to discuss ideas, but am not inclined to call people out, to turn things personal and partisan.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

blantyr–

No, I mean did you understand that in the latter part of this thread we have been arguing, not about the original subject, but about Dakêsîntrah's
claims regarding the supposed esoteric symbolism of... um... anything and everything? I ask, because neither of you sounds as if you do.

No, I sort of glazed out with his first two long posts. He went on too much of a tangent for me. I guess it was enough of a tangent that the academic perspective would have to dominate.

I can see something of a cyclical pattern in Tolkien if I squint and tilt my head sideways. The Fourth Turning cycle theory suggests a major crisis every four score and seven years. Tolkien has a crisis at the end of each Age. Both might be viewed better as a spiral than a circle, as at the end of each crisis the culture has gown and adjusted. Rather than return to where one once was one ends up standing on the shoulders of the giants that navigated the crisis. Toynbee in A Study of History presents another cyclical perspective, of civilizations that rise and fall. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations works on a similar scale.

But these are historical rather than mythic cycles. None of them apply very well to Tolkien. Way tangential.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I learned there to discuss ideas rather than name names. I'd be pleased to discuss ideas, but am not inclined to call people out, to turn things personal and partisan.

As a matter of polite discourse, it is always a good thing to avoid ad hominem attacks, and simply focus on the topic at hand--but if you're going to jump into an argument (or discussion, if "argument" sounds divisive rather than logical to you), it helps to know what ideas you're debating against... and the whole thread is a matter of public record. While it's laudable to avoid saying "Downer X is a blithering idiot" and "Downer Y is clearly an idiot," there is nothing wrong at all with saying "Downer A, Downer B, and Downer C all seem to be arguing from an intellectualist perspective--insert quotations here--and I think they're missing the boat with regards to the proper spirit of Tolkien--insert quotation from Tolkien here."

Debate works on the ability to refer to the person you are debating--not as an object of attack, but as the one who is articulating the argument you arguing against. If you don't think that you can charitably tell whose posts we ought to be keeping in mind when reading your arguments, it's very difficult to have any sort of precise idea what it is you're putting forward, since what you put forward is directly tied to what you're putting it against.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Pitch

To be honest, I rather liked leap's first post - which doesn't mean I have to agree with each and every statement therein.

Well, that's your opinion, Pitch. Mine is that he was most extraordinarily rude.

Originally Posted by blantyr

I learned there to discuss ideas rather than name names. I'd be pleased to discuss ideas, but am not inclined to call people out, to turn things personal and partisan.

My point is that, in fact, nobody (not even the thread starter) was maintaining the point of view you seem ascribe to us collectively. You see, sometimes names do help, blantyr. I also think it's a good idea, in general, not to leap blindly into a debate.

Originally Posted by blantyr

I don't know that any of us ought to consider ourselves keepers and defenders of the proper spirit of Tolkien. He wrote different works in different styles at different points in his career. I don't know that there is any single 'proper' spirit. I feel it is art, and that beauty in art comes to a great extent from the perspective of the observer. Even if there was a proper spirit of Tolkien, different aspects of it would resonate in different readers.

An excellent point, and one I couldn't agree with more. On that note, perhaps you should think twice next time before you post in support of someone who is heavily laying down the law about what topics others may or may not discuss, and in what fashion?

EDIT:X'd with Nogrod.