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

[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.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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

'Woodenheadedness' is a term I picked up from Barbara Tuchman in her book "The March of Folly". She applied it as a characteristic of political and social leaders who, through the shortsightedness of their policies, engaged in folly: acts clearly counterproductive to the country or group they represented when clear alternatives existed to act to the contrary. It is very apt in the case referenced, although I wasn't necessarily accounting you as one of those who stolidly supports the current wordlview (unless of course you are and then I do).

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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).

I eat Amish chicken from farms in Ohio and Indiana (if I eat chicken at all), which is processed in an entirely different manner than the beakless cannibal birds shot up with antibiotics and steroids. It may cost a bit more, but the taste difference is noticeable and it is healthier for you. There are always alternatives, my dear. *shrugs*

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

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.

First, let's set the record straight, and refrain from further fowl discussions. The chicken comments were an aside regarding the explanation of a punch line to a joke. Analogies between Frodo and real world butchers in poultry abbatoirs are rather incidental; particularly since you ignored the meat of the discussion, and decided instead to snack on appetizers, which I suppose would be chicken fingers (which is ironic terminology, considering they clip the chickens toes off).

Originally Posted by skip spence

Is that not an oxymoron? How can God infallibly foresee and preordain all future events and man still be free? This idea I can't even begin to grasp. If God knows all future choices a man will take, how can he then be free? There's only one path for him and it's predestined. Or does this mean that God can preordain all futire events if he wants too, but doesn't, in respect to man's free will? I'd appreciate if you, or anyone else, can help me understand this concept.

It is paradoxical rather than oxymoronic, I should guess. But knowing the actions that will take place is entirely different than interfering in the actions to change the outcome. I am reminded of the movie Time Bandits, where a boy (Kevin) and a dwarf (Randall) are having a discussion regarding Evil with the Supreme Being (played by Sir Ralph Richardson):

Kevin: "Do you mean you knew what was happening to us all the time?"

Supreme Being: "Well, of course. I am the Supreme Being. I'm not entirely dim."

Randall: "Oh, no sir. We weren't suggesting that, sir. It's just that. . ."

Supreme Being: "I let you borrow my map. Now, I want every bit of evil placed in here, right away."

Kevin: "You mean you let all those people die just to test your creation?"

Supreme Being: "Yes. You really are a clever boy."

Kevin: "Why did they have to die?"

Supreme Being: "You might as well say, 'Why do we have to have evil?'"

Randall: "Oh, we wouldn't dream of asking a question like that, sir."

Kevin: "Yes, why do we have to have evil?"

Supreme Being: "Ah. . .I think it has something to do with free will.

And there you have it. Everything you wanted to know from the Supreme Being, but were afraid to ask.

[Lush]

Frodo's sacrifice of his own enjoyment of the Shire for the sake of his fellow hobbits was entirely selfless.

Agreed. But I'm pretty sure that making that sacrifice and showing mercy are not necessarily 100% the same. Obviously, they're good actions. I'm not calling that into question.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It is paradoxical rather than oxymoronic, I should guess.

Well, yes, that's a better word.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

But knowing the actions that will take place is entirely different than interfering in the actions to change the outcome.

Sure. And there would be no need to interfere for an allmighty God, "seeing everything happen in His omnipresent Now" (quote from WCH).

Gwathagor used the analogy of a novelist. You might say the novelist is outside of the timeline in his book. Reading his finished work, he knows everything that is going to happen, because he is the author of the story. If you look upon God and his creation this way you can talk about predestination, right? With this view however the characters aren't free to act inside of the story as they can only do only what the writer wrote, be that good or evil. In other words, they lack free will, and can not be held accountable for their actions - at least not fairly.

Fate you say (and that's a general you, not you Morth), is different, as it depends on free will. And free will is of course imperative for a story like LotR or for Christianity. Without free will no one is morally culpable, and chioces are just an illusion. So there must be free will, or Frodo wasn't brave at all, he merely did the only thing he could have done. But still you say that God, or Eru if you wish, can forsee all future events. I just can't make this out, I'm sorry. If Eru is able to forsee all future events, and hear the entire Music to the last note, there can be only one possible outcome. And with only one possible outcome, time is a straight line, just like in the metaforical novel above, and Frodo isn't brave, he is a mere puppet, albeit unknowingly. Why even get out of bed? What else can you do?

Originally Posted by Galion quoting C.S.Lewis

8) In human language we use terms like "foreknowledge," and "foresaw," and "predestined." These terms are all locked into human reason and human language. We really don't have language to adequately deal with God's presence outside of time.

On first sight, this might be a valid argument. Ants, to use a blunt analogy, can never understand astrophysics as they don't have the intellectual capabilities required. How can we, being finite creatures, fully understand the designs of a limitless God? The answer of course is: no, we can't. But isn't that exactly what we are trying to do here? To assume knowledge of something (in this case, the statement that God sees everything is His omnipresent Now) that we, or in this instance C.S. Lewis rather, in all likelyhood, are not able to understand by nature?

When reading Tolkiens works I detect a delicate balance between two views of the world; one being "everything's preordained", the other being "faith and responsibility lies in our own hands". In my mind, these two views can never be joined together. I really wonder what Tolkien thought of it.

[Boromir88]

Just a comment on this:

It would seem that the author disagrees with your cynical take on the ideals of his book...~Morthoron

It's tricky using Tolkien's Letters, because it was his thoughts and reflections after writing the story....as Norman Cantor argues:

“The LotR exists, apart from what Tolkien said at one time or another it was supposed to mean. It was largely a product of the realm of fantasy in the unconscious: that was the ultimate source. Therefore, what Tolkien later consciously thought about it is interesting, but not authoritative as to the work’s meaning”

And Tolkien's take on it:

I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.~Letter 211

Isn't it ironic how I use a "letter" to question Tolkien's Letters?

But seriously, it's tricky, because as Tolkien says some of this he wrote as long as 20 years ago, he doesn't have all the answers, and his Letters are his thoughts after (sometimes LONG after) writing the story. So, even though in various Letters Tolkien talks about Eru's intervention at Mount Doom, it's just as conceivable to argue it was an accident. There are some cases where he is just forgetful in Letter 210 he says (while criticizing Zimmerman's screenplay) that the Balrog doesn't make any noise. Yet going back and reading The Bridge of Khazad-dum the Balrog clearly does make noises!

Now, in Letter 156 Tolkien says that it was Eru who sent back Gandalf, and this is the only possible answer, because going back to the book (The White Rider) Gandalf talks about being out of "thought and time" and then being sent back. Anyway, you got to be careful when using Tolkien's Letters, because he contradicts himself and it was his thoughts after writing the story.

What's really amazing is the adaptability of Tolkien's story, and I whole-heartedly disagree with Brin and the others who argue there is no reconciliation between Tolkien and modernism:

Of course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes , as a person would of a child.~Letter # 328

The Lord of the Rings reminds me of the U.S. Constitution, it was left vague and very debatable. The U.S. Constitution is so short because the framers didn't want to "tie the hands" of the future generations. They wanted to leave lots of room for movement when the times changed.

The Lord of the Rings is a very long story, but many parts of it are left vague and for the readers' imagination. No wonder why the story has withstood the test of time and still remains an enjoyable, popular read, in this horribly wicked modern world.

skip spence, excellent stuff! I just want to say perhaps the word that could be used is "luck." Tolkien thought he had been a lucky man...

"I have always been undeservedly lucky at major points."

And in Tom Shippey's The Road to Middle-earth he discusses a lot about "Providence" and "luck."

However, ‘chance’ was not the word which for Tolkien best expressed his feelings about randomness and design. The word that did is probably ‘luck’....‘change their luck’, and can in a way say ‘No’ to divine Providence.

[Morthoron]

Excellent research, Boromir88, and points well taken. I think we can all now admit that Tolkien didn't know what he was bloody talking about, or rather, enjoyed the art of writing letters more than worrying about the veracity of the contents. As Hot and Crispy Hobbit Fingers said on several occasions: "Tolkien's work only embraced the ideals, not the details." Who knew that also applied to his letters?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

One wonders whether, when Tolkien wrote phrases like "his fate drove him" and the like, he was thinking of 'fate' not as Latin fatum or Fata, but as a translation of OE wyrd, which doesn't carry that same implication of intention, but comes closer to "that which happens"- T certainly knew that fatum originally meant the ruling or pronouncement of a god, and in that sense was much closer to OE dom, modern doom.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

One wonders whether, when Tolkien wrote phrases like "his fate drove him" and the like, he was thinking of 'fate' not as Latin fatum or Fata, but as a translation of OE wyrd, which doesn't carry that same implication of intention, but comes closer to "that which happens"- T certainly knew that fatum originally meant the ruling or pronouncement of a god, and in that sense was much closer to OE dom, modern doom.

Ne mæg werigmod wyrde wiðstondan,
ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
For ðon domgeorne dreorigne oft
in hyra breostcofan bindað fæste;

A weary mood won't withstand wyrd,
nor may the troubled mind find help.
Often, therefore, the fame-yearners
bind dreariness fast in their breast-coffins.

That's a stanza from the OE poem The Wanderer. It basically relates that one can try to hide from troubles, or bravely fight on and win in the face of adversity. Interesting concept (sort of an Anglo-Saxon Self-Help manual).

At first blush, one would think that the OE definition of wyrd (which has a prominent place in Beowulf as well) would be Tolkien's primary linguistic focus. He seems to use the words doom and fate interchangeably, and wyrd is a closer approximation of Catholic Predestination dogma in that one has a personal wyrd which is subject to one's free will; where it variates slighty from Catholicism is that one's personal wyrd is inhibited or affected by another person's wyrd, and I can see many cases in the books where this is the case.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Gwathagor used the analogy of a novelist [...] With this view however the characters aren't free to act inside of the story as they can only do only what the writer wrote, be that good or evil. In other words, they lack free will, and can not be held accountable for their actions - at least not fairly.

I disagree. Within the context of a story, the characters are considered free of will and are held responsible for their action. Nobody blames JRR Tolkien for Saruman's betrayal, but Tolkien gave him that part to play nonetheless.

(Keep in mind that this is an analogy, and as such has its limitations. Don't try to take it farther than it's meant.)

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I disagree. Within the context of a story, the characters are considered free of will and are held responsible for their action. Nobody blames JRR Tolkien for Saruman's betrayal, but Tolkien gave him that part to play nonetheless.

(Keep in mind that this is an analogy, and as such has its limitations. Don't try to take it farther than it's meant.)

My point is that Sauruman is a traitor every time you read the book. His path has been chosen by Tolkien, not by himself, and can therefore not be held responsible for his actions. If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

What's really amazing is the adaptability of Tolkien's story, and I whole-heartedly disagree with Brin and the others who argue there is no reconciliation between Tolkien and modernism:

I fully agree, although I'm not quite sure what definition of "modernism" this Brin fella uses. I do think too much is made of Tolkien's Catholic faith and his purported "conservatism". While undoubtedly some of his personal values shine through in his books, the values expressed in the books aren't those of the Catholic Church or of modern day conservatives. As for conservatism, it is a word which has taken on many different meanings of course. When I hear the word, I primarly think of value-conservative people favouring God, country and the established authority, while strongly disliking "modern" ideas like socialism, gay-rights, rock'n'roll or abortions. You know the indignated, Hippie-bashing, what-would-Baby-Jesus-think crowd...

I see little or no conservatism of this kind in Tolkien's books. If anything, the ideals expressed is those of Liberalism in it's original meaning, that is "Do as you wish, as long as you don't hurt anyone else". Aragorn, as a representation of a just ruler, never forces anyone to follow him or claims that they should because it's their duty and that he is in the right. He doesn't tell anyone what to do, instead he says: Those who are willing, follow me! This is what I believe in. Invading Orcs or Easterlings will be treated harshly of course, but he makes no claim to dictate their lives as long as they stay away or act nicely. Of course there are no references to for example gays in LotR (thank god for that!) but if there were I'm certain Aragorn wouldn't make any judgement on their liftestyle.

I think a strong message in the books is tolerance, tolerance and humility. You may not have all the answers, Tolkien seems to say, and your will isn't more important than others peoples'. The evil of Sauron and Morgoth is that they try to bend everyone's will to theirs: they have no tolerance for other opinions. Arrogance and greed is also a common flaw among the "good" characters such as Turin, Feanor or Thorin. Are these ideals of tolerance applicable in today's modern society? I would think so.

Those of religious inclination may also appreciete the strong message of faith in a good God expressed in the books. This message is not specifically a Catholic or Christian one however, at least not in those works published by JRRT himself.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by skip spence

My point is that Sauruman is a traitor every time you read the book. His path has been chosen by Tolkien, not by himself, and can therefore not be held responsible for his actions. If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.

My point (which I evidently did not make clear) is that there are two perspectives on history: a divine perspective and a human perspective. From the former, we see that all is foreordained, and from the latter, we see individuals making choices and taking responsibility for those choices; you have the author, and the characters. They are two sides to the same coin. Consider the characters on their own level, and you will see that WITHIN THEIR STORY, they have what you would call free will.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Consider the characters on their own level, and you will see that WITHIN THEIR STORY, they have what you would call free will.

No, if everything is preordained, the characters may belive they make choices and that they are free, but they can't be. To make an actual choice there must be different options available and with a future already decided there can be only one option: that what the characters do. They can do nothing else.

Or can they? Please explain to me how they can. How can the book character Sauruman repent, and do what he was sent to do?