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

[Boromir88]

Just popping in to say hello and adding perhaps a couple things of interest.

The general conception (of Brin and others) is that Tolkien was a technophobe, and thus should not be taken as a serious author. I wonder where they ever got that idea? I mean sure Tolkien loathed the RAF, and in Letter 75, written to his son Christopher, he doesn't have too many kind words about "The Machine":

Unlike art which is content to create a new secondary world in the mind, it attempts to actualize desire, and to create power in this World; and that cannot really be done with any real satisfaction.Labour-saving machinery can only create 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.

That's particularly funny after seeing that perhaps planes had some good uses:

Well, I have got over two thousand words onto this little flimsy airletter; and I will forgive the Mordor-gadgets some of their sins, if they bring it quickly to you.~ibid

I believe "The Machine" Tolkien often speaks of is more than "technology" or actual machines, but it's more of a state of mind. "The Machine" is all about control, something Tolkien was most certainly against. And as Lalwende astutely observed in a thread talking about Orcs (take a look at Gorbag and Shagrat) that even Orcs can't always be "cogs in The Machine."

Tolkien does seem to quite often rant about technology (I believe he had a problem with typewriters too), so it's not shocking that Brin paints Tolkien as a technophobe. I would like to point out, however, that the most modern (and dominant!) view in the world is the idea of the "West." I don't think our modern-day West is Tolkien's idea the "The West." But my point is that our West is the dominant, modern way of thinking, and I think we see some of that in Tolkien's writing.

We have the Greeks to thank for this revolutionary way of thinking (at least back in their days), the hebrews added there own contributions, and the Romans spread the their ideas to the rest of the world. Democracy, the idea that the rights of an individual outweigh the "good of Society" was Greek thinking. Hebrews added Christianity, and stories of the "small" overcoming great trials, because the "mighty" were unable to do so, to the "Western" way of thinking. That last bit is one thing which is very strong and evident in Tolkien's story:

The road must be trod, but it will be very hard. And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far upon it. This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.~The Council of Elrond

It's interesting that now when asked what is "Modern?" Technology seems to be the number one answer, but technology is actually only a recent addition to our West. That's rather funny because the Greeks were pretty horrible engineers, they just liked to sit around and think and argue about how to do things, not actually doing things. The Greeks didn't have roads, besides temples most of their buildings were made of mud bricks, the Greeks biggest contribution (besides democracy) to the West, was Science. It was the Romans who were the great technological engineers. Now it seems like technology has replaced Sciece as the #1 answer to what is "Modern?"

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It's interesting that now when asked what is "Modern?" Technology seems to be the number one answer, but technology is actually only a recent addition to our West. That's rather funny because the Greeks were pretty horrible engineers, they just liked to sit around and think and argue about how to do things, not actually doing things. The Greeks didn't have roads, besides temples most of their buildings were made of mud bricks, the Greeks biggest contribution (besides democracy) to the West, was Science.

How about the Antikythera Mechanism?

But other than that I must agree. Technology is only part of Modernity. But also, going back to your point, Boromir88 (you're back!)Athenian democracy was different to what we today call "democracy".

[Groin Redbeard]

I think you are really underestimating the Greeks here Borormir. Not only were they great in the subject of Science but especially Philosophy and Mathematics (do you remember Archimedes). They are the cornerstone upon which Western Civilization was founded!

Tolkien and Modernism
Tolkien was a traditionalist, a man who looked to the past for guidance. His age was the era of technology and great change. Now in general people don't like change, but I think that when you are a traditionalist it's even worse.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Historians would beg to defer from the view that traditionalist are worse. Christopher Columbus set out to prove that he could sail all the way to China based on the then-modern view of the round Earth. He discovered another land instead. Chairman Mao set out to prove that humanity can triumph over nature. His revolution faltered when he attempted to tame the Yellow River.

It is a gift of post-modernism to allow individuals the benefit of doubt, including that of oneself.

[Morthoron]

First, I find it humorous that this entire Tolkien critique originated on a Star Wars site. The mythos of Star Wars (backstory actually -- it would give too much credit to Lucas to define his plot as mythos, even though he lifted the greater part of his plot devices from Joseph Campbell) is banal New-Age pablum, a shallow bowl in which was dipped pseudo-Eastern blather with Sci-fi gadgetry, then veneered with a Hollywood candy-coated shell meant for mass-consumption by juveniles. It is neither literate nor insightful filmmaking. The dialogue is wretched and the primary actors (Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness, Ewan MacGregor, Liam Neeson, etc.) had far more meaningful and memorable roles in other films (ones that actually had scripts written by professionals). For those still strident in their acclaim for glorified B-movie science fiction, I suggest they read Dune or Foundation to get a proper grasp of the true immensity and brilliance of effective and thought-provoking science fiction literature.

Second, there is certainly an absence of 'modernity' (or the post-modern intellectual worldview) in Tolkien's Middle-earth corpus primarily because it is not in the least applicable to the ancient world Tolkien created, and I am rather amused that these supposed intellectuals cannot grasp such a simple fact. It would be just as ludicrous to impose such standards of modernity on Cervantes, Mallory, or Shakespeare, for that matter. To demean a classic piece of literature because it does not fit nicely into the jaded, atheistic norms of post-modern intellectuals (who, from personal experience, are just as fascistic in their near-sighted zealotry as those they attempt to minimize) is a disservice to younger readers who have not yet formulated a literary view of their own, but who are force-fed this arrogant and elitist prattle in schools and universities, and are expected to follow the party line like good little Bolsheviks.

Third, Tolkien was indeed conservative, but in the truest sense of conservation, whether that lay in his fascination for ancient languages and epics, or in his distrust of technology and its negative effects on the environment. He watched, year after year, the none-to-gradual erosion and destruction of his beautiful countryside, the places of his childhood revelry, as I myself have seen the rapid urbanization, suburbanization and exurbanization of those places I once held dear. Now we are facing Global Warming, dwindling natural resources and an energy crisis, and one has to agree with Professor Tolkien that perhaps too much technology is too much of a good thing, and that we may well technologize ourselves into extinction.

In the end, it must be said that much of what Tolkien devised seems archaic and colloquial by the standards of the snide post-moderns (but wouldn't you really rather be in Elessar's court in Minas Tirith than in court on Trial with Kafka?). Tolkien created an incredibly detailed world based on those things he loved the most: Anglo-Saxon literature, the Eddas and Sagas, the Kalevala, and infused it with his faith (but with any religiosity subsumed as undercurrents in the text, so as not to appear allegorical or preachy), and his harrowing experiences in WWI. The valor, camaraderie, loyalty, self-sacrifice, and, yes, a clearly defined sense of good and evil were to be found in the foxholes and trenches of France, just as the grim specters in the Dead Marshes were the silent, floating corpses staring blankly up from flooded bomb craters of the Somme.

We read of Middle-earth as wide-eyed innocents and yearn for the simple fellowship and bright promise of by-gone ages. But the tale also inspires us to fight the long defeat against all odds, and hope to make our world a better place, if not for us, perhaps for those who survive us. Unfortunately, we cannot go back to a time when evil was more clearly delineated. There is no longer a central evil, but evil is in everything. It pervades all governments, it oozes forth from multi-national corporations who no longer hold allegiances save for the propagation of their own profit, it erodes our sensibilities through mass-media, and it haunts our steps through the senseless and insane violence bred in the name of religion, race, poverty or political persuasion.

Screw your modernity, give me Middle-earth anyday.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

It is, of course, understandable that in every epoch, there would be people who detest another worldview. It is certainly much more pervasive that this other worldview is glorified in an ocean of discourse we call the Internet. But I can't agree with the notion that "the past is better, and it only exists in books these days". Think Black Death which wiped out more than 30% of Europe's population.

Tolkien's work only embraced the ideals, not the details.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Tolkien's work only embraced the ideals, not the details.

Actually, what I was saying is that the ideal was better then than the idealogues now.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

But I can't agree with the notion that "the past is better, and it only exists in books these days". Think Black Death which wiped out more than 30% of Europe's population.

I think we can all honestly say that we could do without looking like a peasant from a Bruegel painting ("Awww, look...Junior's got his first goiter! That'll hide his pock marks."). Neither would we wish to be subjected to polio or death by a simple toothache. Technology has its place, but rampant technology and its encroachment on the environment is heading us towards a global disaster so profound that one day we might look back on the era of the Black Death as a Golden Age for humanity. 'Tis all relative, and one could say that Tolkien was prophetic in his environmental views.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

It is certainly much more pervasive that this other worldview is glorified in an ocean of discourse we call the Internet.

In another discussion somewhere on this fora, we were discussing college curricula and the fact that many American colleges (I can't speak for the Europeans) have adopted the current worldview with a militancy that would make Stalin blush. Classicism in literature is eschewed for what amounts to an extended Sociology course.

The University where I graduated from -- which once had a vibrant variety of professors and literary views (from almost Stoic Classicists to Kerouac-addled ex-hippies to avant-garde post-moderns), has now been so thoroughly saturated with the post-modern worldview that a post-graduate English lit. syllabus has more to do with marxism, absurdism, feminism, class and racism, lesbianism, and a horde of other isms which, in and of themselves, are fine discussion points and pertinent to current world affairs, but are more applicable to sociology, psychology or poli-sci. One can only scratch their head and ask, 'Excuse me, is their anything that actually pertains to literature in any of these courses? I'd really like to read a poem, if that's alright with you.' I am sure the query would only be met with derision: 'If you don't have an ism, you can't read any poetry. How can you read your poetry without any isms?'

The world-weary cynicism, blanket disapproval of literature for its own sake, and the almost oppressive reliance on psychological motivations which tends to be the primary focus of the current worldview was summed up by C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man. Lewis spoke disapprovingly of an English lit. school book authored by two individuals wherein they quoted a well-known story regarding Samuel Coleridge listening with interest to two tourists regarding their impressions of a waterfall:

...one called it 'sublime' and the other 'pretty'; and that Coleridge mentally endorsed the first judgement and rejected the second with disgust.

The authors of the book Lewis was deriding comment as follows:

'When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really I have feelings associated in my mind with the word "Sublime", or shortly I have sublime feelings...This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something; and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.'

Lewis then goes on to question the author's woodenheadedness, and the obvious assumptions that arise when using such narrow thinking; he states that there is an objective beauty and not merely a subjective use of predicates to mirror one's psychological mood. That is what seems to be missing from the current equation.

I am rambling and have consumed far too much coffee this morning, which I must admit is sublime.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

I beg your indulgence for your misunderstanding, Morthoron. (Though I'd refrain commenting on personal attacks in the posts...)

Assigning the psychological crudities of modernity (precluding the evil propensities and the dominating magic inherent in the Ring, for instance) to a fantasy written in a traditionalist mode brings us right back to the demeaning and woodenheaded nature that the intellectuals of the current worldview have for Tolkien, or any classical literature for that matter.

But by deeming the modern chicken rearing process as evil, you practically ignored all the beneficial aspects of the chicken flesh industry, which efficiently supplies chicken meat to more than 60% of the world (McDonald's not the only corporation catering chicken meat).

To feed cities and towns, meat needs to be processed quickly and hygenically. A breakdown in the rearing process drastically reduces the supply of chicken meat. The price of meat foodstuff ultimately increases because alternative meat foods such as beef and pork experience greater demand. Of course, it's not the end of the world for USA or many European countries. God/Budda/Allah forbids though, that commodity prices should rise higher in developing countries, which imports their foodstuff.

On the other hand, the One Ring is seen as embodying all-consuming evil power without any redeeming qualities. The irony lies in the fact that evil chicken meat corporation managers have more in common with our hero Frodo than villian Gollum: they can't stop the torture once it began, and certainly didn't get a good rep for it.

I guess it had to be to each his/her own in the regard of the evils of the chicken sandwich. Since modernists probably won't even read LOTR more than twice (due to the mind boggling logic of magic), you'd bet that I agree more with your other arguements than you expected.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Tolkien's work only embraced the ideals, not the details.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Screw your modernity, give me Middle-earth anyday.

[Boromir88]

Well we are the civilized race, and just think of modernity the way I think of stairs, and you might realize it's not so bad. Stairs are my friend, not my enemy.

Groin, sorry if it sounded like I was short-changing the Greeks, that wasn't my intention. Without question we owe our way of thinking and living to the Greeks. We will forever be in their debt. My point I was trying to make was the Greeks came up with the ideas, while the Romans put them into practice and spread them (for the most part). The Greeks weren't too practical and they thought the only people who could understand their ideas were other Greeks. It were the Romans who put their "Western" ideas into practice and spread them to other cultures/those they conquered. (I'm a very biased Roman lover, just so you know that - and no that does not mean I am a single-minded lover who hails from Rome )

I'm not sure how much of an uber-conservative Tolkien was, and the intellectuals claim him to be. I think Tolkien writes a lot about coming to terms with change, and the fact that change is a "fact of life." In several letters Tolkien comments that the Elves greatest weakness was their inability to accept change:

But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right… they were ‘embalmers’.~Letter 154

the Elvish weakness is…to become unwilling to face change...~Letter 181

A character such as Frodo is one who, at first, is very resistant to the change that he is faced with right in the beginning. That is, being burdened with the Ring of Power. He actually delays his departure from The Shire, because he doesn't want to leave. He comes right out and tells Gandalf, he wishes the Ring never came to him, he just wants to stay and live in peace. Albeit in a much more eloquent way Gandalf pretty much tells Frodo "Stop whining, everyone wants to be left alone. But guess what? Crap happens deal with it." Frodo accepts the journey, accepts the burden, because he has to. While he might grit his teeth and hate every step of the journey, he knows what has to be done, and does it. The entire fate of Middle-earth lies on Frodo's neck (quite literally!) Did Frodo want this burden? No, but he accepts the change and deals with it.

In fact, many of Tolkien's villains are people who are static, they don't change in any way. One of the first things that gets associated with Sauron is Barad-dur. Saruman through most of LOTR stays fixed in Orthanc. Denethor is someone who is so controlled by his "wants" and his desire to hold on to the "past" that it drives him to insanity:

"I would have things as they were in all the days of my life," answered Denethor, "and in the days of my longfathers before me: to be the Lord of this City in peace, and leave my chair to a son after me, who would be his own master and no wizard's pupil."~The Pyre of Denethor

It can be quite reasonably argued that Faramir was a romantic conservative. He wanted Gondor restored to the peaceful glory days:

For myself," said Faramir, "I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as the queen among other queens..."~The Window on the West

This sounds like Faramir wanting Gondor to be brought back into the "throwback" days where everything was all utopian and rosy. However, the key difference between Denethor and Faramir, is Faramir is accepts "different" where Denethor is controlled by his longing for the past.

Faramir wants Gondor to be restored to the glory days, but he is also very realistic. We see this in his rejection of the Ring:

Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs~ibid

Faramir has a glorious vision of Gondor, but it his acceptance of change (highlighted by his acceptance of Aragorn) which makes him different from his father and brother. Faramir outrightly rejects the Ring, and based on his words above, Faramir understands...

1. the Ring in a way Denethor (or Boromir) didn't. He knows the Ring is deceitful and thus it would only lead to Sauron's goal, not his own.

2. while Faramir has a peaceful and flowery vision of Gondor, he accepts this is an unrealistic fantasy and at times you just got to accept the brutal reality:

"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all,..."~ibid

So, while Faramir seems like a hopeless romantic, he is very realistic and knows that change is something we all must accept and adapt to.