Fantasy Morality

[Nerwen]

leapofberen– My comments about "stating things over and over" and about "quasi-gnostic mysticism" refer to Dakêsîntrah, not to you, in case that was the source of your confusion.

If not, well, I thought I was being straightforward, but here it is another way. You jumped into this thread and started attacking us in what I can only call a pretty darned hostile fashion for arguing with Dakêsîntrah's interpretation of Tolkien's work, and especially for asking him to provide evidence for his remarkable claims. This is because, for you, this is "intellectualising" and destroys the book's illusion of reality. I mean, what can I say? Yes, leap we like to discuss books in our book discussion forum. Further, we like to discuss them as books, that is, as works of fiction. Again, this is a pretty normal thing to do, and I think you were quite out of line getting angry about it.

And of course you are free to challenge if you wish, I don't think I stated otherwise.

Ahem. Maybe I'm totally out, leap, but it seems to me the entirety of your first post was you expressing your anger and contempt at the analytical, evidence-based style of debating used by myself and others.

By the way, I said you had a double-standard because I see you have yourself argued in this way on another thread. That's a minor point however.

[Nerwen]

It occurs to me that we are perhaps both missing something. leap and blantyr, how much of this thread did you read before you posted? Do you have any idea what we were arguing about?

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

It occurs to me that we are perhaps both missing something. leap and blantyr, how much of this thread did you read before you posted? Do you have any idea what we were arguing about?

I had been skimming it. I have my own personal views on the subject. A creator might be judged by his creation. A judgmental god might well be judged according to the same standard that he judges others by. If a god, through inaction, allows gross evil to continue, some of the responsibility for that evil belongs to the god.

I might even extrapolate such thoughts into The Lord of the Rings. I see divine influence as well as the free will of the 'children' effecting the story. To me it is proper that powers make it at least possible for the children to find a good resolution.

But I also see a basic difference between the morality and values of the First and Second Age stories, unpublished in Tolkien's lifetime, and TH and LotR. The former works seem coupled with the old medieval epic tragic traditions, which hold that the greed and pride of the great leads to disaster for everybody. (One might not be able to criticize the nobility, but one could make up stories about heroes and gods which show one's opinion of bad lords.) TH and LotR are far more Christian in portraying benevolent if hidden divine assistance guiding history and preventing the worst tragedies.

I was and remain dubious about applying study of First and Second age divinity and morality to the Third Age. The basic themes of the works are different. In order to help my own suspension of disbelief, I'd like to think that everyone immortal learned from their mistakes in the First and Second Ages, that they operated with different goals, rules and methods in the Third Age. Instead of sending armies or wielding great magics to reshape the world, they'd send five wizards with instructions to be subtle. Magic and intervention became must less blatant. The divine powers and the wisest of the Wise were capable of making mistakes, recognizing mistakes, learning and growing.

(Which is in good part why Goldie walked away from Al. Goldie is a minstrel who knows all the old songs. Prolonging conflict out of a sense of pride just isn't a good idea.)

All of the above opinions, I think, are viable, but I'm not going to attempt to prove that my way of looking at things is the same as Tolkien's, or that my interpretation of the story is more plausible than many others. Myth and legend might properly be like that, and be treated like that.

Anyway, I'm far more a fan of TH and LotR than the First and Second Age writings. I have an emotional and perhaps irrational dislike for the academic perspective that holds the First and Second Age stuff as canon, as cleanly trumping interpretation of the Third Age stuff. As the strict Old Testament God of laws and judgement morphed into the more loving and forgiving God of the New, I see Tolkien's divinities as learning, growing and changing too.

[Nerwen]

blantyr–

No, I mean did you understand that in the latter part of this thread we have been arguing, not about the original subject, but about Dakêsîntrah's
claims regarding the supposed esoteric symbolism of... um... anything and everything? I ask, because neither of you sounds as if you do.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I have an emotional and perhaps irrational dislike for the academic perspective that holds the First and Second Age stuff as canon, as cleanly trumping interpretation of the Third Age stuff.

And who exactly do you think has been putting forward this position?

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

And who exactly do you think has been putting forward this position?

I have spent a good deal of time on the Fourth Turning web site, a forum that discusses a modern theory of cyclical history. (Little to do with Dakêsîntrah's ancient cyclical perspective. These cycles last about four score and seven years.) I learned there to discuss ideas rather than name names. I'd be pleased to discuss ideas, but am not inclined to call people out, to turn things personal and partisan.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

blantyr–

No, I mean did you understand that in the latter part of this thread we have been arguing, not about the original subject, but about Dakêsîntrah's
claims regarding the supposed esoteric symbolism of... um... anything and everything? I ask, because neither of you sounds as if you do.

No, I sort of glazed out with his first two long posts. He went on too much of a tangent for me. I guess it was enough of a tangent that the academic perspective would have to dominate.

I can see something of a cyclical pattern in Tolkien if I squint and tilt my head sideways. The Fourth Turning cycle theory suggests a major crisis every four score and seven years. Tolkien has a crisis at the end of each Age. Both might be viewed better as a spiral than a circle, as at the end of each crisis the culture has gown and adjusted. Rather than return to where one once was one ends up standing on the shoulders of the giants that navigated the crisis. Toynbee in A Study of History presents another cyclical perspective, of civilizations that rise and fall. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations works on a similar scale.

But these are historical rather than mythic cycles. None of them apply very well to Tolkien. Way tangential.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by blantyr

I learned there to discuss ideas rather than name names. I'd be pleased to discuss ideas, but am not inclined to call people out, to turn things personal and partisan.

As a matter of polite discourse, it is always a good thing to avoid ad hominem attacks, and simply focus on the topic at hand--but if you're going to jump into an argument (or discussion, if "argument" sounds divisive rather than logical to you), it helps to know what ideas you're debating against... and the whole thread is a matter of public record. While it's laudable to avoid saying "Downer X is a blithering idiot" and "Downer Y is clearly an idiot," there is nothing wrong at all with saying "Downer A, Downer B, and Downer C all seem to be arguing from an intellectualist perspective--insert quotations here--and I think they're missing the boat with regards to the proper spirit of Tolkien--insert quotation from Tolkien here."

Debate works on the ability to refer to the person you are debating--not as an object of attack, but as the one who is articulating the argument you arguing against. If you don't think that you can charitably tell whose posts we ought to be keeping in mind when reading your arguments, it's very difficult to have any sort of precise idea what it is you're putting forward, since what you put forward is directly tied to what you're putting it against.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Pitch

To be honest, I rather liked leap's first post - which doesn't mean I have to agree with each and every statement therein.

Well, that's your opinion, Pitch. Mine is that he was most extraordinarily rude.

Originally Posted by blantyr

I learned there to discuss ideas rather than name names. I'd be pleased to discuss ideas, but am not inclined to call people out, to turn things personal and partisan.

My point is that, in fact, nobody (not even the thread starter) was maintaining the point of view you seem ascribe to us collectively. You see, sometimes names do help, blantyr. I also think it's a good idea, in general, not to leap blindly into a debate.

Originally Posted by blantyr

I don't know that any of us ought to consider ourselves keepers and defenders of the proper spirit of Tolkien. He wrote different works in different styles at different points in his career. I don't know that there is any single 'proper' spirit. I feel it is art, and that beauty in art comes to a great extent from the perspective of the observer. Even if there was a proper spirit of Tolkien, different aspects of it would resonate in different readers.

An excellent point, and one I couldn't agree with more. On that note, perhaps you should think twice next time before you post in support of someone who is heavily laying down the law about what topics others may or may not discuss, and in what fashion?

EDIT:X'd with Nogrod.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by blantyr

Anyway, I'm far more a fan of TH and LotR than the First and Second Age writings. I have an emotional and perhaps irrational dislike for the academic perspective that holds the First and Second Age stuff as canon, as cleanly trumping interpretation of the Third Age stuff. As the strict Old Testament God of laws and judgement morphed into the more loving and forgiving God of the New, I see Tolkien's divinities as learning, growing and changing too.

When Tolkien made his son Christopher his literary executor, he was implicit in his wish to have 1st and 2nd Age material published; as a matter of fact, it was certainly Tolkien's hope that The Silmarillion, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, would be published in his lifetime. Unfortunately, based on the vagueries of the publishing business, a sequel for The Hobbit (ie., The Lord of the Rings) overrode Tolkien's ardent wishes that his earlier histories be brought to light.

Therefore, your wish to adjudicate a separation of canonicity regarding such material is a matter of personal taste and not one necessarily held by most of the posters here, or of the majority of Tolkien scholars, for that matter. The ties that bind the new and the old were clearly necessary to Tolkien, who was vehement that the publishers include so much of his ancient history in the appendices of LoTR. In addition, references to the Ring of Barahir, Morgoth, Eärendil, Varda (Elbereth Gilthoniel), Gondolin, etc., make it clear that Tolkien purposefully set about to have the Third Age merely another epoch in a grander, more ancient tale of Middle-earth.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

@ Pitchwife: I like the way you think. Very well balanced.

...and apt to get me suspected in Werewolf for being wishy-washy.

Originally Posted by leapofberen

@ Nerwen: You sound mad.

No she doesn't - she's the voice of reason itself, only a little bit grumpy at times.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

You jumped into this thread and started attacking us in what I can only call a pretty darned hostile fashion for arguing with Dakêsîntrah's interpretation of Tolkien's work, and especially for asking him to provide evidence for his remarkable claims.

Actually, I don't see all that anger and hostility in leap's post - s/he was critical of the previous discussion, to be sure, but didn't make a hostile impression on me. I may of course not have gotten some nuances of language, not being a native speaker etc.

leap and blantyr, if you're interested in a discussion of the pros and cons of what I think you call intellectualizing, you might like to have a look at this thread.

[Mithalwen]

Actually, Pitch, I think to start a post - particularly your first ever post on a message board with "My God, people..." followed by an attack on posters you don't know and a reprimand that they are going against what the Professor would have appreciated, is hostile and frankly when I read it I assumed the poster was a troll.

Apart from saying stuff that just don't bear scrutiny (Tolkien did start a sequel to ROTK and those aren't the reasons he abandoned it - he simply thought it would be depressing and not worth doing) there was the diktat on how the work should be taken and describing not doing it the poster's way as one of the "biggest tragedies"....

Tolkien is very far from a simplistic writer - the more I read him the more I aprreciate the depth and complexity of his work, the care given to give characters an ideolect appropriate to their history.

[Pitchwife]

OK, Mith, if you put it that way, I see what you mean - but if leap behaved like a troll, s/he was being an independently thinking and articulate Olog with strong feelings about Tolkien that I don't fully agree with but can sort of sympathize with, and the ability to express them, and I don't see why there shouldn't be room for a few such specimens in this large zoo of excentric personalities, even if they don't arrive fully house-trained. To be honest, I rather liked leap's first post - which doesn't mean I have to agree with each and every statement therein.

But maybe, since I wasn't involved in the original discussion (although I followed it with interest), I should shut up now and not get even further off topic than we already are.

[Mithalwen]

Pitch, I think we are a "broad church", and we have many articulate, independent thinkers and surely we all care passionately about Tolkien else we wouldn't be here. If we were a bunch of sheep we possibly wouldn't have minded being told the error of our ways.... but I'm done before the Skwerls arrive.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

As a matter of polite discourse, it is always a good thing to avoid ad hominem attacks, and simply focus on the topic at hand--but if you're going to jump into an argument (or discussion, if "argument" sounds divisive rather than logical to you), it helps to know what ideas you're debating against... and the whole thread is a matter of public record. While it's laudable to avoid saying "Downer X is a blithering idiot" and "Downer Y is clearly an idiot," there is nothing wrong at all with saying "Downer A, Downer B, and Downer C all seem to be arguing from an intellectualist perspective--insert quotations here--and I think they're missing the boat with regards to the proper spirit of Tolkien--insert quotation from Tolkien here."

There is nothing wrong with the above style of discussion. Still, I don't see it as the only possible style of discussion.

I don't know that any of us ought to consider ourselves keepers and defenders of the proper spirit of Tolkien. He wrote different works in different styles at different points in his career. I don't know that there is any single 'proper' spirit. I feel it is art, and that beauty in art comes to a great extent from the perspective of the observer. Even if there was a proper spirit of Tolkien, different aspects of it would resonate in different readers. If five blind hobbits were to stumble into an Oliphant, and we were to find ourselves involved in a rope / snake / fan / tree / wall sort of discourse, you might find me off the the side practicing my face palms. Tolkien's works are as complex and multi-faceted as any Oliphant.

And I fear I for one will base my perspectives from the art rather than academic sources. If I believe the magical conflict more blatant in the First Age than the Third, I'll work from examples rather than trying to access academic works looking for an appropriate quote. I've read and reread The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings often enough that my originals are falling apart, but I'm not into the First and Second Age stuff, let alone any of the professor's notes or letters.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

leap and blantyr, if you're interested in a discussion of the pros and cons of what I think you call intellectualizing, you might like to have a look at this thread.

The text was interesting and worthy. I can see how the thread ended with the cartoon, though.

[Nogrod]

There are academic works on any issue that are paper-dry and "academic" in the worst sense of the term, strangers to life or literature. There are also idiosyncratic interpretations led by self-righteous hot-heads that maybe inspired but will leave most of the other people quite empty-handed - and there are emotional & individualistic viewpoints that serve mainly as spiritual masturbation for the one who writes them...

But many academic texts are also profound, thought for, learned, inspiring and uplifting with all the supporting "evidence" and learning behind it, not to say that they can rally make a difference. There are also some more or less home-spawn "exotic-theories" that can actually affect many people and make them learn to see things in new ways - and at their best, even the purely personal and emotional views can open up new worlds for others to explore and to re-adjust their minds.


So let's not say academic discussion is bad as such, or that not having footnotes is bad, or that disagreeing is bad in itself.

Disagreement is the nurturing force of enlightenment - when it is argued about and not fought over with guns or fists - or bad rhetoric...

I think it a stupid or immature attitude when I hear people saying that they hate / love either classical music, hip-hop, techno, heavy rock, punk, mainstream pop, whatever... You can do any of those astonishingly great or blatantly bad. A lousy interpretation of Vivaldi is no better than commercially driven punk-rock. Dead Kennedys, Bach and The Who can all be good, while it is clear that Justin Bieber and Francis Goya mock music and those bling-guys are a disgrace to hip-hop...

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by blantyr

Still, I don't see it as the only possible style of discussion.

See, no one ever claimed it was the only possible style of discussion.

[Morthoron]

Things get really disquieting on a thread when the discussion turns from disquisition to a dissertation on how one should discuss the discursive aspects of discourse, which I find is a disgusting digression.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

See, no one ever claimed it was the only possible style of discussion.

For that matter, nobody (except Dak, possibly) ever claimed that his or hers were (to quote you again, blantyr) "the only possible interpretations". Where exactly did you get that idea?

Now, I want you to understand this: I am a great believer in, and defender of, the right of readers to like what they like, dislike what they don't like, and generally approach books in any way they please, rather than having to interpret them in any one "official" manner.

However, once you move out of the realm of personal preference, I think it fair enough that you should be asked to support your statements.

Now, there are many things in Tolkien's work (as in many other writers' work, for that matter), that don't have a final, definitive answer. In fact, I believe most of us hold this as a basic assumption. But the thing is, often the value of a discussion lies not so much in its ultimate goal but in the interesting things that happen along the way. I really think this is something that people who disapprove of argument miss, just as much as those who are only interested in winning or losing.

Please don't think me hard line about this– I'm not saying every stray remark should be debated into the ground or that every statement must be proven from first principles. However, blantyr, the fact is that you have certainly not been shy about giving us your views, at length, on a considerable number of topics– have you? I ask you to consider how much practical difference there is, then, between saying your opinions should be above question, and maintaining you're always right?

[Herald_of_Mandos]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

My God, people...I think Tolkien would appreciate this discussion about as much as he appreciated hippies making LOTR into something other then what he originally intended. Granted, Tolkien's work is intellectual, but it is not intellectualism.

One of the biggest tragedies is approaching his works or ending his works in something other than the faerie that birthed it. We all appreciate the in depth discussion (I certainly love the finer points of Tolkien) but some of this is insane.

Originally Posted by leapofberen

To me, Middle Earth was, and is real. I think it is for all of us, in our hearts. Yet I am still holding out within the design that it really is tangible.

Right on! What makes these half-baked academic types think they have the right to say anything whatever until they've made absolutely sure that it couldn't possibly upset anybody's swarfega-dish for any reason at all? Don't they realise that just by speaking of "The Lord of the Rings" as "a novel by J.R.R Tolkien" they're dealing a vicious slap in the face to those of us who regard it as a sacred text? Why, it's like attacking the Cult of the Sonorous Enigma! It's the greatest tragedy since the Pica regime!

Of course, there are those who might try to tell you that posting on an internet forum pretty much does for suspension of disbelief in Middle-earth anyway, but then some people will say anything. Why, I've even heard there are lunatics out there who claim my beloved homeland of San Serriffe is totally fictitious! How dare they!

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Please don't think me hard line about this– I'm not saying every stray remark should be debated into the ground or that every statement must be proven from first principles. However, blantyr, the fact is that you have certainly not been shy about giving us your views, at length, on a considerable number of topics– have you? I ask you to consider how much practical difference there is, then, between saying your opinions should be above question, and maintaining you're always right?

There is not so much difference "between saying your opinions should be above question, and maintaining you're always right," however I assert neither. I would expect healthy diversity in people's views about Tolkien's works. I expect the diversity of views on Tolkien says as much about the diversity of people holding these views -- about how various downers see things -- as about Tolkien. As people will see different things in random ink blots, people will be attracted to different aspects of Tolkien's work and fit the work into their own way of seeing the world.

Dakêsîntrah might stand as an example, with his interest in world mythology and comparative religion coloring his posts. To the extent that my interests and studies don't overlap his, my interest in and understanding of Tolkien are going to focus on different aspects and ideas. While Dakêsîntrah and I might plausibly be unusual or extreme cases, I'd suggest we all bring something of ourselves into what we find in Middle Earth.

This being the case, I might not be so interested in debate and proofs as some. I also read Tolkien more as art than as a formal and consistent academic system. As such, I might not be using the same tools as others.