And it slips through our fingers

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I do sense melancholy in Tolkien, a wistfulness and an acknowledgment that there can never be complete victory, at least in the frame of this world. Yet I never sense loss of hope. Perhaps we are missing the boat on this thread. Yes, in Tolkien's mind the long defeat is there, but so too are the victories won at such a hard price. To take those away, to ignore or belittle them, is to wipe away what makes it all worthwhile. The diminishing is there, yet so is the meaning that stands behind our actions.

I see that there is a lot of hope too, indeed it comes through as strongly as the sense of sadness and regret. But this hope is very bittersweet. It is all that is left to cling on to when Middle Earth gets really difficult. There are few certainties, and for some of the characters at times they have no other certainty than their sense of hope; here I'm thinking of Frodo and Sam in particular.

The years have brought the same cycle to Middle Earth, slow descent into war, the feeling that all is lost, and then victory, brought about by hope building the courage of the people. But some people forget the lessons of the past. It brings to mind what Tolkien himself experienced, taking part in WWI, supposedly the war to end all wars, only to see his own son enlisted in an even more horrific war; and it was hope which bolstered the morale needed to acgieve victory in both situations. Sadly, war still goes on, as does persecution and suffering.

I think that this is what is meant by a 'long defeat'. People soon forget the struggles of the past and start new wars. In the 20th century conflicts happened one after the other. Middle Earth was luckier in that it did have extensive peace between wars, but it is the same endless cycle. The New Shadow shows just how Tolkien couldn't picture Middle Earth even in the early fourth age totally without troubles. Yes, it's a bleak picture, but hope is still vital, even if it is bittersweet.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

The diminishing of things is one aspect of Tolkien's stories that has always fascinated me. The idea that things generally get worse or weaker over time certainly makes for less happy endings. It adds to the tragedy. There are numerous examples: the decline of Middle-earth in general; the Elves; Numenor; the race of Men; the Hobbits and the Dwarves.

The examples that you give all seem to point towards a progression from the "fantastical" to the "mundane", which I suppose is inevitable in a series of epic fantasy tales which are said to be set in our own pre-history.

Originally Posted by davem

Others have pointed out (Flieger for one) that Tolkien had an 'Elvish' aspect to his character, a yearning for a lost ideal past. Maybe that's what comes through in his writings. He can accuse the Elves of wishing to 'embalm' the world, fix it into an ideal state from which it can never move on, but he has this nostalgic tendency himself.

This is an interesting point. The Elves yearn for a lost past and so attempt to "embalm" the world to preserve as much of that ideal past as they can. This tendency in Elves, together with their immortality, has always seemed rather "unnatural" to me, since it seems to work against and suppress the natural cycle of life, which is very much concerned with sweeping away the old to make way for the new. In this sense, Men in Tolkien's world come across to me as much more "natural" creatures than Elves (which is, I suppose, pradoxical in some ways, with Elves being portrayed as very much more in touch with "nature").

It is interesting, I think, that Tolkien to an extent recognised the "Elvish tendency" as a shortcoming, while (as davem states) very much sharing that tendency himself. As someone who is very much in favour of progress (although not necessarily always the way in which it is used), I find myself very much at odds with the approach of both Tolkien and his Elvish creations in this regard, since progress (the new replacing the old) seems very much a natural process to me. And yest here is another paradox. Although progress is a natural consequence of our development of intelligence, it can (and frequently does) put us at odds with nature.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

As someone who is very much in favour of progress (although not necessarily always the way in which it is used), I find myself very much at odds with the approach of both Tolkien and his Elvish creations in this regard, since progress (the new replacing the old) seems very much a natural process to me. And yest here is another paradox. Although progress is a natural consequence of our development of intelligence, it can (and frequently does) put us at odds with nature.

I share your hesitation over the elven nostalgia, SpM. I have never really been an enthusiastic admirer of elves because their concept of art or perfection is this embalming.

However, I do question an assumption you make here. It is one thing to accept and welcome the replacing of the old by the new, but is this necessarily progress or is it simply replacement, change, difference?

Progress I thought entails some movement towards a future goal or cummulative improvement, forward or onward movement. (Unless of course it means a royal journey. )

I think you assume that the 'new' is better without logically arguing how or by what means.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think you assume that the 'new' is better without logically arguing how or by what means.

I see progress as being very much on a par with evolution. It is a natural process, both in the sense that it is a product of nature (the development of human intelligence) and in the sense that it always seeks to replace the old with the new. But that does not necessarily mean that the "new" is inevitably better. Like evolution, it seeks to adapt and improve, but it does not always throw up the right results.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I see progress as being very much on a par with evolution. It is a natural process, both in the sense that it is a product of nature (the development of human intelligence) and in the sense that it always seeks to replace the old with the new. But that does not necessarily mean that the "new" is inevitably better. Like evolution, it seeks to adapt and improve, but it does not always throw up the right results.

At the risk of going off topic, I would ask SpM if you know Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. He argues that different iconographies of evolution--the ladder, the march, the cone--create different interpretations of our current data, the "march of progress" being the most erroneous in his argument. He objects that

The history of life is a story of massive removal followed by differentiation within a few surviving stocks, not the conventional tale of steadily increasing excellence, complexity, and diversity. p. 25

The familiar iconographies of evolution are all directed--sometimes crudely, sometimes subtly--toward reinforcing a comfortable view of human inevitability and superiority. p. 28

The march of progress is the canonical representation of evolution--the one picture immediately grasped and viscerally understood by all. p. 31

Life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress. Most people may know this as a phrase to be uttered, but not as a concept brought into the deep interior of understanding. Hence we continually make errors inspired by unconscious allegiance to the ladder of progress, even when we explicitly deny such a superannuated view of life. p. 35

He has some great quotes from material which points towards European man as the ultimate pinnacle in this false ladder. He even argues that Lovejoy's classic The Great Chain of Being shows the pre-evolutionary pedigree of the idea.
I suppose in some degree Tolkien's sense of the passing away of the elves, dwarves and eventually hobbits with the concomitant rise of men is part of this concept.

But I don't wish to confuse Tolkien's Middle-earth race of Men with our world race of homo sapiens, which is what I think happens to davem's argument here.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, in the context of your point, 'progree' itself can be motivated by the same desire - control, domination & coercion of the world. We don't even have that. We are closer to Sauron than they [ie, elves]in that. Sauron desired control of the world without any thought as to whether it was beautiful or ugly & if anything that sums Men up perfectly. Perhaps if we were more like the Elves then we could call our changes 'progress'. As it is, I don't think we can. The Elves love the world for what it was, we love it for what it could be. They look backward, we look forward. They are driven by regret, we by hope - but I don't think either of those things necessarily manifest in our actions. Which should we make our judgement of the different races on - what drives us, or what we actually do?

After all, if you establish a difference between our world and a fantasy world, and then criticise Rowlings for muddling up "our world" in comparison to an apparently self-contained secondary world of Tolkien's creation--

Originally Posted by davem on the "Outrage" thread

Problem being - the magic originates within this world. It does not have an external source. There is nothing beyond the circles of the world. Neither is there any other place to go to after death - Harry's parents merely hang around as ghosts - inevitably, as there is nowhere for them to go. Also, nothing can 'break in' to this world. This world is a closed system. If people are to be 'saved' they must save themselves, there is no external,objective standard of Good (or evil).

Tolkien's 'escape' includes (as it must if it is to be a true escape) the escape from death - ie the escape from the circles of the World, to a place where there is 'more than memory'. In HP all there is after death is memory - ghosts. What writers like Rowling do is not make this world more 'magical' they simply make it odder & more chaotic. The 'magic' has no logic, no explanation. In a fairy story set in a secondary world this would not be a problem - it would be simply a 'given'. When it happens in this world it requires an explanation in terms of the 'rules' of this world - or at least an explanation of why this world's rules are incorrect.

then perhaps it would be best to distinquish between Tolkien's "Men" and us.
At the very least, I think it is a great overexaggeration to treat of all "Men/homo sapiens" as lacking any sense of beauty in their desires for knowledge/change.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

After all, if you establish a difference between our world and a fantasy world, and then criticise Rowlings for muddling up "our world" in comparison to an apparently self-contained secondary world of Tolkien's creation--

then perhaps it would be best to distinquish between Tolkien's "Men" and us.
At the very least, I think it is a great overexaggeration to treat of all "Men/homo sapiens" as lacking any sense of beauty in their desires for knowledge/change.

I wouldn't claim that all 'Men' lack any sense of beauty. I do think beauty is out of fashion at the moment. The things we create are not designed to be beautiful - sometimes beauty is taken into consideration as an afterthought, but cost, functionality, & ease of production are foremost in the creator's & producer's minds. We live in a utilitarian age.

As to the seperation of the worlds...

Tolkien's secondary world was intended to be this world in the ancient past, but because of that it is by its nature a closed world that we cannot enter - other than imaginatively by reading about it. Mentally we do enter into that world, physically we cannot. It is seperate, self contained, but we may learn things about ourselves through our experience of it - though that is not its purpose, or it would be allegory.

The issue with Rowling is different - though I must admit that my playing of Devil's advocate in the Outrage thread has got me somewhat backed into a corner - my own position was best expressed in my first post on that thread. Rowling is presenting this world - & only this world - in her stories. Her characters live in this world & to that extent it is a contemporary novel with fantastical aspects - Magic realism as opposed to true Fantasy. I'm not saying that we cannot learn something about ourselves as a species from her books, just that we don't learn very much.

Tolkien's work - even The Hobbit, a'children's' book - deals with profound 'spiritual' questions. Rowling's doesn't, & the argument that it is only a children's book doesn't hold water - HDM is also a 'children's book' & while (in my opinion) it fails to deal with the themes it sets out to explore & Pullman's 'theology' is simplistic in the extreme, at least he makes the effort to ask, & offer answers to, meaningful questions. At least Pullman respects children (& Art) enough to try & deal with the eternal verites. Rowling offers a twee 'morality', asks banal questions & answers them with platitudes.

But this belongs on the other thread, so I apologise for straying...

[Lalwendë]

We don't know if the new age of Men in Middle Earth brought about the kind of progress which decimates the environment (as seen in the destruction of the environment around Tolkien's beloved Sarehole Mill), so he does not tell us whether he thought progress was in essence 'a good thing'. But he does show us that despite the Elves wishing to embalm their past, the envirnments they lived in were beautiful, and he does show us that Saruman's idea of progress was destructive.

Tolkien does not say that progress is good, but neither does he say that embalming the past is necessarily bad. What he definitely does tell us is that the wrong kind of progress is destructive.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

However, I do question an assumption you make here. It is one thing to accept and welcome the replacing of the old by the new, but is this necessarily progress or is it simply replacement, change, difference?

I think that this is the kind of progress that Tolkien did not like. By way of example, in my own city they ceaselessly demolish and rebuild parts of the centre; in one case they have replaced a bland 60's office block with a bland 00's office block. This not progress, it is indeed just change.

I doubt that this kind of 'progress' is natural at all, or even appreciated. Having just spent a week in a place crammed with old buildings and equally crammed with tourists, while my own city is quite the opposite of a tourist destination, it suggests that as humans, we prefer an element of 'embalming' the past just as the Elves did.

I'd agree that I'd find the Elves' approach to Art incredibly stifling (being keen on hearing the latest music and seeing the latest films, especially where they stir up the 'establishment' a bit), but their approach to the environment is one which I think as humans we could learn from. Now where's a tree I can go and hug?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I wouldn't claim that all 'Men' lack any sense of beauty. I do think beauty is out of fashion at the moment. The things we create are not designed to be beautiful - sometimes beauty is taken into consideration as an afterthought, but cost, functionality, & ease of production are foremost in the creator's & producer's minds. We live in a utilitarian age.

This is your opinion or interpretation of events, but much could be said about it. For instance, does this reflect your idea of a falling away of an ideal, a long defeat?

But opinion remains just that--opinion--without evidence. I know writers for whom beauty is an important consideration of their work, artists and architects as well as engineers. And even more significantly, I could provide examples from ancient history up to the romantic age where so called 'utilitarian' concerns governed the creation and building of things, even if they weren't consciously or specifically entered into in the process. I'm willing to bet that more people now have access to 'beauty'--however they choose to understand that concept--than ever had it in the past, in their private lives and personal habitat.

Also, it is sometimes easily overlooked that economy of material plays an important role in the creation of an aesthetic of beauty, as, in fact, can functionality. The demarcation between 'utilitarian' and 'beauty' is not such a simple division as you suggest here, for mathematics plays an important role in concepts of proportion as well as function. This is where I likely do not develope much sympathy for the elves, as I regard the notion that the past had a sense of beauty whereas we do not as a false notion, derived from Romantic concepts (you did quote Blake), but concepts which do not necessarily reflect our actual working efforts.

And, furthermore, in our recognition that some previous standards of "Beauty" represented class and race concepts, I would argue that we are closer now to an understanding that beauty arises from a kind of wholistic or integral quality. Even that the pursuit of beauty itself as an object falsifies the notion. Which is, again, why I dislike the emphasis on the elves's grace, height and proportions as reflecting their beauty as a race. It smacks of old European values. The hobbits might proudly proclaim their worth, and the story might reflect their value, but for the narrator to uphold the elves as an epitome of beauty reflects a notion of beauty which does not pertain in our world--or which increasingly does not. Tastes change.

called away before I can explain further....

Indeed, if there is "truth" in a design, then there also is beauty.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

This is an interesting point. The Elves yearn for a lost past and so attempt to "embalm" the world to preserve as much of that ideal past as they can. This tendency in Elves, together with their immortality, has always seemed rather "unnatural" to me, since it seems to work against and suppress the natural cycle of life, which is very much concerned with sweeping away the old to make way for the new. In this sense, Men in Tolkien's world come across to me as much more "natural" creatures than Elves (which is, I suppose, pradoxical in some ways, with Elves being portrayed as very much more in touch with "nature").

I've always seen this paradox as inherent in Elvish nature - its not 'wrong' its simply the way they approach things. 'Eternity is in love with the productions of time' as Blake said. They are 'outside' nature - for all their love of it it is different. Everythin else dies, they remain. Art is their only refuge & it would seem that what drives them is a desire to make the natural world like themselves - immortal. That, I think, accounts for their sadness. It is also what drives them to create the Rings. Their 'fall' in this comes not from their yearning but from their desire to 'actualise' it. They seek to dominate what they love, & re-make it 'in their own image' - Tolkien says they 'flirted with Sauron' - & I don't think he was simply referring to accepting his aid in the making of the Rings. Rather, I think he meant they 'flirted' with what he symbolised - control & domination of all life.

Of course, in the context of your point, 'progree' itself can be motivated by the same desire - control, domination & coercion of the world. So, even Men can 'flirt with Sauron' - not in the Elvish sense of 'embalming' but in the sense of wishing to re-make the world in our own image, the way we think it ought to be. And at least the Elves were driven by the desire to make the world beautiful. We don't even have that. We are closer to Sauron than they in that. Sauron desired control of the world without any thought as to whether it was beautiful or ugly & if anything that sums Men up perfectly. Perhaps if we were more like the Elves then we could call our changes 'progress'. As it is, I don't think we can. The Elves love the world for what it was, we love it for what it could be. They look backward, we look forward. They are driven by regret, we by hope - but I don't think either of those things necessarily manifest in our actions. Which should we make our judgement of the different races on - what drives us, or what we actually do?

[Lathriel]

davem
Your post reminded me of a quote from The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

"tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther....And one fine morning----- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

In this qoute hope is strongly expressed. That we never give up hoping for something better to come along although we are never able to reach it. We look to the future with hope that things will become great. Possibly as great as they used to be.