And it slips through our fingers

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I see progress as being very much on a par with evolution. It is a natural process, both in the sense that it is a product of nature (the development of human intelligence) and in the sense that it always seeks to replace the old with the new. But that does not necessarily mean that the "new" is inevitably better. Like evolution, it seeks to adapt and improve, but it does not always throw up the right results.

At the risk of going off topic, I would ask SpM if you know Stephen Jay Gould's book Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. He argues that different iconographies of evolution--the ladder, the march, the cone--create different interpretations of our current data, the "march of progress" being the most erroneous in his argument. He objects that

The history of life is a story of massive removal followed by differentiation within a few surviving stocks, not the conventional tale of steadily increasing excellence, complexity, and diversity. p. 25

The familiar iconographies of evolution are all directed--sometimes crudely, sometimes subtly--toward reinforcing a comfortable view of human inevitability and superiority. p. 28

The march of progress is the canonical representation of evolution--the one picture immediately grasped and viscerally understood by all. p. 31

Life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress. Most people may know this as a phrase to be uttered, but not as a concept brought into the deep interior of understanding. Hence we continually make errors inspired by unconscious allegiance to the ladder of progress, even when we explicitly deny such a superannuated view of life. p. 35

He has some great quotes from material which points towards European man as the ultimate pinnacle in this false ladder. He even argues that Lovejoy's classic The Great Chain of Being shows the pre-evolutionary pedigree of the idea.
I suppose in some degree Tolkien's sense of the passing away of the elves, dwarves and eventually hobbits with the concomitant rise of men is part of this concept.

But I don't wish to confuse Tolkien's Middle-earth race of Men with our world race of homo sapiens, which is what I think happens to davem's argument here.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, in the context of your point, 'progree' itself can be motivated by the same desire - control, domination & coercion of the world. We don't even have that. We are closer to Sauron than they [ie, elves]in that. Sauron desired control of the world without any thought as to whether it was beautiful or ugly & if anything that sums Men up perfectly. Perhaps if we were more like the Elves then we could call our changes 'progress'. As it is, I don't think we can. The Elves love the world for what it was, we love it for what it could be. They look backward, we look forward. They are driven by regret, we by hope - but I don't think either of those things necessarily manifest in our actions. Which should we make our judgement of the different races on - what drives us, or what we actually do?

After all, if you establish a difference between our world and a fantasy world, and then criticise Rowlings for muddling up "our world" in comparison to an apparently self-contained secondary world of Tolkien's creation--

Originally Posted by davem on the "Outrage" thread

Problem being - the magic originates within this world. It does not have an external source. There is nothing beyond the circles of the world. Neither is there any other place to go to after death - Harry's parents merely hang around as ghosts - inevitably, as there is nowhere for them to go. Also, nothing can 'break in' to this world. This world is a closed system. If people are to be 'saved' they must save themselves, there is no external,objective standard of Good (or evil).

Tolkien's 'escape' includes (as it must if it is to be a true escape) the escape from death - ie the escape from the circles of the World, to a place where there is 'more than memory'. In HP all there is after death is memory - ghosts. What writers like Rowling do is not make this world more 'magical' they simply make it odder & more chaotic. The 'magic' has no logic, no explanation. In a fairy story set in a secondary world this would not be a problem - it would be simply a 'given'. When it happens in this world it requires an explanation in terms of the 'rules' of this world - or at least an explanation of why this world's rules are incorrect.

then perhaps it would be best to distinquish between Tolkien's "Men" and us.
At the very least, I think it is a great overexaggeration to treat of all "Men/homo sapiens" as lacking any sense of beauty in their desires for knowledge/change.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

After all, if you establish a difference between our world and a fantasy world, and then criticise Rowlings for muddling up "our world" in comparison to an apparently self-contained secondary world of Tolkien's creation--

then perhaps it would be best to distinquish between Tolkien's "Men" and us.
At the very least, I think it is a great overexaggeration to treat of all "Men/homo sapiens" as lacking any sense of beauty in their desires for knowledge/change.

I wouldn't claim that all 'Men' lack any sense of beauty. I do think beauty is out of fashion at the moment. The things we create are not designed to be beautiful - sometimes beauty is taken into consideration as an afterthought, but cost, functionality, & ease of production are foremost in the creator's & producer's minds. We live in a utilitarian age.

As to the seperation of the worlds...

Tolkien's secondary world was intended to be this world in the ancient past, but because of that it is by its nature a closed world that we cannot enter - other than imaginatively by reading about it. Mentally we do enter into that world, physically we cannot. It is seperate, self contained, but we may learn things about ourselves through our experience of it - though that is not its purpose, or it would be allegory.

The issue with Rowling is different - though I must admit that my playing of Devil's advocate in the Outrage thread has got me somewhat backed into a corner - my own position was best expressed in my first post on that thread. Rowling is presenting this world - & only this world - in her stories. Her characters live in this world & to that extent it is a contemporary novel with fantastical aspects - Magic realism as opposed to true Fantasy. I'm not saying that we cannot learn something about ourselves as a species from her books, just that we don't learn very much.

Tolkien's work - even The Hobbit, a'children's' book - deals with profound 'spiritual' questions. Rowling's doesn't, & the argument that it is only a children's book doesn't hold water - HDM is also a 'children's book' & while (in my opinion) it fails to deal with the themes it sets out to explore & Pullman's 'theology' is simplistic in the extreme, at least he makes the effort to ask, & offer answers to, meaningful questions. At least Pullman respects children (& Art) enough to try & deal with the eternal verites. Rowling offers a twee 'morality', asks banal questions & answers them with platitudes.

But this belongs on the other thread, so I apologise for straying...

[Lalwendë]

We don't know if the new age of Men in Middle Earth brought about the kind of progress which decimates the environment (as seen in the destruction of the environment around Tolkien's beloved Sarehole Mill), so he does not tell us whether he thought progress was in essence 'a good thing'. But he does show us that despite the Elves wishing to embalm their past, the envirnments they lived in were beautiful, and he does show us that Saruman's idea of progress was destructive.

Tolkien does not say that progress is good, but neither does he say that embalming the past is necessarily bad. What he definitely does tell us is that the wrong kind of progress is destructive.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

However, I do question an assumption you make here. It is one thing to accept and welcome the replacing of the old by the new, but is this necessarily progress or is it simply replacement, change, difference?

I think that this is the kind of progress that Tolkien did not like. By way of example, in my own city they ceaselessly demolish and rebuild parts of the centre; in one case they have replaced a bland 60's office block with a bland 00's office block. This not progress, it is indeed just change.

I doubt that this kind of 'progress' is natural at all, or even appreciated. Having just spent a week in a place crammed with old buildings and equally crammed with tourists, while my own city is quite the opposite of a tourist destination, it suggests that as humans, we prefer an element of 'embalming' the past just as the Elves did.

I'd agree that I'd find the Elves' approach to Art incredibly stifling (being keen on hearing the latest music and seeing the latest films, especially where they stir up the 'establishment' a bit), but their approach to the environment is one which I think as humans we could learn from. Now where's a tree I can go and hug?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I wouldn't claim that all 'Men' lack any sense of beauty. I do think beauty is out of fashion at the moment. The things we create are not designed to be beautiful - sometimes beauty is taken into consideration as an afterthought, but cost, functionality, & ease of production are foremost in the creator's & producer's minds. We live in a utilitarian age.

This is your opinion or interpretation of events, but much could be said about it. For instance, does this reflect your idea of a falling away of an ideal, a long defeat?

But opinion remains just that--opinion--without evidence. I know writers for whom beauty is an important consideration of their work, artists and architects as well as engineers. And even more significantly, I could provide examples from ancient history up to the romantic age where so called 'utilitarian' concerns governed the creation and building of things, even if they weren't consciously or specifically entered into in the process. I'm willing to bet that more people now have access to 'beauty'--however they choose to understand that concept--than ever had it in the past, in their private lives and personal habitat.

Also, it is sometimes easily overlooked that economy of material plays an important role in the creation of an aesthetic of beauty, as, in fact, can functionality. The demarcation between 'utilitarian' and 'beauty' is not such a simple division as you suggest here, for mathematics plays an important role in concepts of proportion as well as function. This is where I likely do not develope much sympathy for the elves, as I regard the notion that the past had a sense of beauty whereas we do not as a false notion, derived from Romantic concepts (you did quote Blake), but concepts which do not necessarily reflect our actual working efforts.

And, furthermore, in our recognition that some previous standards of "Beauty" represented class and race concepts, I would argue that we are closer now to an understanding that beauty arises from a kind of wholistic or integral quality. Even that the pursuit of beauty itself as an object falsifies the notion. Which is, again, why I dislike the emphasis on the elves's grace, height and proportions as reflecting their beauty as a race. It smacks of old European values. The hobbits might proudly proclaim their worth, and the story might reflect their value, but for the narrator to uphold the elves as an epitome of beauty reflects a notion of beauty which does not pertain in our world--or which increasingly does not. Tastes change.

called away before I can explain further....

Indeed, if there is "truth" in a design, then there also is beauty.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This is where I likely do not develope much sympathy for the elves, as I regard the notion that the past had a sense of beauty whereas we do not as a false notion, derived from Romantic concepts (you did quote Blake), but concepts which do not necessarily reflect our actual working efforts.

But the 'fact' that 'the past had a sense of beauty whereas we do not' is a given in the story. In Middle earth the past (from the perspective of the Third Age) was more beautiful than the present, so its not 'false' or a product of romanticism, within the story. The lost beauty that the elves yearn for & strive to recreate & embalm is a fact. That says nothing about our world or what we know of 'real world' history & cultural development. From the perspective of Me the Elves were correct.

And, furthermore, in our recognition that some previous standards of "Beauty" represented class and race concepts, I would argue that we are closer now to an understanding that beauty arises from a kind of wholistic or integral quality. Even that the pursuit of beauty itself as an object falsifies the notion. Which is, again, why I dislike the emphasis on the elves's grace, height and proportions as reflecting their beauty as a race. It smacks of old European values. The hobbits might proudly proclaim their worth, and the story might reflect their value, but for the narrator to uphold the elves as an epitome of beauty reflects a notion of beauty which does not pertain in our world--or which increasingly does not. Tastes change.

Again, the Elves' beauty is a given within Me. We don't have to agree with the aesthetic judgements of the characters within that world (or even of JRRT himself), merely accept that within that world those were the criteria on which aesthetic judgements were made.

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

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

And, furthermore, in our recognition that some previous standards of "Beauty" represented class and race concepts, I would argue that we are closer now to an understanding that beauty arises from a kind of wholistic or integral quality. Even that the pursuit of beauty itself as an object falsifies the notion. Which is, again, why I dislike the emphasis on the elves's grace, height and proportions as reflecting their beauty as a race. It smacks of old European values. The hobbits might proudly proclaim their worth, and the story might reflect their value, but for the narrator to uphold the elves as an epitome of beauty reflects a notion of beauty which does not pertain in our world--or which increasingly does not. Tastes change.

called away before I can explain further....

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.

[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".

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by 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.

This what I love about ordinary buildings which are old. My own house has uneven floors and doors, and stairs so steep they would be illegal today. It has been updated with modern comforts, so it has not been completely 'embalmed' but it retains traces of the lives of those who once lived there with the worn back step, the nicer detailing in the front room which would at one time not have been used much, the fact that there are fireplaces upstairs which makes me think how cold it must have been in winter. Such houses are in demand here, despite all the modern flats being put up, as I think people search for a little 'character', which to me suggests that we like the possibility of stories having happened where we live.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

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......

And one is free to inquire what is this eucatastrophe, this eternity, this aesthetic experience, and consider if it is the same place other Art leads us to. Can only Tolkien lead us there?

You are very free in characterising various people's arguments. Once again, you insist upon this hoary chestnut of experience versus meaning. Telling us over and over again in every thread runs the risk of boring us, davem

I see no point in replying further if this is just going to degenerate into another Romantic diatribe against analysis.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And one is free to inquire what is this eucatastrophe, this eternity, this aesthetic experience, and consider if it is the same place other Art leads us to. Can only Tolkien lead us there?

One can - if one wants. I'd say all true Art leads us to the same place, so not only Tolkien can lead us there. As to your point, I'd say that you can enquire into the nature of Eucatastrophe, Eternity, Aesthetic Experience till the cows come home but only the experience of those things has any real worth, & the danger of too much inquiry is that it can bring down the Tower & stop you ever seeing the Sea - or at least cause you to get so caught up in analysing the architecture that you forget to go up. Whatever, I think climbing up & looking out is more important than any amount of inquiry & analysis.

I see no point in replying further if this is just going to degenerate into another Romantic diatribe against analysis.

Oh, you take me too seriously. I keep drawing you in to these discussions & you always end up going off in a huff (or if that's too soon a minute & a huff )

Remember, if you go away everyone will think I've won

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Oh, you take me too seriously. I keep drawing you in to these discussions & you always end up going off in a huff (or if that's too soon a minute & a huff )

Remember, if you go away everyone will think I've won

Oh hardly, I think, davem, particularly since I've drawn you to admit your MO here.

And in answer to Eomer's question about whether Tolkien's idea of the long defeat goes against Enlightenment ideas, my point about Gould's ideas on evolution and progress rather suggests no.

As to Tolkien's ideas about Eden, his letter #96 states his thoughts about perfection and its loss. It is probably one of his most explicit statements of his own personal hope.

[alatar]

Been thinking about this more and think that it all comes down to change.

Whether it is the fate of the world, art, architecture, etc, it's about change. As humans we not only detect patterns, we also detect 'change' in that some event has risen above some noise threshold to be consciously noticed by us. The caveat is that we have limited and biased viewpoints.

You may think that the world is spiralling down into moral muck, yet it may be that the world is changing (like it always does) and you are now aware that something is happening. On the other side it could be you that has changed, and so now the world now looks different. I know that my POV changed after leaving childhood and after having children. When I was leaving childhood I learned that the world wasn't just like my limited experience could have imagined, but actually a large and wonderful place with all kinds of new crazy people to meet and from whom to learn. When I had my first child, I started looking at the outside world differently yet again. The culture in which I live did not just get ugly, yet suddenly I was concerned about the future and more specifically the future in which my children will live.

We may think that we are living in the worst or best of times, but could it be, like the stock market, we are just experiencing a short-term peak or valley? Averaged over hundreds or thousands of years, our current peak/valley may not even be significant. Hate to say it, but as a species, we may not even be significant in the bigger scheme (did someone say mice?).

Sure, our technology is better - we have better stone tools - but how much have we changed emotionally/spiritually/physically over the past few thousands of years? It's still the same wants of a full stomach, a warm and safe place to sleep and a mate with which to create the next generation. With our advances we now have time to navel-gaze a lot more, yet on the other hand while we're not out gathering food we have to kill the time doing something, like even posting to forums and such. One thing that I've noticed is that many people have an almost instinctual fear of snakes, yet except for the zoo and excluding the two-legged species, just when was the last time most people have had an encounter let alone an adverse encounter with a snake?

We're still cave dwellers.

And though I won't debate global warming here, there was a time in the 70's when the big scare was global cooling. As a youngster I was sure that my house was going to be run down by a glacier and so me and my friends devised several strategies for pushing the ice back (it's always lasers).

Art changes. Note that my exposure to 'art' is limited, yet I've seen that in one era it's beautiful lifelike paintings of divine beings and then suddenly it's crazy-headed 2-D people then it's large soup cans. Each era's art has some temporal meaning (counterculture? etc), and then may have a different meaning to the next generation ("Those large soup cans sure would make nice planters...").

In 'Merica I'm sure that we have some 'old' architecture somewhere, but the issue with our culture is that we are always looking for the new (and note, fellow countrypersons, that I speak in generalities here in). The old is cool because it is different, but then again, we have the need to build a mega-mart every three miles or so, and the parking lots must be big enough for our SUVs (I believe that my British cousins would call these vehicles 'buses' ), and so sometimes those 25 year old buildings have to be torn down to make way. Again my experience is limited but I would say that my culture is generally focused on the future.

I live in a neighborhood with some old beautiful houses, yet these are falling into ruin as many people have left the city (Did I say city? That might not be the best word...please insert the word that means "a place that should be torn down and be replaced with a slum as an improvement") due to high taxes, poor government and the loss of the steel industry, and so the houses are vacant, ill-kept or ill-used. It's a shame as my parents tell of a completely different place. And they surely thought that steel was going to live forever, and yet here we are.

And to get back on topic (or off my tangent), looking over the ages of Arda, one would see a downward slope if the measure were 'perfection,' yet other variables may have positive slopes (non-embalmage, humanity, diversity).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by alatar

the issue with our culture is that we are always looking for the new

Maybe this is down to money. There is little money to be made if we hang on to the past, especially the recent past. Clothing being a case in point - if we all kept our old clothes they would come back into fashion again and we would get more use from them (if indeed we are even interested in such things as fashion at all), recently things seem to come 'in' and 'out' as quickly as every three years. But we are constantly sold 'new' trends and feel we have to buy them, so we have no room for the old things and chuck them out/give them away, only to find that we could have got more use from them.

I'm not talking of Art here - that this develops and changes is a good thing, but even here the pursuit of the new can be harmful. I remember when a new band would spend a few years struggling before they made it big, giving them time to grow and develop; nowadays they are snapped up right away and have burned out by the time their second or third album is released.

It is also wasteful. Both of resources and our own money - and where does that money come from? Our time, which by extension we are also wasting, trying to work a few more hours to earn that latest cool 'thing' instead of having a few more hours to read and think.

Which leads me on to another thing:

Originally Posted by alatar

With our advances we now have time to navel-gaze a lot more, yet on the other hand while we're not out gathering food we have to kill the time doing something, like even posting to forums and such.

Have we really got more time these days? One of the greatest ironies is that with the rise of new technology, from the automatic washing machine to the mp3 player, instead of taking advantage of these tools and giving ourselves more free time, we instead fill up that free time with more work, or we have to work longer to get the next gadget, or even spend time looking after said gadget. It was ironic that as things like automatic washing machines freed women to seek work outside the home, our lives did not become any easier, instead we have ended up with even more work to worry about, more expectations to fulfill. And I wonder how many households now bicker about who's going to fill/empty the dishwasher instead of who's going to wash and who dry?

From this culture comes the logical idea that anything (or anybody? ) old and used is no longer useful. As seen in the Scouring of the Shire - the old Mill is replaced for something much more efficient, and the old smials are dug up to be replaced with new houses. I wonder how long they would have lasted in comparison to the old ones? It would have been no matter to Saruman, as long as the Hobbits had kept wanting the latest 'thing' and paying more money for it.

Now I must go and find my hair shirt after that little rant...

[Lathriel]

I feel that because technology is becoming more widly available to everybody and that it is cheaper the importance of quality has lessened.
E.G everyone is getting an ipod or discman but nobody tries to (or cares) to figure out if the sound quality of their headphones are any good.

With the war machine that Saruman created, quality also did not seem to matter, as long as everybody had a sword that could do damage.

Maybe Tolkien also felt that with the introduction of machines and cars etc. the quality of life would decrease.

But I am rambling and I am mixing up my thoughts. Still this is just a little idea.

[Angry Hill Troll]

Going back to the original discussion on the thread a little, one quote that popped into my head (and I can't quite remember for the life of me where it appears, probably in ROTK) that someone asks Gandalf whether everything in ME will fade or be corrupted, and Gandalf says simply "That is its fate."

Thinking about this statement a bit, Gandalf has just spent 2000 years combating Sauron, trying to preserve all that is fair (or at least something that is fair, as his statement to Denethor about he (Gandalf) also being a Steward indicates), even though he knows his effort is ultimately "futile" in the sense that nothing he manages to save is destined to ultimately endure. Furthermore, he never seems to act as if he's consigned to a futile task (melancholy, as Elrond and Galadriel both appear at times)

Since it seems that Gandalf in many ways represents Tolkien's ideals, it may be interesting to speculate on how Gandalf's statement reflects or embodies Tolkien's own view on the Long Defeat, and on the necessity and rationale behind fighting an unwinnable struggle.

BTW, I'm not sure that the religious or Catholic view would necessarily imply the concept of the Long Defeat. Certainly one of the tenets of Christianity is that Man will always be flawed, and a utopia cannot be achieved without divine intervention. But it doesn't seem clear (to me, anyway) that this implies that the world must necessarily get continually worse, just that it has severe limitations on its ability to get continuously better. The religious view antithetical to the Enlightenment, is certainly not the only one which has ever existed in Christianity (Scholasticism comes to mind), and if one looks closely either at the historical record of world history or religious scripture, one sees that in times past, things have often been extremely problematic. It's just that we tend to be more preoccupied with the problems of our own time.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Angry Hill Troll

I'm not sure that the religious or Catholic view would necessarily imply the concept of the Long Defeat. Certainly one of the tenets of Christianity is that Man will always be flawed, and a utopia cannot be achieved without divine intervention. But it doesn't seem clear (to me, anyway) that this implies that the world must necessarily get continually worse, just that it has severe limitations on its ability to get continuously better.

Actually, orthodox Christianity (both Roman Catholic and Protestant forms) have in common an "eschatology" (teaching on 'last things') saying that things will get worse until the glorious end.

I will not quote at length from Scripture; you can take a look for yourself. There is some of this type of writing in Daniel and Zechariah in the Old Testament. But this eschatology is derived especially from the New Testament: Matthew 24 and 25, Luke 21, the first letter to the Corinthians, ch. 15, 2 Peter 3, and, of course, Revelation (the whole book).

[Guinevere]

Originally Posted by Angry Hill Troll

Going back to the original discussion on the thread a little, one quote that popped into my head (and I can't quite remember for the life of me where it appears, probably in ROTK) that someone asks Gandalf whether everything in ME will fade or be corrupted, and Gandalf says simply "That is its fate."

I think I know where your quote comes from: in the "History of Galadriel and Celeborn" in U.T. there are 2 versions of the origin of the second Elessar:
In the first, Galadriel speaks with Gandalf because she longs for Aman and yet is unwilling (or not permitted) to leave ME:

She sighed and said: "I grieve in Middle-earth, for leaves fall and flowers fade; and my heart yearns, remembering trees and grass that do not die. I would have these in my home." Then Olórin said: "Would you then have the Elessar?" And Galadriel said: "Where now is the Stone of Eärendil? And Enerdhil is gone who made it." "Who knows?" said Olórin. "Surely," said Galadriel, "they have passed over Sea, as almost all fair things beside. And must Middle-earth then fade and perish for ever?" "That is its fate." said Olórin. "Yet for a little while that might be amended, if the Elessar should return. For a little, until the Days of Men are come."

Then Gandalf (Olórin) gives her the Elessar, as a gift, or rather a loan, from Yavanna.
( In the other version this talk is between Galadriel and Celebrimbor, and the words are very similar, but then Celebrimbor makes the second Elessar and gives it to Galadriel out of love for her..)

Galadriel is grieved because the living things around her that she has loved fade and die -

"So that the land of my dwelling is filled with regret that no spring can redress."

(as she tells Celebrimbor)
But that's the way it is : all living thing must fade and perish - but new life is continually born - after every winter there is a spring with new leaves and flowers. But this seems apparently no comfort to the exiled Elves. They want no change, they want to keep things exactly as they were.

Angry hill troll wrote:
Thinking about this statement a bit, Gandalf has just spent 2000 years combating Sauron, trying to preserve all that is fair (or at least something that is fair, as his statement to Denethor about he (Gandalf) also being a Steward indicates), even though he knows his effort is ultimately "futile" in the sense that nothing he manages to save is destined to ultimately endure. Furthermore, he never seems to act as if he's consigned to a futile task (melancholy, as Elrond and Galadriel both appear at times)

I don't think this particular quote is meant to mean that everything on Earth will continually deteriorate, and that all the efforts of Gandalf are in vain.

And in general I think it is so too: many species have been extinct, but others have succeeded them, much that was beautiful and good is lost for ever, (but of course not everything in the past was good and beautiful! and many evil things have have been overcome as well.) but there are always new good and beautiful things too.(But new ugly and evil things as well, alas! Humanity as a whole doesn't seem to have learnt much: the same mistakes are made all over again. ) The older one gets the more things that one cares for, change or have vanished for ever, and one tends to remember mostly the good things, and to gloryfy the past. I think the mentality of the Elves in the third age is a bit like those of old people, though their bodily appearance is still unchanged.
I must say that I rather sympathize with their view, and what Tolkien wrote in his essay "On Fairy-stories" about "escape" resonates deeply with me:

It is indeed an age of "improved means to deteriorated ends". It is part of the essential malady of such days - producing the desire to escape, not indeed from life, but from our present time and self-made misery - that we are acutely conscious both of the ugliness of our works and of their evil.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Guinevere

The older one gets the more things that one cares for, change or have vanished for ever, and one tends to remember mostly the good things, and to gloryfy the past. I think the mentality of the Elves in the third age is a bit like those of old people, though their bodily appearance is still unchanged.

I like the analogy of Elves being a little like old people in that they lament the passing of things they have known well. Though with Elves I sometimes think that they experience grief in a wholly different way to how a mortal might experience it. Not only do Elves see the natural world around them changing, they also see or have seen (now they shut themselves off from it) how Men also wither and die.

These things simply cannot be saved in any way, there is simply nothing that they can do about it. When Men see such things wither away then it may bring to mind their own withering and passing, but for Elves, they can only see an eternity where those things will never be seen again. Elves, being detached from Death, I think cannot understand how withering is a part of the world, so their grief is different.

Maybe it is a demonstration of Gandalf's wisdom that he has at least some understanding of how mortality might feel, while the Elves have a different perception. Perhaps it is because Gandalf has received some kind of knowledge from Eru?