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

[tumhalad2]

"Finally: this lot, and the unnamed board they're quoting from, seem to have by and large accepted David Brin's simple old vs new model: either you're conservative and anti-technology (bad) or progressive and pro-technology (good). Anyone not see the flaw in this?[/quote]


The problem is that they would argue that Tolkien is doing exaclty the same thing, equating evil with technological progress and good with the simple, hobbitic lifestyle.

This of coarse is in fact an assumption on there part-they assume Tolkien is making some sort of social statement. However, it may not even be this concious...they would and do say that regardless of Tolkien's intentions the work is inherently infused with these "conservative" "bad" "backward" ideas, that yes they equate at least with antiprogress and badness.

Therefore, they (Im using 'they' a lot) say that Tolkien's book, regardless of his intent, is inherently backward, conservative, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a 'retard'(to quote the star wars board)!!

This subtle argument is the most difficult to tackle.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

The problem is that they would argue that Tolkien is doing exaclty the same thing, equating evil with technological progress and good with the simple, hobbitic lifestyle.

I guess I didn't make myself clear: what I was trying to say is that as well as being simplistic in itself, this model does not represent reality in that the world is not just divided into two camps of "the old" vs "the new".

For example– very many people who consider themselves left-wing and therefore socially progressive are highly suspicious of technology, medicine and science in general. Where do they fit? (Note that Tolkien has always been beloved of hippies.)

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

This of coarse is in fact an assumption on there part-they assume Tolkien is making some sort of social statement. However, it may not even be this concious...they would and do say that regardless of Tolkien's intentions the work is inherently infused with these "conservative" "bad" "backward" ideas, that yes they equate at least with antiprogress and badness.

Therefore, they (Im using 'they' a lot) say that Tolkien's book, regardless of his intent, is inherently backward, conservative, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a 'retard'(to quote the star wars board)!!

This subtle argument is the most difficult to tackle.

Not really. What they seem to be saying is that no work which does not actively promote their own particular views can be taken seriously.

Frankly, I think that's a pathetic attitude– and I am a humanist!

[tumhalad2]

I would agree with that...I suppose my trouble is that Brin et al write convincingly and with a great deal of conviction. Its rhetorically good, one might say. But yes, sorry I see what you are saying and I take your point.

I want to point out I am not FOR these people, I do not agree with them, I am just working through these issues in my head, because I do enjoy Tolkien very much.

As I say, despite all of Brin and other's rants, I keep coming back to Tolkien, I keep returning to this universe that in so many ways inspires me.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

well no, i suppose the point is that the star wars forumers are attempting to defend their own interest by means of attacking another which they perceive to be inherently more conservative, and thus bad.

Perhaps it makes them feel better, lol

Certainly... but I think they're falling into a trap: instead of addressing the argument properly, they're putting forward a substitute victim... then using a lot of special pleading and nitpicking to "prove" that what applies to Lord of the Rings somehow doesn't apply to Star Wars. It's not an easy position to sustain. If you ask me, they're laying themselves wide open to future attacks.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I want to point out I am not FOR these people, I do not agree with them, I am just working through these issues in my head, because I do enjoy Tolkien very much.

As do I... but I'm mainly arguing because I'm a.) a Star Wars fan and b.) probably fairly close to most of these people in a lot of my views... which is why I find their lack of faith... er, I mean tolerance... disturbing.

[tumhalad2]

haha yes well, I was rather flaberghasted with the vitriocity that the Star Wars forumers were displaying...they seemed to be pretty desperate lol. Yes, I'm upset by attacks on Star Wars as well, though I suppose I was particulary peeved to see fellow fans attacking the Lord of the Rings to offset their own insecurities.

[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?

[tumhalad2]

That is an interesting take on it...and I suppose I find much merit in it.

I'd like to bring up another aspect of Tolkien at this point, add it to the boiling pot:

The primary theme of his book, Tolkien said, was "death and the desire for deathlessness"...I was thinking about this the other day and it occured to me that Brin and his disciples largely miss the entire point about the Lord of the Rings. On top of that they assume Tolkien has included certain themes and ideas in his work because they assume he was writing, conciously or unconciously, on his social worldview.

Now, that may be the case with much modern literature, though I do not in fact believe Tolkien was, conciously or unconciously, injecting much of his worldview into the Lord of the Rings.

Allow me to explain: to begin lets look at some examples where that IS the case; where Tolkien's experiences or social outlooks have flavoured some scenario. Perhaps the most obvious is the Scouring of the Shire, which he says in the Foward to the Lord of the Rings can be attributed to his experiences as a child. Of course, this would all add to the point Brin et al are trying to make: Tolkien is anti-technology. I think it is a leap of faith to make that jump, and other forumers have already said much about technology and Tolkien's times. From the point of view of his experience then, some aspects of the work can be said to have been 'flavoured' in such a way that Brin would find, and does find, repulsive. It is also perhaps to be acknowledged, therefore, that technological progress was not Tolkien's favourite idea, though what form this distrust of technology took is not always clear and has indeed I think been wrongly manipulated by Brin and his compatriots.

From starting point, in a sense, Brin and the Star Wars forumers have 'deduced' that Tolkien was antimodern and his work infused with conservatism. As other forumers have more succinctly pointed out, this was, to a large degree, not the case and a misjudgement. However I have another idea about why Brin et al were entirely wrong.

They have a social agenda, and therein they trawl through Tolkien's books on the merits of its social outlook. However, I think they fail to realise that not all fiction is motivated, whether concious or uncouncious, by social concerns or themes. Rather, I believe Tolkien was almost entirely motivated by his concern for human nature and specifically the quest for human being to 'understand' death.

Thus, I believe the 'backward looking' elves and Numenorians are less products of Tolkien's love for the past, and more products of one side of the 'death' coin.

Elves are immortal; the elves of Lothlorien lived in a mortal world, thus naturally they attempted to keep that which would inevitably die from doing just that. For the elves, the death of any life, in a sense was unnatural. Similarly the Numenorians were concerned with the preservation of their own beings-also an unnatural act for them. So, these 'good' nations were ultimately pursuing policies unnatural to Middle Earth, hence the 'long defeat'. With the War of the Ring, the ability of the elves to preserve their world was diminished. Essentially the Elves were concerned with transcending time, for they were immortals in a wholly mortal and finite world, and so their nature was to attempt to transcend that.

Though I am a rather insuccinct writer and a little circumlocutory, I suppose I am trying to get across the point that Tolkien was conciously motivated by ideas wholly unrelated to 'social' themes, and while ultimately events, peoples and worldviews may appear 'backward' to those who wish to interpret the world that way, Tolkien's writings are more about exactly what he said they were, an exploration of 'death and the desire for deathlessness'

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

They have a social agenda, and therein they trawl through Tolkien's books on the merits of its social outlook. However, I think they fail to realise that not all fiction is motivated, whether concious or uncouncious, by social concerns or themes.

Yes... I was trying to say something like that earlier:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That only matters if you think the sole purpose of art is to promote the "right" political and social agenda (i.e. the one you happen to agree with).

and,

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What they seem to be saying is that no work which does not actively promote their own particular views can be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I suppose I am trying to get across the point that Tolkien was conciously motivated by ideas wholly unrelated to 'social' themes, and while ultimately events, peoples and worldviews may appear 'backward' to those who wish to interpret the world that way, Tolkien's writings are more about exactly what he said they were, an exploration of 'death and the desire for deathlessness'

That's very well put, tumhalad.

I'd say, though, that abuse of technology is at least a secondary theme of Tolkien's work (especially if you count the Ring itself)– but then, it's one of the major themes of science fiction!

I'm really not sure why he's such a favoured target of certain people.

In this case it looks almost like an automatic response: "Aaarrrgh! They're after us! Quick, throw them The Lord of the Rings!"

[skip spence]

To my mind, Tolkien was indeed conservative and not a follower of 'modenism' at all. He was also a devout christian. And he certainly infused his works with many 'messages' taken from his personal worldview and religious beliefs, some of which Boromir88 have taken up in his excellent post. Nerwen also mentioned how the hippies of the 60's and 70's loved LOtR. One reason why they did so was (I imagime) their agreement with the anti-war message and the ideals of living in harmony with nature expressed in the books.

But do you have to agree that monotomy is a moral obligation to enjoy Tolkien's books? Do you have to share Tolkien's religious beliefs? And can't you favour a secular, capitalist society with focus on technological development but at the same time appreciate nostalgia over past days (real or imagined)?

My answer is no, no, and yes.

I don't judge books according to how well they confirm my opinions. I have a lot of sympathy for Tolkien's ideas but certainly don't agree with all of them. I'm not a religious man nor am I very monogamous. But I love Tolkien's books nevertheless, and the conservative 'messages' in them take nothing away from that.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by skip spence

To my mind, Tolkien was indeed conservative and not a follower of 'modenism' at all. He was also a devout christian. And he certainly infused his works with many 'messages' taken from his personal worldview and religious beliefs, some of which Boromir88 have taken up in his excellent post. Nerwen also mentioned how the hippies of the 60's and 70's loved LOtR. One reason why they did so was (I imagime) their agreement with the anti-war message and the ideals of living in harmony with nature expressed in the books.

But do you have to agree that monotomy is a moral obligation to enjoy Tolkien's books? Do you have to share Tolkien's religious beliefs? And can't you favour a secular, capitalist society with focus on technological development but at the same time appreciate nostalgia over past days (real or imagined)?

My answer is no, no, and yes.

I don't judge books according to how well they confirm my opinions. I have a lot of sympathy for Tolkien's ideas but certainly don't agree with all of them. I'm not a religious man nor am I very monogamous. But I love Tolkien's books nevertheless, and the conservative 'messages' in them take nothing away from that.

Well put, though once again I do not believe Tolkien's books are so 'infused' with so many conservative ideas to take it seriously as a social treatise, or social commentary at all. I suppose what Im saying is that even you're interpretation, to me, is in some way missing the point as well. I do not believe that Tolkien's books are in fact concerned with this subject matter, though as Nerwen mentioned there are indeed themes relating to the missuse of technology.

This idea that Tolkien was a Christian who's faith influenced his worldview I think is overrated as well; indeed he was a Catholic but I think the influence was less in terms of infusing his work with doctrine and more about reconciling aspects of Christianity with Norse myth etc. This hybrid, I believe, we find in the Lord of the Rings, though perhaps even more so in the Silmarillion.

In closing, I don't really believe that Tolkien has to be read as some outdaited pariah of the past; I simply don't think, in reflecting on his letters and his works as a whole, that 'nostalgia' was his point. If that is to be found in the Lord of the Rings I believe it is in the interpretation of the reader, not in the intent of the author. I also believe that ultimately, the Lord of the Rings is not about society, not even good or evil, it is fundementally about life and death, and how these things are dealt with by different races and characters in the legendarium.

[skip spence]

^Fortunately, Tolkien's books are first and foremost an attemt to tell good stories and in this he succeeded in spectacular fashion, I think we can all agree.

There are obviously many part of his books that can be read as a comment on contemporary issues, as in any good work of literature. I have never read any books about Tolkien or any of his letters and I'm sure there are many here who know much more than me about what Tolkien really wanted to convey with his work or at least what pretentious academics think he wanted to say.

I have read Tolkien's books myself however and made my own interpretations, and I think he is quite explicit on what ideals he as a writer represents. "Nostalgia" is not an ideal but he does seem smitten by it nevertheless. Tolkien never comes across as preachy though and his works are not meant to be primerly "a social treatise, or social commentary". There is social commentary in it, and it deserves to be taken seroiusly too, but Tolkien's main objective was the telling of a good tale. And like I said, judging by the almost unrivalled popularity of his works, he certainly succeded with this.

And btw, to accuse Tolkien of racsism is petty, false and reeking of political correctness coupled with a complete lack of historical knowledge. Not saying you did of course.

[tumhalad2]

haha no I understand...and yes those forumers should be told! I see what you're saying and I suppose there is little I can say against it. Ultimately, as you say, all literature is infused with some kind of social outlook, though with Tolkien I think it is, if anything, a byproduct of his concious attempts to explore entirely unrelated themes.

Though The Lord of the Rings may be infused with "nostalgia" I believe it would be dangerous to simply assume that this was because Tolkien had a particular fetish with it for its own sake; I don't think it is this simple and I believe people like Brin have manipulated this to their own advantage. Taking Tolkien's works as a whole, I think a lot more can be said not only for his 'telling a tale' but also for the themes of 'death and the desire for deathlessness' . I know I keep going on about it but I think theres something to be said for it.