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]

"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.

[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

[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.

[tumhalad2]

haha yes well, I was rather flaberghasted with the vitriocity that the Star Wars forumers were displaying...they seemed to be pretty desperate lol. Yes, I'm upset by attacks on Star Wars as well, though I suppose I was particulary peeved to see fellow fans attacking the Lord of the Rings to offset their own insecurities.

[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.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well put, though once again I do not believe Tolkien's books are so 'infused' with so many conservative ideas to take it seriously as a social treatise, or social commentary at all. I suppose what Im saying is that even you're interpretation, to me, is in some way missing the point as well. I do not believe that Tolkien's books are in fact concerned with this subject matter, though as Nerwen mentioned there are indeed themes relating to the missuse of technology.

This idea that Tolkien was a Christian who's faith influenced his worldview I think is overrated as well; indeed he was a Catholic but I think the influence was less in terms of infusing his work with doctrine and more about reconciling aspects of Christianity with Norse myth etc. This hybrid, I believe, we find in the Lord of the Rings, though perhaps even more so in the Silmarillion.

In closing, I don't really believe that Tolkien has to be read as some outdaited pariah of the past; I simply don't think, in reflecting on his letters and his works as a whole, that 'nostalgia' was his point. If that is to be found in the Lord of the Rings I believe it is in the interpretation of the reader, not in the intent of the author. I also believe that ultimately, the Lord of the Rings is not about society, not even good or evil, it is fundementally about life and death, and how these things are dealt with by different races and characters in the legendarium.

[skip spence]

^Fortunately, Tolkien's books are first and foremost an attemt to tell good stories and in this he succeeded in spectacular fashion, I think we can all agree.

There are obviously many part of his books that can be read as a comment on contemporary issues, as in any good work of literature. I have never read any books about Tolkien or any of his letters and I'm sure there are many here who know much more than me about what Tolkien really wanted to convey with his work or at least what pretentious academics think he wanted to say.

I have read Tolkien's books myself however and made my own interpretations, and I think he is quite explicit on what ideals he as a writer represents. "Nostalgia" is not an ideal but he does seem smitten by it nevertheless. Tolkien never comes across as preachy though and his works are not meant to be primerly "a social treatise, or social commentary". There is social commentary in it, and it deserves to be taken seroiusly too, but Tolkien's main objective was the telling of a good tale. And like I said, judging by the almost unrivalled popularity of his works, he certainly succeded with this.

And btw, to accuse Tolkien of racsism is petty, false and reeking of political correctness coupled with a complete lack of historical knowledge. Not saying you did of course.

[tumhalad2]

haha no I understand...and yes those forumers should be told! I see what you're saying and I suppose there is little I can say against it. Ultimately, as you say, all literature is infused with some kind of social outlook, though with Tolkien I think it is, if anything, a byproduct of his concious attempts to explore entirely unrelated themes.

Though The Lord of the Rings may be infused with "nostalgia" I believe it would be dangerous to simply assume that this was because Tolkien had a particular fetish with it for its own sake; I don't think it is this simple and I believe people like Brin have manipulated this to their own advantage. Taking Tolkien's works as a whole, I think a lot more can be said not only for his 'telling a tale' but also for the themes of 'death and the desire for deathlessness' . I know I keep going on about it but I think theres something to be said for it.

[Gwathagor]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks for the interesting and insightful points.

I have a couple things to say about the Star Wars guys who have been abusing Tolkien:

1) Modernism is retarded and doesn't work. Unfortunately, modernists are, and will probably remain, oblivious to the fact that their brilliant cosmology hasn't worked since 1914. I'm actually surprised. I thought everyone knew that modernism is a proven failure. "Reason," they say, "Will bring us progress, prosperity, and peace." Progress is terrific, but reason is limited. It CAN'T bring us everything. (Post-modernists figured this out, but they've rather taken it to the opposite extreme.) This is why Tolkien's world is more realistic that the one the modernists have desperately tried to will into being for the last couple of centuries. Despite the fantastic setting, Tolkien paints the world as it is: change/progress is good and proper, but often involves a great deal of sacrifice and sadness. Middle-earth is a threat to the "modern" world, because it doesn't lie to us. The world isn't "modern".

2) I'm also surprised that Star Wars fans are trying to espouse modernism. They must not be doing it very seriously, or they'd realize that hardcore modernists would find Star Wars pretty useless.

3) What's wrong with fascism?

[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

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

haha no I understand...and yes those forumers should be told! I see what you're saying and I suppose there is little I can say against it. Ultimately, as you say, all literature is infused with some kind of social outlook, though with Tolkien I think it is, if anything, a byproduct of his concious attempts to explore entirely unrelated themes.

Though The Lord of the Rings may be infused with "nostalgia" I believe it would be dangerous to simply assume that this was because Tolkien had a particular fetish with it for its own sake; I don't think it is this simple and I believe people like Brin have manipulated this to their own advantage. Taking Tolkien's works as a whole, I think a lot more can be said not only for his 'telling a tale' but also for the themes of 'death and the desire for deathlessness' . I know I keep going on about it but I think theres something to be said for it.

Well, nostalgia is to me a negative concept as a nostalgic person concerns himself with something already lost and prefers to remember and cherish an often idealised past rather than trying to do something about the present situation.
Then again, most people (myself included) have a tendency towards bittersweet nostalgia and I certainly don't hold it against Tolkien if he harboured a wistful longing for a lost idealised English conuntyside. I didn't use to think that death and deathlessness was a major theme in LotR but now thinking about it I certainly see your point. These themes become even more important in his post LotR writings on ME, like what can be found in HoME X: Morgoth's Ring. Much of this book to me reads like the contemplations of an aging christian with a curious mind, trying to come to terms with his own mortality and religious beliefs.

[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?

[Gwathagor]

If one only read The Lord of the Rings, I can understand how one would get the impression that Middle-earth is inherently racist. On one level, I think that is mistaken. It's obvious in Unfinished Tales that Tolkien thinks the Druedain are pretty cool, and they are about as far removed from the Numenorean race as one can get. On the other hand, aren't all mythologies sort of "racist", because they revolve around one particular culture/race? Yet no one ever criticizes Greek or Norse or Hopi mythology of marginalizing other civilizations.

[tumhalad2]

I suppose, modernists being modern, they would say that the world no longer has need for, nor room for, stories of that sort, exactly because they are exclusive, or 'racist'. I too think that if one takes Tolkien's legendarium in its entirety, there is in fact a great deal of compassion directed at those who have been misplaced and unjustly done by. From the Children of Hurin (my favourite of Tolkien's works) the Petty-Dwarves come to mind.

[Gwathagor]

Yes! "Compassion" is exactly right. Good point.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

It's actually very easy to call Sauron a two-dimensional villain because he is never seen in the flesh LotR. But I believe it really doesn't matter how one perceives Sauron because in closer analysis, he isn't the real "villain" of LotR. Evil itself is, especially as embodied in the One Ring. The struggles and hardships through which the protagonists must endure to reach their victory are more subtle than those faced when one faces a single, clearly identifiable foe. If LotR were constructed in the same way as most adventure stories, the "villain" can be defeated by taking out specific individuals, decimating their forces, destroying their armament. But Tolkien created a "villain" that didn't follow this formula. Yes, we see the forces of "good" planning their war against the enemy, the forces and allies of Sauron -- but even they know that victory in battle will not truly destroy their foe. The Ring at this point is more powerful than Sauron. It can live without him -- and even spread its evil without him -- but he cannot live without it. Sauron cannot be truly defeated so long as the Ring exists, and while the strength of evil is greatest when they are united, it is the Ring that is, so to speak, the linch pin of villainy in this story. It is the source of the greatest temptation and corruption -- in a way, it corrupts even Sauron, who allows his need for it to goad him into hasty and unwise actions and presumptions that are to his ultimate detriment.

So is Sauron a two-dimensional villain? Likely so, in my opinion. But is the Ring two-dimensional? I think as villains go, it is vastly more subtle and insidious.

As far as the "Tolkien is a racist" cant goes... That argument will probably go on forever. I don't believe he was, but I have learned that this is an argument one cannot win. People who are determined to see his writings as racist will stick to their guns no matter what I or anyone else says. It's that kind of an issue. For myself, I believe that if he had been truly racist at heart, he could never have written Sam's very compassionate reaction to his sight of the dead Haradrim. A bigot would have thought "there's no good Haradrim but a dead Haradrim," and rejoiced in seeing one dead -- and would have written that kind of a reaction into his story. He didn't. The orcs are the closest he comes to wholly vilifying a race (if they can be called that), and even they are not exempt from some expression of compassion from the author. "For me, I pity even his slaves." (Gandalf, at some point or another ).

Perhaps a "modernist" point of view requires all writings to conform to whatever is the politically correct mode of expression in current times, but if that is so, then I believe it does the unwise thing of throwing out the wisdom of past ages, expressed in its own language and in its own way. There is value in that as well as in modern ways of doing things, and something is lost if everything must be reinterpreted to conform to current standards and practices.

All just my humble opinion, as ever.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

3) What's wrong with fascism?

Everything?

I saw this thread and thought "Ah, at last, a discussion on how Tolkien's work can be compared with the likes of Eliot and Joyce." But no, it's about how 'modern' he was with a small m. Still, of course the aspects of the modern world and of modern culture are a major feature in Modernist literature.

It might be helpful to know what we mean by 'modernist'. Are we merely assuming Tolkien is 'old school' because he writes of Kings, Elves and people who live a simpler lifestyle on the technological scale of development? Or are we also considering what messages his work conveys?

Because on that latter point, Tolkien is an out and out Modernist - with a capital M.

Just taking one aspect of his work, his approach towards warfare, Tolkien is in the company of the WWI poets, of Peake, of Lawrence. He presents us with ordinary people who are confronted with a far-off war; they go out of duty, because their friends go, because they believe that in some small way, they can play a part. Unlike WWI, these ordinary people are not forced to go, and this war is one which needs to be fought (unlike about 99% of wars in real life!) as there simply is no diplomatic facility to reason with Sauron! However, even though this war is about as 'just' as any war can get, Tolkien doesn't give us returning muscular heroes. No, he brings us back broken people. He kills some characters. He shows us the consequences.

That's a major feature of Modernism. Questioning authority and the idea that war is inherently our 'duty' to take part in, a duty which will glorify us - that's something which has been passed down from the ancient Greeks but never came under serious questioning until the 20th century and Modernist thinking. Tolkien himself went through all of this - how could he not have come out of that madness without questioning it? It even shook his faith to the core - with the result that the god he created in his work was a terrible god, a truly omnipotent creation.

You could discuss many, many aspects of Tolkien's work in the light of Modernism - as scholars are doing (there was recently a TS seminar on Tolkien & Modernism) already. And I think Shippey has done some work comparing Tolkien to Joyce?

I'm afraid Brin and the Star Wars geeks et al have latched onto Tolkien's faith as making him some kind of pseudo-Lewis figure when this couldn't be further from the truth. It's grossly unfair to condemn Tolkien as a has-been in the literary stakes just because of his religion when he doesn't exactly beat you over the head with it but instead in his clearly Modernist take on a lot of aspects of human existence, he raises interesting questions.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Lalwende, it sounds as if Brin and Co. don't know what true Modernism is. They appear to have cobbled together their own version of it, from the points you have made. What a world...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Lal

It might be helpful to know what we mean by 'modernist'.

Exactly. And the same thing should be asked about 'humanism' as well... and about their relationship

There has been discussion about literary modernism in here but mostly I'd say that with modernism people have meant the socio-cultural ethos of the twentieth century (beginning late 19th) western liberal democracies. The first surely presupposes the latter but they are not the same thing.

Also the word humanism is quite confusing here as some people seem to just toy about with a strawman they have created - and the word itself has a history of six hundred years (from the renaissance umanista) - and the humanisms of the literati back then, the chrstian humanism, secular humanism, etc. do differ a lot.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

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.

Here there has to be a kind of misunderstanding? Thinking of different worldviews or philosophies I couldn't imagine modernists to take the world as an uncomplex place - quite the opposite. Mythlogical worlds, religious worlds, conservative worlds (at least those of the style: "oh how everything was nice and neat back then") tend to carry the simple explanations. It's not a new idea that fex. fantasy may be so popular these days when it offers simple solutions and escape from this modern complex world in which we people have learned the modern way of thinking with no easy certainties and questions lurking all around.

I myself am quite much a secular humanist. So I don't believe in God - at least in any god some humans could name or know something about. Sure there can be even a god somewhere (whatever she/he/it is) - there is a lot things in the universe we people don't understand, like the being of the existence itself, or the concept of infinity.

But that doesn't stop me loving the works of Tolkien. Even if I can relate the prof's place in the chain of ideas within our cultural history it doesn't deny me slipping into his world as piece of masterly fiction or to admire his creativity and learning. And surely there's the little romantic in me as in most of us "modern westerners" who loves to dwell in all those medieval-smelling ideals, heroisms, virtues and vices, the plain living and culture... you name it.

But when I'm in this world of real people the humanist in me demands that I do fex. honour every human being as having a equal moral worth as a human being to begin with - with no über- or untermenschen, or higher and lower cultures according to which individual people would be judged etc... In this world there are no genetical master-races of the Dunedain even if some people have tried to advance that kind of ideas, or master-cultures like the elves - or unworthy Dunledings... These are very unmodern ideas - and unhumanist ideas.

There may be more virtuous or nicer individuals as there seems to be fouler or colder people. There may also be unhealthy trends in any one culture (like the overindividualism in the western culture or the rising fundamentalism in both islamic and western cultures) or good trends. But cultures as such are not bad or good - and people only become good or bad by what they do. But in the beginning they're all equal. Every newborn is sinless.

That's modernist humanism I'm proud to advocate.

[tumhalad2]

[QUOTE=Nogrod;548687]

... In this world there are no genetical master-races of the Dunedain even if some people have tried to advance that kind of ideas, or master-cultures like the elves - or unworthy Dunledings... These are very unmodern ideas - and unhumanist ideas.

There may be more virtuous or nicer individuals as there seems to be fouler or colder people. There may also be unhealthy trends in any one culture (like the overindividualism in the western culture or the rising fundamentalism in both islamic and western cultures) or good trends. But cultures as such are not bad or good - and people only become good or bad by what they do. But in the beginning they're all equal. Every newborn is sinless.

That's modernist humanism I'm proud to advocate.[/QUOTE

Firstly I don't believe the Dunedein were a 'genetic' master race-though they are 'talked up' in the LOTR it is also true that they themselves are capable of sin and vice. So, the Dunedain are not morally superior humans, nor particularly phyical, but, if anything, their history is more connected with the elves which makes them 'culturally superior'. As to the Elves themselves-they are difficult. Brin calls them ubermenshen-indeed in a sense they are, though perhaps in light of Tolkien's entire legendarium it would be more exact to say that their civilisation is inherently different, rather than superior, to the cultures of Men or Dwarves (something the Dwarves would certainly say!)

Reading Tolkien I don't really get the idea that the Elves are in fact 'superior'-just 'different' in some way...

[Nogrod]

Most old mythologies are keen to point out the weaknessess in the We - even if we are the sons of gods or centers of the universe... So Tolkien only follows a traditional path there by making Dunedain and elves having vices. The idea of the "chosen ones" being (needing or striving to be) perfect is later Christian addendum.

In the old world of mythologies you could be superior but still imperfect.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But when I'm in this world of real people the humanist in me demands that I do fex. honour every human being as having a equal moral worth as a human being to begin with - with no über- or untermenschen, or higher and lower cultures according to which individual people would be judged etc... In this world there are no genetical master-races of the Dunedain even if some people have tried to advance that kind of ideas, or master-cultures like the elves - or unworthy Dunledings... These are very unmodern ideas - and unhumanist ideas.

I'm not sure whether you attribute these ideas to Tolkien or not, but if you do, I'd have to disagree. On first glance I can see how Tolkien's work can be interpreted as racist and in fact, I believe his work is celebrated by some neo-nazi groups for this reason (although others groups don't seem to appreciate his apparent admiration of the jews to which he once likened to the dwarves on an altogether off-topic discourse). You do notice that nobility seem to be connected with being tall and blonde while the invading Easterling scum seem to be 'swarty and squat'. But then again there are far to many exceptions to make a good case for racism.
Lots of tall characters with fair skin and noble hertiage do terrible things in his books (ex. the numerorians) and many 'swarty and squat' characters do good things (ex. the druadain (sp?) or that fat guy who fought for Gondor at the battle of Pellenor). And besides, doesn't the whole basic idea to make up a mythology for England stipulate a white man's perspective? And I don't see anything wrong with that. As for the Elves, they have no relation whatsoever with Nietzche's 'übermench' or later fascist applications to the word and any attempt to connect them with a racist agenda is way off the mark IMO. I think tumhalad2 has a good point when he see them and their 'immortality' as an important contrast to the fate of mortal men and their fear of death.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

There may be more virtuous or nicer individuals as there seems to be fouler or colder people. There may also be unhealthy trends in any one culture (like the overindividualism in the western culture or the rising fundamentalism in both islamic and western cultures) or good trends. But cultures as such are not bad or good - and people only become good or bad by what they do. But in the beginning they're all equal. Every newborn is sinless.

That's modernist humanism I'm proud to advocate.

This is pretty much what Tolkien advocated too, unless I'm mistaken. But I don't see why some cultures or even peoples as a whole can't be considered better than others. To say so is no doubt just an opinion (as with all social or theological subjects) but I still reserve the right to have one, even if it isn't considered politically correct. Individuals should, of course, be treated as unique without any stigmas attached, but a culture can't ever change unless we're allowed to critisize it.

*Edit: I see I crossposted with tumhalad2 and this is a question to you:
You seem like an intelligent and reasonable guy, well able to form your own opinion. Yet, in the op you appear concerned that the criticism of this Brin fella might put you off Tolkien. But seriuosly... this Brin, who I've never heard of btw, sounds like a pretentious but not very bright tosser to be honest. Why would you listen to him?

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Most old mythologies are keen to point out the weaknessess in the We - even if we are the sons of gods or centers of the universe... So Tolkien only follows a traditional path there by making Dunedain and elves having vices. The idea of the "chosen ones" being (needing or striving to be) perfect is later Christian addendum.

In the old world of mythologies you could be superior but still imperfect.

Indeed. Nonetheless, I do not believe that modern applicability should so lightly be thrust upon Tolkien's races and cultures. As Skip Spense points out, the supposed 'immortality' of the elves is juxtuposed against the mortality of men so that the dialogue of death, if you will, can be played out.

"Which should envy the other?" asks an Elven ambassador to Numenor in the Akallabeth. Who indeed. If Tolkien had absolutely, really valued the Elves above humans, made them true 'ubermenschen' surely he would have validated their immortality as something men do not have, for example because of the "fall"

Interestingly, Tolkien does an about turn on Christian mythology at this point and says that both the mortality of Humans and the immortality of Elves is simply "the fulfilment of their being" no more a 'punishment' than death is in real life. The drama plays out precisely because the Numenorians, who you call 'superior' perceive the Elves to be ubermensche pretty much. The Numenorians attempt to forcibly take immortality and they fail because of it. They fail not because they are 'lesser' beings, or 'unworthy' or 'deserving of punishment', they fail because they desire something entirely unnatural to them, something entirely foreign, somthing that is in no way a fulfillment of their being. Were men to step upon Valinor they would (something like this) die a quicker death as moths do when exposed to bright light.

Similarly, the 'ubermensche' Elves fail, ultimately, in their quest to impose immortality and unchangefullness on the finite world, Middle Earth, about them. With the breaking of their magic, they must leave Middle earth or accept it for what it is and wither away. Slowly, the Elves of middle earth would 'fade' away, unable to control the change of the world around them that is in reality utterly foreign to them.

My point is that social ideas about ubermensche and the like are not particularly relevant to Tolkien, and if the ideas are superficially there, they are so to fulfill a purpose other than simply to say : these guys are superior to the rest of you.
Often they are there as a result of other themes.

Words like "superiority", "ubermensche" etc fall short of explaining Tolkien's characters and races-ultimately it is for reasons of the theme, generally speaking, of 'death and the desire for deathlessness' on the part of Humans and Elves, that is responsible for much of this.

I believe Tolkien was in fact more aware of what he was doing than perhaps many would think...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

"Which should envy the other?" asks an Elven ambassador to Numenor in the Akallabeth. Who indeed. If Tolkien had absolutely, really valued the Elves above humans, made them true 'ubermenschen' surely he would have validated their immortality as something men do not have, for example because of the "fall"

Interestingly, Tolkien does an about turn on Christian mythology at this point and says that both the mortality of Humans and the immortality of Elves is simply "the fulfilment of their being" no more a 'punishment' than death is in real life. The drama plays out precisely because the Numenorians, who you call 'superior' perceive the Elves to be ubermensche pretty much. The Numenorians attempt to forcibly take immortality and they fail because of it. They fail not because they are 'lesser' beings, or 'unworthy' or 'deserving of punishment', they fail because they desire something entirely unnatural to them, something entirely foreign, somthing that is in no way a fulfillment of their being. Were men to step upon Valinor they would (something like this) die a quicker death as moths do when exposed to bright light.

.

And you can answer this by looking at Tolkien in the light of Modernism (the theory). How was a Catholic to make sense of the mindless slaughter of millions in WWI? Many people simply turned away from faith altogether because they could not square the slaughter with the existence of any kind of 'good' God. Tolkien didn't do what a lot who did keep their faith did do, and ascribe the slaughter to some fall of mankind - no he came to view Death in a more Northern way, as a kind of inevitability, as part of the very nature of humanity is to die.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Skip

*Edit: I see I crossposted with tumhalad2 and this is a question to you:
You seem like an intelligent and reasonable guy, well able to form your own opinion. Yet, in the op you appear concerned that the criticism of this Brin fella might put you off Tolkien. But seriuosly... this Brin, who I've never heard of btw, sounds like a pretentious but not very bright tosser to be honest. Why would you listen to him?

Even if it will make myself look like a total ignoramus here as well I must confess I have never heard of this Brin-guy before either until reading this thread. So I definitively have not been listening to him.

Originally Posted by Skip

a culture can't ever change unless we're allowed to critisize it.

I don't see the point of this here... I'm all for demanding changes in cultures, like getting the Western culture less individualistic without falling back to religious or nationalistic fundamentalisms etc.

Talking about the subject then...

I do agree with your points about there being "inside tensions" between the "races" in Tolkien's work. And surely the question about the benefits of mortality / immortality have been questioned long before the Christian thought in Gilgamesh or Greek legendarium in written form and in many earlier myths to top that fex.

But to me the question here is more what kind of worldview Tolkien brings forwards in his "mythology for England"? It coincides with these mythological strata of our history... and that is natural as he was the scholar who tried to make it look like an arcane mythology.

But the question now remains how we should tune ourselves with it? Should we treat is as an original mythology (no!), should we treat it as a piece of the most ingenuine piece of fiction based on traditions (yes!), should we treat it as a way guiding us to a moral and good life in today's society and world (yes/no?).

I think it's the last question - or the interpretation of what it means - that may divide many of us.

I tend to agree with Lal that Tolkien had much more modernistic views about things many of you are ready to grant him. Thence I think we should be able to think about his views much more seriously - but in another vein than just championing his "traditionalism" or basic "christian values".

The things and ideas Tolkien brings forwards in his work are those of the mythological era and thought but he does it in a way that demands a modern reader an effort to think it her/himself - a mark of a purely modernist attitude in itself.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And you can answer this by looking at Tolkien in the light of Modernism (the theory). How was a Catholic to make sense of the mindless slaughter of millions in WWI? Many people simply turned away from faith altogether because they could not square the slaughter with the existence of any kind of 'good' God. Tolkien didn't do what a lot who did keep their faith did do, and ascribe the slaughter to some fall of mankind - no he came to view Death in a more Northern way, as a kind of inevitability, as part of the very nature of humanity is to die.

Yes!!! This point is of critical import. The Children of Hurin, especially in the opening chapters, discusses these points as well, from the point of view of a little boy, then a man captured by a diabolical Dark Lord (my hate shall persue them...etc etc rant rant) If this is not 'modern' im not sure what is...