David Brin's criticisms

[tumhalad2]

Hey Tolkien fans

I was reading David Brin's critique on The Lord of the Rings recently and I have been having what one might call a 'crisis of faith'.

It seems to me that Tolkien himself was torn between different interpretations of his own story, though Brin seems to say that ultimately it the disastrous, 'genocidal' romantic view that held sway.

Can we really catagorise Tolkien's work like that, and can Brin allagorise it to the degree that he says that Tolkien's "good" side are not really good but only fighting selfishly for the preservation of the "old world" (ie agrarian etc) and that "evil" is simply a word used by the "victors" who win the War of the Ring to label Sauron's army which is the only that is composed of "all the races in middle-earth" (does he think there's Avari or something in Sauron's forces). Brin casts Sauron in the light of rebeller against the old world, against the uber-elves, against the evil Gondorians.

Can this really be the case. If I look at LOTR in that light I cannot, sorry, cannot enjoy it any more. As such I don't want to look at it in that light but Brin's argument is peruasive.

The way I take it, The end of the War of the Ring is no agrarian, back to old ways affair. It is a time of change, and by no means does the defeat of Sauron mean the 'defeat' of machines. Rather I take Sauron's defeat as being the defeat of an evil,an evil which is defined in Lord of the Rings, and which Brin fails to grasp.Sauron, ultimately, is no one's ally; indeed if he were victorious he would have consumed even the universe perhaps. Brin would say- "that's from the victor's point of view', to which I say-"no, its the reality. Indeed, The victors 'wrote' the Red Book, but nonetheless, was Sauron victorious no Easterling or Southron wouldh've been any better off.

Ultimately, the society that does win through the War of the Ring is an imperfect, indeed hierarchical one. But by no means does Tolkien envisage a return to such. There is enough evidence in his own writing that such an 'elitist' society is as terrible as any other (Numenor). Though there is elation with the victory of Gondor, and though it is not demcratic, it is, ultimately, better than Sauron's dominion.

Brin is right to suggest that there are instances in which Tolkien appears to critique his own writing and challenge his own ideas. However, Brin does not extrapolate on this and instead his article pushes his agenda. The Lord of the Rings should not be taken to either extreme, for there are many contradictions and paradoxes within tolkien' s own thought that make for a complex, and therefor very real-like, universe.

Thoughts on Brin and his critique?

here's the article:

www.davidbrin.com/tolkienarticle1.html

[littlemanpoet]

No time to read the article right now, but on the face of it, it seems that Brin is criticizing Tolkien's LotR for being northwestern European and Anglo-Saxon. Oh to be a Brit basher, especially when one is a Brit! Something perversely pleasurable about it, I'm sure.

[Sir Kohran]

Note: if you are American please don't take any offense; this is not an anti-American rant, just my own take on his work.

Looking at Brin's biography I was unsurprised to see that he was American and I think this explains a lot of why he does not 'get' Tolkien's themes. He criticises the 'romantic' ideal of a past golden age. The problem with his writing is that he doesn't have the right perspective. Tolkien was British and writing for a British audience (it was only later that the book became the international favourite it is today). Thus his work reflected a British outlook and British opinions.

The thing is that America has never really had a past 'golden age' - despite some bumps on the road (the Depression, Vietnam, 9/11, etc.) America's history has virtually been uphill ever since they gained their independence and became a nation. Throughout the 19th Century, the US was expanding across North America, and in the 20th Century they became the world's richest country, with only some small involvement in WWI experiencing little of WWII's negative effects.

Britain also did well in the 19th Century, becoming the world's dominant power and enjoying great wealth and advanced culture. In the 20th Century, on the other hand, Britain had a pretty hard time of it. Millions of young men were mindlessly slaughtered in one of the most horrific conflicts in history (WWI) and after WWII the country was shattered, both financially and spiritually. The British Empire was crumbling and the country became increasingly little more than anywhere else that had experienced the war, with a bleak, dull future. The glory days of the Victorian era semed like a dream to many people after that. For the people of Britain in the forties and the fifties the 'golden age' was very real, and now out of reach.

And I think that comes through in Tolkien's writings. Arda was once a world of beauty, light and perfection (essentially the Victorian era). But by the time of his story (LOTR, written in the fifties) the world has become a decaying, desolate place, scarred by the ruin of war. Places of happiness like Lothlorien and Rivendell still remain - but they are really just what has survived - they are from a past age, a glimpse of a bygone era. The heroes are not trying to create a better future, they are trying to save what is left of the past. The 'future' appears to be the smoke and cruelty of Mordor and the Orcs.

Much of what happens in LOTR and its ending are perhaps Tolkien's own fantasy - that the depressed British would find the strength within themselves to overcome the bleak future prepared for them and to return to the 'golden age' of the Victorian era. And I think this was a sentiment shared in much of Britain.

But America never went through this stage of post-war depression (heck it's been over a century since a war was even fought in North America), or at least not in the way that Britain did. So it's not all that surprising that Brin, as an American, finds Tolkien's ideals strange. And in some ways he's right - constantly looking back on the past and trying to recreate it is not a good way to live. But he's not British and so I think this affects his outlook somewhat.

Of course, Britain eventually got past this bleak stage and (mostly) recovered from the war, but sadly Tolkien died before he could see it happen. I often wonder if his works might have been different if they had been written in the 70s-90s rather than the 40s-50s. Perhaps we might have gotten a different message altogether.

Anyway, that's just my opinion from what I've gathered on Tolkien as a person. What does everyone else think?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by David Brin

LOTR clearly reflected this era. Only, in contrast to the real world, Tolkien's portrayal of "good" resisting a darkly threatening "evil" offered something sadly lacking in the real struggles against Nazi or Communist tyrannies -- a role for individual champions.

Come on. I bet that every country that was under Nazi or Communist oppression has a wide folklore about the resistors. Even my small county has, and they are honored to this day by books and whatnot.

His elves and hobbits and uber-human warriors performed the same role that Lancelot and Merlin and Odysseus did in older fables, and that superheroes still do in comic books. Through doughty Frodo, noble Aragorn and the ethereal Galadriel, he proclaimed the paramount importance -- above nations and civilizations -- of the indomitable romantic hero.

I wonder what has struck Mr. Ph.D as super-heroical about the hobbits, be they of the fellowship or not. Their hairy feet? Ability to eat several times a day? Inhuman precision at rock throwing? I guess he missed the part about humble turning the wheels of the world, rocking the towers of the wise, etc.

Wouldn't life seem richer, finer if we still had kings? If the guardians of wisdom kept their wonders locked up in high wizard towers, instead of rushing onto PBS the way our unseemly 'scientists' do today? Weren't miracles more exciting when they were doled out by a precious few, instead of commercializing every discovery, bottling and marketing each new marvel to the masses for a dollar ninety-five?

I am sure that what has made the humanity advance in their contact with the High Elves was the later keeping their secrets from the former.

Didn't we stop going to the Moon because it had become boring?

And now we are bored of Earth and going back to the Moon.

"There's a reason why kings built large palaces, sat on thrones and wore rubies all over. There's a whole social need for that, not to oppress the masses, but to impress the masses and make them proud and allow them to feel good about their culture, their government and their ruler so that they are left feeling that a ruler has the right to rule over them, so that they feel good rather than disgusted about being ruled."

I wasn't aware that monarchs had it going so bad, being forced to live in luxury and all that. I guess I was wrong!

This fits the very plot of Lord of the Rings, in which the good guys strive to preserve and restore as much as they can of an older, graceful and 'natural' hierarchy

No, they were just praying that their efforts were not too late to help them _survive_. Preservation of the past is more of a elvish motive, and LotR is human-centered.

manufactured power-rings that can be used by anybody, not just an elite few.

Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possessor? I guess not, and it takes the steam out of that statement.

Consider the rings.Those man-made wonders are deemed cursed, damning anyone who dares to use them.

Man-made rings indeed!

The only people with dark skin in Middle-earth are the Orcs

W-o-s-e-s.

Let's not ignore, but instead openly acknowledge the underlying racialism and belief in an inherent aristocracy that J.R.R. Tolkien weaved into the books, without even much attempt at subtlety.

Anyone care to send Brin a link to a good old fashioned Barrow Dowsn "LotR is not racist 101" thread?

Or might [the armies of Sauron] instead have thought they were the 'good guys', with a justifiable grievance worth fighting for, rebelling against an ancient, rigid, pyramid-shaped, feudal hierarchy topped by invader-alien elves and their Numenorean colonialist human lackeys?

Yes; elves had human lackeys and slaves working their fields.

In fact, toward the end of this essay, I'll offer my own small bit of ironic take-off. A different, and possibly much better, way of viewing Sauron, the evil Dark Lord.
...
Picture, for a moment, Sauron the Eternal Rebel, relentlessly maligned by the victors of the Ring War -- the royalists who control the bards and scribes (and movie-makers). Sauron, champion of the common Middle-Earther! Vanquished but still revered by the innumerable poor and oppressed who sit in their squalid huts, wary of the royal secret police with their magical spy-eyes, yet continuing to whisper stories, secretly dreaming and hoping that someday he will return... bringing more rings.

Why, oh, why did I read Tolkien's version instead of this. Ashes and sorrow!

All right, I read Tolkien's epic trilogy a bit unconventionally, starting with The Two Towers and backfilling as I went along.

See, _that_ is how you read a book and make a critique about it. That's a proven way to get the story and its theme right. I bet you all have been doing wrong all along.

[Boromir88]

After reading Raynor's post, I wasn't expecting too much 'Enlightment' (yes that's an intended pun) from this guy. So I kind of skimmed through the article a bit, to get a few chuckles...

Tolkien himself calls them tragic figures and dwells on their background.

Dwells on their background? Besides 3 being 'great lords of Numenor' thats all we know about the Ringwraiths prior to receiving the Rings. In fact Tolkien left their identity unknown to emphasize their thraldom to Sauron. I wonder where he got the idea that Tolkien 'dwelled' on their background or that they were 'decent men?'

identifying with a side that's 100% good. You can revel as they utterly annihilate foes who deserve to be exterminated because they are 100% distilled evil.

Funny, doesn't Tolkien say he does not believe in absolute Evil? And I think from this thread, there is a consensus that there is no absolute good either? And maybe he missed some of these remarks from Tolkien:

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right…In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.~Letter dated 25 September 1954

The snootiest and most relentlessly aristocratic characters in LOTR stand off in the wings. For example preachy, secretive and patronizing Elrond and Galadriel, coaxing maximum effort while letting others do the fighting for them.

And yet these two were quite influential and important in 'fighting the long defeat.' Perhaps 'Dr. Brin' missed the part where Mirkwood and Lorien are repelling assaults of their own? Perhaps he missed the part where Celeborn leads an army to defeat the forces of Dol Guldur and Galadriel trashes the place?

And that is all I really cared to read. I wouldn't put too much stock into this Doctor tumhalad.

[Quempel]

I must have a different version of the books, either that or Brin just likes the bad boys to win.

[Aiwendil]

Wow - I've seen some reasonable critiques of Tolkien, but Brin's essay is surprisingly muddled and imperceptive. I seem to remember an equally brainless tirade against Star Wars from him. Has anyone read actually read anything by him? Is his fiction any good or is it as uninspired as this?