Outrage?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I don't think its that Men had no ability with magic, but that magic was not an innate ability - it was a 'power' they could take to themselves, against the will of Eru. This is what leads them to evil - they cannot use magic with 'authority'. Thus it will always tend to corrupt them, whatever their motivation in using it.

I think it is a double-faceted issue. First there is the motivation; a nazgul falls to the dark side "sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with" (cf The shadow of the past); also, Bilbo was safe for a good while from the corruption of the ring (and later saved altogether) because he showed pity in possessing it. The other side would be the mere strength of mind of the user: the "pre-power" rings were just dangerous to Men, not corrupting, in and of themselves - also, Aragorn does resist Sauron's influence when he using the power of the palantir.

Tolkien stated that 'magic' is an aspect of the Machine, a seeking after technology to control & coerce things/people, hence the Ring is the ultimate Machine within Middle-earth, & the other Rings are lesser Machines.

Well, he does distinguish between kinds of magic, esspecially in relation to the one of the elves (cf Letter #131):

"I have not used 'magic' consistently, and indeed the Elven-queen Galadriel is obliged to remonstrate with the Hobbits on their confused use of the word both for the devices and operations of the Enemy, and for those of the Elves. I have not, because there is not a word for the latter (since all human stories have suffered the same confusion). But the Elves are there (in my tales) to demonstrate the difference. Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation"

Art attempts to (sub) create a secondary world in the mind, while the Machine is an attempt to alter the world

I think that the elven Art too alters the world, but it still remains "good", as noted above - they weren't "bulldozing the real world, nor coercing other wills".

All technology (which in Middle-earth includes Rings, Palantiri, etc) is 'evil' in that its purpose is to remake the world in the user's own image - even if that was not the intent behind their making.

"It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills" - letter #155 .

Originally Posted by Kath

The Witch King and Isildur were powerful people, and could see how magic would enable them to gain more power and more control,

I don't think that Isildur desired more power and control through the ring (which would have been a sign of coruption, which I doubt, since in his scroll he is all too willing to leave the ring to his heirs). He considered the ring "of all the works of Sauron the only fair" (cf. Council of Elrond, FotR).

Surely magic can only corrupt if there is the potential for corruption, and there need to be circumstances to create this potential.

Yet this potential exists in all Ea (even for the valar, who could at least err as a result, cf Letter #212, or show possesiveness, such as in the rising of the Pellori Mountains, cf Myths Transformed), since evil/corruption have been sub-creatively introduced and futhermore there is the actual marring of Melkor.

Looked from this point of view, there is a notion in Tolkien, that you could help things with technology - although it would end up in sacrifices'

Concerning the real-world, he has a rather hard stance:

Originally Posted by Letter #75 to Christopher

There is the tragedy and despair of all machinery laid bare. Unlike an which is content to create a new secondary world in the mind, it attempts to actualize desire, and so to create power in this World; and that cannot really be done with any real satisfaction. Labour-saving machinery only creates endless and worse labour. And in addition to this fundamental disability of a creature, is added the Fall, which makes our devices not only fail of their desire but turn to new and horrible evil. So we come inevitably from Daedalus and Icarus to the Giant Bomber. It is not an advance in wisdom! This terrible truth, glimpsed long ago by Sam Butler, sticks out so plainly and is so horrifyingly exhibited in our time, with its even worse menace for the future, that it seems almost a world wide mental disease that only a tiny minority perceive it.

[As far as outcome of the culmination of evil use of the machine, he has little doubt: (Letter #96)Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter - leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines.]

In his fantasy realm, his attitude is a bit more nuanced; he is more tolerant, in some cases, to the use and users of technology/Machine; Sauron "was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up", cf Letter #153; the elves of Eregion themselves, (even though compared to the catholics who would make tools, which given the circumstances, "are pretty certain to serve evil ends") are not necessarily to be blamed, even if aware of the consequences of their actions.

However, he also states (Letter #155):

"The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' - with destructive and evil effects - because 'magicians', who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so . The basic motive for magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological one: the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such."

[In matters of writting style, it is also stated in the Notion Club Papers, that "real fairy-stories don't pretend to produce impossible mechanical effects by bogus machines. " - a role which is no doubt left to magic itself ]

[davem]

I think that the elven Art too alters the world, but it still remains "good", as noted above - they weren't "bulldozing the real world, nor coercing other wills".

Well, they weren't 'coercing' perhaps, but they were controlling - there was no 'stain' on Lorien. We can only take this to mean no parasites, no fungi, nothing to mar its 'perfection'. As I said, the Lorien we are introduced to in LotR is a 'hyper-natural' place, almost a higher state of nature, a glimpse of Arda Unmarred, yet there is no sense that it has been 'forced' into being that way. We don't even question how it is that way, we simply accept it. It is not an 'alteration' of the primary world but rather another 'state' of it.

Once Tolkien introduces the story of Galadriel's desire to rule a land free of death & corruption & her use of Nenya to bring this about, suddenly we are dealing with "bulldozing the real world,", because she is not allowing natural processes to occur. She will not allow death to enter in to Lorien. The trees are not allowedto die, parasites are not allowed to exist, because she does not want them to. Her suppport of the Ringbearer is a surrendering to nature, an allowing it to be. Only then could she truly be herself.

Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation"

This may describe the Elves at their best (Vanyar & Teleri), but I can't see that it applies to either the exiled Noldor or the Sindar. Certainly his condemnation of them as 'embalmers' would seem to contradict this statement.

[Raynor]

Once Tolkien introduces the story of Galadriel's desire to rule a land free of death & corruption & her use of Nenya to bring this about, suddenly we are dealing with "bulldozing the real world,", because she is not allowing natural processes to occur.

I wonder what is natural indeed (in Ea); as far as I can see it, a place in which the essence of Melkor is spread throughout creation, accelerating all decay, phisical and not only, is not natural. The fact that she tries to stay that decay isn't in any less blamable that the efforts of the valar to undo the evils of Melkor. Is the world bulldozed in Valinor? I think not - and that it occurs only where the influence of the Marrer can reach.

This may describe the Elves at their best (Vanyar & Teleri), but I can't see that it applies to either the exiled Noldor or the Sindar.

From the Sil, we pretty much know that the vanyar "received song and poetry" - artful indeed, but it is not the Art we are talking about; the Teleri are enamoured of the sea, with the height of their Art were the swan ships of Alqualonde.

The noldor? Oh, the noldor.. . They learned mostly from Aule, the smith of gods, and thus became "the most skilled of the Elves" (cf. The begining of days, Silmarillion). In Of Eldamar and the princes of Eldalie, we are also told that the "Noldor were beloved of Aule, and he and his people came often among them. Great became their knowledge and their skill; yet even greater was their thirst for more knowledge, and in many things they soon surpassed their teachers"; they even made Manwe's sceptre, and of their chief objects, the silmarils, it is said in Letter #131: "by the making of gems the sub-creative function of the Elves is chiefly symbolized". To conclude, I am pretty sure it was (primarily) the Noldor who Tolkien had in mind when talking about the elven Art.

So was Tolkien a conservative "luddite" (you remember this James Ludd, who went to destroy machines?), who just tried to say that machines are bad, or was his relation to technologies' more subtle?

Imo, letters #75 and #96, quoted above, pretty much points to the first option.

So should we be happy with the new things (peace, stability, welfare etc.) or sigh for the lost (action, heroism, virtues, honour etc.)?

Well, Estel, hope, would imply that of all His designs, the issue must be for his Children joy (cf Finrod's debate) - so I will go with the first option, again .

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I wonder what is natural indeed (in Ea); as far as I can see it, a place in which the essence of Melkor is spread throughout creation, accelerating all decay, phisical and not only, is not natural. The fact that she tries to stay that decay isn't in any less blamable that the efforts of the valar to undo the evils of Melkor. Is the world bulldozed in Valinor? I think not - and that it occurs only where the influence of the Marrer can reach.

Well, two wrongs don't make a right. She is still attempting to dominate the world (or at least her little part of it). It may not be 'blamable', but it is an atttempt at dominance over nature. Yes, she's playing her part in the battle against Sauron, but in the end she surrenders & accepts that she cannot do that without a moral risk. The only guarantee of victory is to take the Ring - which is the end of the particular road she had chosen. In the end I think she realises that what she did was wrong & repents of it.

To conclude, I am pretty sure it was (primarily) the Noldor who Tolkien had in mind when talking about the elven Art.

I think this would apply to the pre-Rebellion Noldor only

[Raynor]

She is still attempting to dominate the world (or at least her little part of it). It may not be 'blamable', but it is an atttempt at dominance over nature.

Yet domination is the realm of the Enemy, not of the elves; I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one .

The only guarantee of victory is to take the Ring

I doubt there is any power in Middle Earth who could wield the ring and achieve a _desireable_ victory - the only outcome is another Sauron.

I think this would apply to the pre-Rebellion Noldor only

It depends on which moment we decide the rebellion started; even if so, what Vanyar/Teleri object could match Celebrimbor's Ellesar(s)?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Yet domination is the realm of the Enemy, not of the elves; I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one

I wonder about Galadriel's words to Frodo, that what he saw in the Mirror 'is also in my mind'

I doubt there is any power in Middle Earth who could wield the ring and achieve a _desireable_ victory - the only outcome is another Sauron.

Yet she's clearly considered the possibility of taking it...

It depends on which moment we decide the rebellion started; even if so, what Vanyar/Teleri object could match Celebrimbor's Ellesar(s)?

We don't know what they got up to after the Noldor cleared off....

[Raynor]

I wonder about Galadriel's words to Frodo, that what he saw in the Mirror 'is also in my mind'

She was reffering to the Eye, which she most likely saw before in the mirror.

Yet she's clearly considered the possibility of taking it...

Yet how much of that consideration stemmed from herself, and how much was a mere influence of the ring (which apparently tempted even Gandalf)? The ring's influence is too general to describe her, Imo.

We don't know what they got up to after the Noldor cleared off....

A matter of personal opinion I guess .

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Raynor] Well, he does distinguish between kinds of magic, esspecially in relation to the one of the elves (cf Letter #131):
"I have not used 'magic' consistently, and indeed the Elven-queen Galadriel is obliged to remonstrate with the Hobbits on their confused use of the word both for the devices and operations of the Enemy, and for those of the Elves. I have not, because there is not a word for the latter (since all human stories have suffered the same confusion). But the Elves are there (in my tales) to demonstrate the difference. Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation"But what is this art - power dualism about? In this context one would have to read 'art' as conjoining with an overtly romantic vision of artistry, fancied by the late 19th century poets' & painters' that got hold of the wider public imagination, at least after the WW2, and with the ideas of power then attaching to the nuclear bomb, Stalin etc. (Tolkien, of course being academically schooled, should have been cognizant of these ideas quite earlier, with lots of fellows' being productive artists' at the time). But what I myself am interested in, is, whether this interpretation on Tolkien is correct to begin with.

So was Tolkien a conservative "luddite" (you remember this James Ludd, who went to destroy machines?), who just tried to say that machines are bad, or was his relation to technologies' more subtle?

I would here vote for a more "down to earth" Tolkien, who saw the inevitableness of the advances of technologies and the requirement of sacrifices in front of them - that could actually bring forth good things, but quite a loss as well, f.ex. as a disappearance of "magic" with it. It's kind of a basic thing: when things change, they will be different: you lose something and you acquire something. And with a certain personality, you just take the new good things as given, and just make a slight sigh to the remembrance of the things past.

So should we be happy with the new things (peace, stability, welfare etc.) or sigh for the lost (action, heroism, virtues, honour etc.)? That's a question we could put to ourselves too....

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I would here vote for a more "down to earth" Tolkien, who saw the inevitableness of the advances of technologies and the requirement of sacrifices in front of them - that could actually bring forth good things, but quite a loss as well, f.ex. as a disappearance of "magic" with it. It's kind of a basic thing: when things change, they will be different: you lose something and you acquire something. And with a certain personality, you just take the new good things as given, and just make a slight sigh to the remembrance of the things past.

So should we be happy with the new things (peace, stability, welfare etc.) or sigh for the lost (action, heroism, virtues, honour etc.)? That's a question we could put to ourselves too....

There seems, however, in Tolkien's Letters and Ring story, a sense of loss of something very good and beautiful, and the onset of something qualitatively inferior, and less good.

I see your point, Raynor, that Galadriel is trying to preserve a reality, in Lorien, that is the ideal and original reality, as expressed in Valinor. However, I see davem's point as well, that such an endeavor is vain in Middle Earth, and as such, not only doomed to fail (as she well knows .... "the long defeat" ....), but a mis-use; a technological effort, in as much as it is against the state of things. So even though the "state of things" in Middle Earth is cursed by Melkor's taint, it is nevertheless the way things are, and to try to stop them is to part from wisdom. Galadriel, as powerful as she was, was able to achieve the thing for a longer period of time, but only because Sauron's Ring still existed. Does that not clarify the futility of Galadriel's Art in the case of Lorien ... that it was based upon the existence of the One Ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?

[davem]

I think this is the point - Galadriel's motives may be right, her heart may be in the right place, but her methods are ultimately those of the Enemy. That's her tragedy in a way, & makes her acceptance of her doom (& the doom of Lorien) so poignant, coming as it does out of a realisation of her folly & a repentance for it.

[drigel]

Was her repentance directed towards her methods? Or rather was it directed towards the pride that drove her to ME in the first place? And once there, after an age, to rule? One needs to live in Blessed Realm to have a standard to shoot for, otherwise all you have is a Girdle that keeps everyone out. Whether her magic is parallel, or derives from the same source as Sauron's, her desire to rule and make order (to me) is what needs to be compared, if there is any comparison to make. But, this makes her poignancy much more of a human condition for me.

It seems to me, especially in the 2nd and 3rd ages, that she does see the end clearly. For her, a few thousand years is a fleeting thing. And if Sauron wasnt around marring things, her purpose in Lorien would be less clear. I dont see her regretting using her abilities, nor do I see her regretting the use of Nenya. Her regret reaches back before the sun and the moon rode the sky, when she was a young, fiery, ambitious, talented elf who was adventerous, and got caught up with some doomed Noldor. What was happening in Lorien was the last grasps that delayed an end that was hastened by what Sauron was doing.

all my opinion of course

[Bêthberry]

I cannot tell you all how many times, seeing this thread in my "New Subscribed Threads", that I have read the thread title as "Outage". And for a moment I sit there in confusion wondering who or what was outed.

Reading through this analysis of Galadriel has been intriguing, and it sets me off on a related idea, which I throw out here, for what it is worth. Do correct me--gently -- if I misinterpret the points here.

There seems to be some agreement that Galadriel's intentions were nostalgic, that is, a looking backward and longing for something viewed as better in the past. And, general agreement that while her intentions might have been admirable her method erred. Can we extrapolate this to many readers' interpretations of LotR?

It seems to me that many readers enjoy Tolkien because he offers a nostalgic vision of a past world that was better than our sordid present one--higher, finer, free of dross. It upholds an idealism of values and behaviour which, as many readers also point out, are absent from modern literature. (Critics, too, but I won't go there for this thread!) Obviously I am generalising here.

So, if we are to view Galadriel as tragically in err for her nostalgia, is there anything else in Tolkien which would "correct" or equally suggest that readers are in err for a nostalgic reading of Tolkien? (I'm using this term 'err' not proscriptively but simply descriptively for the sake of the argument here, as everyone knows that I don't subscribe to the theory that there is only one way of reading a text.) I am here suggesting that Galadriel is used as a model for a prime 'reader' of Middle-earth and that when we decode her reading as tragically wrong, we step back and see if this decoding can be applied--applicability!--to our own readings of Middle-earth. (Or those of some of us.)

Is it possible that Tolkien gives us a text which invites us to fall into the elvish habit of nostalgia, to enjoy it and revere it and be inspired by it, but in the end he provides subtle suggestions that such nostalgia is a false or misplaced longing? Does Tolkien undercut the major response he seems to create in his readers? Are we to repent of our reading?

I'm not saying he does, just throwing out some thoughts which the discussion here brought to mind as possibilities.

[littlemanpoet]

drigel: That Galadriel's methods included Art based upon the Technology of the Ring, shows how far she has fallen in her pride. So yes, it's most deeply the pride that she repents from, but also the method, for by not taking the Ring from Frodo, she places herself at the mercy of chance ('if chance you call it').

It occurs to me that Galadriel, for all her wisdom and power, has not seen certain things until Frodo shows them to her in his more intuitive wisdom. I call it intuitive because he was not entirely aware of what he was doing by offering her the Ring. For example, I doubt that Galadriel realized how far she had fallen until she was forced to examine herself in response to Frodo's offer.

Bêthberry: Galadriel's Art/Technology is not the only instance of this nostalgia in LotR. Other examples of it are Treebeard and the Ents, and indeed the entirety of the Rohirrim story-line, which is (in part) a 'might-have-been' but for the Norman conquest.

In our reading? Are you suggesting that we tend to read LotR according to late 20th century lenses and need to let it speak to us in a new 21st century way? And that Tolkien suggests this very thing in the course of the story? The end of the War of the Ring ushers in a completely new Age of Man (read Humanity). But the social norms don't change, only the demise (or diminishing) of Art (magic). Somehow I don't find in Tolkien an acceptance of this without much regret and mourning.

[drigel]

LMP well put. I wasnt implying that see saw all, merely the inevitable Defeat, and pre-Frodo - it was probably a vision where she would diminish, and, like her people, "...dwindle to a rustic folk of dell and cave, slowly to forget and to be forgotten". Post-Frodo, she "..will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel". What caused me to make the initial post was it seemed the sins of the ring maker were being thrown at the ring wielder. She (to me) didnt start the drama, but she did see how her ring could help affect her strategy of defiance towards Sauron.

Frodo bent his head. 'And what do you wish?' he said at last.
'That what should be shall be,' she answered. 'The love of the Elves for their land and their works is deeper than the deeps of the Sea, and their regret is undying and cannot ever wholly be assuaged. Yet they will cast all away rather than submit to Sauron: for they know him now. For the fate of Lothlorien you are not answerable, but only for the doing of your own task. Yet I could wish, were it of any avail, that the One Ring had never been wrought, or had remained for ever lost.'

This shows me that she knew her use of the technology would only at best be a long postponement of the inevitable, as all the Eldar (at least) knew by that time.

After all,

The evil that was devised long ago works on in many ways, whether Sauron himself stands or falls.

I would add (with toungue in cheek) also that Galadriel, with all her machinations faults and witchcraft, was a very key instrument in the bigger strategy of the defeat of Sauron, so one could say that her use of technology/magic and her desire for order and rule were meant to be thus.

Beth thats an intriguing thought. I would almost say Romanticism is rearing her head at the idea. But, I would say that, at this time, I dont have (or remember) a longing for the good old days, but something somewhere in my genes apparantly does, which marks the genious of the works.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Bêthberry: Galadriel's Art/Technology is not the only instance of this nostalgia in LotR. Other examples of it are Treebeard and the Ents, and indeed the entirety of the Rohirrim story-line, which is (in part) a 'might-have-been' but for the Norman conquest.

In our reading? Are you suggesting that we tend to read LotR according to late 20th century lenses and need to let it speak to us in a new 21st century way? And that Tolkien suggests this very thing in the course of the story? The end of the War of the Ring ushers in a completely new Age of Man (read Humanity). But the social norms don't change, only the demise (or diminishing) of Art (magic). Somehow I don't find in Tolkien an acceptance of this without much regret and mourning.

Now lmp, you know better than to suggest I would say there is one way to read a text.

I was simply trying a bit of applicability, extrapolating the logic suggested here about Galadriel to two items, LotR itself and the general ethos of readers who post here at the Downs. Is Galadriel a model for the average Downs reader? I merely ask. Do we have multiple images of the reader in LotR? Are the hobbits one kind of reader and the elves another and do readers find themselves reading the text the way their favoured character reads the events? Do some readers identify closely with the translator conceit that they have distance from these other modes? But this is to digress....

The logic developed here concerning Galadriel sought in the text itself to find a way to consider her character and behaviour, rather than impose an 'outside' criterion from the primary world--and that is in the finest tradition of discussion here at the Downs--to tweak out every little inconsistency or unexplained point in the Legendarium. You add a couple more examples that could be examined using the same approach. Treebeard and the Ents are likely candidates, of course, but even more intriguing is your point about Rohan. (You are getting into the mead hall business, aren't you! Splendid!)

What is the role of nostalgia in the Rohirric outlook, that is, the characters? Or are you saying that Tolkien himself created a nostalgic, revisionary history for The Mark?

I see that davme continues his great desire to find aspects of the author's psychology in the text. Intriguing this.

Originally Posted by drigel

Nice! I would suggest rather that Galadriel is used in LOTR as a model for a prime reader for the psychology of High Elves. You get a lot of history with Elrond and Cirdan. But with Galadriel, sigh, you get as close to Valimar as a mortal can be.

Well, Elrond isn't all High Elf is he? so is his nostalgia tempered by his understanding of the Gift of Death? Or is he 'saved' from Galadriel's error by his understanding?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I think this is the point - Galadriel's motives may be right, her heart may be in the right place, but her methods are ultimately those of the Enemy.

But that is exactly what makes the difference - the motives, because, as Tolkien states in Letter #155, both the good side and the evil one use the same means of magic.

Its interesting that when the ultimate Machine (the One) is destroyed so is Lorien

She had to depart, sooner or later; she realised the age of Men has come at last and it was about time she left.

So even though the "state of things" in Middle Earth is cursed by Melkor's taint, it is nevertheless the way things are, and to try to stop them is to part from wisdom.

I disagree with the "larger" meaning of your words - we are bound to fight the marring, which is the most formidable attack on Eru's creation. The marring is present everywhere; while in some places it is stronger (due to various factors in the past) and one could move to a "better" place, you can't escape it altogether - so you have to "fight" it, by whatever means available. Galadriel's influence on her surroundings is far less Machinistic than the very machines Men are bound to use in the history of their progress; her relation is one of cherishing, not of antagony.

[davem]

Is it possible that Tolkien gives us a text which invites us to fall into the elvish habit of nostalgia, to enjoy it and revere it and be inspired by it, but in the end he provides subtle suggestions that such nostalgia is a false or misplaced longing? Does Tolkien undercut the major response he seems to create in his readers? Are we to repent of our reading?

We wonders.... Was this diichotomy set up deliberately by Tolkien, or was it a reflection of his own inner conflict.

(Sorry for the long quote - this is from Verlyn Flieger's 'A Question of Time' pps 111 - 112)

But its just here that Tolkien falls foul of his own ambivalence about the passage of time. For all his stated philosophical position, he cannot help imbuing his narrative with a mixed message, a rueful rationale for change covering a deep nostalgia for what has passed and is passing, in spite of all its Hobbit jollity, its mushroom and pipeweed, its victories and celebrations, The Lord of the Rings is suffused with a sense of transience and loss. The Shire changes, the Ents never find the Entwives, Frodo loses his Ring, his finger, and himself and cannot really go home. “However the fortunes of war go," Theoden says to Gandalf, "may it not so end that many fair things pass from the earth?" (Two Towers 155). It does so end, and all the renewal and rejoicing do not put back what was lost. Theoden speaks for Tolkien, but so does Gandalf, when he replies to Theoden: "To such days we are doomed,"
The fact is that like his Elves, Tolkien hoarded memory, He, too regretted the past; he, too, was unwilling to face change and wanted to arrest history, to keep hold of the past in the present. He, too, wanted escape from what he called "the Robot Age," escape from the 'grim Assyrian' absurdity of top-hats, or the Morlockian horror of factories" (“On Fairy-Stories" 148, 150). And so, in a sense, he subverts his own message, surrounding his Elves and their lands with an aura of such golden nostalgia that their appeal is almost impossible to resist. But he also knew that real escape is impossible. We are where we are, and we cannot go back to where we were; we can only long to. Tolkien is susceptible to the Elven impulse and yet capable of seeing its fallacy, subject to the confusion of the heart that feels one thing and the head that knows another. And so there is a concealed sting in Lorien's beauty. Its timelessness is not the unspoiled perfection it seems. Rather, that very perfection is its flaw. It is a cautionary picture, closer in kind to the Ring than we'd like to think, shown to us in all its beauty to test if we can let it go.
The Lord of the Rings is, among many other things, a story about the ability to let go. The Ring is the obvious example, the clearest picture of the possessiveness engendered by possessions, and the corruption that grows with the desire to keep. It is easy to see the Ring as evil, and while Frodo's inability to give it up is both unexpected and inevitable, what happens to him appears to be an extraordinary tragedy, not something the reader can readily identify with. The timeless beauty of Lorien is the deeper example. It is more difficult to recognize as such, because, unlike the Ring, Lorien and everything about it in the narrative make us want to keep it, make us want, like Frodo, to stay there. We love Lorien, as, quite clearly, its author loved it. The beauty of Tolkien's Elves and their Elven lands blinds us to their significance in his world and his narrative.
Nonetheless, this very sense of passing and loss that on one level Tolkien mourned, on another level he celebrated. For to be capable of living is also to be capable of dying, and without death there can be no rebirth. Elves preserve. Men grow and die and grow again. It is in this respect that the Contrast between Elves and Men is of such importance to Tolkien's vision. But while the contrast itself is apparent to any reader of Tolkien's work, it is a safe bet that many readers mistake its overt purpose and consequently ap. predate the wrong values in each culture, valuing immortality above mortality and Elves above Men.

[drigel]

We wonders.... Was this diichotomy set up deliberately by Tolkien, or was it a reflection of his own inner conflict.

I think we are, in a roundabout way, doing what the author intended - to contemplate the nature of mortality of man.

I am here suggesting that Galadriel is used as a model for a prime 'reader' of Middle-earth and that when we decode her reading as tragically wrong, we step back and see if this decoding can be applied--applicability!--to our own readings of Middle-earth. (Or those of some of us.)

Nice! I would suggest rather that Galadriel is used in LOTR as a model for a prime reader for the psychology of High Elves. You get a lot of history with Elrond and Cirdan. But with Galadriel, sigh, you get as close to Valimar as a mortal can be.