And it slips through our fingers

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

The diminishing of things is one aspect of Tolkien's stories that has always fascinated me. The idea that things generally get worse or weaker over time certainly makes for less happy endings. It adds to the tragedy. There are numerous examples: the decline of Middle-earth in general; the Elves; Numenor; the race of Men; the Hobbits and the Dwarves. The zenith of their greatness was reached fairly swiftly - maybe Numenor was more complex - and the descent to the (perhaps illusionary) nadir took a much longer time.

I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious. I know almost nothing about Catholicism, Christianity or religion in general. Is it anything to do with the Garden of Eden?

What it does do is go against a staple of Romanticism or the Enlightenment, namely that human achievment, wisdom and greatness keeps increasing.

Any thoughts? As I suggested, I can hardly bear to imagine a Middle-earth with lots of happy and glorious endings. It wouldn't be right.

[the phantom]

I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious.

Somewhat.

Eden was perfect but man ruined it.

After that things got worse and worse until in Noah's day God was sorry he had ever made man and flooded everyone except Noah and his family.

And then in prophecies of the end times it says that it would be a lot like the days of Noah once again- in other words things would get worse and worse.

But of course the very very end is happy (the devil gets tossed, the church hangs out in heaven, etc).

[alatar]

Have thought about this too. Seems that Tolkien created a world in which things run down from a perfect start. Not sure exactly why he chose to do thus, but I can offer my thoughts:

• I would say that some people look to the past as the "golden ages," seeing it glorified in some manner. This view obviously glosses over the rough and bad that also existed in those days. I always find it funny when people tell me that they would have liked to have lived during the pioneer or chivalry/knights ages. These same people can't eat something that an ant crawled on nor go camping without their portable generators.

• His view does follow the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time. This disorder can be expressed in terms of the quantity called entropy.). From Eru to the present, we've gone from one to many many times over.

• If Tolkien were writing a pseudo-history, well, then, he knew where the story had to end, which would be with us and our world as it is in its present state. No orcs, just jerks and sociopaths. No dragons, Balrogs (winged or otherwise), wizards, seeing stones, elves, etc. Surely some might look at dinosaur bones and think of old Glaurung, use cell phones and think of Fëanor, see people of a certain look and think hobbit or elf or dwarf or beornings, etc, but that would be those of us who know what to look for - traces of Middle Earth amongst us.

He also may have included his Christian viewpoint, but I'm not sure that the two map exactly. If one were to read Genesis (the first book of the Bible), one sees a perfect world created which then starts to fall from perfection. All is good until the first two humans sin, which then starts the world spiraling down and away from perfection. The same text speaks of mankind living hundreds of years (the oldest man being Methuselah who lived for 969 years!). Something changes after the noachian flood, afterwhich the average lifespan of man decreased (until recently, when it has started increasing again).

The historical view would be that the world is winding up, in regards to technology and knowledge, and a biological viewpoint would be that the world is simply changing. We might think that we're all that, but we haven't been here even a tenth of the time that the dinosaurs 'ruled the earth,' and just when was the last time you saw one of them boarding a tram?

Sometime in the future the Christian world will return to perfection, though the scientifc view is that the earth will be swallowed by the sun, which in turn will burn out, and if current physics has it right, the whole universe will run down into silence.

But not to worry, as that's at least a few years from now, and you should continue to save money for the 25th anniversary edition of the LOTR DVDs by Peter Jackson .

[Elianna]

*concurs with all the religious things phantom and alatar have said.*

But then the up side of all of this is "eucatastrophe." Yes, everything is getting horribly worse, but eventually it will all be set right. Yes, the Elves are going away, but look, there's still hope in people like Faramir and Eldarion. Yes, after five Battles with Morgoth, we're nowhere near defeating him, but look, the Valar have come to our rescue. Yes, Numenor was destroyed, but look, there's still the Faithful with their seven ships, and seven stones, and one white tree.

Probably, Tolkien is pointing to a grander, universal eucatastrophe. That these smaller eucatastrophes hardly make up for what was lost, and even looking at the bright side, it's nowhere near as bright as it used to be. But we can still look forward to the final eucatastrophe in the End. And this, I think, really is a Christian concept.

Yeats' "The Second Coming" also comes to mind, the gyre and things fall apart...

[Folwren]

I don't know that Tolkien was pointing directly to our world with his getting worse and worse but he could have been. I know that C.S. Lewis was aware of the deteroration of this world and the people therein, and I would guess that Tolkien was as well. But as to contuing to get worse and worse with no hope to ever regain the perfect glory that they began with, that much does not mirror what will happen here.

Alatar, I agree with most everything you said, so I won't go repeating it all.

The ending of our World, however, may be more glorious than that of Middle-Earth's ending. If you believe the Bible and study it and understand it at all, then you can see that when this World comes to an end, as we say, then the new world will be ten times more glorious and all the evil that has filled it will be removed, and all the perfect things we've messed up with be restored.

I don't see that as possible in Middle Earth. The things that were lost there may not be recoverable...least ways, that's the impression I've gotten from what I've read of his books.

-Folwren

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Folwren

I don't know that Tolkien was pointing directly to our world with his getting worse and worse but he could have been. I know that C.S. Lewis was aware of the deteroration of this world and the people therein, and I would guess that Tolkien was as well.

I would disagree. Surely things change, yet if you read history we're still the same humans (or not) that we were thousands of years back. The Christian Bible shows many examples of less than civilized/immoral behavior that could be taking place today.

I don't see that as possible in Middle Earth. The things that were lost there may not be recoverable...least ways, that's the impression I've gotten from what I've read of his books.

I would agree. To me it seems that each new age in Middle Earth is born with some loss. Within that age some beings may achieve some great things, yet when averaged and compared with the preceding ages, the achievements are never as lofty.

In the Fourth Age Minas Tirith may enter its glory, yet it will never be as it first was, or as Gondolin was before it. And as Gimli says to Legolas as they enter Minas Tirith, men seemingly will never live up to their own potential.

[Angry Hill Troll]

So are things getting better or worse? Well, my personal view is that a plausible case can be made for either side, which to me indicates that the answer isn't all that clear cut: some aspects of life, the world, etc. seem to be getting better, and some seem to be getting worse.

For me personally, at a more fundamental level, I'm not sure the question is all that important:

"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But it is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

I have always found the quote above to be very inspiring and meaningful. We live at a certain point in time not of our choosing, nor can we control to any great extent the characteristics or history of our time on earth. But certainly it is important how we choose to live in our alloted time. Was Frodo any more or less noble than the heroes of the First Age, simply because he lived in a time in which Arda was diminished compared to what it had once been? I think Elrond is correct to equate Frodo's deeds with those of the Elf-friends of the First Age.

I think that apart from the philosophical implications of the 'entropic' nature of Middle-earth, it gives the narrative rather a pseudo-medieval feel. The idea that 'progress' was inevitably destined to make everything better in the future than it had been in the past (an idea which Tolkien clearly did not share) has only been around (in western civilization) roughly since the Renaissance. Before that people looked at the history and remnants of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman civilizations much as the people of late Third Age viewed the ruined works of the elvish and Númenorian civilizations, as examples of technology and achievement they could never hope to equal, and whose knowledge was lost. It was only when, during the Renaissance, that various discoveries unknown to the ancients were made, that a psychological shift occurred, leading in the extreme to a rather trite idea that 'progress' would inevitably make everything better.

I personally don't really buy into either idea. I put a disclaimer, that based on my actual career field (science) and outside interests (linguistics, among other things) in Arda, I would definitely be a Noldorin elf in the vein of Fëanor. That said, I think that science and technology are morally neutral: having more technology at your disposal doesn't make you a better, or a smarter, or a more morally upstanding person, it just makes you a person with more gadgets, however you may choose to use them. Of course, we are all having this conversation on the Net, so clearly none of us have such a dislike of this technology that we choose to run away from it. On the other hand, there are many uses to which the Internet is put which are better left unmentioned.

Cheers, everyone

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious. I know almost nothing about Catholicism, Christianity or religion in general. Is it anything to do with the Garden of Eden?

I think it is simply a sense of malaise.

People of any age experience longing for the past, and feel nostalgia. This takes the simple form of reminiscing about Chopper bikes and when Tucker was in Grange Hill, but at a deeper level it manifests as us really believing that the world is changing for the worse, and you only have to pick up The Daily Mail to see how many people think this way. I think it is one aspect of being mortal that as we age, we look back. Getting older means getting more worries, and we naturally think back with regret to the times when we did not have such burdens.

We also forget the bad things which have been and gone. Today we talk of how young people are 'feral' and run away from chavs but I remember the cries in my own youth of 'bring back the birch', and how anyone with a mohican was looked upon as possibly of criminal intent. The cycle will repeat itself backwards over and over, so that you can imagine a grown man in the Medieval period tutting about the new fashion for pointy shoes and how it was a herald of the downfall of civilisation.

I think Tolkien was just reflecting what we all feel as we get older. He himself was plunged into adulthood at an early age when he went to fight in WWI, and we can see this in his early writing which was even then tinged with sadness; maybe if this had not happened to him his writing would have been more hopeful, or maybe not? That melancholic music and literature (The Smiths, vampire fiction etc) can be so popular with young people suggests that even at a young age the malaise can set in?

Originally Posted by Boromir88

It's the basic concept of the Business Cycle. It's always going to happen, there's no stopping it.

Ah, but you haven't got Gordon Brown in the US...

Still, I think that the human malaise can be cyclical. Just as we are moping about chavs and feral children, we can also be uplifted when we hear a child using good manners, or saying something amusing. We might yearn for The Shire but how many of us would put up with 'knowing our place' as Sam does?

Progress is bittersweet. On the one hand we are now able to go anywhere we please by car but on the other, we will soon destroy our own world by exercising this privilege, and maybe this is where our malaise comes from. So many of our pleasures are relatively fleeting, and the only lasting joy is to be found in the memory of them, like looking at holiday photos. I think I need a drink now...

[davem]

Others have pointed out (Flieger for one) that Tolkien had an 'Elvish' aspect to his character, a yearning for a lost ideal past. Maybe that's what comes through in his writings. He can accuse the Elves of wishing to 'embalm' the world, fix it into an ideal state from which it can never move on, but he has this nostalgic tendency himself. For the Elves time itself was a kind of enemy, bringing change. The past was always the ideal place to which they strove to return. The writers of the Red Book - Bilbo, Frodo & Sam all seem to have had an extreme love of the Elves & perhaps this comes through in the Legendarium - it is not an unbiassed account of events, but one written by non Elves in an 'Elvish' mood. Perhaps if the original accounts had been written by others it would have been more 'positive' about the future.

Certainly many things are lost forever, & they are things worthy of being mourned by those left behind, but the story is not without hope & hope is always forward looking, as regret is always backward looking.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

The diminishing of things is one aspect of Tolkien's stories that has always fascinated me. The idea that things generally get worse or weaker over time certainly makes for less happy endings. It adds to the tragedy. There are numerous examples: the decline of Middle-earth in general; the Elves; Numenor; the race of Men; the Hobbits and the Dwarves. The zenith of their greatness was reached fairly swiftly - maybe Numenor was more complex - and the descent to the (perhaps illusionary) nadir took a much longer time.

I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious. I know almost nothing about Catholicism, Christianity or religion in general. Is it anything to do with the Garden of Eden?

What it does do is go against a staple of Romanticism or the Enlightenment, namely that human achievment, wisdom and greatness keeps increasing.

Any thoughts? As I suggested, I can hardly bear to imagine a Middle-earth with lots of happy and glorious endings. It wouldn't be right.

While it might be lots of fun, it is always problematic to posit psychological or biographical reasons for authors' point of view or particular stance in novels. Yet, it is so tempting! With all the references to death, including that of Aragorn and Arwen in the Appendices, I wonder if we can't say that the greatest affect of time, death, was something Tolkien felt keenly. And with loss comes remembrance, usually of the finest aspects lost rather than of the worst.

He lost his father while still a toddler (and then the land where he played) and then his mother in his early teens. That experience of death came sooner, earlier for Tolkien than it does for most other human beings. This is not necessarily an experience of things getter worse or weaker, but it is a profound experience of change and of loss.

Life is short, art is long.

[Lathriel]

Loss has always been a big part of life. I often think about it and sometimes about death as well.
But it is a human tendency to look at the negatives first. Sometimes the positives are even forgotten. So people who are always saying that the past was better might say so because they are negative about today's world and forget the positives.
Or at other times when they do see the positives of life they see them in the past and not in today or the future.

well, I am rambling but I hope that you understand what I am trying to say.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Back to the 'baggage' thing.......

davem, Eomer set up this thread to discuss a variety of ideas concerning the concept of the long defeat. He did not limit the discussion to textual matters.

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

The diminishing of things is one aspect of Tolkien's stories that has always fascinated me. The idea that things generally get worse or weaker over time certainly makes for less happy endings. It adds to the tragedy. There are numerous examples: the decline of Middle-earth in general; the Elves; Numenor; the race of Men; the Hobbits and the Dwarves. The zenith of their greatness was reached fairly swiftly - maybe Numenor was more complex - and the descent to the (perhaps illusionary) nadir took a much longer time.

I would particularly like to know if this theme is ultimately religious. I know almost nothing about Catholicism, Christianity or religion in general. Is it anything to do with the Garden of Eden?

What it does do is go against a staple of Romanticism or the Enlightenment, namely that human achievment, wisdom and greatness keeps increasing.

Any thoughts? As I suggested, I can hardly bear to imagine a Middle-earth with lots of happy and glorious endings. It wouldn't be right.

Therefore, this is thread in which we can discuss, if you will, the validity of the concept of the long defeat. It is not a matter of clarifying what Tolkien meant so much as considering concepts of history. It is thus not a thread in which you can throw baggage at others simply because they wish for discussion's sake to consider other ways of thinking about history. You, after all, did bring in Blake.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Hurry back, because I want you to explain this a little more. Are you suggesting that we have moved away from beauty as a signifier for 'class' or 'taste' or even virtue? As I find that the world is just as prejudiced a place as ever about 'beauty'. I've only to open a women's magazine and peruse the grot therein about suntans, diets and plastic surgery to have my suspicions confirmed.

As regards the beauty of the Elves within Arda, I simply go along with Tolkien's notions of their beauty, much as I accept the notions of beauty portrayed by artists from different periods in history reflect changing tastes which may not correspond with my own.

However, I would be slightly perturbed by the notion that beauty equals virtue in Tolkien's world. If Tolkien intended this to be the case then there are many exceptions. There are some Elves who are clearly not virtuous, just as there are some supposedly odd looking (according to our norms, which tend more towards the Elvish) characters such as Treebeard, Dwarves, Hobbits, Gandalf, Ghan-buri-Ghan etc who are virtuous.

Sorry, I was cross-posting and missed your earlier post. For now, quickly, I'll say that I don't think we can generalise that people enjoy embalming art and culture because I don't think the tourists who visit England and traipse around its ruins reflect the full range of people's interests. And, in fact, I think one reason why so many do traipse around your ruins is that in North America we tend not to have so many--and those we do have don't go back two thousand years!

I'll reply to this one now.

You are quite right that certain images of beauty are shoved down our throats via the mass media. But what has changed is that we are not culturally dependent upon one image, one form, one source any more, much as Madison Avenue or Hollywood would have us believe. There really is a wider appreciation (at least in my culture) of a variety of forms of beauty. IQ tests no longer have questions based upon prioritizing one form (white) over another (Amerind or Black), just as art no longer has to be "modern" in order to make it into art galleries and just as music has its alternative genres, even in country music! Cultural Studies has widened our concept of possibilities, as has Multi-culturalism. At least here.

As for the beauty/virtue thing, in one letter Tolkien discusses evil and beauty, but I am again rushed and cannot find it. I really have to start using sticky notes in my copy of the Letters as I can never find what I want at the right time.

The interesting point for me is which side of the physical beauty debate the narrator 'sides' with. We have the hobbits who rigorously defend their size and worth, but the narrator at least at certain places in the texts, does not show an appreciation of their pov. I must get my act together and post this more fully on the CxC thread.

But, I say again, I had understood Eomer's intent here as an open discussion of a variety of theories of beauty, progress, change, rather than simply one which regurgitates Tolkien's texts. "As a concept to live by..." sort of thing. After all, if we can compare Tolkien with Harry Potter, why can't we take Tokien's ideas and consider them in the light of those of other writers?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

By all means.

I'll just try my best to keep up.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Therefore, this is thread in which we can discuss, if you will, the validity of the concept of the long defeat. It is not a matter of clarifying what Tolkien meant so much as considering concepts of history. It is thus not a thread in which you can throw baggage at others simply because they wish for discussion's sake to consider other ways of thinking about history. You, after all, did bring in Blake.

But are we considering the same things? Put aside the conceit that Middle earth is our world in the ancient past & can we make any direct comparisons between that world & our own, or between various theories about our own history & ones about Middle earth?

I think this applies equally to concepts of Beauty. The history of Me is a history of fall from perfection & the fight against the Long Defeat. The Elves were created by Eru to be the height of physical beauty. Those are givens, facts, which cannot be disputed. As such we are not dealing with a 'theory' but an objective 'statement' about the nature of that world. No reader of Tolkien's Legendarium could argue with those 'facts', though they may disapprove of the story as a whole & wish Tolkien had written a different one. By the end of the Third Age the Elves have lost all hope for themselves within Me. Again, 'fact'.

In our world there are competing theories & value systems about both history & beauty & they can be argued about & one can choose which one appeals over the others or is more 'accurate'. In Middle earth one can't do that, because we only have one account - that of Tolkien himself. We can argue that Tolkien's values & beliefs are incorrect or out of date, but within Middle earth itself we can't apply those primary world values without being wrenched out of that world & left with nothing but a few dead 'leaves' of literary criticism in its place.

Of course one can take that approach, & see LotR as an 'anti-enlightenment' work - or a 'Catholic' work - which is much the same thing, but I think that all that does is 'dismantle the Tower to see where the stones came from'. In short, we're focussing on the storyteller & analysing his motives & values, rather than listening to the story he is telling us. One is free to place LotR in the balance on the side of the 'anti-enlightenment & see if that balance is tipped sufficiently to claim that the Enlightenment was a mistake, or use it as an argument against 'modernism' & for traditional Christianity, but to my mind that is a mis-use of it, as it would be a mis-use of any artwork. The purpose of Art is to open us up to something deeper or higher than 'theories' - eternity.

Which is my theory......

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

You are quite right that certain images of beauty are shoved down our throats via the mass media. But what has changed is that we are not culturally dependent upon one image, one form, one source any more, much as Madison Avenue or Hollywood would have us believe. There really is a wider appreciation (at least in my culture) of a variety of forms of beauty. IQ tests no longer have questions based upon prioritizing one form (white) over another (Amerind or Black), just as art no longer has to be "modern" in order to make it into art galleries and just as music has its alternative genres, even in country music! Cultural Studies has widened our concept of possibilities, as has Multi-culturalism. At least here.

I think certainly for those who are culturally educated (for want of a better term) that this would hold true, but even if there are different ideals to choose from, there are still dominant ideals. And it takes a brave person to fly in the face of those; certainly for actresses, they are expected to conform to an ideal, witness what happened to Julia Roberts a few years ago when she went out with au naturel body hair! I think the difference now is that we are more aware of the pressures to conform, and aware of the sometimes sinister meanings behind cultural messages being forced upon us via seemingly innocent ideals of fashion.

I certainly appreciate that in terms of music and art in particular the idea of beauty has been turned on its head. Much of what we now enjoy is nothing short of brutalist, and art and music are all the better for it. Sometimes something more visceral makes us think. But in terms of fashion and beauty the ideal is still incredibly narrow.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

And, in fact, I think one reason why so many do traipse around your ruins is that in North America we tend not to have so many--and those we do have don't go back two thousand years!

Hmm, many of those traipsing around our ruins (which aren't necessarily ruins ) are British people. When Prince Charles made his famous statement about modern architecture reminding him of 'carbuncles' the majority agreed with his statements. Alas much of the beauty in British architecture comprises of the seemingly 'low', the terraced street, the dry stone wall, the 19th century artisans' workshop, things that aren't protected. The 'ruins' are safe, it's the ordinary but charming that goes.

And I do think Tolkien admired the ordinary yet attractive features of our landscape. The Shire is quite 'ordinary', which is why it is so sad that it is almost destroyed. That Tolkien had little pleasures such as a 'favourite tree' rather than a favourite mansion sums his idea up.

[Lathriel]

I love old buildings and when I moved from Europe to Canada I really missed them. It is not because I want to embalm the past. It is because these old buildings show us how it used to be and it also partly shows how people used to live and how they progressed. I am always curious about how things used to be and it is not just because I want to embalm it. I think it is a good idea if people know and can see how we progressed. And conserving old buildings, furniture,clothing etc helps us (at least I hope so) understand ourselves better. So of all the tourists who visit heritage sites I am sure there are also quite a few who are simply interested in how it once was.

But of course there are also those who tend to romantisize the past and those are also the "embalmers".