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

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

"Which should envy the other?" asks an Elven ambassador to Numenor in the Akallabeth. Who indeed. If Tolkien had absolutely, really valued the Elves above humans, made them true 'ubermenschen' surely he would have validated their immortality as something men do not have, for example because of the "fall"

Interestingly, Tolkien does an about turn on Christian mythology at this point and says that both the mortality of Humans and the immortality of Elves is simply "the fulfilment of their being" no more a 'punishment' than death is in real life. The drama plays out precisely because the Numenorians, who you call 'superior' perceive the Elves to be ubermensche pretty much. The Numenorians attempt to forcibly take immortality and they fail because of it. They fail not because they are 'lesser' beings, or 'unworthy' or 'deserving of punishment', they fail because they desire something entirely unnatural to them, something entirely foreign, somthing that is in no way a fulfillment of their being. Were men to step upon Valinor they would (something like this) die a quicker death as moths do when exposed to bright light.

.

And you can answer this by looking at Tolkien in the light of Modernism (the theory). How was a Catholic to make sense of the mindless slaughter of millions in WWI? Many people simply turned away from faith altogether because they could not square the slaughter with the existence of any kind of 'good' God. Tolkien didn't do what a lot who did keep their faith did do, and ascribe the slaughter to some fall of mankind - no he came to view Death in a more Northern way, as a kind of inevitability, as part of the very nature of humanity is to die.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Skip

*Edit: I see I crossposted with tumhalad2 and this is a question to you:
You seem like an intelligent and reasonable guy, well able to form your own opinion. Yet, in the op you appear concerned that the criticism of this Brin fella might put you off Tolkien. But seriuosly... this Brin, who I've never heard of btw, sounds like a pretentious but not very bright tosser to be honest. Why would you listen to him?

Even if it will make myself look like a total ignoramus here as well I must confess I have never heard of this Brin-guy before either until reading this thread. So I definitively have not been listening to him.

Originally Posted by Skip

a culture can't ever change unless we're allowed to critisize it.

I don't see the point of this here... I'm all for demanding changes in cultures, like getting the Western culture less individualistic without falling back to religious or nationalistic fundamentalisms etc.

Talking about the subject then...

I do agree with your points about there being "inside tensions" between the "races" in Tolkien's work. And surely the question about the benefits of mortality / immortality have been questioned long before the Christian thought in Gilgamesh or Greek legendarium in written form and in many earlier myths to top that fex.

But to me the question here is more what kind of worldview Tolkien brings forwards in his "mythology for England"? It coincides with these mythological strata of our history... and that is natural as he was the scholar who tried to make it look like an arcane mythology.

But the question now remains how we should tune ourselves with it? Should we treat is as an original mythology (no!), should we treat it as a piece of the most ingenuine piece of fiction based on traditions (yes!), should we treat it as a way guiding us to a moral and good life in today's society and world (yes/no?).

I think it's the last question - or the interpretation of what it means - that may divide many of us.

I tend to agree with Lal that Tolkien had much more modernistic views about things many of you are ready to grant him. Thence I think we should be able to think about his views much more seriously - but in another vein than just championing his "traditionalism" or basic "christian values".

The things and ideas Tolkien brings forwards in his work are those of the mythological era and thought but he does it in a way that demands a modern reader an effort to think it her/himself - a mark of a purely modernist attitude in itself.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Even if it will make myself look like a total ignoramus here as well I must confess I have never heard of this Brin-guy before either until reading this thread. So I definitively have not been listening to him.

Sorry mate, you must have misunderstood me (no wonder, my post was a bit of a mess). The questions was to tumhalad2.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

I don't see the point of this here... I'm all for demanding changes in cultures, like getting the Western culture less individualistic without falling back to religious or nationalistic fundamentalisms etc.

Agreed. Just a thought I had at the time. Never mind that.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But the question now remains how we should tune ourselves with it? Should we treat is as an original mythology (no!), should we treat it as a piece of the most ingenuine piece of fiction based on traditions (yes!), should we treat it as a way guiding us to a moral and good life in today's society and world (yes/no?).

I think it's the last question - or the interpretation of what it means - that may divide many of us.

Perhaps. My answer is that if you do find a moral guideline in his works, that's great. Tolkien certainly had a lot to say about morals. Personally, although I also appreciate much of his more philosofical and theological stuff, I read his books because I love the stories and the language.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

The things and ideas Tolkien brings forwards in his work are those of the mythological era and thought but he does it in a way that demands a modern reader an effort to think it her/himself - a mark of a purely modernist attitude in itself.

I dunno if the ideas are those of a mythological prehistoric era. I highly doubt that the people in the actual 'mythological' era ever reached the subtlety of Tolkien or of his characters.

As for the debate of how modernistic Tolkien was I'm afraid I can't add much. I was under the impression that 'modernism' was the much akin to positivism, the belief that logical reasoning based on observable facts (the method of the natural sciences) is the best, if not the only way forward into the future. Based on this belief I did not think Tolkien would appriciate a modernistic agenda with scientific progress and rationalisation as a top priority. But I also knew that 'modernism' had other applications in other fields, and some posters have argued that Tolkien indeed was modernistic. To be honest, I find concepts such as modernism, post-modernism, symbolism to be rather silly and restrictive and the people who like to use them often do so in a vain attempt to appear more clever than they really are. But please note that I'm not talking about the people writing on this thread.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by skip spence

As for the debate of how modernistic Tolkien was I'm afraid I can't add much. I was under the impression that 'modernism' was the much akin to positivism, the belief that logical reasoning based on observable facts (the method of the natural sciences) is the best, if not the only way forward into the future. Based on this belief I did not think Tolkien would appriciate a modernistic agenda with scientific progress and rationalisation as a top priority. But I also knew that 'modernism' had other applications in other fields, and some posters have argued that Tolkien indeed was modernistic. To be honest, I find concepts such as modernism, post-modernism, symbolism to be rather silly and restrictive and the people who like to use them often do so in a vain attempt to appear more clever than they really are. But please note that I'm not talking about the people writing on this thread.

The terms... the terms... Everyone seems to use it one way or another... But in humanities like philosophy, cultural studies and aesthetics the word 'modern' means the enlightenment and positivism as well as Baudelaire, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche - or Cézanne, Malevitch, Ravel or T.S. Eliot; or Durkheim and de Saussure... as opposed to both classical attitude or romanticism.

The words themselves are not silly. They try to point out to actual differences. They just sadly seem to have a multiple meanings depending on the author who talks about them. But still there is some common ground one could see in all those modernisms in comparison with the classical stance or the romantic way of looking at things.

Originally Posted by Skip Sp.

Tolkien certainly had a lot to say about morals.

Absolutely. And I think he had a crush on past morals of virtue exemplified by the authors of Antiquity and of the old tales of lesser known civilisations. And there's nothing bad in it in itself. To a modern reader the virtue-ethics looks refreshing indeed! It's just a question whether we can avoid taking all the loads of that generally chauvinistic background thinking with them as well when we cherish the ethics of virtue so appealing to the modern man who has lost the sense of purpose in this world we live in.

Originally Posted by SS

Personally, although I also appreciate much of his more philosofical and theological stuff, I read his books because I love the stories and the language

As well as I do, even if I find his philosophical ideas quite common or "basic-romantic" and his theology tied to his age and prejudices as well. But there are those funny modernist things in between his writing that keeps his work from falling down to the oblivion of standard "classical romanticism". And the stories and the language... well there he's the champion with no one to compare him with! Unless our long gone elders make the claim...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by skip spence

I was under the impression that 'modernism' was the much akin to positivism, the belief that logical reasoning based on observable facts (the method of the natural sciences) is the best, if not the only way forward into the future.

That's the basic principle of something that is today called 'naturalism' and which has its roots in the enlightenment... but also in the speculation of the 17th century philosophes and earlier "scientists" and even theologians... and the engineers of the Middle-Ages (like Leonardo da Vinci who was first and foremost an engineer and only secondarily a painter at that time)...

The positivists were self-critical enough to cancel their own project during the twenties when they realised that their motto "anything that can not be verified empirically can't be taken as a knowledge" was itself not verifiable empirically...

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And you can answer this by looking at Tolkien in the light of Modernism (the theory). How was a Catholic to make sense of the mindless slaughter of millions in WWI? Many people simply turned away from faith altogether because they could not square the slaughter with the existence of any kind of 'good' God. Tolkien didn't do what a lot who did keep their faith did do, and ascribe the slaughter to some fall of mankind - no he came to view Death in a more Northern way, as a kind of inevitability, as part of the very nature of humanity is to die.

Yes!!! This point is of critical import. The Children of Hurin, especially in the opening chapters, discusses these points as well, from the point of view of a little boy, then a man captured by a diabolical Dark Lord (my hate shall persue them...etc etc rant rant) If this is not 'modern' im not sure what is...

[Bêthberry]

No time for anything other than a quick scan of this interesting thread, so I'll have to refrain from making any large scale declarations. (Lucky you!)

I notice, however, that writers such as Joyce, Lawrence, Eliot and Peake are mentioned as exemplars of literary modernism. One writer who hasn't been mentioned is Virginia Woolf.

Just a few titles in case anyone is interested in checking out her presentation of consciousness: Mrs. Dalloway, To the Lighthouse, and, particularly, The Waves.

Given that Tolkien does not present--and is not interested in depicting--this form of the interiority of thought--he would seem to fall on t'other side from Woolf--but I'm not getting into any definition wars!

[Nerwen]

But getting back to the original question– by what logic does Star Wars exemplify modernism? Any ideas?

[tumhalad2]

Some incredibly intersting stuff there guys-wow! Philosophy is so interesting!

As to Star Wars, Nerwen, I'm not sure it exemplifies modernist values any more that the Lord of the Rings, and though Im a fan of Star Wars I will go so far as to say that Tolkien, with his inserted, somewhat surprising, modernist ideas about death and the like perhaps takes his universe to a level Lucas never achieved.

However, I do not want to get into a debate about the merits of each franchise; that is what these other forumers did and look how that turned out!! Not that that would happen here, but still...

In response to your question, skip spense David Brin may be a little pretentious but I do not think he is a fool-his opinions need to be considered, in other words. At times I have thought that his ideas were so overwhelmingly 'right' that Tolkien seemed a blemish on my palate of interest, but then I quickly come to...It was probably in such a downcast mood that I wrote the first post!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Star War's 'depth' in a nutshell: Obi-Wan screaming at Anakin/Vader that he was sworn to defend.... democracy!


Now if Lucas can't figure out that democracy is not a goal but merely a system directed towards that goal, then he has no claim on depth of thought.

[Nerwen]

Say what you like about StarDestroyer.net, it brings much joy. What follows is a genuine, unaltered quote.

I often tell people Shakespeare sucks because there is no way a real human being ever spoke like that.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But getting back to the original question– by what logic does Star Wars exemplify modernism? Any ideas?

Since my post in reply to this was lost out on Route 69, I'll repost it here:

Star Wars exemplifies modernism through a glorious delight in machinery and a broad faith in technology as well as The Force.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Since my post in reply to this was lost out on Route 69, I'll repost it here:

Star Wars exemplifies modernism through a glorious delight in machinery and a broad faith in technology as well as The Force.

Must be why I love it so much...

However, the technology in Star Wars tends to be more of a backdrop to the story. In fact some purists consider it not to be "real" sci-fi for this reason. (Well, that, and the way the laws of physics get flouted.)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Must be why I love it so much...

However, the technology in Star Wars tends to be more of a backdrop to the story. In fact some purists consider it not to be "real" sci-fi for this reason. (Well, that, and the way the laws of physics get flouted.)

I'm not so sure it is a backdrop. Luke's fascination with flying his racer through the canyons is one important aspect of his character and also one that ensures his victory at the conclusion of A New Hope. That fascination comes straight out of Lucas' love affair with the automobile--think American Graffitti. Think also of Han Solo's "special modifications" made to the Millenium Falcon and how that is highlighted when Leia treats it to a sarcastic remark--was that the start of their love affair? I can't imagine Tolkien or Frodo or any of the other hobbits engaging in that kind of love affair with machinery. There could be dwarves who might delight in sledding down cave tunnels, but it wouldn't be powered the same.

I suppose R2D2 and 3PO could be Mutt and Jeff or a human comedic duo, but for me part of the delight in their characters lies in their robotic nature--or its interface with their human aspects. I dreamed of having my own R2D2 to do housework and still have an R2D2 cookie jar which lovingly has never been used, but is carefully wrapped and put away like good china. I don't think 3PO would be as funny if he were merely an abnoxious human, but being a robotic linguist as well as an English butler makes him delightfully entertaining.

Granted lots of the technology, especially the wonky bits, beongs to the Dark Side, but even the great glorification of special effects which Star Wars initiated represents a paen to technology. Someday, and someday soon, a Gollem won't need an Andy, and the current fascination with that began with SW.

As for the laws of gravity, they're a bit like Rodney Dangerfield, eh?