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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.