[Boromir88]

I only skimmed through the link because I really don't see much merit in what many of the posters were saying. They seem only to have a vague idea with what they are talking about and others miss the mark completely.

I just had to get that out of the way, they're not why I'm writing a post. Tumhalad you have brought up some very good questions and I think this is going to become a "hot" thread.

Can there be a reconciliation between Tolkien and modernists? I don't see why there has to be one, as this "clash" between Tolkien and modernism is I think one that is non-existant (and is made up in the minds of critics like David Brin).

I will point out another author I greatly enjoy to read, I love his books (even though they are "children's books") and that is Terry Pratchett. Who happens to be a humanist. Pratchett has had both and admiring and critical view, of Tolkien. I think Pratchett can put his admiration in words better than I could:

"I can't remember where I was when JFK was shot, but I can remember exactly, where and when I was when I first read JRR Tokien. It was New Years eve 1961."

And this one...which has often been taken out of context as Pratchett slamming Tolkien as merely writing "children's stories," yet he wasn't downplaying what Tolkien wrote at all:

If you don't believe that Tolkien is the greatest writer there ever was when you are 13 years old there is something wrong with you. If you still believe that when you are 53 there really is something wrong with you.

I say this has been taken out of context because Pratchett is:
1. An author who primarily write's children's stories...his famous Discworld novels are targeted for the young fantasy audience
2. When saying this Pratchett was 53 years old himself.
So, Pratchett, as is his normal style, was poking fun at himself and not "downgrading" Tolkien's stories by any means.

In fact, Pratchett is a staunch defender of the fantasy genre and believes that fantasy authors can wield a lot of influence...it certainly had a strong influence on him:

"Fantasy isn’t just about wizards and silly wands. It’s about seeing the world from new directions."

And in an interview Linda Richards she makes the comment that Practchett:

"...believes he owes a debt to the science fiction/fantasy genre which he grew up out of..."

So, Pratchett is at least one humanist author (although he jokes he's a "bad humanist" because he can be "persuaded.") who credits Tolkien not only the influence that Tolkien had on him, but what Tolkien had done for the fantasy genre.

Pratchett is critical of Tolkien's books, but not for it being "anti-modern," or simply "childrens stories," just some things he didn't like. For instance, he explained to BBC's Mark Lawson when he first read The Lord of the Rings he didn't like how as an orc or a troll you were stuck, there was "no redemption" for you, and he believed the Elves were evil tricksters that were up to no good. So, Pratchett's always been a voice for the fantasy genre and has always admired the author who had a profound impact on his own writing...despite being a humanist.

With that said, I'd also like to put the Lord of the Rings into a historical context, because then you can see and understand the time Tolkien was writing in, is greatly different than our world now.

Tolkien lived in a time when "new technology" meant "new weapons that could kill hundred, thousands, and millions of people almost instantly" (machine guns, chemical weapons, the H-bomb...etc). "New technology" meant "production tycoons stripping the land of all its resources and moving on to the next piece of land." The idea of "conservation of nature" was pretty much unheard of. I don't know much about the rest of the world, but in the States the idea of "conservation" didn't take action until Teddy Roosevelt was persuaded by his friend John Muir and Roosevelt established a National Parks system. Yes, technology did (and has) led to progression, but technology has been a major destroyer of life and nature (especially during Tolkien's life).

Let's also look at Tolkien's feelings of the "chateaux generals" (as termed by Sir John Keegan) that sprung up during World War I, because these generals (as opposed to fighting on the fronts with their men), stayed miles from the front lines in nice chateaux. In Janet Brennan Croft's War and the Works of JRR Tolkien she makes the astute remark:

Leadership in the forefront of battle is a moral duty for generals and others in Middle-earth.

Leading from behind is morally suspect in Middle-earth and tactically flawed as well.

Then let's not forget that after World War I democracies all over Europe were struggling, they were failing, and falling apart. Democracies were being seen as "weak" and "unable to fix the problems" Europe faced after World War I.

Putting it in a historical perspective, is it really a wonder than that Tolkien writes a story where "technology" is linked to destruction (Saruman), the great generals (Aragorn and Theoden) are the ones who lead from the front and in Theoden's case die in "glory" while the bad generals (Denethor) stay cut off from their soldiers and in their towers to "think," and that Gondor, Rohan, Erebor...etc are ruled by Kings?