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

[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.