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

[tumhalad2]

The Dark Side indeed-the dark side of Tolkien apparently. I am a Star Wars fan and while trawling the boards of StarDestroyer.net I came across this particular topic-discussing the cultural merits of 'Star Wars'. However (and readers will be wondering at this point where this is going, but hang in there!) the topic quickly degenerated into a bashing session aimed at the perceived conservatism and racism in the Lord of the Rings.

Read it for yourself, but for me it raises some questions, questions that have to a degree been discussed here before in relation to David Brin's critique and to an extent Phillip Pullman's. The discussion that was had on this particular board, stardestroyer.net, in many ways summed up their central argument: That Tolkien is not a modern writer, that he is inherently conservative and anti-modern, that this worldview has been influenced profoundly by his Catholicism, and that as a result he should not be taken seriously-at least not by readers who have a 'modern' worldview. Whatever that means. One forumer even went so far as to say that the Jackson films, and by extension the books, have clouded the general populace's mind and in doing to have lessened their capacity to take on the modern, "preferred" worldview, that, to these people it would seem, holds all the answers.

Now, firstly I would like to say I have struggled with this side of Tolkien for some time. I still enjoy his books, very much so, though my enjoyment has been tampered by these sorts of ideas, coming from the seemingly indestructible David Brin and the like. I find myself asking...how could these people be wrong? Their analysis appears to make sense, from a social point of view. Can the modernist worldview and Tolkien be reconciled? To these people, I think not. Can we, as Tolkien fans, come to some sort of reconciliation with it? Or are the 'modernists' right and Tolkien and his books are conservative, bigoted, past looking and juvenile? Certainly these people would argue that is the case.

I’m sorry to scare people, but this has been getting on my nerves, from the point of view of my ability to enjoy Tolkien. The trouble is, there is something that always pulls me back, that seems to transcend this 'social analysis' that these seemingly emotionless 'smart people' heave onto the book.

Thoughts?

ooo and here's the link to the discussion. Please feel free to tear it apart for me!!:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtop...er=asc&start=0

[Nerwen]

Oh Gawd, not this again.

It's rather ironic this time. They're responding to an attack on Star Wars by some people on another board (probably Trekkies, given the context) who denounce it as backward-looking and fascist.

That's a favourite ploy by a certain type of fan– decide that the only measure of a novel or film is how "modern" or "progressive" or whatever it is. Then attack your perceived rival for failing to live up to those qualities. This allows you to bypass questions of worldbuilding, plotting, dramatic interest, characterization, visual or literary style– and well, any other point on which a work of fiction is usually judged.

Unfortunately, in order to defend Star Wars, this lot have taken the tactic of finding a third party to beat up. It looks like Tolkien just got caught in the crossfire.

What's sad about this is that Warsies and Ringers should really be sticking together– our fandoms tend to be attacked by the same people and on the same grounds. Note that David Brin has made targets of both Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings. I have read both critiques and I'm not inclined to take either seriously– each involves blatant distortion of the work in question. I mean, David Brin isn't a bad writer, judging from short stories of his that I've read, but I wouldn't call him "indestructible". His articles seem to me to be breathtakingly naive about history and politics.

Now, I myself feel Tolkien's a bit of a Luddite in some ways– so what? Likewise, the Jedi thing is a tad elitist. That only matters if you think the sole purpose of art is to promote the "right" political and social agenda (i.e. the one you happen to agree with).

As for the old "denounce your rival as Fascist/Communist" trick– ever hear of Godwin's Law?

Finally: this lot, and the unnamed board they're quoting from, seem to have by and large accepted David Brin's simple old vs new model: either you're conservative and anti-technology (bad) or progressive and pro-technology (good). Anyone not see the flaw in this?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Of course, tumhalad, you're starting from a premise that the 'modernist worldview' is a good thing.......

[tumhalad2]

haha, well, that's the question isn't it. I mean, there is something frighteningly un-human about humanism, if you catch my drift. Humanism is really what these people are talking about I suppose-a worldview unencumbered by gods or higher powers, one in which all humans are morally equal, one in which there is no 'ubermenschen', as David Brin likens the Elves to (I think that is taking it a bit far).

I want to say that I do not necessarily believe 'modernism' to be a good thing; I do believe progress, technological and otherwise, is good, and I believe that an eternal focus on the 'past' is a bad thing. Modernism is simply a highly seductive philosophy, and David Brin's technocratic utopianism is an example of that.

I suppose the greatest difficulty I have, in light of all this, is reconciling Tolkien with Humanism-the kind they talk about in this thread. Humanism appears to be their guiding, all encompassing philosophy, one that according to them Tolkien did not adhere to. Fundly enough, of coarse, there are examples in Tolkien's work where humanistic conclusions are reached, (Frodo destroying the ring, lol!) though this appears to escape these Star Wars forumers.

I read one day in a review of the Silmarillion that, quote "Tolkien repudiates humanism" with the War of Wrath; ie having the Valar interfere rather than allow the Humans to defeat Morgoth. Whether this has any merit im not sure, but undoubtedly it would add to the argument of these humanistic modernists.

Lastly I really don't know about the merits of humanism and modernism; I certainly think, nonetheless, that the world is a far more complex place than such philosophies allow for.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

one in which there is no 'ubermenschen'

Like the Jedi aren't?

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Like the Jedi aren't?

well no, i suppose the point is that the star wars forumers are attempting to defend their own interest by means of attacking another which they perceive to be inherently more conservative, and thus bad.

Perhaps it makes them feel better, lol

[tumhalad2]

"Finally: this lot, and the unnamed board they're quoting from, seem to have by and large accepted David Brin's simple old vs new model: either you're conservative and anti-technology (bad) or progressive and pro-technology (good). Anyone not see the flaw in this?[/quote]


The problem is that they would argue that Tolkien is doing exaclty the same thing, equating evil with technological progress and good with the simple, hobbitic lifestyle.

This of coarse is in fact an assumption on there part-they assume Tolkien is making some sort of social statement. However, it may not even be this concious...they would and do say that regardless of Tolkien's intentions the work is inherently infused with these "conservative" "bad" "backward" ideas, that yes they equate at least with antiprogress and badness.

Therefore, they (Im using 'they' a lot) say that Tolkien's book, regardless of his intent, is inherently backward, conservative, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a 'retard'(to quote the star wars board)!!

This subtle argument is the most difficult to tackle.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

The problem is that they would argue that Tolkien is doing exaclty the same thing, equating evil with technological progress and good with the simple, hobbitic lifestyle.

I guess I didn't make myself clear: what I was trying to say is that as well as being simplistic in itself, this model does not represent reality in that the world is not just divided into two camps of "the old" vs "the new".

For example– very many people who consider themselves left-wing and therefore socially progressive are highly suspicious of technology, medicine and science in general. Where do they fit? (Note that Tolkien has always been beloved of hippies.)

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

This of coarse is in fact an assumption on there part-they assume Tolkien is making some sort of social statement. However, it may not even be this concious...they would and do say that regardless of Tolkien's intentions the work is inherently infused with these "conservative" "bad" "backward" ideas, that yes they equate at least with antiprogress and badness.

Therefore, they (Im using 'they' a lot) say that Tolkien's book, regardless of his intent, is inherently backward, conservative, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a 'retard'(to quote the star wars board)!!

This subtle argument is the most difficult to tackle.

Not really. What they seem to be saying is that no work which does not actively promote their own particular views can be taken seriously.

Frankly, I think that's a pathetic attitude– and I am a humanist!

[tumhalad2]

I would agree with that...I suppose my trouble is that Brin et al write convincingly and with a great deal of conviction. Its rhetorically good, one might say. But yes, sorry I see what you are saying and I take your point.

I want to point out I am not FOR these people, I do not agree with them, I am just working through these issues in my head, because I do enjoy Tolkien very much.

As I say, despite all of Brin and other's rants, I keep coming back to Tolkien, I keep returning to this universe that in so many ways inspires me.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

well no, i suppose the point is that the star wars forumers are attempting to defend their own interest by means of attacking another which they perceive to be inherently more conservative, and thus bad.

Perhaps it makes them feel better, lol

Certainly... but I think they're falling into a trap: instead of addressing the argument properly, they're putting forward a substitute victim... then using a lot of special pleading and nitpicking to "prove" that what applies to Lord of the Rings somehow doesn't apply to Star Wars. It's not an easy position to sustain. If you ask me, they're laying themselves wide open to future attacks.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I want to point out I am not FOR these people, I do not agree with them, I am just working through these issues in my head, because I do enjoy Tolkien very much.

As do I... but I'm mainly arguing because I'm a.) a Star Wars fan and b.) probably fairly close to most of these people in a lot of my views... which is why I find their lack of faith... er, I mean tolerance... disturbing.

[Boromir88]

I only skimmed through the link because I really don't see much merit in what many of the posters were saying. They seem only to have a vague idea with what they are talking about and others miss the mark completely.

I just had to get that out of the way, they're not why I'm writing a post. Tumhalad you have brought up some very good questions and I think this is going to become a "hot" thread.

Can there be a reconciliation between Tolkien and modernists? I don't see why there has to be one, as this "clash" between Tolkien and modernism is I think one that is non-existant (and is made up in the minds of critics like David Brin).

I will point out another author I greatly enjoy to read, I love his books (even though they are "children's books") and that is Terry Pratchett. Who happens to be a humanist. Pratchett has had both and admiring and critical view, of Tolkien. I think Pratchett can put his admiration in words better than I could:

"I can't remember where I was when JFK was shot, but I can remember exactly, where and when I was when I first read JRR Tokien. It was New Years eve 1961."

And this one...which has often been taken out of context as Pratchett slamming Tolkien as merely writing "children's stories," yet he wasn't downplaying what Tolkien wrote at all:

If you don't believe that Tolkien is the greatest writer there ever was when you are 13 years old there is something wrong with you. If you still believe that when you are 53 there really is something wrong with you.

I say this has been taken out of context because Pratchett is:
1. An author who primarily write's children's stories...his famous Discworld novels are targeted for the young fantasy audience
2. When saying this Pratchett was 53 years old himself.
So, Pratchett, as is his normal style, was poking fun at himself and not "downgrading" Tolkien's stories by any means.

In fact, Pratchett is a staunch defender of the fantasy genre and believes that fantasy authors can wield a lot of influence...it certainly had a strong influence on him:

"Fantasy isn’t just about wizards and silly wands. It’s about seeing the world from new directions."

And in an interview Linda Richards she makes the comment that Practchett:

"...believes he owes a debt to the science fiction/fantasy genre which he grew up out of..."

So, Pratchett is at least one humanist author (although he jokes he's a "bad humanist" because he can be "persuaded.") who credits Tolkien not only the influence that Tolkien had on him, but what Tolkien had done for the fantasy genre.

Pratchett is critical of Tolkien's books, but not for it being "anti-modern," or simply "childrens stories," just some things he didn't like. For instance, he explained to BBC's Mark Lawson when he first read The Lord of the Rings he didn't like how as an orc or a troll you were stuck, there was "no redemption" for you, and he believed the Elves were evil tricksters that were up to no good. So, Pratchett's always been a voice for the fantasy genre and has always admired the author who had a profound impact on his own writing...despite being a humanist.

With that said, I'd also like to put the Lord of the Rings into a historical context, because then you can see and understand the time Tolkien was writing in, is greatly different than our world now.

Tolkien lived in a time when "new technology" meant "new weapons that could kill hundred, thousands, and millions of people almost instantly" (machine guns, chemical weapons, the H-bomb...etc). "New technology" meant "production tycoons stripping the land of all its resources and moving on to the next piece of land." The idea of "conservation of nature" was pretty much unheard of. I don't know much about the rest of the world, but in the States the idea of "conservation" didn't take action until Teddy Roosevelt was persuaded by his friend John Muir and Roosevelt established a National Parks system. Yes, technology did (and has) led to progression, but technology has been a major destroyer of life and nature (especially during Tolkien's life).

Let's also look at Tolkien's feelings of the "chateaux generals" (as termed by Sir John Keegan) that sprung up during World War I, because these generals (as opposed to fighting on the fronts with their men), stayed miles from the front lines in nice chateaux. In Janet Brennan Croft's War and the Works of JRR Tolkien she makes the astute remark:

Leadership in the forefront of battle is a moral duty for generals and others in Middle-earth.

Leading from behind is morally suspect in Middle-earth and tactically flawed as well.

Then let's not forget that after World War I democracies all over Europe were struggling, they were failing, and falling apart. Democracies were being seen as "weak" and "unable to fix the problems" Europe faced after World War I.

Putting it in a historical perspective, is it really a wonder than that Tolkien writes a story where "technology" is linked to destruction (Saruman), the great generals (Aragorn and Theoden) are the ones who lead from the front and in Theoden's case die in "glory" while the bad generals (Denethor) stay cut off from their soldiers and in their towers to "think," and that Gondor, Rohan, Erebor...etc are ruled by Kings?

[tumhalad2]

That is an interesting take on it...and I suppose I find much merit in it.

I'd like to bring up another aspect of Tolkien at this point, add it to the boiling pot:

The primary theme of his book, Tolkien said, was "death and the desire for deathlessness"...I was thinking about this the other day and it occured to me that Brin and his disciples largely miss the entire point about the Lord of the Rings. On top of that they assume Tolkien has included certain themes and ideas in his work because they assume he was writing, conciously or unconciously, on his social worldview.

Now, that may be the case with much modern literature, though I do not in fact believe Tolkien was, conciously or unconciously, injecting much of his worldview into the Lord of the Rings.

Allow me to explain: to begin lets look at some examples where that IS the case; where Tolkien's experiences or social outlooks have flavoured some scenario. Perhaps the most obvious is the Scouring of the Shire, which he says in the Foward to the Lord of the Rings can be attributed to his experiences as a child. Of course, this would all add to the point Brin et al are trying to make: Tolkien is anti-technology. I think it is a leap of faith to make that jump, and other forumers have already said much about technology and Tolkien's times. From the point of view of his experience then, some aspects of the work can be said to have been 'flavoured' in such a way that Brin would find, and does find, repulsive. It is also perhaps to be acknowledged, therefore, that technological progress was not Tolkien's favourite idea, though what form this distrust of technology took is not always clear and has indeed I think been wrongly manipulated by Brin and his compatriots.

From starting point, in a sense, Brin and the Star Wars forumers have 'deduced' that Tolkien was antimodern and his work infused with conservatism. As other forumers have more succinctly pointed out, this was, to a large degree, not the case and a misjudgement. However I have another idea about why Brin et al were entirely wrong.

They have a social agenda, and therein they trawl through Tolkien's books on the merits of its social outlook. However, I think they fail to realise that not all fiction is motivated, whether concious or uncouncious, by social concerns or themes. Rather, I believe Tolkien was almost entirely motivated by his concern for human nature and specifically the quest for human being to 'understand' death.

Thus, I believe the 'backward looking' elves and Numenorians are less products of Tolkien's love for the past, and more products of one side of the 'death' coin.

Elves are immortal; the elves of Lothlorien lived in a mortal world, thus naturally they attempted to keep that which would inevitably die from doing just that. For the elves, the death of any life, in a sense was unnatural. Similarly the Numenorians were concerned with the preservation of their own beings-also an unnatural act for them. So, these 'good' nations were ultimately pursuing policies unnatural to Middle Earth, hence the 'long defeat'. With the War of the Ring, the ability of the elves to preserve their world was diminished. Essentially the Elves were concerned with transcending time, for they were immortals in a wholly mortal and finite world, and so their nature was to attempt to transcend that.

Though I am a rather insuccinct writer and a little circumlocutory, I suppose I am trying to get across the point that Tolkien was conciously motivated by ideas wholly unrelated to 'social' themes, and while ultimately events, peoples and worldviews may appear 'backward' to those who wish to interpret the world that way, Tolkien's writings are more about exactly what he said they were, an exploration of 'death and the desire for deathlessness'

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

They have a social agenda, and therein they trawl through Tolkien's books on the merits of its social outlook. However, I think they fail to realise that not all fiction is motivated, whether concious or uncouncious, by social concerns or themes.

Yes... I was trying to say something like that earlier:

Originally Posted by Nerwen

That only matters if you think the sole purpose of art is to promote the "right" political and social agenda (i.e. the one you happen to agree with).

and,

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What they seem to be saying is that no work which does not actively promote their own particular views can be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I suppose I am trying to get across the point that Tolkien was conciously motivated by ideas wholly unrelated to 'social' themes, and while ultimately events, peoples and worldviews may appear 'backward' to those who wish to interpret the world that way, Tolkien's writings are more about exactly what he said they were, an exploration of 'death and the desire for deathlessness'

That's very well put, tumhalad.

I'd say, though, that abuse of technology is at least a secondary theme of Tolkien's work (especially if you count the Ring itself)– but then, it's one of the major themes of science fiction!

I'm really not sure why he's such a favoured target of certain people.

In this case it looks almost like an automatic response: "Aaarrrgh! They're after us! Quick, throw them The Lord of the Rings!"

[skip spence]

To my mind, Tolkien was indeed conservative and not a follower of 'modenism' at all. He was also a devout christian. And he certainly infused his works with many 'messages' taken from his personal worldview and religious beliefs, some of which Boromir88 have taken up in his excellent post. Nerwen also mentioned how the hippies of the 60's and 70's loved LOtR. One reason why they did so was (I imagime) their agreement with the anti-war message and the ideals of living in harmony with nature expressed in the books.

But do you have to agree that monotomy is a moral obligation to enjoy Tolkien's books? Do you have to share Tolkien's religious beliefs? And can't you favour a secular, capitalist society with focus on technological development but at the same time appreciate nostalgia over past days (real or imagined)?

My answer is no, no, and yes.

I don't judge books according to how well they confirm my opinions. I have a lot of sympathy for Tolkien's ideas but certainly don't agree with all of them. I'm not a religious man nor am I very monogamous. But I love Tolkien's books nevertheless, and the conservative 'messages' in them take nothing away from that.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

My thoughts? David Brin, and anyone else, is just a person. Celebrity status does not give his opinion any more weight than anyone else's opinion. He's entitled to his, I'm entitled to mine, and neither his nor mine is superior. It just is.

I was once a Star Wars fan, back in the days when we had to wait three years for the next part of the story to come out. I had been a Tolkien fan for over 10 years by the time the first SW movie was released, and I had no trouble being a fan of both. By then, I was also an ex-Catholic, and knowing that Tolkien was a devout Catholic in no way troubled me. Again, he had his point of view, and I had mine. I had also been a science fiction and fantasy fan for a good long time. The secular humanist movement had always been strong in SF fandom, but I and most of my fan friends weren't a part of it (I may no longer be a Catholic, but I still believe in God). The "humanist" vs. "religious" argument has striking similarities to another argument in SF fandom, that of "books" vs. "media." To make a long story short, when Star Wars came along and made SF acceptable to the mainstream audience, some of the more vocal and eminent pre-Star Wars SF fans, feeling threatened by the massive influx of fans of science fiction movies and TV shows, began to decry all "media" SF as inferior to "book" SF. It had a profound effect on the fan community, and as someone who at the time was on both sides of it, I can say from sad experience that it got pretty ugly.

The issue of secular humanism vs. religious belief in SF may well have a similar history. When the internet came into the picture as part of the SF community, I think something was unsettled in what some people saw as the status quo. Time was, there were SF fans of all kinds of beliefs, from very religious to agnostic to atheist, and it was fine so long as nobody was perceived as pushing their beliefs as the only "right" way the think. I know that I have participated in a number of discussion groups where people's religious beliefs are made quite plain; you see it in screen names and sig files and such all the time. I've even run across people who automatically assume that everyone on a given board is a Christian, just because they seem nice and behave politely. I'm sure that this is sticking in a number of craws in the SF community, and some of those people will feel a need to respond by making their own beliefs equally clear. Almost inevitably, I fear, intolerance rears its ugly head. Just as it did 30 years ago when Star Wars changed the way the world looks at and accepts science fiction and fantasy.

What all this means, at least from my point of view, is that something happened that shook up or irritated the Star Wars fans with a humanist point of view, and they now feel they must defend their position more forcefully (no pun intended). That they are aiming at LotR is not surprising to me, because of the popularity of Jackson's movies. Star Wars was once the preeminent SF movie series, held all the records for attendance, etc. -- and Jackson's LotR came along and changed that. I've seen (and known) a lot of fans of popular works who were profoundly upset when something knocked their favorite from the Number One spot. They react almost angrily, with a vigorous statement of why what they love is and will always be superior, and why "the enemy" is inferior. What strikes me as odd about this particular humanist vs. religious argument is that it sounds like a repeat performance of what happened when the massive popularity of Star Wars shook up the SF community so many years ago. (It also strikes me as odd because part of what I didn't care for about Jackson's version of LotR was that, to me, it felt like he was trying to interpret Tolkien through the lens of secular humanism, downplaying or eliminating virtually all the "religious" aspects in favor of adventure, but that's another discussion entirely.)

When all is said and done, Tolkien's works were intended to be mythology, and by its nature, myth tends to be what some would call religious or spiritual. It's a way of explaining the inexplicable in the world, in nature. I have loved mythology and comparative religion since I was a little kid, and I've found great inspiration in many things I have read and learned. That doesn't mean I have to be a card-carrying believer, so to speak. All just my opinion, for what it's worth.

[tumhalad2]

Ibrin that was an absolutely fascinating and enlightening response-thank you and I greatly enjoyed reading it.

As to medernism and its virtues, yes, I would agree, having taken some time to think about it, that it is fundementally reactive and flawed. Postmodernists *chuckle*, well, lets not get into that...

Anyhow yes, Tolkien's world does admit to sadness and loss as a reality, and denying this is indeed I think futile on the part of the Star Wars forumers and their utopic vision...

[Nerwen]

As a general reply to the last few posts, I should say that The Lord of the Rings in my opinion does explore quite a number of themes. It is however, not a primarily didactic work (or what I sometimes call a "How To Vote Story"). Neither is Star Wars. That– in a way– is the joke.

Ibrin, the whole thing began, as far as I can work out, because some posters on another forum declared their contempt for both Star Wars AND The Lord of the Rings, on the grounds that neither was sufficiently progressive. The response from the crew at stardestroyer.net was to a.) distance themselves from LotR and b.) think up some hair-splitting reasons why the criticisms of it were valid but the ones of SW weren't.

As I said, it's rather pathetic.

[tumhalad2]

or that LOTR is MORE conservative than Star Wars and thus deserving to be ruthlessly attacked....lol

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Ibrin, the whole thing began, as far as I can work out, because some posters on another forum declared their contempt for both Star Wars AND The Lord of the Rings, on the grounds that neither was sufficiently progressive. The response from the crew at stardestroyer.net was to a.) distance themselves from LotR and b.) think up some hair-splitting reasons why the criticisms of it were valid but the ones of SW weren't.

As I said, it's rather pathetic.

No kidding. With that history, I see very clearly what probably happened: rather than just defend their own turf, someone in the SW forum decided to turn LotR into a sort of common enemy. "We aren't bad, but these other guys are." It IS quite pathetic. It's rather like something I was told by many authors who were both friends and people whose opinions I respect: If in writing, the only way you can make your hero look good is by making everyone else look like witless fools and buffoons, your hero isn't a real hero at all. An argument intended to support your position that relies on bashing someone else is not a well-constructed argument. When dealing with the kind of contempt you describe, you're best to either ignore it utterly, or just defend your own part of it and leave others to their own defense.

[tumhalad2]

Thats it Ibrin. Nonetheless, are there any valid criticisms these people bring up? They defend the Force in Star Wars by saying that Sauron is a 'two dimensional Satan figure'-while another forumer denounced LOTR as being inherently racist, not at Tolkien's behest, but in terms of the fundemental nature of the book...should we as Tolkien fans accept some of this? Or is it too modernist trash?