David Brin On LOTR

hprotagonist0 writes "Salon has posted an article by sci-fi author, scientist, and essayist David Brin (The two Uplift trilogies, The Transparent Society) with his thoughts about LotR. A technophillic optimist, he warns against waxing too Romantic about feudal, good vs. evil fantasy. Instead, he says, we should look ahead to the future. Thought-provoking."

Comments

And yet . . .

[jd142]

Many times the dwarves lament the fact that they have lost their knowledge of how to make something or create a technology. It seems that their longing for the past is a longing to a return to technology.

Excellent article...

[Noryungi]

David Brin explains very well what makes LOTR so great, and I tend to agree with his conclusions. One of the very first thing that you learn in Political Science 101 is that, in any group of people, leaders will appear pretty quickly.

In fact, this leadership mechanism, as well as the (very human) desire to be able to identify to groups or characters that are 100% good, is probably the undercurrent to 99.9% of all novels.

I do have a couple of gripes:

• not every country has a large, educated middle-class. As a matter of fact, the lack of a middle-class is one of the most serious problems in thrid-world countries today.
• Brin goes over how JRR Tolkien was a snobby, romantic anglo-saxon elitist, writing about WII. OK... Now tell me something I don't know!

Overall, interesting article. Not his best, though.

Just my US$ 0.02, of course...

Frodo often seen as ``everyman''

[WillAdams]

in many academic writings, so I don't see where Brin gets, ``Through doughty Frodo, noble Aragorn and the ethereal Galadriel, he proclaimed the paramount importance -- above nations and civilizations -- of the indomitable Romantic hero.''

Even Aragorn begins by seeming quite commonplace and ordinary and certainly the, ``Scouring of the Shire'' sequence (okay, we're into the next book, but...) argues for the necessity and virtue of the ordinary person doing what is right because it is right and theirs (and no one else's) to do.

At least he later says, ``All right, I read Tolkien's epic trilogy a bit unconventionally,''

I've never understood why people complain of royalty and their perquisites---certainly ``lese majeste'' was balanced by ``oblesse noblige''---far more appropriate than the riches of robber and merchant ``barons''. Should we argue for taking away the wealth of the Kennedys and Rockefellers as well? I find a family who traded power into a position of responsibility far more laudable than one which went for the root of all evil instead.

Tolkien is far more moral and complex than Brin makes him out to be and the ascension of royalty is far more complex than the black / white, good bad thing which he describes it as.

William
(who couldn't bring himself to read beyond the first page---moderate accordingly)

Re:Frodo often seen as ``everyman''

[Mr. Slippery]

I've never understood why people complain of royalty and their perquisites---certainly ``lese majeste'' was balanced by ``oblesse noblige''

The latter always existed more in theory than actuality.

Should we argue for taking away the wealth of the Kennedys and Rockefellers as well?

Yes, actually, we should. Power should not be hereditary, and wealth is power. Inheritance taxes should be confiscatory above a certain level; millionaireship, say, should not be hereditary.

Re:Frodo often seen as ``everyman''

[wrt2]

I've never understood why people complain of royalty and their perquisites---certainly ``lese majeste'' was balanced by ``oblesse noblige''---far more appropriate than the riches of robber and merchant ``barons''. Should we argue for taking away the wealth of the Kennedys and Rockefellers as well? I find a family who traded power into a position of responsibility far more laudable than one which went for the root of all evil instead.

Oh, dear.

The antebellum South was full of noblesse oblige, the magnolias dripping with romanticism. Fortunately, the Union, with all its faults, prevailed in the Civil War. Unimpeachable power deriving from an unaccountable basis leads to bloodshed and ruin. A lesson which Trent Lott and his fellow "Lost Cause" (what the sympathizers of the treasonous officers and terrorist yahoos who called themselves the Confederacy follow, for those not from the US) revivalists have yet to learn, apparently. Not to say romanticism doesn't have its place. It does. That place is Mardi Gras.

Re:Frodo often seen as ``everyman''

[Jason Earl]

Yes, I read the article. Although I admit that I was skimming near the end. You see, it was fairly clear to me that David Brin hadn't actually read the same story that I had. He was so deadset on proving that the LOTR was a romantic backlash against modernization he simply skipped along to the parts that could be rigged to fit his little theory.

For example, Brin makes a big deal about Saruman cutting down trees after he allies himself with Sauron. In his mind that is clearly symbolic of modernization and industry. However, it can just as easily be attributed to JRR Tolkien's attention to detail. When Saruman changed allegiances he started building an army of Orcs. Arming those Orcs requires steel, and steel requires a large amount of charcoal (or coal if you can get it). It's no wonder that Saruman started cutting down trees, he was making steel weapons. His only problem was that the nearest source of lumber just happened to be a forest in which the trees could fight back.

Now you could see that as symbolic of nature versus industrialization except for the fact that the Ents were in decline long before Saruman ever switched sides. They had been in decline the entire time Sauron was dormant and Saruman still working for the forces of light. The real reason for the Ents decline is that the Entwives actually preferred man's cultivated areas to the primeval forest of the Ents. In other words, the story of the Ents is nothing more than just another tragedy in a long string of bitter-sweet outcomes. The whole world was changing, and many of the changes were not particularly good. Sauron was thwarted, but at a great price.

Gandalf, Aragorn, and the rest didn't oppose Saruman and Sauron because they were bad for the environment, they did so because they were evil. That's why they also refused to use the ring. They would rather die than become like Sauron. Brin was quick to point out that the depictions of Sauron were much like ancient propaganda, but sometimes people are just evil. The propaganda leveled at Hitler during WWII didn't even begin to touch the surface of the atrocities committed by him and his henchmen. Tolkien created a world in which the lines between good and evil were more clearcut, but that's hardly revolutionary.

As for the Hobbits returning to the Shire to take on leadership roles, Sam, the former gardner was elected Mayor, but who wouldn't want Sam for a Mayor? That's Meritocracy if I have ever seen it. Sam rocks. Someone has to be Mayor, and instead of electing someone rich, the Hobbits elected a former gardner.

Aragorn shirking his duties is another reason why Brin is all wet. Aragorn might have been descended from kings, but that had been generations ago. The fact of the matter was that Aragorn was a nomad with a broken sword. Boromir certainly didn't treat Aragorn like his sovereign, and I have no doubt that had he not shown up with the riders of Rohan in tow he would have been completely ignored by the folks in Gondor, and the only reason he still had an army at his back when he arrived in Gondor was because Merry and Pippin got the Ents to save their butts at the Battle of Helm's Deep.

Brin's arguments about Star Wars are spot on, that story is chuck full of uber-men who live above the rest of mortality. The LOTR, on the other hand, is all about mostly normal folks that pitched in and made a difference when it counted. It's also about Gimli and Legolas seeing past their prejudices, and Frodo seeing the good that still existed in Gollum.

One small complaint on his arguments....

[Dark Paladin]

I like Mr. Brin's writing - most of his books have been pretty good, and Earth is still one of my favorites. But I thoguht this was a little silly:

Naturally, I enjoyed the "Lord of the Rings" (LOTR) trilogy as a kid, during its first big boom in the 1960s. I mean, what was there not to like?

Now, who can tell me the one logical flaw here? Yes, you in the back? That's right - here's a sucker.

I was not even borth in the 1960. I was barely conscious in the 1970s - so I missed out on the whole "culture changing" event of those decades.

So for me, the LoTR movies is partly about telling a story (a rather good one in condensed format), as well as the friendship of watching the movies with those who "get it" (reasons why I'm seeing the movie tonight at 12:01 AM - not because I really want to see the movie that badly, but because I'll hang around with all of my friends and people who "get it").

Now, once all the hoopla is over, and a whole new generation is introduced to the fairy tale and wonder of Tolkien, then I'll have no problem with people looking to make their own things, or people inspired to mix and match the future with Tolkein's view.

I think Mr. Brin is right in some respects - new things are always a good idea, to look at both sides of the equation rather than just lumping "good vs evil" arguments. But I'd hardly call the new movies "backwards looking" - just retelling of a story for those old enough to remember it when it was fresh and new, and for a whole new generation for whom these stories are new to their minds and can experience it with their friends.

Like me.

not again

[tps12]

This guy did the same thing with Star Wars. He can be pursuasive, and his essays are fun to read, but I urge people not to be sucked in. His opposition to the good/evil dichotomy and benevolent monarchy smack of moral relativism and a devotion to the global superstate. The end of his reasoning is the destruction of the individual in favor of the collective. He's threatened by the notion of heroes, because heroism is essentially individualistic. Just another cardboard intellectual selling out our liberty.

Re:not again

[Isao]

Er, did we read the same article? How do you reconcile your statements of Brin opposing "benevolent monarchy" with his "selling out our liberty"?

Please explain where Brin's devotion to "the global superstate" manifests itself?

While not a Brin apologist, I find your statement that He's threatened by the notion of heroes, because heroism is essentially individualistic to be a gross mischaracterization. To the contrary, he appears to be in favor of an individualist hero, as opposed to heros relying on dogma or instinct over rational thought.

To be sure, Brin barely touches on the political implications of monarchy vs. an elected republican government, but he's talking about the modern mythos in movies.

Enough with the optimism

[mr_luc]

After 100 or so years of reckless optimism, we're finally starting to realize that the future can suck, even when great technology comes along. Compare the view that science fiction has of our future NOW to the view expressed in 1930, 1940, 1950.

One of the things I love most about Tolkien's work are the recurring themes of loss, of how the best has passed us by already, how everything degrades. I don't think one should fashion their worldview around that kind of pessimism, but the point is that after a century of reckless optimism that has spawned all manner of recklessly misused technology, maybe a little negativity will make us think twice about the consequences of our actions.

The future isn't the silver bullet it once was.

Re:Enough with the optimism

[guacamolefoo]

The elves seemed fixated on stasis, and even the things that they built (Rivendell, Lothlorien) were in part the products of the power of Sauron and were held together by the rings he created for the elves and which he vested with their power.

Sorry -- I blew it with the above statement. The elven rings were not made by Sauron, but were made by elves -- what follows is a pretty good summary of the history of the various rings.

Who made the Rings of Power?
It was the Elves of Eregion who made all the rings, except for the One which Sauron forged by himself in Mount Doom.

After the defeat of Morgoth in the First Age, some of the remaining Noldorin Elves settled in Eregion and built a city called Ost-in-Edhil around the year 750 in the Second Age close to the west gate of the dwarven kingdom of Moria. About the year 1200, Sauron came among the Elves in a fair form using the name Annatar (Lord of Gifts), but with a dark plan to ensnare them. Sauron greatly desired to "persuade the Elves to his service, for he knew that the Firstborn had the greater power [Silm]." He taught them secret lore, and with this knowledge their craftsmen (a guild called the Gwaith-i-Mírdain, the People of the Jewel-smiths) created the Rings of Power which included the Seven and the Nine. But Sauron had a part in the creation of these rings and he guided the Elves in their making. However, the Three Elven Rings were conceived and made by the Elven-smith, Celebrimbor, alone, and Sauron never touched the Three.

Why were the Rings of Power Made, and what were their Powers?
The reason is tied to the regret the Elves had for the passage of time. The Elves were immortal and were fated to live as long as Middle-earth lasted. As such, the earth changed with the passage of time, and the Elves saw many things that were fair become destroyed and lost by the hurts of evil. Sauron, as tempter, awoke a desire in the hearts of Elves to heal the hurts of the earth and create a paradise on this side of the sea to compare to Valinor - and to be its rulers; whereas in Valinor they were only subjects and below the Valar. The Rings of Power were primarily made to slow the passage of time and preserve their creations of beauty. Yet they had other powers as well.

Tolkien provides a revealing insight on to the nature of the Rings and their powers in one of his letters:

"The chief power (of all the rings alike) was the prevention or slowing of decay (i.e. `change' viewed as a regrettable thing), the preservation of what is desired or loved, or its semblance - this is more or less an Elvish motive. But also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor - thus approaching `magic', a motive easily corruptible into evil, a lust for domination. And finally they had other powers, more directly derived from Sauron...such as rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible." [Letters #131)
The Rings were not made as instruments of war or domination; they could not create lightning bolts or hail storms. Yet, they conferred powers commensurate with that of the user; a Great Ring in the hands of a weak and lesser person could not work effects to the extent of the wise or great. Notice Galadriel's words to Frodo in Lothlórien:

"Did not Gandalf tell you that the rings give power according to the measure of each possessor? Before you could use that power you would need to become far stronger, and to train your will to the domination of others." [FR]
The Elves used the Three Rings to create "islands of timeless beauty" and guard them against the passage of time and evil. Their use can be seen at work at various points :

Elrond used the power of his ring, Vilya, to cause the flood of the river Bruinen when the Nazgûl tried to capture Frodo.
Galadriel used the power of her ring, Nenya, to keep a guard on Lothlórien so that none could enter without her leave.
Gandalf used the power of his ring, Narya, to kindle the hearts and spirits of the enemies of Sauron to do great deeds.
But the use of the Elven Rings was possible only after Sauron was defeated in the Second Age and his Ring taken and assumed lost. If Sauron regained the One, then all the works of the Elves and the use of their Rings would be subject to the evil will of Sauron.


GF

Re:Enough with the optimism

[shut_up_man]

Tolkien's themes of loss always seemed a little weird to me - everyone was always lamenting for the mighty heroes of old, and marvelling at the power of lost crafts and magics. I mean, did the Elves make Glamdring and Sting and Orcrist and then FORGET what they just did? If things worked like our world, the very next year some smart-assed Elf would hammer out Super-Glamdring, then Hyper-Glamdring, then Ultra-Glamdring, and continue to improve until Frodo's day when the Elves would be producing toothpicks that would cause every Orc in the land to explode if waved even slightly.

The idea that there was a quota of beauty and power in the world and time passing used it up was really depressing... it kinda reminded me of that Monty Python skit with the Yorkeshiremen, except going forward in time:

FOURTH YORKSHIREMAN: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.

FIRST YORKSHIREMAN: And you try and tell the young people of today that ..... they won't believe you.

I enjoy reading David Brin but...

[Mantrid]

I enjoy reading Brin's stuff (including his Otherness comp book - had some interesting ideas), but this article is really disappointing. He's just grabbed something that happens to be popular and launched off on some diatribe of his own, occasionally weaving in bits of LOTR stuff to help remind us that we are, in fact, still reading an article related to LOTR and not listening to a soapbox commentary.

His devil's advocate attempts at looking at things from Sauron's view were quite weak IMO. It more or less ignores what is most important in determining if Sauron was evil: his actions. I know, I know, it's just a thought expirement but it just wasn't very convincing to me.

I love many of his books, but IMO, in this case David Brin is just looking for some excuse to get an essay published! If the story read 'article by David Brin on Salon' I still would've went and had a look - no need to try and cash in in LOTR mania at the expense of weakening your position!

Ooooh boy...

[pVoid]

This yearning makes sense if you remember that arbitrary lords and chiefs did rule us for 99.44 percent of human existence. It's only been 200 years or so -- an eye blink -- that "scientific enlightenment" began waging its rebellion against the nearly universal pattern called feudalism

Not to break it to you Einstein, but democracy was invented in ancient Greece. That's not a couple of hundred years, it's a couple of thousand years... just about as old as christianity itself.

Timidly at first, guilds and townsfolk rallied together and lent their support to kings, thereby easing oppression by local lords.

Does he actually have proof of this, or is he using the LoTR as a template? It kind of reminds me of an essay I wrote (in my ignorant arrogance) about the beginnings of speech among Men when I was in high school.

Temblors began splitting a chasm between Romantics and Enlightenment pragmatists. The alliance that had been so formidable against feudalism began turning against itself. Trenches soon aligned along the most obvious fault line, down the middle -- between future and past.

In this conflict, J.R.R. Tolkien stood firmly for the past[...]

This fits the very plot of "Lord of the Rings," in which the good guys strive to preserve and restore as much as they can of an older, graceful and "natural" hierarchy, against the disturbing

See. This guy hasn't read the Silmarillion probably. The older state of affairs is that Elves and Men were born on a paradisiac earth, and there was no Evil. When evil came, heirlooms, and kingships became saught after. Before that, the peoples of Middle Earth dwelt in little pockets and were peaceful. Then with the evil of Morgoth (Sauron's master of old), ambitious Elves were made to become kings and want to rule all of Middle-Earth... And the reason for that is because Morgoth himself wanted to rule the earth, and the easiest way to achieve that was by having his enemies do the grunt work for him before hand...

I could go on for pages about this... but I won't. Anyone interested can just read the Silmarillion.

All in all though, I'm very irritated by this author. It seems to me he's the typical Hollywoodist he criticizes in his own essay: trying to attract attention by shock value.

Fuck it...

He talks about the 'dogma of nostalga'

[teamhasnoi]

How can you *not* look back at your childhood and miss the innocence, and the feeling that your parents could save you from any evil? Sure, in the 70's we had the Soviet 'Menace', but it didn't seem so close to home as the twin towers.

It would be great to be forward looking and excited about what techonology can do for the world, but all I see is petty warmongers, and a fear driven society too scared to make intellegent choices, using technology to distance people from each other, be it bombs, or toys that preclude any use of the imagination.

Imagine a beowulf cluster of hopeful people! When fear(of terrorists, government, future) is no longer dominating people, perhaps we can get something done.

But maybe that's the point.

Re:He talks about the 'dogma of nostalga'

[rpillala]

How can you *not* look back at your childhood and miss the innocence, and the feeling that your parents could save you from any evil? Sure, in the 70's we had the Soviet 'Menace', but it didn't seem so close to home as the twin towers.

Perhaps I'm missing some of the context the article provides because our firewall here somehow blocks Salon. Meanwhile, it is possible to grow up without innocence and without a belief in your parents' capacity to do much of anything. I'm a teacher; I've seen it many times. In that case, you don't miss the relative safety and comfort of your youth because there was none.

Ravi

JFK

[PinkStainlessTail]

Just look at how people felt about Princess Diana. No democratically elected public servant was ever so adored.
Way to forget the utter deification of Kennedy.

drivel...

[runslothrun]

once again, a supposedly "enlightened" person has attempted to forge a connection between Tolkien's works and the modern world (both historically with regards to when it was written and socially with regards to our society now). crap, trash, drivel, and spit. Tolkien has said, both in print and on film, that his works in no way reflected to current events of his day and, that while it may seem related, they were in not not. his works were the outgrowth of a man concerned primarily with linguistics and the evolution of linguistics. combine that with a desire to give england a saga of it's own (to replace the history lost after the norman conquest) and you have his collective body of works. there it is...in a nut shell. the article is wrong some many times that i would have to get print it out and go over it with a pen to catch them all. and those errors concern factual items, motifs, genre, and imagery. i won't even begin to speak on the comparisons he tries to make. yet another attempt at dumbing down something wonderful to help the "masses" understand in better (read: incorrectly). never in my life have i written these letters, so here goes: RTFM! it's all there, volume after volume, his exact words and his son's words speaking by proxy. what an idiot.

Re:drivel...

[Anonymous Coward]

I must admit I couldn't get past the first page of article. The author lost all credibility with his canned history of humanity that seems to have been stolen straight out of the pages of the Whig historians. When will we get over the conceit that the history of humanity has been evolving to its present-day pinnacle: the United States and its imitations.

Re:Waxing Romaontic

[row314]

I think you might have missed the point. Yes, Brin shows a universe dominated by the hierarchy, but overall he shows it as a Bad Thing(tm). The heroes are mostly upstarts, "wolflings" or their allies who question the status quo. Consider the Library; most Galactics consider it the beginning and end of all knowledge. Humanity and a few others have the gall to say "Thanks, but we'd rather confirm these facts ourselves.". Much of the conflict is between the entrenched powers and the, ahem, Seekers of new knowledge.

Some Good Points From the Article...

[Shuh]

It's only been two hundred years or so -- an eyeblink -- that 'scientific enlightenment' began waging its rebellion against the nearly-universal pattern called feudalism, a hierarchic system that ruled our ancestors in every culture that developed both metallurgy and agriculture. Wherever human beings acquired both plows and swords, gangs of large men picked up the latter and took other men's women and wheat.

Erm. Feudalism is alive and well today. It is only not quite as blatant. I hear serfs tell me today I should be happy to give more than 30% of my money to the Lord of The Manor as homage for legal and military service.

They then proceeded to announce rules and 'traditions' ensuring that their sons would inherit everything.

Kennedys ("Camelot" for Pete's sake!)? Bushs? Nahhh... it couldn't happen today! </sarcasm>

Not so bad...

[MenTaLguY]

Hmm, despite what many say, I think it's a pretty good article, really. Brin's trying more to provoke thought than advance a point.

But I don't think Brin gives Tolkien enough credit at all -- as far as sentient peoples in Sauron's service having been coerced into service or duped by Sauron's propaganda -- Tolkien actually proposes that possibility explicitly in the book.

For example, think of the scene (near the end of the Two Towers) where Sam encounters a fallen Easterling and starts thinking about his life and motivations.

Sam himself is a model of the non-aristocratic everyman-hero, and as Brin points out the most heroic figures in Tolkien always ally themselves with the common man, whatever their background.

As far as peoples allied with Mordor in the south, the implication was that once hostilities ended they were indeed offered peace and help in reconstruction. They were simply treated as human beings like everyone else; they were not inherently evil.

Orcs and related creatures were something of a different affair ... they weren't actually sentient, per se. Their apparent intelligence was largely an extension of Sauron's will; they lost it when he was destroyed.

The ringwraiths simply dissipated, as not only their individual wills but their very beings had been subsumed and essentially replaced by Sauron's own.

That is something I think Brin misses; the great evil of Sauron was that he would, in the end, permit no independent will or existence outside his own.

Good questions...

[VoidEngineer]

Great questions. I am tempted to answer in the affirmative, however... In doing so, I'm going to use some analogical reasonging here. Author's and automobile makers both do something similar: they invent. Now, I'd like to present an analogous inventor to Tolkein: Henry Ford. By the reasoning you've presented here, it may be possible to talk about an automobile by claiming, "Come on people. Its a HORSELESS CARRIAGE. An engrossing one, and rich with detail, functionality, and quality, but a horseless carraige non the less... Ford himself cautioned drivers not to drive an automobile to fast.'

Now, my thinking is that books and automobiles both don't do much if they are just laying around, immobile. The utility of these objects is when they are used, over time. Eyes scan words on pages over a finite amount of time, just as wheels roll on land over a finite amount of time. Just as an automobile has a 'forward momentum' about it, so does a book or a posting on Slashdot. (yes, I agree that one can put a car in 'reverse', but that doesn't mean one is backing up in time).

So, my thinking is that, because of the directionality of time, a fairy tale should address social comentary and ensure that humanity continues sometype of progress. I would go so far as to say that most all of the successful fairy tales have been based on social commentary, as the social commentary aspect is what allows us to understand the fairy tale. (For instance, imagine a fairy tale written about the molecular cohession between two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom in a water molecule. Without some type of social commentary and anthropomorphic structure to the story, the proposed fairy tale is alien and incomprehensible. At the very least, it would make for a dreadfully boring story.) So, my thinking is that a story or fairy tale should have social commentary and be forward thinking.

My claim and thesis is that social commentary and forward thinking may be inherent in the definition of a fairy tale. I would also go so far as to claim that the following are fairy tales, because they possess social commentary on the future of science:

"Blade Runner", "Rollerball", "Silent Running", "1984", "Fail-Safe", "The China Syndrome", "Terminator", "The Hot Zone", "Logan's Run", "The Postman", "Fahrenheit 451", "Neuromancer", "Count Zero", "Mona Lisa Overdrive", "Jurassic Park"

Note, that the utility of fairy tales is to allow an uninitiated person the opportunity follow, in other people's footsteps as it were, the predictive reasoning and forecasting of certain sequences of events. The decision making process is composed of four parts: Define the problem, define alternative solutions, forecast results of solutions, and & collapse possibilities by acting on a solution (this is reinterpreted to varying degrees by people, but is a pretty good model). Anyhow, fairy tales are used for giving messages of the sort, 'this kind of action is bad, because it leads to this kind of result'. Reference the Brothers Grimm for a plethora of such fabals, fairy tales, and stories.

In my thinking, LOTR succeeds in many areas, because it is an epic fairy tale, with epic consequences, and epic social commentary. As far as social commentary goes, I would have to agree with Mr. Brin's analysis of LOTR. He makes a very valid point that history is written by the victors, and I believe that there is a valid interpretation that LOTR is propoganda and marketing hype produced by the victors of the War of the Rings. Lastly, it just goes to show that LOTR is so interesting, because it has social commentary and allows us to forcast into the future, at very levels.

Re:A rather cynical view...

[Reziac]

There's nothing particularly 20th Century about this cynical need to tear down and deconstruct. Every era has had its share of that, and it tends to accelerate in times of dramatic technological or social change. Frex, there were reams of Renaissance era essays wading thru these very topics. (We had to read some of 'em in high school, which is the only reason I remember they exist.) Hell, some of the classical Greek writers hared off in the same direction.

At core, people don't change much over the millennia, and neither do their targets. There will always be romanticists, futurists, deconstructionists, and all the other -ists, busily writing about how the *rest* of the -ists have it completely wrong and will send us all to hell in a handbasket.

The trick is for the rest of us to learn to not take them any more seriously than they deserve.

Motivation, not actions.

[xdroop]

His devil's advocate attempts at looking at things from Sauron's view were quite weak IMO. It more or less ignores what is most important in determining if Sauron was evil: his actions.

Actually, this is one of the first times I've seen this kind of thought -- one that I had back in 1977 watching Star Wars: why did all the Stormtroopers have to die? Lucas helps the average viewer avoid caring for the cannon fodder required for the story by making them look all the same (faceless, matching drones). But if it was a real encounter you would know that there would be a real story behind each of those masks, people with families and histories and hopes and dreams and aspirations and fears which are probably not that different from those belonging to the Heroic Rebel (we know he's a good guy, we can see his face) gunning him down.

Hell, even Hitler probably loved his dog.

Back to Sauron, what really determines whether he is evil is not so much his actions, but the motivation behind those actions.

Humor me with another thought experiment. If I were to shoot you, most people would consider that evil. If I was to expand on things to say that I burst through your door without warning and shot you as you stood there, even more people would consider that evil. However, if I say that you were about to press the detonate button on a nuclear device (hidden beneith the obligatory orphanage on Christmas Eve), my actions suddenly seem less evil, and more heroic.

I didn't read Lord of the Rings -- I found the first book to be long, boring, and full of unneccesary sing-alongs, and after suffering through it I couldn't stomach the thought of two more books of similar length. So I don't know if Sauron's motives are ever explored in any detail (beyond the implied I'm evil therefore I do evil things seen thus far). However, it is the motivation behind the actions we see which makes one evil or not.

In any case, the real reason why all these Hero based stories are so popular is because everyone, deep down, wants to be the hero. We want to believe that when Evil rises, we will personally be the one to do Heroic Things and save the world and get the [girl/guy]. We want to believe we are Special. More realistically, when you see the text "and then millions died..." that's us. That's you and me and every other boob reading Slashdot. We ain't special, we make up the ranks. LotR is merely more escapist entertainment which helps us forget that for a little while.

Re:I think it's silly...

[Kunta Kinte]

And yes, there are witches and monsters to frighten, but there are also heroes and knights to look up to, with timeless values such as courage and honesty.

And which side does the child identify with? What happens when the child see's her/his mistakes as "evil"?

Child: Since there are only two types of people in the world, I must be evil right?

I don't believe we should take fairy tales from kids, god forbid. But I do believe we under-estimate their capacity to handle the truth, ie. there is good and evil in everybody.

Re:I think it's silly...

[Have Blue]

I think it's more a symptom of the fact that it's "unfashionable" to have absolute good and evil in this modern world. Every hero must have his flaws, every villain must have his justification, and we must always see every side of every issue. It's almost being politically correct; no evil is really bad, just misunderstood, and no hero is really righteous, just possessing a temporary and unfair advantage.

What BS. Give me LOTR any day.

Re:Powers of Rings

[Dr. Manhattan]

Tolkien [...] in one of his letters:

"The chief power... was the prevention or slowing of decay... the preservation of what is desired or loved... also they enhanced the natural powers of a possessor... rendering invisible the material body, and making things of the invisible world visible."

A buddy of mine pointed out that the chief way the rings seemed to work was by creating/enhancing telepathy in the wearer. The Ringwraiths, aside from any physical, martial prowess, acted by destroying the morale of their opposition. See, e.g., Boromir's report of the 'strange fear' that had descended upon their forces, or the depression and gloom when the Ringwraiths are above as the troops march to confront Sauron's troops at the gate.

Fits with Galadriel's talk of having "to train your will to the domination of others". Rivendell and Lothlorien are nice places to be because their rulers, who wear Rings, project the desire to be nice onto those within range. I'll have to look and see if it's actually clear that Elrond used the ring to cause the flood or not.

Even the invisibility effect can almost be interpreted as a desire on the part of Bilbo and Frodo to not be seen, which the Ring projects. Of course, being untrained in its use, their new, uncontrolled telepathy makes them highly visible to Sauron. One of the chief threats that the One Ring would pose in Sauron's hands would be revealing to him the thoughts and deeds of the wearers of the Three Rings... again, telepathy.

Obviously, it's not telepathy alone; unless life extension is a side-effect of amplifying someone's 'mental power'. But the ability of the Ring to tempt people, and twist them to be like Sauron, makes sense in that context, too. Perhaps it has an imprint of his personality, and aligns the wearer to it over time, like how steel in a strong magnetic field can be magnetized.

Re:The Rightful King

[rodgerd]

There's actually a very good reason for this idea of putting The Rightful King on the throne.

In a medieval society, the absolute worst tyrant on the throne was still better for the common people than a war of succession. If you put the King's son on the throne, there's at least a reasonable chance of stability, but if the line of succession is unclear, you often end up with a long, bloody war.

Your first part is true. Your second is a complete misreading of Tolkien.

Aragorn does not become King of Gondor and Arnor because he's descended from a royal bloodline. All of the Rangers are descended from Numenoreon aristocracy, and Aragorn is the scion of a less noble branch of the old Numenoreon Kings, something which Elrond alludes to when stating that if he wishes to follow in Turin's footsteps, he must make his line as great.

Aragorn doesn't reforge Narsil, march to Gondor, unseat Denethor, and lead Gondor against the enemy. He spends years wandering the wilderness as an ordinary man. In fact, he refuses every kingly offering (other than the re-forged Narsil) until near the end of the book, when the battle for Gondor is won. Tolkien is going back to the older, Germanic concept that the rightful King is not just the bloodline, but the deed. Aragorn walks the Paths of the Dead; he proves he has the right to call the Oathbreakers, he descends on the Corsairs, and he comes to Gondor in it's hour of need.

Even after unfurling his standard as a descendant of the royal household, he does not enter Gondor until invited. Like an old Anglo-Saxon or Norse King, he is ruler not by rules of primogeneture or a divine right (both concepts primarily introduced through the Catholic Church's alliance with the French royal family). He is rule because, yes, he has the required lineage, but because he's proven himself as fit to be King.

Tolkien's fall of Numenor is in fact a warning against the "absolute tyrant" being better. It mirrors mnot just the descnet of Rome and also of nations like Spain and France under idiot monarchs. Aragorn is restoring the way things ought to be - the monarch arising through both blood right and proving his suitability to rule (and, for that matter, finishing himself off when his powers faded toward senility). It's not strictly hierarchal, because Aragorn feels the need to have the approval of not only a peer group (the royal family of Rohan, the Stewards of Gondor, other leaders of Middle Earth) and of the people of Gondor themselves.

The closest concept in modern times would be if the next King of England were to be elevated, not as a result of being the issue of a mad Greek and the greedy scion of a German line, but by being elected by and from the House of Lords as the most suitable of the aristocracy to lead the nation.

The best quote

[labradore]

Witness the most amazing accomplishment of NASA -- managing to turn the exploration of space into a huge snore.

Re:DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE!?

[IPFreely]

My Lit/Crit Wife did read the article, and says:

Yes, I did read the whole article. And yes, it is an attack on Tolkein, just as his attack on the philosophy underlying the Star Wars movies was both an intellectual excercise and a genuine attack on attitudes that profoundly trouble Mr Brin.

In fact, both articles attack all fantasy as inherently bad, promoting anti-egalitarian ideas, and he claims in both articles that this inherent evilness comes from (a) oral story-telling, (b) Homeric poetry (the Iliad specifically) and (c) the Romantic movement.

Mr Brin is a science fiction writer but for this argument he seems to have left scientific method somewhere out around Pluto. There is not one shred of truth to his claims, and yet he has been printed three time now in Salon promoting this baloney.

For instance, Brin claims that in the Iliad Achilles kills "10,000" people who are "nameless minions," and that this is typical of how Homer promotes the elite over the masses. Actually, Achilles does not kill that many and EVERY SINGLE PERSON KILLED in the Iliad is named. Not only named, but their whole genealogy and many of their hopes and ambitions are detailed. Even the women are named, treated as real and individual people, and Homer lived in a heavily misogynistic society. Over and over, the supposed "elite" in Homer are trashed -- Agamemnon, for instance, is drawn as an arrogant asshole. Odysseus is admired for being clever, not for being a king. Demigods and god alike are not treated with "reverent awe" as Brin claimed, but treated with contempt when they behave badly, and respect when (which is seldom) they behave well -- such as taking care of the wounded or slaves.

Brin bases his claims against oral storytelling solely on his understanding of Joseph Campbell, a man despised amongst people who actually come out of recent oral traditions and responsible scholars of the topic. Any real study of oral story-telling, including things the feed into Western culture, puts the lie to Mr Brin's claims about oral stories promoting subservience to leaders. Read almost any Native American story, for instance, though their cultures are widely different from each other. Or, read early versions of western fairy-tales, NOT Disney-ified versions, but the real thing involving such topics as cannibalism, incest, and murder. Oral story-telling often involves the tension between the need and drives of the individual versus the needs and drives of the community in which the individual lives. But a mindless adoration of "superior" people does not appear, nor a passive acceptance of the status quo. Oral tales are usually the response to and promoters of questioning society. Questioning is considered good in them.

Romanticism started out as a remarkable egalitarian movement, and despite Mr Brin's claims to the contrary, continued that way. Unlike Mr Brin, I HAVE read Bryon, including soem of his speeches to Parliament, as an MP, promoting the welfare of the impoverished people of Britain, and his poetry promoting the same, and I am aware he DIED fighting with ordinary Greeks who were trying to throw off the tyranny of the Ottoman oligarchy and restore some sort of democracy. Percy Shelley GAVE UP his title to also promote the cause of the ordinary person. Using them to claim Romanticism is elitist is like using Trent Lott to promote good race relations.

Later Romantics were not, as Mr Brin claims, anti-technology because of mindless nostalgia. Rather, they saw firsthand the sheer unrelenting brutality of the technologies of the day -- factories and mills, and the arrogant inhumanity with which the owners and purveyors of this technology brutalized and regarded as un-human the people who powered these technologies.

There are certainly troubling things in Tolkein, his racism for instance. But I dislike the way in which Mr Brin is untruthful, or at least doesn't bother to check his facts, in his attack, and the way in which Mr Brin attacks Tolkein and then tries to evade the consequences of his attack by claiming, "but hey! I just want you to look at things differently."

Mr Brin should look at his own assumptions differently.

Bzzzt, you lose

[blamanj]

Sorry, if you say that the Lampoon 'Bored of the Rings' is "perhaps the funniest work penned in English" you clearly haven't read enough to be critiquing literature.

It does have it's moments, to be sure, but funniest ever?

Lord Of The Rings is not backwards-thinking

[Gleef]

I don't read the Lord of the Rings trillogy as backwards thinking at all, in fact one of it's central points is that some progress is worth self-destruction for.

The people in power in the Third Age, the elves and wizards and such, made a right botch of things, with Sauron's rise to power being the most visible representation of the errors of the third age, but the behaviour of Saruman, and even Elrond and Galadriel are also symptoms of the same sickness.

The more progressive minded of the Third Age elite (eg. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel) realize that they've made such a botch of things that, in order to fix things (oust Sauron, and other troublemakers), they need to destroy the base of their own power. Basically, in order for the world to be livable, they need to commit political suicide. They accept this, and do so, both by destroying the magical core of their power (the ring), and by amassing a huge army around an independant man who has a vested interest in ending the Third Age (Aragorn).

The story, far from glorifying the past, condemns it, and reaffirms the point that sometimes radical change is necessary; even to the point of self-inflicted pain.

Re:Well, Brin's article was mostly successful

[ansible]

The fact most of you also vented plenty of vitriol at Brin in the process is entirely beside the point; from what I know of the man he would consider that a success as well.

Well, he's not doing himself any favors in my book. I have quite enjoyed some of his work. I really liked, and will occasionally re-read "Startide Rising" and "Earth" along with his short fiction. The rest of the Uplift saga I didn't enjoy nearly as much (too wacky and preachey, IMHO).

However, I've been less impressed with his analysis of Star Wars (though he does make some good points) and rather disappointed with his recent analysis of LOTR. I doubt he'll be crying over lost royalties (such an interesting word, in this context) he might have gotten from me. Because of his off-target remarks on LOTR I am even less likely to try anything else written by him.

If I am an isolated case, it doesn't matter. But am I the only one who feels this way?

Gandalf a Scientist

[jamesmrankinjr]

Brin doesn't say much about Gandalf, but Gandalf is more like a scientist than anything. His abilities and influence are based on his knowledge. The title he uses to refer to himself and those like himself is "the wise". In other words, they distinguish themselves by their knowledge, not heredity or titles.

Another point: Sauron and his armies are evil because they are the aggressors. I don't believe that anyone attacked Sauron or his armies before they attacked Middle Earth.

Best,
-jimbo

Brin gets it wrong

[SideshowBob]

I admire David Brin's writings but this time he got it wrong.

First of all, Tolkien is not so much anti-progress as he is anti-the-wrong-kind-of-progress, if you take my meaning. Most of all, he was concerned with the world progressing in a positive way, rather than a negative way.

The Elves are a tragic people. They know they must leave the world that they love, and in the trilogy itself this overshadows all their actions. They are aloof because they realize that if they 'fix things' then they will be a crutch to mortals. They realize instead that Humans, Halflings, and Dwarves must learn to deal with problems on their own. In point of fact the last War of the Ring was fought and won by the "last alliance of Elves and Humans". This time around, the mortal people of Middle-Earth will have to fight for themselves and not turn to their 'betters' to protect them.

I don't really know what Tolkien's real-life political views were, but clearly his most idealized way of life in his writings was neither the pyramidal form of rigid feudal hierarchies, nor the diamond shape of middle-class democracy, but rather the pastoral, flat shape of the Shire's society, where the Hobbits lived in a virtual vacuum of politics or class distinction.

The Nazgûl are *not* tragic. If you read their backstory, they are precisely the type of cruel, feudal men that Brin is opposed to. All of them are former kings of men, practicing the very hierarchical elitism that Brin hates, all of them wicked and power-hungry even before being seduced by Sauron. It is their downfall and demonization that most clearly demonstrates that Tolkien is not a lover of feudalism for its own sake, but rather a lover of a fair and just way of life, of the world getting progressively better for the majority of its inhabitants.

And finally, the overarching conflict in the LoTR is *not* the absolute good vs. absolute evil of the fellowship or Sauron, but rather man vs. himself. Specifically, Frodo's internal struggle against the temptation of the Ring. The Ring is the ultimate temptation, and victory comes when Frodo (with a little help from Gollum) is able to cast the Ring into the fires of Orodruin, thus proving that his reason is able to triumph over his base desires. It is this struggle, reason over passion, that is the heart of the story. The war is almost wholly irrelevant - or at best a distraction to the true struggle.

Brin's interpretation (valid, but not exclusive)

[DeadRangerBoy]

The trick to all of this is that, since LotR is such a detailed story, describing complex events involving a variety of characters, all of whom receive a certain amount of "fleshing out", there is no single over-riding message that can be derived from it.

The real beauty of LotR is that, with all of the complexity, the tale will mean different things to different people. Some argue that it's a tale about the Rings of Power and the end of the Third Age of Middle Earth (silly them for assuming the titles were accurate ;-), while others argue that the focus is rather more on the hobbits and their experiences with and influences on the larger world outside the shire. To some it's a tale of ordinary folk in extrordinary circumstances, to others, a look at the concept of destiny and coming to terms with one's place in the world (a la the Heir of Elendil sub-plot).

Where things get very interesting is that, like any good legend, there are lessons that can be gleaned from it, based on the interactions of these various elements (For example, what happens when Aragorn, unwilling to face the position that life tries to force on him, encounters Frodo who, in asking for and receiving Aragorn's help, puts him in the very position of leadership he's been trying so hard to avoid?). Many of the characters in this story seem to have their own full lives, with hopes and dreams, rather than filling a role in a more formulaic structure, so all one must do is find a character that one identifies with (or wishes to identify with) and observe the effects various other characters and events have on one's "hero" to get an impression of (Tolkien's view) of that character's nature.

In essence, the story's complexity allows a reader to derive any lesson they like from it, which (IMO, at least) is the hallmark of a good legend, and the reason people respond so well to this tale.

In his article, Brin has taken the lesson he derived from this tale (which, seemingly, is a very negative one), and put it forth for the public to digest, which is not anything of which he should be ashamed. Where he falls down, I feel, is that he makes it seem that this is the *only* lesson to be learned from LotR which, as I alluded to before, is not the case.

I think that people should give due consideration to his views, but remember: Don't believe everything you read. ;-)

This has been...My 2cp worth.