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

[Boromir88]

Well we are the civilized race, and just think of modernity the way I think of stairs, and you might realize it's not so bad. Stairs are my friend, not my enemy.

Groin, sorry if it sounded like I was short-changing the Greeks, that wasn't my intention. Without question we owe our way of thinking and living to the Greeks. We will forever be in their debt. My point I was trying to make was the Greeks came up with the ideas, while the Romans put them into practice and spread them (for the most part). The Greeks weren't too practical and they thought the only people who could understand their ideas were other Greeks. It were the Romans who put their "Western" ideas into practice and spread them to other cultures/those they conquered. (I'm a very biased Roman lover, just so you know that - and no that does not mean I am a single-minded lover who hails from Rome )

I'm not sure how much of an uber-conservative Tolkien was, and the intellectuals claim him to be. I think Tolkien writes a lot about coming to terms with change, and the fact that change is a "fact of life." In several letters Tolkien comments that the Elves greatest weakness was their inability to accept change:

But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right… they were ‘embalmers’.~Letter 154

the Elvish weakness is…to become unwilling to face change...~Letter 181

A character such as Frodo is one who, at first, is very resistant to the change that he is faced with right in the beginning. That is, being burdened with the Ring of Power. He actually delays his departure from The Shire, because he doesn't want to leave. He comes right out and tells Gandalf, he wishes the Ring never came to him, he just wants to stay and live in peace. Albeit in a much more eloquent way Gandalf pretty much tells Frodo "Stop whining, everyone wants to be left alone. But guess what? Crap happens deal with it." Frodo accepts the journey, accepts the burden, because he has to. While he might grit his teeth and hate every step of the journey, he knows what has to be done, and does it. The entire fate of Middle-earth lies on Frodo's neck (quite literally!) Did Frodo want this burden? No, but he accepts the change and deals with it.

In fact, many of Tolkien's villains are people who are static, they don't change in any way. One of the first things that gets associated with Sauron is Barad-dur. Saruman through most of LOTR stays fixed in Orthanc. Denethor is someone who is so controlled by his "wants" and his desire to hold on to the "past" that it drives him to insanity:

"I would have things as they were in all the days of my life," answered Denethor, "and in the days of my longfathers before me: to be the Lord of this City in peace, and leave my chair to a son after me, who would be his own master and no wizard's pupil."~The Pyre of Denethor

It can be quite reasonably argued that Faramir was a romantic conservative. He wanted Gondor restored to the peaceful glory days:

For myself," said Faramir, "I would see the White Tree in flower again in the courts of the kings, and the Silver Crown return, and Minas Tirith in peace: Minas Anor again as of old, full of light, high and fair, beautiful as the queen among other queens..."~The Window on the West

This sounds like Faramir wanting Gondor to be brought back into the "throwback" days where everything was all utopian and rosy. However, the key difference between Denethor and Faramir, is Faramir is accepts "different" where Denethor is controlled by his longing for the past.

Faramir wants Gondor to be restored to the glory days, but he is also very realistic. We see this in his rejection of the Ring:

Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs~ibid

Faramir has a glorious vision of Gondor, but it his acceptance of change (highlighted by his acceptance of Aragorn) which makes him different from his father and brother. Faramir outrightly rejects the Ring, and based on his words above, Faramir understands...

1. the Ring in a way Denethor (or Boromir) didn't. He knows the Ring is deceitful and thus it would only lead to Sauron's goal, not his own.

2. while Faramir has a peaceful and flowery vision of Gondor, he accepts this is an unrealistic fantasy and at times you just got to accept the brutal reality:

"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all,..."~ibid

So, while Faramir seems like a hopeless romantic, he is very realistic and knows that change is something we all must accept and adapt to.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

So, while Faramir seems like a hopeless romantic, he is very realistic and knows that change is something we all must accept and adapt to.

Yes! There isn't any real contradiction between realism and romance (the general kind); in fact, reason, realism, and ordinary-ness are at the heart of true romance.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Romantism and realism seems pretty contradictory, at least from an economic point of view.

Romantism - Glorious sacrifice of the self, or selfish interests, for greater good, definition of "greater good" being lasting beauty, peace, prosperity, friendship.

Realism - Preservation of the self and selfish interests, for survival. If sacrifice of self is required, the individual should ensure that survivors know and remember the act of sacrifice so as to ensure a more lasting immortality.

From a completely cynical point of view, Faramir gave up the use of the Ring to save Gondor because he realised that he could not possibly have gained complete control of Sauron's power (having seen Gollum). Since the chance of Frodo completing his quest with Faramir's help would be higher, he decided to attain greater nobility in others' eyes, by offering his aid.

The scenario at the top of Mount Doom was also pretty conclusive as to the limits of ideals. Frodo failed in his quest. One can only imagine what went through his mind as he put the ring on and claim it for himself: "Screw Gandalf, the Shire and all the rest of Gondor! Give me the one Ring anyday"

[Groin Redbeard]

Thanks for clearing everything up Boromir! I finally get what everyone was saying.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Romantism and realism seems pretty contradictory, at least from an economic point of view.

Not at all. Romance is real.

[Groin Redbeard]

OK, I'm confused again! Why is everyone talking about things from a economic point of view? It's not like economic is apart of modernism, economics has been around since before the Greeks.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

The scenario at the top of Mount Doom was also pretty conclusive as to the limits of ideals. Frodo failed in his quest. One can only imagine what went through his mind as he put the ring on and claim it for himself: "Screw Gandalf, the Shire and all the rest of Gondor! Give me the one Ring anyday"

I don't think ideals failed in the least; in fact, ideals allowed Gollum to be present at that ultimate moment when Frodo faltered. The opportunity to slay Gollum was in easy reach of both Bilbo then Frodo, but pity and the innate goodness of hobbits stayed their hands (and particularly in Frodo's case, the ideals of Gandalf -- of mercy and fate -- were the primary reason Gollum survived). Such things as mercy and pity do not fit into your rigid and economical stance for preservation and self-interest, and certainly Gollum would have been slain had the Hobbits taken your professed tact, to the utter destruction of the Free Peoples.

In addition, regarding Frodo's claim on the Ring, I would say that at that moment in Mount Doom the Ring claimed Frodo and not vice versa. The claim was akin to profound addiction, wherein any personal objective or ideal falls subservient to the drug (or in this case, the Ring). That Frodo had reached his objective was in itself astonishing, and beyond the wills of stronger beings (Isildur, Boromir or even Saruman, for instance). Frodo did indeed fail ultimately in destroying the Ring, but his compassion and mercy brought about a fateful conjunction of events that completed the task.

[Lush]

Such things as mercy and pity do not fit into your rigid and economical stance for preservation and self-interest, and certainly Gollum would have been slain had the Hobbits taken your professed tact, to the utter destruction of the Free Peoples.

Hmmm. I'm reading your posts here, Morthoron, and I'm disagreeing with the notion that it's an "either or" scenario in regards to Gollum, or that mercy is always at odds with self-interest. We are merciful to others, because we are good and because we'd like to treat others the way we would like to be treated ourselves. Gandalf, meanwhile, felt that Gollum had a part to play yet.

I think there is such a thing as pure altruism, but it's a state we strive for, not a state we necessarily achieve as human beings. And I think that there is blessing and providence in the act of striving. I'm not entirely sure if Tolkien would agree with me here, but I saw shades of that in Gollum's story.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lush

Hmmm. I'm reading your posts here, Morthoron, and I'm disagreeing with the notion that it's an "either or" scenario in regards to Gollum, or that mercy is always at odds with self-interest. We are merciful to others, because we are good and because we'd like to treat others the way we would like to be treated ourselves. Gandalf, meanwhile, felt that Gollum had a part to play yet.

Did I say that mercy is always at odds with self-interest? I am sorry if it seemed like an implication; however, given Tolkien's predisposition regarding spirituality, it would seem that, rather than enightened self-interest, mercy, pity and forgiveness are a matter of faith (ideals if you will), meant to be practiced even if danger or death are a likely outcome (such as Jesus forgiving those who crucified him, or Gandhi forgiving his assassin). In like case, and following Tolkien's thought processes, I don't believe Gandalf was being utilitarian or necessarily self-interested in saying Gollum had a part to play, because he added the caveat 'for good or ill'. Fate plays heavily in the outcome of the novel, not enlightened self-interest.

Originally Posted by Lush

I think there is such a thing as pure altruism, but it's a state we strive for, not a state we necessarily achieve as human beings. And I think that there is blessing and providence in the act of striving. I'm not entirely sure if Tolkien would agree with me here, but I saw shades of that in Gollum's story.

As I stated previously, Frodo striving towards the ideal expounded by Gandalf was the determinate factor in a serendipitous outcome; that Frodo failed in his personal objective was overcome by his adherence to the ideal throughout the books. Sam, who wanted Gollum dead, was the voice of reason, utility and self-interest (and in the heat of the moment, one can't blame Mr. Gamgee for wishing an untimely end for the treacherous Gollum); however, Frodo looked beyond the present danger and overcame the human penchant for violent short-term advantage for something that borders on the altogether altruistic (again, given the clear and present dangers presented to the Hobbits).

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will. But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

[Boromir88]

Sam, who wanted Gollum dead, was the voice of reason, utility and self-interest (and in the heat of the moment, one can't blame Mr. Gamgee for wishing an untimely end for the treacherous Gollum); however, Frodo looked beyond the present danger and overcame the human penchant for violent short-term advantage for something that borders on the altogether altruistic~Morothoron

So, were the Hobbits morally unjust in their rash and revengeful execution of Grima? But, perhaps that is a discussion for a different thread, different day.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will. But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

First, in what way are you sounding opportunistic? Second, how are moral values (debatable or not) different from ideals? Third, how does the existence of fate preclude the existence of ideals? Fourth, doesn't the ultimate success of the quest demonstrate that, in the end, the forces of good (defined by their virtue and ideals) triumph over the forces of evil, even if by the unwitting aid of their enemies? Fifth, how do the lines regarding the Ring "it would possess him" and "he had no will left in the matter" allow for the possibility that Frodo freely abandoned his Quest in favor of the persuasion of the Ring out of disillusionment with his ideals, as opposed to simply succumbing to the dominating power of the Ring?

[Lush]

Fate plays heavily in the outcome of the novel, not enlightened self-interest.

I think you're right to bring up fate, Morthoron, though I would also remind you that what we are looking at is a world that has been marred, and those who are in it are marred as well. I also didn't say that it was necessarily enlightened self-interest (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, so perhaps if you'd like to explain, I would be interested) - just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless. Which is alright, really, because that's what human nature (or hobbit nature, if you will) is all about.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Guns don't kill people, spinning bullets discharged at high velocity do.

It sounds more like a figure of speech to describe Frodo as having "no will left in the matter". A drug addict who did bloody murder to feed his addiction would be just as responsible.

"My Precccioousss." - Bilbo, on tobacco rehab.

It is an accident which saved Middle Earth, just as it was a boating accident which killed Frodo's parents. (Unless, the gossips are true) One flinches at the prospect of pronouncing moral judgement at the death of Frodo's parents, but ascribes divine intervention at the other. Doesn't that seem like moral values are different from ideals?

"I did all that for my Children. It's not right to deprive my cute li' goblins of a land of milk and honey..." - Melkor, on Trial during the First Chaining.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Lush

- just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless.

This is not strictly true. Frodo's sacrifice of his own enjoyment of the Shire for the sake of his fellow hobbits was entirely selfless. In the end, he had the opportunity to visit Aman as a result, but only retrospect could have shown him that chain of events. Though virtue sometimes does lead to a good end, that end is rarely foreseeable, which is why virtue is always best practiced for its own sake: for the sake of one's soul, as well as for the sake of others.

Perhaps looking after the condition of one's soul could be considered true self-interest, in which case virtue really isn't selfless at all... Though, the condition of one's soul is hardly what most people would term one's highest interest these days, so maybe we only agree because we define our terms differently.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Guns don't kill people, spinning bullets discharged at high velocity do.

This is off-topic, but here's a good one: if guns kill people, then silverware makes Michael Moore fat (assuming he doesn't eat with his fingers...which may be assuming too much). Ha!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It would seem that the author disagrees with your cynical take on the ideals of his book...

Originally Posted by J.R.R Tolkien, Letter #181

But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

As far as Gollum gloating, Tolkien referred to Gollum as a "mad thing" capering along the precipice. At that point in time he was completely insane, because "The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol." Gollum could do nothing else but gloat at that point in time, trapped in blind ecstasy, a prisoner more so than a failing heroin addict shooting his last lethal dose. His only words were: "Precious, precious, precious!" Gollum cried. "My precious! O my precious!" He was unconcerned with danger, oblivious to the two hobbits nearby, and hadn't the faintest foresight that he was in Sauron's lair and that the Great Eye was upon him. In his madness he failed to see his predicament, and even the ledge looming to awaiting disaster.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will.

Fate and predestination are two separate issues. There is certainly a great measure of fate that applies to the book, but predestination (as you are using the term) does not require free will on the part of characters, whereas fate does. You are speaking from a Calvinist view of predestination (where even heaven's elect is a small, finite number), and not a Catholic one (to which Tolkien would certainly adhere). The Catholic doctrine holds Calvinist predestination as heretical because it does not include the free will of the individual to choose good or evil (which is certainly an aspect of Tolkien's corpus). Here is a summarization of the Catholic view (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607). Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795).

Eru Iluvatar certainly knows the entire song that was partially hidden from the Ainur; however, I believe there is only one direct intercession on Eru's part in the entire chronology (when the Valar surrendered their governance to Eru in the wake of the Numenorean invasion). If predestination were a fact and the outcome certain, then the Valar would not have deemed it necessary to send the Istari out to do their missionary work to reinvigorate the hearts of the Free Peoples (it would seem that the Valar would have had at least an inkling of such a doctrinal truth). Iluvatar's interference would have been made manifest at other critical junctures in Middle-earth history if that were Tolkien's means in storytelling. Free will and choices are a foundational aspect of LotR, as are the 'altruistic' views of mercy, and the old-fashioned chivalric values of valor, humility and self-sacrifice (beyond any economy or self-interest).

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

But the insidious nature of the Ring, and perhaps one its greatest evils, is that it erodes free will, to the point where the wise (like Gandalf) would not even touch it. At this point I am wondering if you are merely arguing for argument's sake, or whether you merely fail to grasp the insistent and grave tone Tolkien uses regarding the properties of the Ring. Lesser Rings sent great lords and kings to eventual wraithdom, the One Ring destroyed Isildur and Gollum (and nearly so Boromir), and we marvel at the nobility and fortitude of Faramir for refusing it (well, you don't; I guess you merely consider his refusal as a utilitarian piece of strategy). And here we have Frodo the Hobbit -- bitten, speared and stabbed -- blindly flailing at the air in an attempt to ward off the great fiery circle in his waking nightmare, coming at last to Mount Doom, wherein pulses the apex and pinnacle of the Rings arcane power, and you merely assign Frodo's failure to disillusionment? Sorry, that's just plain silly.

Assigning the psychological crudities of modernity (precluding the evil propensities and the dominating magic inherent in the Ring, for instance) to a fantasy written in a traditionalist mode brings us right back to the demeaning and woodenheaded nature that the intellectuals of the current worldview have for Tolkien, or any classical literature for that matter. Rather than synthesize and embrace various literature and come to terms with the norms presented at the time the piece was written (as well as reveling in the historical intonations reverberating from the past), they instead berate entire eras of literature and parade their own addlepated notions as the end-all, be-all to what is correct and aesthetically pleasing.

*The Dark Elf steps down from his well-worn soapbox*

Ummm...yeah, whatever.

Originally Posted by Lush

I think you're right to bring up fate, Morthoron, though I would also remind you that what we are looking at is a world that has been marred, and those who are in it are marred as well. I also didn't say that it was necessarily enlightened self-interest (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, so perhaps if you'd like to explain, I would be interested) - just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless. Which is alright, really, because that's what human nature (or hobbit nature, if you will) is all about.

By enlightened self-interest, I meant that a moral imperative such as ""Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" takes on the added dimension of "By doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, you have a better chance of not having others do unto you as they will", (ie., if you don't treat people like crap, they probably won't treat you like crap). The ideal (the one not requiring self-interest) is a goal that not everyone attains, but assuredly I have met those who adhere to it quite remarkably (I, unfortuantely, am too curmudgeonly and lack the patience to be in that rarified sphere of sanctification).

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

It's nothing personal, but I find it ironic that you should call the modern process of chicken rearing cruel, whereas attribute absolute dominating evil power to the Ring. Nobody really likes the idea of eating cruelly tortured chicken flesh, but then nobody likes the idea of soaring chicken meat prices either. (With that pretty much everything which comes with inflation of commodity prices) On the other hand, the individuals that you mentioned, (Boromir, Bilbo, Frodo) clearly had a choice in claiming the Ring for themselves, failed to resist and yet epitomized heroism and triumph of ideals. (Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?)

Besides, madness (i.e. the mad Gollum) pretty much absolved his guilt in snatching the Ring, doesn't it?

"I pleeeead inssssaaanniityyy...." - Gollum

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

It's nothing personal, but I find it ironic that you should call the modern process of chicken rearing cruel, whereas attribute absolute dominating evil power to the Ring. Nobody really likes the idea of eating cruelly tortured chicken flesh, but then nobody likes the idea of soaring chicken meat prices either. (With that pretty much everything which comes with inflation of commodity prices)

Your use of the term 'ironic' does not apply to what you are saying. I find no incongruity in my statements; therefore to imply irony is in error. It seems you are saying you condone cruelty and torture when it is expedient to do so. To each his own, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

On the other hand, the individuals that you mentioned, (Boromir, Bilbo, Frodo) clearly had a choice in claiming the Ring for themselves, failed to resist and yet epitomized heroism and triumph of ideals. (Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?)

Again, either you are simply arguing for arguments sake, or you really do not grasp the concepts of Tolkien's work. Boromir repented of his misdeed, and gained forgiveness through repentance (an integral part of Catholic doctrine). Bilbo? I am not sure exactly where he failed to resist, can you? It was difficult for him to surrender the Ring, but he did so (and with Sam as another example, giving up the Ring of one's own free will must have been a harrowing experience). Frodo? Yes he did fail, didn't he? I believe I've stated that on several occasions, but since you fail to comprehend the mitigating circumstances surrounding his ordeal, then this conversation is irredeemable. I will repost a quote from Tolkien and then refrain from further posting in this thread (unless of course you have an epiphany or someone adds something worthwhile):

Originally Posted by J.R.R Tolkien, Letter #181

But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

Originally Posted by J.R.R Tolkien, Letter #181

Besides, madness (i.e. the mad Gollum) pretty much absolved his guilt in snatching the Ring, doesn't it?

"I pleeeead inssssaaanniityyy...." - Gollum

No, he was not absolved because he died unrepentant (again, a Catholic doctrine that Tolkien would adhere to).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Fate and predestination are two separate issues. There is certainly a great measure of fate that applies to the book, but predestination (as you are using the term) does not require free will on the part of characters, whereas fate does. You are speaking from a Calvinist view of predestination (where even heaven's elect is a small, finite number), and not a Catholic one (to which Tolkien would certainly adhere). The Catholic doctrine holds Calvinist predestination as heretical because it does not include the free will of the individual to choose good or evil (which is certainly an aspect of Tolkien's corpus). Here is a summarization of the Catholic view (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

This I find interesting. I do understand that Tolkien's view of faith, or rather, the view expressed in LotR and his other works, is separate from predestination. What I don't understand is why.

According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607

Is that not an oxymoron? How can God infallibly foresee and preordain all future events and man still be free? This idea I can't even begin to grasp. If God knows all future choices a man will take, how can he then be free? There's only one path for him and it's predestined. Or does this mean that God can preordain all futire events if he wants too, but doesn't, in respect to man's free will? I'd appreciate if you, or anyone else, can help me understand this concept.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Okay, Skip, look at it from your human, synchronic point of view. Suppose you see a car wreck. You didn't cause it, there's nothing you can do to prevent it, you just see it as it happens.

The classic philosopher's answer to your conundrum applies that model to the Deity's infinite vision: seeing everything happen in His omnipresent Now is not the same thing as causing or ordaining it.

[Galin]

I don't know if this will help, but the following is from the Mere Christianity Leaders' Notes over at Opendiscipleship.org, and looks at Lewis' thoughts in Mere Christianity (I can't seem to find my copy).

Chapter 3: "Time and Beyond Time" This chapter discusses Time as it relates to Prayer. We live through time. In this reality, we flow in one direction with time. All that is behind us is lost to us, except in our memory. All that is before us is unknown to us. What Lewis is attempting to address here is, "How can God listen to everyone in the world praying at the same time?"

1) God created time
2) God exists beyond time ("outside and above")
3) God is not restricted to time
4) We live in this tiny window of Now, the past behind us, the future before us
5) God can see all of the "Nows" all of all time
6) Example of the author writing the book with the character in the book living in a separate, independent timeline.
7) "But God has no history. He is too completely real to have one."
8) In human language we use terms like "foreknowledge," and "foresaw," and "predestined." These terms are all locked into human reason and human language. We really don't have language to adequately deal with God's presence outside of time.
9) Because of God's presence beyond time, He is able to tell the prophets what is in their future because it is not future to God, but present reality. This allows a view of foreknowledge and predestination that does not violate, in any way, free will and human responsibility. Humans retain personal responsibility in light of "predestination" without the two conflicting.'

'Now' is a good word to try and describe it, as WCH already has. See also 8 regarding language and etc., as we can only try to describe such a concept.

[Gwathagor]

Divine predestination and human action are two different perspectives on the same thing, but you can't really consider them alongside each other on the same plane. It's as if God is an author writing a story. On one level, He determines everything that happens. On another level, the characters in the story are held responsible for their actions within the story.

This isn't, of course, to say that God is totally outside of the story, as an author is. He is perpetually involved, and that's where my analogy breaks down.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

I beg your indulgence for your misunderstanding, Morthoron. (Though I'd refrain commenting on personal attacks in the posts...)

Assigning the psychological crudities of modernity (precluding the evil propensities and the dominating magic inherent in the Ring, for instance) to a fantasy written in a traditionalist mode brings us right back to the demeaning and woodenheaded nature that the intellectuals of the current worldview have for Tolkien, or any classical literature for that matter.

But by deeming the modern chicken rearing process as evil, you practically ignored all the beneficial aspects of the chicken flesh industry, which efficiently supplies chicken meat to more than 60% of the world (McDonald's not the only corporation catering chicken meat).

To feed cities and towns, meat needs to be processed quickly and hygenically. A breakdown in the rearing process drastically reduces the supply of chicken meat. The price of meat foodstuff ultimately increases because alternative meat foods such as beef and pork experience greater demand. Of course, it's not the end of the world for USA or many European countries. God/Budda/Allah forbids though, that commodity prices should rise higher in developing countries, which imports their foodstuff.

On the other hand, the One Ring is seen as embodying all-consuming evil power without any redeeming qualities. The irony lies in the fact that evil chicken meat corporation managers have more in common with our hero Frodo than villian Gollum: they can't stop the torture once it began, and certainly didn't get a good rep for it.

I guess it had to be to each his/her own in the regard of the evils of the chicken sandwich. Since modernists probably won't even read LOTR more than twice (due to the mind boggling logic of magic), you'd bet that I agree more with your other arguements than you expected.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Tolkien's work only embraced the ideals, not the details.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

I beg your indulgence for your misunderstanding, Morthoron. (Though I'd refrain commenting on personal attacks in the posts...)

'Woodenheadedness' is a term I picked up from Barbara Tuchman in her book "The March of Folly". She applied it as a characteristic of political and social leaders who, through the shortsightedness of their policies, engaged in folly: acts clearly counterproductive to the country or group they represented when clear alternatives existed to act to the contrary. It is very apt in the case referenced, although I wasn't necessarily accounting you as one of those who stolidly supports the current wordlview (unless of course you are and then I do).

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

But by deeming the modern chicken rearing process as evil, you practically ignored all the beneficial aspects of the chicken flesh industry, which efficiently supplies chicken meat to more than 60% of the world (McDonald's not the only corporation catering chicken meat).

I eat Amish chicken from farms in Ohio and Indiana (if I eat chicken at all), which is processed in an entirely different manner than the beakless cannibal birds shot up with antibiotics and steroids. It may cost a bit more, but the taste difference is noticeable and it is healthier for you. There are always alternatives, my dear. *shrugs*

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

On the other hand, the One Ring is seen as embodying all-consuming evil power without any redeeming qualities. The irony lies in the fact that evil chicken meat corporation managers have more in common with our hero Frodo than villian Gollum: they can't stop the torture once it began, and certainly didn't get a good rep for it.

First, let's set the record straight, and refrain from further fowl discussions. The chicken comments were an aside regarding the explanation of a punch line to a joke. Analogies between Frodo and real world butchers in poultry abbatoirs are rather incidental; particularly since you ignored the meat of the discussion, and decided instead to snack on appetizers, which I suppose would be chicken fingers (which is ironic terminology, considering they clip the chickens toes off).

Originally Posted by skip spence

Is that not an oxymoron? How can God infallibly foresee and preordain all future events and man still be free? This idea I can't even begin to grasp. If God knows all future choices a man will take, how can he then be free? There's only one path for him and it's predestined. Or does this mean that God can preordain all futire events if he wants too, but doesn't, in respect to man's free will? I'd appreciate if you, or anyone else, can help me understand this concept.

It is paradoxical rather than oxymoronic, I should guess. But knowing the actions that will take place is entirely different than interfering in the actions to change the outcome. I am reminded of the movie Time Bandits, where a boy (Kevin) and a dwarf (Randall) are having a discussion regarding Evil with the Supreme Being (played by Sir Ralph Richardson):

Kevin: "Do you mean you knew what was happening to us all the time?"

Supreme Being: "Well, of course. I am the Supreme Being. I'm not entirely dim."

Randall: "Oh, no sir. We weren't suggesting that, sir. It's just that. . ."

Supreme Being: "I let you borrow my map. Now, I want every bit of evil placed in here, right away."

Kevin: "You mean you let all those people die just to test your creation?"

Supreme Being: "Yes. You really are a clever boy."

Kevin: "Why did they have to die?"

Supreme Being: "You might as well say, 'Why do we have to have evil?'"

Randall: "Oh, we wouldn't dream of asking a question like that, sir."

Kevin: "Yes, why do we have to have evil?"

Supreme Being: "Ah. . .I think it has something to do with free will.

And there you have it. Everything you wanted to know from the Supreme Being, but were afraid to ask.

[Lush]

Frodo's sacrifice of his own enjoyment of the Shire for the sake of his fellow hobbits was entirely selfless.

Agreed. But I'm pretty sure that making that sacrifice and showing mercy are not necessarily 100% the same. Obviously, they're good actions. I'm not calling that into question.

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?

But Tolkien uses "doom" to mean "fate" a lot of the time so aybe what he actually means is that even if his fate is to go to Mount Doom then whatever happens there is only governed by free will, and he might not even be able to give the ring up, even though it's his fate.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

There seems to be a generally unequivocal stance on the moral implications of choices. But what about the moral implications of having no choice? Let's rephrase the question: Evil is said to be a by-product of free-will, but people do not choose to be born with free-will. And rectifying the phenomenon of free-will (i.e: through slavery, capital punishment and martial law) would be generally considered tyranny (and thus evil).

The slaves of Sauron and Morgoth are condemned for imitating the characteristics of their masters. And yet, being born under the yoke and thus having known nothing else other than the teachings of their forebears, they were probably the least evil of the lot. Of course, they get tempted by power and prestige like other "Free Peoples", but they should not be held responsible for their evil characteristics like Gollum or Bill Ferny. Aragorn did not hold Butterbur and Bree as ingrates because they did not give the Rangers credit for their protection.

Again, it seems like that the traditional stance did not offer any migitations for evil caused from being granted free will. (I believe Tolkien did write in HoME about having the need of some "Christ" coming to save the Edain under Morgoth, but that certainly did not materialise).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

It is paradoxical rather than oxymoronic, I should guess.

Well, yes, that's a better word.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

But knowing the actions that will take place is entirely different than interfering in the actions to change the outcome.

Sure. And there would be no need to interfere for an allmighty God, "seeing everything happen in His omnipresent Now" (quote from WCH).

Gwathagor used the analogy of a novelist. You might say the novelist is outside of the timeline in his book. Reading his finished work, he knows everything that is going to happen, because he is the author of the story. If you look upon God and his creation this way you can talk about predestination, right? With this view however the characters aren't free to act inside of the story as they can only do only what the writer wrote, be that good or evil. In other words, they lack free will, and can not be held accountable for their actions - at least not fairly.

Fate you say (and that's a general you, not you Morth), is different, as it depends on free will. And free will is of course imperative for a story like LotR or for Christianity. Without free will no one is morally culpable, and chioces are just an illusion. So there must be free will, or Frodo wasn't brave at all, he merely did the only thing he could have done. But still you say that God, or Eru if you wish, can forsee all future events. I just can't make this out, I'm sorry. If Eru is able to forsee all future events, and hear the entire Music to the last note, there can be only one possible outcome. And with only one possible outcome, time is a straight line, just like in the metaforical novel above, and Frodo isn't brave, he is a mere puppet, albeit unknowingly. Why even get out of bed? What else can you do?

Originally Posted by Galion quoting C.S.Lewis

8) In human language we use terms like "foreknowledge," and "foresaw," and "predestined." These terms are all locked into human reason and human language. We really don't have language to adequately deal with God's presence outside of time.

On first sight, this might be a valid argument. Ants, to use a blunt analogy, can never understand astrophysics as they don't have the intellectual capabilities required. How can we, being finite creatures, fully understand the designs of a limitless God? The answer of course is: no, we can't. But isn't that exactly what we are trying to do here? To assume knowledge of something (in this case, the statement that God sees everything is His omnipresent Now) that we, or in this instance C.S. Lewis rather, in all likelyhood, are not able to understand by nature?

When reading Tolkiens works I detect a delicate balance between two views of the world; one being "everything's preordained", the other being "faith and responsibility lies in our own hands". In my mind, these two views can never be joined together. I really wonder what Tolkien thought of it.

[Boromir88]

Just a comment on this:

It would seem that the author disagrees with your cynical take on the ideals of his book...~Morthoron

It's tricky using Tolkien's Letters, because it was his thoughts and reflections after writing the story....as Norman Cantor argues:

“The LotR exists, apart from what Tolkien said at one time or another it was supposed to mean. It was largely a product of the realm of fantasy in the unconscious: that was the ultimate source. Therefore, what Tolkien later consciously thought about it is interesting, but not authoritative as to the work’s meaning”

And Tolkien's take on it:

I do not ‘know all the answers’. Much of my own book puzzles me; and in any case much of it was written so long ago (anything up to 20 years) that I read it now as if it were from a strange hand.~Letter 211

Isn't it ironic how I use a "letter" to question Tolkien's Letters?

But seriously, it's tricky, because as Tolkien says some of this he wrote as long as 20 years ago, he doesn't have all the answers, and his Letters are his thoughts after (sometimes LONG after) writing the story. So, even though in various Letters Tolkien talks about Eru's intervention at Mount Doom, it's just as conceivable to argue it was an accident. There are some cases where he is just forgetful in Letter 210 he says (while criticizing Zimmerman's screenplay) that the Balrog doesn't make any noise. Yet going back and reading The Bridge of Khazad-dum the Balrog clearly does make noises!

Now, in Letter 156 Tolkien says that it was Eru who sent back Gandalf, and this is the only possible answer, because going back to the book (The White Rider) Gandalf talks about being out of "thought and time" and then being sent back. Anyway, you got to be careful when using Tolkien's Letters, because he contradicts himself and it was his thoughts after writing the story.

What's really amazing is the adaptability of Tolkien's story, and I whole-heartedly disagree with Brin and the others who argue there is no reconciliation between Tolkien and modernism:

Of course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes , as a person would of a child.~Letter # 328

The Lord of the Rings reminds me of the U.S. Constitution, it was left vague and very debatable. The U.S. Constitution is so short because the framers didn't want to "tie the hands" of the future generations. They wanted to leave lots of room for movement when the times changed.

The Lord of the Rings is a very long story, but many parts of it are left vague and for the readers' imagination. No wonder why the story has withstood the test of time and still remains an enjoyable, popular read, in this horribly wicked modern world.

skip spence, excellent stuff! I just want to say perhaps the word that could be used is "luck." Tolkien thought he had been a lucky man...

"I have always been undeservedly lucky at major points."

And in Tom Shippey's The Road to Middle-earth he discusses a lot about "Providence" and "luck."

However, ‘chance’ was not the word which for Tolkien best expressed his feelings about randomness and design. The word that did is probably ‘luck’....‘change their luck’, and can in a way say ‘No’ to divine Providence.

[Morthoron]

Excellent research, Boromir88, and points well taken. I think we can all now admit that Tolkien didn't know what he was bloody talking about, or rather, enjoyed the art of writing letters more than worrying about the veracity of the contents. As Hot and Crispy Hobbit Fingers said on several occasions: "Tolkien's work only embraced the ideals, not the details." Who knew that also applied to his letters?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

One wonders whether, when Tolkien wrote phrases like "his fate drove him" and the like, he was thinking of 'fate' not as Latin fatum or Fata, but as a translation of OE wyrd, which doesn't carry that same implication of intention, but comes closer to "that which happens"- T certainly knew that fatum originally meant the ruling or pronouncement of a god, and in that sense was much closer to OE dom, modern doom.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by skip spence

Gwathagor used the analogy of a novelist [...] With this view however the characters aren't free to act inside of the story as they can only do only what the writer wrote, be that good or evil. In other words, they lack free will, and can not be held accountable for their actions - at least not fairly.

I disagree. Within the context of a story, the characters are considered free of will and are held responsible for their action. Nobody blames JRR Tolkien for Saruman's betrayal, but Tolkien gave him that part to play nonetheless.

(Keep in mind that this is an analogy, and as such has its limitations. Don't try to take it farther than it's meant.)

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

One wonders whether, when Tolkien wrote phrases like "his fate drove him" and the like, he was thinking of 'fate' not as Latin fatum or Fata, but as a translation of OE wyrd, which doesn't carry that same implication of intention, but comes closer to "that which happens"- T certainly knew that fatum originally meant the ruling or pronouncement of a god, and in that sense was much closer to OE dom, modern doom.

Ne mæg werigmod wyrde wiðstondan,
ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
For ðon domgeorne dreorigne oft
in hyra breostcofan bindað fæste;

A weary mood won't withstand wyrd,
nor may the troubled mind find help.
Often, therefore, the fame-yearners
bind dreariness fast in their breast-coffins.

That's a stanza from the OE poem The Wanderer. It basically relates that one can try to hide from troubles, or bravely fight on and win in the face of adversity. Interesting concept (sort of an Anglo-Saxon Self-Help manual).

At first blush, one would think that the OE definition of wyrd (which has a prominent place in Beowulf as well) would be Tolkien's primary linguistic focus. He seems to use the words doom and fate interchangeably, and wyrd is a closer approximation of Catholic Predestination dogma in that one has a personal wyrd which is subject to one's free will; where it variates slighty from Catholicism is that one's personal wyrd is inhibited or affected by another person's wyrd, and I can see many cases in the books where this is the case.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I disagree. Within the context of a story, the characters are considered free of will and are held responsible for their action. Nobody blames JRR Tolkien for Saruman's betrayal, but Tolkien gave him that part to play nonetheless.

(Keep in mind that this is an analogy, and as such has its limitations. Don't try to take it farther than it's meant.)

My point is that Sauruman is a traitor every time you read the book. His path has been chosen by Tolkien, not by himself, and can therefore not be held responsible for his actions. If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

What's really amazing is the adaptability of Tolkien's story, and I whole-heartedly disagree with Brin and the others who argue there is no reconciliation between Tolkien and modernism:

I fully agree, although I'm not quite sure what definition of "modernism" this Brin fella uses. I do think too much is made of Tolkien's Catholic faith and his purported "conservatism". While undoubtedly some of his personal values shine through in his books, the values expressed in the books aren't those of the Catholic Church or of modern day conservatives. As for conservatism, it is a word which has taken on many different meanings of course. When I hear the word, I primarly think of value-conservative people favouring God, country and the established authority, while strongly disliking "modern" ideas like socialism, gay-rights, rock'n'roll or abortions. You know the indignated, Hippie-bashing, what-would-Baby-Jesus-think crowd...

I see little or no conservatism of this kind in Tolkien's books. If anything, the ideals expressed is those of Liberalism in it's original meaning, that is "Do as you wish, as long as you don't hurt anyone else". Aragorn, as a representation of a just ruler, never forces anyone to follow him or claims that they should because it's their duty and that he is in the right. He doesn't tell anyone what to do, instead he says: Those who are willing, follow me! This is what I believe in. Invading Orcs or Easterlings will be treated harshly of course, but he makes no claim to dictate their lives as long as they stay away or act nicely. Of course there are no references to for example gays in LotR (thank god for that!) but if there were I'm certain Aragorn wouldn't make any judgement on their liftestyle.

I think a strong message in the books is tolerance, tolerance and humility. You may not have all the answers, Tolkien seems to say, and your will isn't more important than others peoples'. The evil of Sauron and Morgoth is that they try to bend everyone's will to theirs: they have no tolerance for other opinions. Arrogance and greed is also a common flaw among the "good" characters such as Turin, Feanor or Thorin. Are these ideals of tolerance applicable in today's modern society? I would think so.

Those of religious inclination may also appreciete the strong message of faith in a good God expressed in the books. This message is not specifically a Catholic or Christian one however, at least not in those works published by JRRT himself.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by skip spence

My point is that Sauruman is a traitor every time you read the book. His path has been chosen by Tolkien, not by himself, and can therefore not be held responsible for his actions. If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.

My point (which I evidently did not make clear) is that there are two perspectives on history: a divine perspective and a human perspective. From the former, we see that all is foreordained, and from the latter, we see individuals making choices and taking responsibility for those choices; you have the author, and the characters. They are two sides to the same coin. Consider the characters on their own level, and you will see that WITHIN THEIR STORY, they have what you would call free will.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Consider the characters on their own level, and you will see that WITHIN THEIR STORY, they have what you would call free will.

No, if everything is preordained, the characters may belive they make choices and that they are free, but they can't be. To make an actual choice there must be different options available and with a future already decided there can be only one option: that what the characters do. They can do nothing else.

Or can they? Please explain to me how they can. How can the book character Sauruman repent, and do what he was sent to do?

[Gwathagor]

It's a matter of which perspective you take: divine or human.

[McCaber]

Originally Posted by skip spence

If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.

That assumes that God experiences time in the same way we do. We see the timestream as a flow moving in one direction, but God could see it as an outside observer, like us looking at a drawn timeline; or he could experience all time as Now.

I love tough theological questions.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by McCaber

That assumes that God experiences time in the same way we do. We see the timestream as a flow moving in one direction, but God could see it as an outside observer, like us looking at a drawn timeline; or he could experience all time as Now.

I don't think it matters whether God sees time as a drawn line or if he experiences all time as now. The key point is whether there is randomness, or if all things can be predicted and understood if you only knew every single factor influencing the event. If the latter is true, and there is a grand equation for all of existance into which an allmighty being can insert all the - for us - unknown numbers, and predict all that is to come until the end of time, I can see how this deity could see into the future without messing with the free will. But then again, he would know everything his children would do at the very moment he created them too, and they would not be free in any actual sense.

Or is it perhaps chaos that governs the universe? Think of the butterfly effect. Every event, although seemingly uninportant, has the potential to change the world. Had fex. Hitler succeeded as a painter the world might have been a very different place. Will a mouse in a maze always choose the same path, given the exact same conditions? If the answer is no, the future must be uncertain, and no amount of omnipotence could get around that.

I love tough theological questions.

I certainly don't know the answers to these questions but they are intriging nonetheless.