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

[Gwathagor]

You are still confusing the divine and human perspectives, skip. What looks like free will to us looks like something else to God. Two sides of the same coin.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

There is also a scientific theory that postulates time as a construct of the human mind, a means by which we relate to the universe around us to give it some kind of order we can understand, but which doesn't actually exist. (I shall have to ask my husband to dig up the material he gave me on this, as I've lost track of it.) If this theory is true, then the concepts of some being outside this human imposed system "knowing" what "will happen in the future" becomes a moot point from the human perspective, since we know the world as we perceive it, and not necessarily as it really is. Some of its functions may well be beyond our grasp, because of the limitations we have as we exist in this flesh, but once outside the restrictions and perceptions of a finite body, that perception might be considerably different, and aspects of the infinite in its reality easier to comprehend. It may well be possible for an omniscient Eru, outside the limits of Time, to coexist with free will, but perceiving how this could be so within the construct of Time may not be possible.

Did that make any kind of sense? This is what I get for going online too soon after waking up....

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Ibrîniðilpathânezel

Did that make any kind of sense? This is what I get for going online too soon after waking up....

No, I get what you're saying.

It may well be possible for an omniscient Eru, outside the limits of Time, to coexist with free will, but perceiving how this could be so within the construct of Time may not be possible.

That may very well be true, but I'm not willing to accept it as a solution without proof or real comprehension. If we do, "God works in mysterious ways" might well be the universal explanation to anything we don't understand (although he/she/it/xxx certainly does). But as I said before, and you suggested, seeing things from a limitless God's perspective is impossible for finite beings like ourselves. To continue my earlier analogy, it would be as fruitless as an ant trying to see things from a man's perspective, while burying it's fangs deep into his bare pinky toe.

But what is time? I for one take it for granted and can't imagine it in any other way than we perceive it. But I remember from my physics-classes that time isn't as fixed as one is tempted to believe (fex. it passes more slowly for an object travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light). But I'm out of my depth here. If there are any students or scientists with knowledge of advanced physics around, I'd appreciate their input.

Edit: I did a quick search and found this discussion which pretty much mirrors my earlier thoughts, although with much more knowhow obviously (haven't read much of it myself yet though): http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=245197

Here's a teaser:

Q: "Are not these very words, written by myself, nothing more than a consequence of the initial conditions?"

A: "I don't think we yet really know the answer to that question. In the classical/newtonian era before qm theory was developed; most phycists would probaby hedge for a Deterministic universe. Now with qm it's a very contentious issue."

[Kin-strife]

[QUOTE=Ibrîniðilpathânezel;563090]There is also a scientific theory that postulates time as a construct of the human mind, a means by which we relate to the universe around us to give it some kind of order we can understand, but which doesn't actually exist.[QUOTE]

This sounds kinda like Kant's theory that time and space aren't necessarily properties of the outside world but rather the only means we have of perceiving it. We perceive everything as being extended in space and time. Is this because everything is or because its the only way we can make sense of it? If you think of the outside world as being a computer code and we are a type of computer programmed to interpret that code in a certain way. If we interpret the code in such away that it causes a lovely graphic of The One Ring spinning on our screen, how much is this a property of the code itself and how much our own hardwiring (I confess I don't know much about computers). Kant, (who lived in the 18th Century so certainly didn't know jack about computers), believed that time and space existed in our minds prior to our experience of the world, and that it shaped our experience of the world, and that therefore we don't experience the world as it really is in itself. Also he believed that worldly phenomena that is unable to be interpreted spatially or temporally we don't experience at all.

I know this is a tough concept to get your head around but I've always found the idea facinating. If this were the case then God or Eru (I don't believe in either by the way) would not suffer such limitations and perceive everything as a whole. We have no way of knowing what this would be like as we can't even imagine anything without spatial or temporal extension. But where does this leave free will?

I would not imagine that Eru's concept of time would be like a long tapestry that He could see all at once, tracing the initial event A right through to the inevitable end consequence Z. Thus leaving human history as nothing more than an extremely complicated document of cause and effect, so that from the first human action He could predict every human action that would follow. Rather perhaps free will would be like a moment of spontanoues imporvisation in a paint-by-numbers picture, a surprise ingredient in a cake. He wouldn't know the end result before adding it but immediately after he would see its every effect. But then "before" and "after" are temporal concepts which may undermine my argument.

The above is a bit of a mess but I'll have a think about it and try to clarify my meaning.

[tumhalad2]

Well, well, well...Long time no post!

This thread certainly took an interesting turn! For some time I've been rather ignorant of Tolkien, being absorbed in my last year of high-school. I'm about half way through now (yay) and I've just started rediscovering Tolkien, as it were. By chance I stumbled upon this thread (I had quite forgotten about it) and was most pleased to see it had been rather popular.

I've also been returning to many of the ideas, thoughts and insecurities I felt back then.

I guess I am still trying to sort all these issues out-to catagorise and explain Tolkien's rather unusual work in my own mind. To kick of the discussion again, here is a radio broadcast on Tolkien and his imagination:


http://gnosis.org/tolkien/lecture2/index.html

[tumhalad2]

Here is a scathing review I found upon amazon:

Decades after its initial publishing, The Lord of the Rings still enjoys a devoted fandom as strong as it was during the trilogy's conception. The amount of glitz associated with the books has grown too, with editions consisting of shiny paper, tons of maps, and all kinds of memorabilia. It's appropriate really considering these books are all style but no substance.

The Hobbit Frodo discovers from his friend the wizard Gandalf, that the magic ring that his adopted uncle Bilbo used to have is actually the key to unlocking the power of the Dark Lord Sauron, who seeks it once more. He flees his homeland the Shire with his friends, Merry, Pippin, and Sam, who discover they were right to flee since Sauron's most trusted lieutenants have already gone into the Shire to retrieve the ring. His goal is the elves' city of Rivendell to entrust the ring and Middle-Earth's safety under the jurisdiction of wiser powers but as events play out, Frodo's journey does not end there.

Pondering how these books succeeded is an ambivalent affair. On the one hand, Tolkien took elaborate measures in describing the medieval landscapes of Middle-Earth and designing all sorts of legends in its history so you'll feel like you're really in another world full of beauty and wonder. I was often left awash in awe after reading, delighted in my dreams of visited by visions of traveling through expanses of land on my own journey of danger and purpose alike the leagues traveled in these books. On the other hand, the characters are wretchedly mapped out and are extraordinarily dull save for brief moments of emotion and wit. The joy initially experienced in reading about the beautiful landscapes and intricately described locations proves that there can be too much of a good thing as it goes on for pages on end to the point of boredom. In the beginning of the book depicting the Hobbits' flight from the Shire, whole pages are devoted to describing the scenery of the weeks they spent in escaping the Shire. This is more than just a chance phenomena however as it goes on and on, even in the final book when bloody war is just a day away. Voltaire's Candide traveled across the entire world with not much of a fuss made over the scenery and the story was better for it, not even taking into account that Candide was a satire.

Even then for all the text, Tolkien's prose is rudimentary at best. The usage of clichés like, "Suddenly he jumped back like a frightened woodland animal," is painfully elementary. It's not surprising given that Tolkien was an academic first and a writer second but all the same considering that this is the Bible of fantasy we're discussing here, it falls painfully short.

The characters are all boring black and white stereotypes. All of the bad guys are ugly, stupid, and weak while the good guys are beautiful, smart, and undefeatable. These criticisms go beyond the normal route of complaining against all good versus all evil however, and venture into the realms of just plain dull characters. Apologists will respond that's how it was in myth but I can only say their experience is limited to Beowulf (a large influence on Tolkien appropriately enough) and like stories or that they have a very shallow understanding of myth. For example, the Odysseus of The Odyssey was typified as someone smart and cruel when he wanted to be. His brains alongside brawn made him an interesting character, much as the quirks of other mythical characters made them interesting, such as the angsty Achilles and the noble Hector of The Iliad, just to name a few. But even though mythical characters were typically classified as larger than life and not conflicted, they were still interesting, still perhaps even depicted with questionable moralities. Again consider Odysseus. Clearly he was the protagonist but though the subject of his morality was left relatively untouched within the telling of The Odyssey, it is not hard to imagine how one can see his virtues in a distorted light. His hubris was his downfall and he had real consequences to suffer for it.

Contrast this to the protagonists of The Lord of the Rings, who are incorrigible. Oh sure, Frodo does have issues with the Ring's darkness but that's the problem. The Ring is a naturally corrupting artifact on its own so we expect Frodo to fall. Expecting otherwise is like not expecting the laws of gravity to work. On the other hand if Frodo never got hold of the Ring, he would be perfectly unblemished, both in appearance and in spirit. Even then, even the Hobbits all become extraordinarily powerful too since they all acquire magic swords early on, not exactly ranking with actual angelic figures like Gandalf, but hardly weaklings anyway. Likewise the antagonists are all completely corrupted and filthy. Ironically enough, the Ring and other cursed magical artifacts are all responsible save the plights of Denethor, Theoden, and the wild folk. Even the grotesque Gollum is only perverted through enchantment.

Beyond issues of character complexity, pertaining to interest, you will not find a single character like Odysseus in these books or anything resembling some of the crazier mythical stories out there, paradoxically enough. Sure there are hints of actual emotion like the conflicts between Denethor and Faramir alongside Theoden's struggles with his family against the slimy advice of Wormtongue. In the final encounter between the Hobbits and Saruman, the wizard comments on how Frodo has changed into something vile over the course of his journey and we believe him. But these stories are given far too little respect for the drama they convey and they are introduced in the second and third books. Diamonds in the rough really, and that is totally unacceptable.

The issues of racism and sexism within the story are not unfounded either. The Easterlings serving underneath Sauron are the equivalent of Asian stereotypes not peoples, littered with a troubled history of consistently siding with evil, with one of the ghoulish Ringwraiths counted both among their number and leader. The Middle-Earth equivalent of African and Arabic peoples, the Haradrim, faithfully serve Sauron without question. On the other hand, all the good guys are unquestionably white. The female characters are all given little mention save Eowyn and even then her success is only one compared to the myriad victories of her male counterparts. Tolkien denied racism when white supremacists utilized his stories to reinforce their doctrine but when the Narnia stories of his colleague C.S. Lewis are observed, with their villainous depiction of Arabs and women who were tomboyish, to say the least, were denied salvation, it's not that hard a vision to entertain.

When Saruman's fall is revealed by Gandalf, Saruman says he has turned from Saruman the White to Saruman of Many Colors. His robe now constantly shifts with all colors. I understand Tolkien was making a point, that Saruman became a parody of himself with such an ugly robe alongside his alliance to the darkness, but with how charismatic and old Saruman was, I could only imagine him as a sugar daddy wearing the Technicolor dream coat with hot Elf chicks hanging on his shoulders, ready to toss out bling and have his hoes perform tricks for everyone. It's sort of like these books, not only in how each new edition becomes spiffier but also how Tolkien makes a lot of pretty pictures and background history that is just a distraction from how ugly the reality is.

[Nerwen]

Eh... tumhalad... are you worried again? It ought to be fairly obvious that the reviewer is applying quite a double standard when judging the merits of stories he likes vs stories he doesn't... and, anyway, who cares?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, he's just rehashing the same tripe Bunny Wilson said (more articulately) half a century ago. If you feel your faith needs buttressing, read Shippey's skewering of this sort of ignorant 'criticism.'

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Somehow, this makes me think of Anton Ego's speech near the end of Pixar's Ratatouille. Critics can have fun ripping apart the work of others, while they themselves create nothing and thus are risking nothing. Especially armchair critics like this, who are venting themselves not on a literary forum or in a reputable magazine or newspaper or such, but in what amounts to the aisles of a retail store. Very impressive credentials.

[Morthoron]

So, if I follow up the scourge's critique with a glowing review, will that make a difference for you? Or, I can merely offer Neil Gaiman's interview on the Colbert Report. Gaiman was hawking his Newberry Medal-winning children's book 'The Graveyard Book', and Gaiman mentions Tolkien as his major influence. So, you can listen to the drivel of some mall-rat critic spouting Homeric platitudes, or you can rely on a bestselling author. *shrugs*

Oh, and the bit about Tom Bombadil is hilarious...

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/03/18...olbert-report/

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So, if I follow up the scourge's critique with a glowing review, will that make a difference for you? Or, I can merely offer Neil Gaiman's interview on the Colbert Report. Gaiman was hawking his Newberry Medal-winning children's book 'The Graveyard Book', and Gaiman mentions Tolkien as his major influence. So, you can listen to the drivel of some mall-rat critic spouting Homeric platitudes, or you can rely on a bestselling author. *shrugs*

Oh, and the bit about Tom Bombadil is hilarious...

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/03/18...olbert-report/

Bravo, Morth. I had been wondering where/how to get a link here on the Downs to Gaiman's acknowledgement of Tolkien, and, more particularly, his audacious comments about Bombadil.

What that blog link leaves out, though, was Colbert's other criteria for an illustrator besides being American, one without any sense of hope. Says something about Gaiman's sense of Art Spiegelman that Gaiman suggested him.

It was an intriguing interview, well sparred by both of them.

[littlemanpoet]

As to the initial question, I find this quote from Tolkien interesting and germaine:

If there is any contemporary reference in my story (The Lord of the Ring) at all it is ... the most widespread assumption of our time: that if a thing can be done, it must be done. This seems to me wholly false. The greatest examples of the action of the spirit and of reason are in abnegation.

This from the Letters. As usual, Tolkien is very careful and precise in his use of words, and shows that he understands modernism better than modernists do.

Suffice it to say, I think Tolkien is right.

And no, modernism is not dead. It just keeps morphing ... into new modes.

[dreeness]

In "The Violence of the Fantasy" Slavoj Žižek said (emphasis added):

It goes to Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s credit that a century ago he spelled out the properly perverse nature of the way Christianity relates to paganism; he turns around the standard (mis)perception according to which the ancient pagan attitude is that of the joyful assertion of life, while Christianity imposes a sombre order of guilt and renunciation. It is, on the contrary, the pagan stance that is deeply melancholic: Even if it preaches a pleasurable life, it is in the mode of “enjoy it while it lasts, because, at the end, there is always death and decay.” The message of Christianity is, on the contrary, that of infinite joy beneath the deceptive surface of guilt and renunciation: The outer ring of Christianity is a rigid guard of ethical abnegations and professional priests; but inside that inhuman guard you will find the old human life dancing like children, and drinking wine like men; for Christianity is the only frame for pagan freedom. (Chesterton, 1995, p. 164) Is not Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings the ultimate proof of this paradox? Only a devout Christian could have imagined such magnificent pagan universe, thereby confirming that paganism is the ultimate Christian dream. Perhaps this is why the conservative Christian critics who recently expressed their concern at how books and movies like Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potter series undermine Christianity through their message of pagan magic miss the point, the perverse conclusion that is unavoidable here: You want to enjoy the pagan dream of pleasurable life without paying the price of melancholic sadness for it? Choose Christianity!