And it slips through our fingers

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

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

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

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

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

[the phantom]

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

Somewhat.

Eden was perfect but man ruined it.

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

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

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

[alatar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Elianna]

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

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

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

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

[Folwren]

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

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

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

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

-Folwren

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Folwren

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

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

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

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

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

[Folwren]

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

I would say that we are changed...quite. We've gotten very much extremely perverse in just about everything that anyone does...and not only the non-religious people, but also those who claim to be Christians.

Yes, to be sure, we are humans, but more than just our morality or immoratily has changed. And...I was going to say more, but my sister-in-law is shoving me off of here, so I can't.

But I'll be back! ... Somehow.

-Folwren

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Folwren

I would say that we are changed...quite. We've gotten very much extremely perverse in just about everything that anyone does...and not only the non-religious people, but also those who claim to be Christians.

Ever hear about someone named Caligula?

Today you hear/see an event in realtime that happens across the globe. The media, a bit bigger now than even a few decades back, shows you everything! And if that didn't shock you, they will show you everything+ tomorrow - just so that you will tune in and view the commercials.

Read the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, and see what fills God's book - one can only imagine what else happened that was not recorded (note that I mean no offence ). Wasn't Leviticus written as a result of what people may have had the tendency to do (or were doing, or did)?

[Holbytlass]

I don't see it as so much aligned with religion as just the way things are. All things come to an end..places, kingdoms, races and so forth. I suppose that's part of some scientific theory I couldn't name.
I also see it as Alatar pointed out that humans do tend to look back on things either in memory or stories (ie, history) with rose-colored glasses. Romanticizing the good and not dwelling on the bad parts.
In essence Tolkien did have to tie this story in with true history down to real life now. He being the author could (and did) write people and places as grander and better than the state of things he was living in his own life.

[Lathriel]

It always saddened me when I read the last few chapters of LOTR and came to realize that magic is truly leaving ME and the decay of many glorious things and places.
But I think this is exactly what life is about. Things can't always continue to be great and there are many examples in history.
To take an obvious example, The Roman Empire, it was great but it didn't last. However, something else will replace that which was lost. The renaisance (although it took some time) again helped the nations flourish. So it is only natural that certain things diminish. That is why LOTR can almost be seen as a historical book. It is because it stays true to these certain realities.

[Folwren]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Holbytlass

I don't see it as so much aligned with religion as just the way things are. All things come to an end..places, kingdoms, races and so forth. I suppose that's part of some scientific theory I couldn't name.

Good point. Extremely good. I have heard, though I have not seen a direct quote from Tolkien, so don't take it for granted, that he didn't want it to be allegorical.

I've never heard of Caligula, Alatar. Sorry.

The media do go around broadcasting things, but that's also what makes it so bad. Without the media, TV, horrible movies, perverse commercials, and whatever else you wish to add, everyday life and everyday people would be a lot better. We've receeded a long, long ways from real Christianity (and other moral things). The pioneers (I use 'em because someone mentioned them earlier in this thread) didn't go around dressed as we do, they didn't go around talking about the things we do, they didn't go around thinking like we do, they were probably ten times as smart as most of us. We've deteriorted a long way in a matter of two hundred years or so...

But then you might argue that we've also become a lot more efficient and smarter in the fact that we have tons of machines that do every little thing for us (even eat, in some cases) and our technology that we have now wasn't even dreamed of a hundred years ago...I think, though, that even these great accomplishments have helped to corrupt us.

We are yearning for immortality. That's what these life supporting machines in hospitals, all the drugs that are out, and just about everything else are made for. Of course, people don't use the term 'immortality', but all in all, that's what we're searching for. And wasn't that what caused the destruction of Numenor? Wasn't that what ended up ruining everyone?

Okay, I think this has actually strayed from the point of the thread. *sigh* I could start up my own thread, but I don't know if we want discussions like that here.

Did I answer anything you said, Alatar? Reading over the last few posts, and yours, I don't know that I did. But I've spent too much time typing here as it is. I'll come back later and say more if you think it necessary.

[Formendacil]

As far as "decline" goes, I have to agree with Alatar that as a technologically-skilled race, we are rising not declining. We've almost reached the levels of Valinor, perhaps.

I would, however, disagree with his statement that we are biologically "simply changing, as stated here:

Originally Posted by alatar

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

Biologically, one could make the case (and I don't necessarily agree with it, I'm just playing devil's advocate...) that we are actually setting ourselves back biologically.

If you think about it, the abilities of our science to preserve our lives and make things liveable has made our biological bodies weaker. It has removed the pressures which kept our population down and weeded out the weaker individuals with undesireable (in a reproductive sense) traits. A few centuries ago, there were no severe asthmatics (they would die), no Type 1 diabetics (they died), no real allegeries, and obesity was a much rarer problem. On whole, the part of the human race that survived to adulthood and marriage was healthier than it is today.

That said, I'm not certain that a greater biological health means a great human health. After all, I'm one of those Type 1 Diabetics who would be dead.

Basically, my point is that one type of growth does not equal growth in all fields, and quite often leads to a decline in those fields. For instance, the growth of friendship between Gondor and Rohan led to the growth and prosperity of both populations, but it also led to the decline of the "high" knowledge of Gondor. And just as the defeat of Sauron lead to the growth of freedom and prosperity in Reunited Kingdom, it led to the decline of the Hobbits as men repopulated Eriador and (eventually) crowded the Halflings out.

Looking at the First Age, I think one can see similar parallels. The building of great, protected cities like Gondolin led to a flowering of art and peace, but it also led to a decline in the unity of the Elven kingdoms. And in another way, the decline in the health and population of the good people in Beleriand led to the rise of their relations with Valinor.

I guess it's a question of balance. As the evil of each Age is defeated and lost, so too must a good portion of the good. The imprisoning of Morgoth- the epitome of all evil, is balanced by the loss of the Elven kingdoms, massive Elven populations, most of Beleriand itself, and a decline in the great Elven art and technology in middle-earth. The destruction of the evil Numenoreans was balanced by the loss of Numenor itself. The defeat of Sauron and his separation from the One Ring was matched with a great decline in the power and influence of the Elven realms. His final defeat was met with an end of "Numenorean" Gondor and of Lothlorien and a true High Elven presence.

I guess one could say it is similar to the Christian view that it took the death of Jesus to match the sins of mankind.

A rambling Devil's Advocate,

~Michael A. Joosten - Formendacil~

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Biologically, one could make the case (and I don't necessarily agree with it, I'm just playing devil's advocate...) that we are actually setting ourselves back biologically.

I understand what you're trying to say, yet my point was that we are neither advancing nor retreating. I don't think that biologically our bodies are far from the caves, yet we live in really shiny cities and have been to the Moon. We are adapting slowly to our environment, or more likely adapting our environment to our liking.

After all, I'm one of those Type 1 Diabetics who would be dead.

Glad to have you around.

[Folwren]

Originally Posted by alatar
I understand what you're trying to say, yet my point was that we are neither advancing nor retreating. I don't think that biologically our bodies are far from the caves, yet we live in really shiny cities and have been to the Moon. We are adapting slowly to our environment, or more likely adapting our environment to our liking.

Ah, is that your point? I can't really argue much with that, seeing as we aren't changed dramatically, but I would say that we have changed...for the worse.

Everything changes, except for the one who makes it so.

[Guinevere]

Very good points, Formendacil , Alatar and Elianna!

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

Here is what Tolkien wrote in letter #195

Actually I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect "history" to be anything but a "long defeat" - though it contains (and in legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.

I rather share his pessimistic view. But it is not without hope - although "hope without guarantees" (to use Tolkien's expression) - and the hope has its foundation in his religion, I guess.

originally posted by Alatar:
If Tolkien were writing a pseudo-history, well, then, he knew where the story had to end, which would be with us and our world as it is in its present state.

I think that that is just what he did! (I could dig out some quotations from the letters to prove it...)

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Folwren

I've never heard of Caligula, Alatar. Sorry.

Hmmm...anyway, he was a Roman emperor known for less than moral living.

We've receeded a long, long ways from real Christianity (and other moral things). The pioneers (I use 'em because someone mentioned them earlier in this thread) didn't go around dressed as we do, they didn't go around talking about the things we do, they didn't go around thinking like we do, they were probably ten times as smart as most of us. We've deteriorted a long way in a matter of two hundred years or so...

I would disagree. I tend to believe that we are not much different than we ever were - there's more of us, and if a subset of the population, say 5%, is loco, then you will find more examples of them today (that and the whole media thing). And then there's California...

Not sure how you conclude that people were smarter 200+ years ago. I might cite the giants that wrote the U.S. Constitution, as they were a pretty smart bunch and make many of today's pols look like dolts. However, these were not average people, and what they created was not your average document.

Today you can read what greater and lesser people write as it's all on the internet. You're reading what I've written, and I'm no Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Tolkien, etc. I'm not even in the same zip code as these greats (well, not all of the time - see repdrunk).

In regards to morality and Christianity, one might think that, though we may have fallen somewhat when compared to our recent past (the pendulum always swings one way then back), but if you consider Cain (kills brother), the reason for the Flood (humanity minus eight beyond redemption), Babel (another intervention), Gemorrah and Sodom (these cities aren't on Google maps), the Roman gladiators (man vs man or animal for entertainment), the Dark Ages, witchcraft trials (more about torturing people than redemption or evil), WWI, WWII, ad nauseum, then you might see that it's the same tired old story with new names and toys.

That was a pretty long sentence - phew! Sorry.

But then you might argue that we've also become a lot more efficient and smarter in the fact that we have tons of machines that do every little thing for us (even eat, in some cases) and our technology that we have now wasn't even dreamed of a hundred years ago...I think, though, that even these great accomplishments have helped to corrupt us.

Tools and trinkets are just extensions of our souls. If there's evil within you, a knife might be for more than cutting bread. And I consider us two-legged apes with shiny toys that most of us use yet don't understand.

Have considered what would happen if the world fell apart and we started to live in post-apocalyptic movie worlds. You would see just how human we are on that day as sometimes you can catch a glimpse when the weather channel predicts a more than light snow fall ("I need to get milk and bread - out of my way!").

We are yearning for immortality. That's what these life supporting machines in hospitals, all the drugs that are out, and just about everything else are made for. Of course, people don't use the term 'immortality', but all in all, that's what we're searching for. And wasn't that what caused the destruction of Numenor? Wasn't that what ended up ruining everyone?

Dunno. I try to keep in mind that the Numenorians were looking to add years to their allotment yet did not enjoy those that they had. We have today, and I've learned that a good day is one where I spend time playing with the kids not worrying about what's not getting done.

And, like Tolkien, I get tired of hearing the same old story and want to go somewhere where litter, TV, cell phones and headaches haven't found and dragons, elves, magic rings and kindly old wizards haven't left.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Lots of good points and ideas on this thread! Given Tolkien's evident personal faith, no one could deny that much of the bittersweet flavor of the book stems from the author's Christian view that we live in a world where our occasional victories--even something as profound as the destruction of the Ring--can only be seen in the context of the ongoing 'long defeat', an historical process that will continue until the world meets its end and Arda or Earth is finally remade.

But I think we can view all this in an even wider context. There seems to be something in the nature of Man that yearns for the lost Golden Age. As Eomer alluded in his first post, we sense this in the Creation story of Genesis. The desire to escape the thorny cursed ground and return to the lost Eden haunts every human heart. But there is no return. The angel with a flaming sword is placed at the east of Eden to prevent us from going back. From this point on, there is an inevitable diminishing.

Nor is the Judeo-Christian tradition (or LotR) the only place where we find this sentiment. It seems to be rooted not in one particular set of religious beliefs but inside the very core of our being. So many of the world's myths seem to be saying the same thing: that we have fallen away from a golden time of goodness and continue to diminish.

Ancient Greek myth delineates a creation story that traces the lineage of mankind through five successive "ages" or "races" from the "Golden Age" to the present, which is described as "Iron". In the beginning everything was happy and easy, and mortals lived like gods. No one worked or grew unhappy. Spring never ended. According to Greek myth, this Golden Age only ceased when Zeus overcame the Titans. From there, we've been on a downward path.

Other traditions tell similar stories. Those who follow the "Mother Goddess" claim there was an ancient age of Matriarchy when women were revered but that we have since fallen away from this. The aboriginal tradition in Australia speaks of Dreaming and the Dreamtime, a way to connect with a wonderful Golden Age in the remote past when Gods were real Gods and anything was possible.

I think it could be argued then that the belief in an ancient golden time and the subsequent diminishing of Mankind is an attitude that is hardwired into our very souls, whatever religious traditions we follow. Tolkien is one voice among many that have articulated this universal yearning for what we have lost.

At the same time, I think it's possible to look at JRRT's life and see personal reasons why he placed such emphasis on loss. He had a tough childhood, losing both his parents, and he continued to struggle with feelings of depression through most of his life. This personal struggle surely helped shape the way that he looked at the world and this, in turn, was reflected in the tales he told.

There seem to be two kinds of people in the world: those who feel that the golden age or utopia lies somewhere in the future (followers of the enlightenment), and those who feel that our true utopia lies behind us, at least while this world continues (perhaps, they are the romantics at heart). Of course, the two ideas are not wholly mutually exclusive. It may be possible to have some days when we personally feel one way, and others when we feel the opposite. Yet all in all, I think we lean towards one viewpoint or the other. My gut feeling is that most admirerers of Middle-earth share the author's view that something lies behind us that we have lost and, despite a noble struggle (an effort that certainly must be made) we will never quite retrieve it through our own efforts. I would say that is closest to my personal view.

Just curious if others feel the same way, or am I off base?

[littlemanpoet]

I'm a romantic.

I think Child and alatar have expressed my view.

I do think there is an aspect of this that is tied to the nature of language and thought, which I have expressed at length on other threads and will not bore you with here. PM me if you're interested.

It is a strange world we go to, in which Eru has created something wondrous, knowing that it would become less and less with each age. Why would he do that? Because of a hope that lies beyond the walls of the world? Most Men cannot see that far.

In this, my latest rereading of LotR, I am struck by how the entire story is an elegy. Over and over again the reader is reminded of endings. We are told that Aragorn, who loves Lorien, will never see it again. The Ents will lessen in numbers and probably die out. Even so, there are the Glittering Caves of Aglarond, the Sea, and places the touch of the Elves has changed forever. Elegy.

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

There seem to be two kinds of people in the world: those who feel that the golden age or utopia lies somewhere in the future (followers of the enlightenment), and those who feel that our true utopia lies behind us, at least while this world continues (perhaps, they are the romantics at heart). Of course, the two ideas are not wholly mutually exclusive. It may be possible to have some days when we personally feel one way, and others when we feel the opposite. Yet all in all, I think we lean towards one viewpoint or the other. My gut feeling is that most admirerers of Middle-earth share the author's view that something lies behind us that we have lost and, despite a noble struggle (an effort that certainly must be made) we will never quite retrieve it through our own efforts. I would say that is closest to my personal view.

Just curious if others feel the same way, or am I off base?

I'm going to have to be the odd one here, I'm afraid. While I share the view that we have lost something in the past, I also believe that our true utopia lies in the future. I wouldn't want to have lived 100 years ago because I feel that in many respects we have grown as a species. For example, the institutionalized discrimination against racial, ethnic and religious groups that was commonplace not too long ago is no longer tolerated. It's still around, but diminshed and (I hope) decreasing all the time as humans progress. And let's not forget women's rights.

I'm in the midst of packing for a trip right now and have to head out the door pretty soon. I'll try to come back later (probably not until tomorrow)...

[the guy who be short]

Am I the only one to feel we are both diminishing and growing equally?

I don't believe in a Utopia, past or future, but looking at the state of mankind I feel we are managing to do both. As Celuien said, look at the decline in prejudices. We don't all understand the technologies around us, but when Archimedes came up with the idea of reflecting and focusing light onto enemy ships, I suppose the average Greek didn't know how that worked. Even if they did, our technologies have got so much more complex that it would be ridiculous to understand them all.

So how have we diminished, if I do not believe in a Utopia? We have diminished, if not in happiness, in ease of life and in peace. The world was a simpler place in the past, and the rise of complexities cause stress in our lives.

I think one of the main points Tolkien was picking up on was the diminishing of respect for Nature. Industrialisation caused the mass slaughter, as I'm sure Tolkien would have called it, of ridiculous amounts of vegetation. We diminish as we no longer fit into the environment; instead, we are its masters. Another Fall of man Tolkien was passionate about.

Similarly passionate about faith, Tolkien lived in a time when religion in Britain was beginning to fade. I'm not sure how noticable this would have been during the years in which he wrote LotR (I'm sure the decline in faith occurred after the writing of the novel), but perhaps he picked up on it.

We're fading in many ways as we are growing in others, and I think Tolkien too accepted and incorporated this into his work. The Fall was rivalled by The Rise. As the Elves and the Ents and the Hobbits faded from the world, Men Rose to take their place and to grow as a race. If Tolkien lamented the decline of Good in the form of Elves etc, surely he celebrated the Rise of Good in the growth of Man.

[Boromir88]

I'm gonna bring in another aspect of this growth/decline that could be a possibility as well...economics. The Economic struggles is something that Tolkien had to live through, so I wonder if there's any effect we get in LOTR?

It's the basic concept of the Business Cycle. It's always going to happen, there's no stopping it. There's going to be a rise, then when you reach the top, it's kind of bad, because that's the pinnacle, you can't get any higher, so you slip back down. There's no stopping the downfall either. There's ways to sort of stabilize how bad it gets, or how long we will be "in the hole," but you can't stop from that fall, because you can't stay on top forever. With the World Wide depressions early in the 1900's most countries had hit rock bottom, and the good news about being at rock bottom is, you can only go up. So, it sort of works both ways.

That sort of seems as what you are trying to say Eomer, if I missed the point, then my mistake. The fact that all these people weill have a rise, and reach this pinnacle, then they go into decline.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Celuien

I feel that in many respects we have grown as a species. For example, the institutionalized discrimination against racial, ethnic and religious groups that was commonplace not too long ago is no longer tolerated. It's still around, but diminshed and (I hope) decreasing all the time as humans progress. And let's not forget women's rights.

Institutionalized racism is apparently a rather recent development in the history of the human race. It was unknown during the Roman Empire (as far as we know), which was an empire of mixed ethnic background. Religious Fundamentalism is on the increase. Not tolerated? By whom?

One of the things Tolkien (and Lewis) was reacting to was the myth of progress. He was born in an era that believed in the "romantic fallacy" that all humans are basically good. He lived and wrote in an era when most people believed that scientific progress was seen as virtually the new savior of humanity. Tolkien deplored the "splintered" human life that makes such moral choices as abortion, mercy killing, and so forth, necessary.

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

I think one of the main points Tolkien was picking up on was the diminishing of respect for Nature. Industrialisation caused the mass slaughter, as I'm sure Tolkien would have called it, of ridiculous amounts of vegetation. We diminish as we no longer fit into the environment; instead, we are its masters. Another Fall of man Tolkien was passionate about.

Not only for nature, but for humanity. Tolkien would have said that not industrialization (sorry for my non-Brit spelling ), but the Sarumanic mind behind it, caused the dehumanization of the workplace and daily life, that led to the kind of mindset that could produce mass slaughter. And Tolkien would have disagreed that we are nature's masters; he would have said that we are fools to think we are, and to think that we have somehow insulated ourselves from catastrophe with all our technology.

Originally Posted by tgwbs

Similarly passionate about faith, Tolkien lived in a time when religion in Britain was beginning to fade. I'm not sure how noticable this would have been during the years in which he wrote LotR (I'm sure the decline in faith occurred after the writing of the novel), but perhaps he picked up on it.

The decline in faith, on a cultural level, had already begun in the 1700s with the Enlightenment, though its seeds can be found in the Renaissance. The growth of "natural science" as a branch of knowledge separated from "philosophy" was part of this. Darwin's theories aided an already burgeoning pull away from faith. The atrocity of World War One sharpened the focus. In fact World War Two, in both England and America, served to slow unbelief (in the cultural faith) for a little while. So Tolkien was quite aware of this, and I would of course be very surprised if it could was not a part of his writing.

As for economics, my sense from his Letters and the Biography is that Tolkien was really quite pragmatic about it, and there is no evidence that he gave much thought to economics as a field of study or of moral consideration.

The Age of Man seemed for Tolkien to mean that good and evil would no longer be so clear-cut. "We have orcs on both sides", he wrote to his son Christopher during WW2.

Lastly, the growth in the sheer number of humans, absent the moral underpinnings that Tolkien believed were being eroded by the rise of the machine,
has resulted in a perceived reduction in the value of individual human lives (not to mention animal and vegetative).

[Lathriel]

A little off topic here but...

Some of you began to talk about Utopia and all that. In general it seems that the idea of Utopia is a place where it is warm, where there is no hunger, no work and where everyone is equal.

Back on topic

I feel that we are in a decline in some respect whereas in other areas we have grown as a species. We have definitly grown in the way of technology and advanced science. But I think we are declining in other things. Nowadays our lives have become extremely hectic which has caused a lot more people to become stressed or depressed. We have also become more obese. Also all this grand technology has given us polution and the greenhouse effect. Plus the former family life is falling apart because everyone is so busy. Nobody has as much time to sit down to a family dinner. (My family somehow manages this while juggling with all of our other activities)There are even magazines who talk about scheduling family time into your busy life. (Which I think is absolute bull...)

So after this rant...
Tolkien didn't seem very happy about all this thecnology either. Especially when it came to all the industrialization.

[Angry Hill Troll]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, everyone

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

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

I think it is simply a sense of malaise.

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Boromir88

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

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

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

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

[davem]

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

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

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life is short, art is long.

[Lathriel]

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

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

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Institutionalized racism is apparently a rather recent development in the history of the human race. It was unknown during the Roman Empire (as far as we know), which was an empire of mixed ethnic background. Religious Fundamentalism is on the increase. Not tolerated? By whom?

Well, my example probably applies more to American history than Roman. I'm referring to the various anti-discrimination and equal rights laws that have been put in place over the past 40 or so years. And Fundametalism does scare me sometimes.

From my own perspective, I do believe that the world has fallen from its original place (Eden and all). But I also believe that one day we will be able to repair the damage that has been done. Not in my lifetime or even in my grandchildrens' lives, but someday.

This is where I differ from Tolkien. He saw the world in a continual decline. I see a chance for us to salvage the good in this world and bring it together for a better future. Maybe it's a hopelessly idealistic view and I'm really just fighting the long defeat, but it's nice to think that the world isn't really doomed.

[the guy who be short]

This is slightly off-topic and slightly related:

Originally Posted by lmp

Institutionalized racism is apparently a rather recent development in the history of the human race. It was unknown during the Roman Empire (as far as we know), which was an empire of mixed ethnic background.

I'd like to take this quote and consider it.

It is true that as far as we know, Romans didn't discriminate by ethnicity, but at least discrimination occurred. To give a well known example, the persecution of Christians. They also considered non-Romans to be lesser men - again, not Utopian.

The question in terms of human decline with relevance to the Romans and discrimination is then this: have we become more tolerant, or less? Well, identify the different types of discrimination.
The majority of people no longer discriminate according to faith. Growth.
The majority of people don't discriminate according to ethnicity or race. The Roman's didnt at all, though (as far as we know). Decline.
The majority of people don't discriminate according to nationality. Growth.
The vast majority of peopel no longer discriminate according to gender. Growth.
At least in the US, the majority of people discriminate according to sexuality. Decline.

So we see both Growth and Decline in those past two thousand years, merely in the field of tolerance (assuming that we all agree tolerance is positive). Factor in everything else about humanity - we grow and we decline.

I would say that hope is evident through ME, as decline is evident. There is hope that Men will live up to their expectation. There is hope that Gandalf will come at Helm's Deep. There is hope that Gollum may be saved. Often there is hope unlooked-for, in terms of Faramir coming to Frodo or the chance meeting with Treebeard.

With all this hope, I find it hard to believe that ME or LotR are primarily works about the Decline or Diminishment of Man or the World. Diminishing occurs, and we are sad. Growth occurs, and we are happy. Tolkien simply incorporated this into his works - I see no reason to believe that the Decline is greater than the Growth. With the end of each Age, there is both decline and growth. At the end of the Third Age, Elves fade away - decline - and this is neutralised by the Rise of Man - growth.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Sorry Cel but the world is doomed. We'll just be long dead by then.

Thank you to everyone for making such brilliant posts. I have found it very hard until now to jump in with a thought of my own.

Well....it's not really my own. It's pretty much what Lalwende said, albeit twisted slightly and rendered less eloquent.

That being, the diminishing of the world, of a race, of an age, can be compared with the diminishing of a single human life. We have our childhood, we swiftly reach the peak of our physical powers and quite often our happiness; certainly the peak of our hope. Then these slowly decline. We get weaker physically, we stop hoping so much and start looking back much more. We often become more melancholy.

Not everyone, of course, but I think it can be applied to humans generally, at least with some argument.

[Folwren]

Originally posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim
That being, the diminishing of the world, of a race, of an age, can be compared with the diminishing of a single human life. We have our childhood, we swiftly reach the peak of our physical powers and quite often our happiness; certainly the peak of our hope. Then these slowly decline. We get weaker physically, we stop hoping so much and start looking back much more. We often become more melancholy.

That's depressing, Eomer. (Though true.)

And I have nothing else to say.

Except that the end of the World may be closer than you think.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I doubt it. Barring those wildcard asteroids, it's going to take a very long time for the world to fall apart or be pulled apart or whatever.

The human race, though, might well be reaching its end. I don't think we're going to seriously challenge the dinosaurs in that regard. But it will not fade away rather than burn out; it will just fade away.

I don't agree that the human race reached a high point and then fell from grace. I think that it just shifted and morphed slightly. So there will be nothing tragic about the end of human beings. It's going to be very unromantic.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Originally posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim
That being, the diminishing of the world, of a race, of an age, can be compared with the diminishing of a single human life. We have our childhood, we swiftly reach the peak of our physical powers and quite often our happiness; certainly the peak of our hope. Then these slowly decline. We get weaker physically, we stop hoping so much and start looking back much more. We often become more melancholy.

Do we stop hoping? Does hope even diminish as we age? I don't believe that. I might have said this when I was younger, but not now. I wonder if you will still feel this way as you get older.

I do sense melancholy in Tolkien, a wistfulness and an acknowledgment that there can never be complete victory, at least in the frame of this world. Yet I never sense loss of hope. Perhaps we are missing the boat on this thread. Yes, in Tolkien's mind the long defeat is there, but so too are the victories won at such a hard price. To take those away, to ignore or belittle them, is to wipe away what makes it all worthwhile. The diminishing is there, yet so is the meaning that stands behind our actions.

Frodo was injured, not just in his body but in his heart. Even so, there is no sense at the end of the book that his sacrifice was without meaning as I often get from reading so many other contemporary novels. We do not ultimately know what happens to Frodo, but we do know that his friends made sure that he would be taken some place where he would at least have another chance. If the diminishing and the melancholy are there in Middle-earth, so too are the flashes of meaning and a treasure like the phial of Galadriel that symbolizes light and hope and can help lead us down the path.

In the last analysis, when I set the book down, it is not the diminishing that sticks in my mind but rather that promise that Man will not give up trying, no matter how hard it gets. Whether we are talking about the course of history or a single individual who walks the open road, subject to the vagaries of life and aging, it is this presence of hope that draws me back to the story.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I do sense melancholy in Tolkien, a wistfulness and an acknowledgment that there can never be complete victory, at least in the frame of this world. Yet I never sense loss of hope. Perhaps we are missing the boat on this thread. Yes, in Tolkien's mind the long defeat is there, but so too are the victories won at such a hard price. To take those away, to ignore or belittle them, is to wipe away what makes it all worthwhile. The diminishing is there, yet so is the meaning that stands behind our actions.

I see that there is a lot of hope too, indeed it comes through as strongly as the sense of sadness and regret. But this hope is very bittersweet. It is all that is left to cling on to when Middle Earth gets really difficult. There are few certainties, and for some of the characters at times they have no other certainty than their sense of hope; here I'm thinking of Frodo and Sam in particular.

The years have brought the same cycle to Middle Earth, slow descent into war, the feeling that all is lost, and then victory, brought about by hope building the courage of the people. But some people forget the lessons of the past. It brings to mind what Tolkien himself experienced, taking part in WWI, supposedly the war to end all wars, only to see his own son enlisted in an even more horrific war; and it was hope which bolstered the morale needed to acgieve victory in both situations. Sadly, war still goes on, as does persecution and suffering.

I think that this is what is meant by a 'long defeat'. People soon forget the struggles of the past and start new wars. In the 20th century conflicts happened one after the other. Middle Earth was luckier in that it did have extensive peace between wars, but it is the same endless cycle. The New Shadow shows just how Tolkien couldn't picture Middle Earth even in the early fourth age totally without troubles. Yes, it's a bleak picture, but hope is still vital, even if it is bittersweet.

[The Saucepan Man]

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 examples that you give all seem to point towards a progression from the "fantastical" to the "mundane", which I suppose is inevitable in a series of epic fantasy tales which are said to be set in our own pre-history.

Originally Posted by davem

Others have pointed out (Flieger for one) that Tolkien had an 'Elvish' aspect to his character, a yearning for a lost ideal past. Maybe that's what comes through in his writings. He can accuse the Elves of wishing to 'embalm' the world, fix it into an ideal state from which it can never move on, but he has this nostalgic tendency himself.

This is an interesting point. The Elves yearn for a lost past and so attempt to "embalm" the world to preserve as much of that ideal past as they can. This tendency in Elves, together with their immortality, has always seemed rather "unnatural" to me, since it seems to work against and suppress the natural cycle of life, which is very much concerned with sweeping away the old to make way for the new. In this sense, Men in Tolkien's world come across to me as much more "natural" creatures than Elves (which is, I suppose, pradoxical in some ways, with Elves being portrayed as very much more in touch with "nature").

It is interesting, I think, that Tolkien to an extent recognised the "Elvish tendency" as a shortcoming, while (as davem states) very much sharing that tendency himself. As someone who is very much in favour of progress (although not necessarily always the way in which it is used), I find myself very much at odds with the approach of both Tolkien and his Elvish creations in this regard, since progress (the new replacing the old) seems very much a natural process to me. And yest here is another paradox. Although progress is a natural consequence of our development of intelligence, it can (and frequently does) put us at odds with nature.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

As someone who is very much in favour of progress (although not necessarily always the way in which it is used), I find myself very much at odds with the approach of both Tolkien and his Elvish creations in this regard, since progress (the new replacing the old) seems very much a natural process to me. And yest here is another paradox. Although progress is a natural consequence of our development of intelligence, it can (and frequently does) put us at odds with nature.

I share your hesitation over the elven nostalgia, SpM. I have never really been an enthusiastic admirer of elves because their concept of art or perfection is this embalming.

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?

Progress I thought entails some movement towards a future goal or cummulative improvement, forward or onward movement. (Unless of course it means a royal journey. )

I think you assume that the 'new' is better without logically arguing how or by what means.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I think you assume that the 'new' is better without logically arguing how or by what means.

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

This is an interesting point. The Elves yearn for a lost past and so attempt to "embalm" the world to preserve as much of that ideal past as they can. This tendency in Elves, together with their immortality, has always seemed rather "unnatural" to me, since it seems to work against and suppress the natural cycle of life, which is very much concerned with sweeping away the old to make way for the new. In this sense, Men in Tolkien's world come across to me as much more "natural" creatures than Elves (which is, I suppose, pradoxical in some ways, with Elves being portrayed as very much more in touch with "nature").

I've always seen this paradox as inherent in Elvish nature - its not 'wrong' its simply the way they approach things. 'Eternity is in love with the productions of time' as Blake said. They are 'outside' nature - for all their love of it it is different. Everythin else dies, they remain. Art is their only refuge & it would seem that what drives them is a desire to make the natural world like themselves - immortal. That, I think, accounts for their sadness. It is also what drives them to create the Rings. Their 'fall' in this comes not from their yearning but from their desire to 'actualise' it. They seek to dominate what they love, & re-make it 'in their own image' - Tolkien says they 'flirted with Sauron' - & I don't think he was simply referring to accepting his aid in the making of the Rings. Rather, I think he meant they 'flirted' with what he symbolised - control & domination of all life.

Of course, in the context of your point, 'progree' itself can be motivated by the same desire - control, domination & coercion of the world. So, even Men can 'flirt with Sauron' - not in the Elvish sense of 'embalming' but in the sense of wishing to re-make the world in our own image, the way we think it ought to be. And at least the Elves were driven by the desire to make the world beautiful. We don't even have that. We are closer to Sauron than they 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?

[Lathriel]

davem
Your post reminded me of a quote from The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

"tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther....And one fine morning----- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

In this qoute hope is strongly expressed. That we never give up hoping for something better to come along although we are never able to reach it. We look to the future with hope that things will become great. Possibly as great as they used to be.