Slashdot Mirror
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."
Well gee then I guess we shouldn't wax romantic about his fuedal/fascist world of uplift either eh?
Not knocking uplift, a great read, but come on!
The world he's built is just as deterministic and
ordered as LOTR if not more so.....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Is it really a fairy tale's obligation to address the wrongs in society, and to ensure that humanity continues its technological progress? Must a story really be "forward thinking" in order to have any redeeming values?
Ñ'
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.
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:
Overall, interesting article. Not his best, though.
Just my US$ 0.02, of course...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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)
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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.
The theme at the end of the last book when they return to the shire covers the same ground - battle between rural idyll and mechanisation.
Just because tolkien has an axe to grind doesn't make it any less of a good story (plenty of other authers have also had underlying messages that they want to put over eg CS Lewis and Pullman's Nothern Lights. You can take it or leave it and just enjoy the yarn)
1. Of course this is a backward-looking tale - it was modeled after ancient Scandinavian mythologies.
2. It's also about a world in transition, and the dawn of Man's dominance, so in that sense it is forward-looking.
3. Is anybody else sick to death of comparisons with Star Wars? Puh-lease...
4. And while we're at it, is anybode else EXTRA sick of drawn out analogies to the real geopolitical world of the 20th century? Too many bozos waste too much time trying to play matchup in a self-congratulatory exercise.
"let's see, Thorin Oakenshield's reestablishment of the Kingdom Under the Mountain is really a metaphor for the Palestinian's struggle against Israel..."
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Earth. Glory Season.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
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.
WRT Brin, I think he worries too much. Sure, we like the trappings of royalty, but I think most people would start getting upset the moment some King declared that he was better than them. Monarchy is a product of the whole medieval world view, with a heirarchal view of society. We don't have that anymore. Today's royalty have exactly the same status as movie stars.
Canada still has the Queen of England as its official leader and this hasn't stopped it from being a democratic nation. Aside from appearing on TV a couple of times a year and visiting once in a while, the Monarchy has no real-world affect on us.
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!
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...
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.
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.
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
Consider the rings. Those man-made wonders are deemed cursed, damning anyone who dares to use them, especially those nine normal humans who tried to rise up, using tools to equalize and then usurp the rightful powers of their betters -- the High Elves*.
The Rings were forged by Sauron - neither Elf nor Man. He is just a Maiar. A god-like spirit. And he's Morgoth's (the source of evil on Middle Earth) first Lieutenant.
The nine Ringwraiths [...] can be looked upon as cautionary figures, conveying the universal lesson that "power corrupts."
On that much we can all agree. But I think there's more to the Ringwraiths. To me, they distill the classical Greek notion of hubris [...] -- the idea that pain and damnation await any mortal whose ambition aims too high. Don't try putting on the trappings or emblems or powers that rightfully belong to your betters
The rings don't belong to anyone but Sauron himself. Hence even the Elven rings are under the rule of the One ring. That's the WHOLE FUCKING POINT: ANYONE who aspired to great Power in middle earth is subjected to the Evil that Morgoth/Sauron brought forth.
*Another point: the high elves were banished from 'valinor' the land of bliss because after Morgoth came, they tried to overtake the land for themselves, and in their arrogance, they were exiled.
Ugh... Fuck. I have to go punch a brick wall. This article is as stupid as the people who said the "Two Towers" were and allusion to WTC.
To quote rage against the machine:
WAKE UP
KNOW YOUR ENEMNY
I, of course, am planning on going to the opening of the two towers dressed as an elf anyway.
And for those of you who haven't read it: the article is funny, which makes up for a lot. for example Brin writes: "Witness the most amazing accomplishment of NASA -- managing to turn the exploration of space into a huge snore."
annmariabell.com
foldplay your photos won't know what hit them.
Go read the article. Read the last page.
:)
*sigh*
OK, for those of you who still didn't read it, the point was to get you to examine the story from a different perspective, to get you to consider for a moment the possibility that the "good guys" were really the "bad guys." It's an exercise in not being such a MTV-loving couch-potato consumer who just takes everything at face value... "oooh shiny objects and hot women, must deactivate brain while watching movie." The article did NOT knock LOTR. Save your canned responses for whenever Micro$oft does anything.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
I can't help but feel that he has totally missed the point. JRR Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and Christianity was a very important influence on his philosophy. Good, evil, and humans living up to their ability or failing at the test is very relevant in terms of religion.
... of the indomitable Romantic hero"? He's just got no idea. Tell me who the hero of the Lord of the Rings is? I think Sam is as much the hero as anyone, and who would put him as their first choice?
He seems to be attacking the form rather than the underlying messages, and as has already been mentioned, it's a fairy story. There's just so many ways of looking at Tolkien's work that some of Brin's essay seems just petty. "The paramount importance
It's not a fairy tale. And it is relevent to all ages. The entire story is a metaphor for the internal (and possible social) struggle to resist the allure of unlimited power.
From a literary standpoint the popularity of the series is transcendent in the sense that it lives up to a number of 20th century literary traditions while at the same time maintaining a tradition of heroism which is something very few writers in the 20th century were able to do.
In fact the LOTR is probably the only great heroic epic of the 20th century that can even hold the label of being literature in any sense of the word.
The author's cynical betrayal of the book's ideas is tripe from the beginning. It was not about the big heroes like Aragorn and Gandalf really but how a common man (a hobbit) who wanted nothing more than escape the madness and return to his home had to face up to the evil growing in the world and do something about it. It played perfectly into the 20th century literary tradition of focusing on the common man.
Not only that but throughout the book there is the sense of times changing and the time of man coming of age. It is backward-looking in many ways but it does talk down to the reader and try to tell them the old days were the best or the change must be fought against tool-and-nail. No instead there is a sense of noble resignation that the old times cannot stand forever against the passage of time.
There is a need ( a 20th century need I might add ) to tear down all that is good and loved in the world and to deconstruct it and expose it as a lie even though it might be the truth. I matters not to the cynical, deconstructionist nature of the modern critics. This reviews in salon is just that. I hope in the coming century we realize that the failings of our icons make them more human and more admirable in their courage and do not keep hold the hollow tradition of ripping them down simply because we can.
____________________________________
ACK
I'd read Brin's articles on Star Wars (available at Salon) before passing judgement. His take on Star Wars is far more negative than his take on LoTR. There he's angry.
With LoTR, Brin's having fun in the article while making a point. Much as he notes LoTR can only be taken so seriously, its obvious from his humor (especially the hilarious end with reviewing Sauron) that he's not taking himself 100% seriously either. He's tweaking people's noses and making them think.
Do I think Brin has a point? In general, yes. I've seen a lot of media taken far far too seriously - my favorite was seeing a person very seriously analyze the Star Wars universe and the Federation, and decide the Star Wars universe was more pleasant to live in. It was exactly like Brin's analyses - his choice was pure romanticism - and the assumption that in such a universe he'd be a hero, as opposed to say, Rebel cannon fodder or a Storm Trooper in Remedial Shooting Things Class.
There's only so seriously one can take any "classic" and all bear the stamp of the times and the author, and deeper interpretation needs to keep this in mind. Brin should too be a bit more aware himself, as I feel he misses various kinds of classic heros to focus on a few types.
Do I think LoTR is a classic? Yes, undoubtedly. It's an amazing effort from a man I can only christen a genius. But such men are products of time and place, and why their works are read is a stamp of the reader's time and place. Brin's just analyzing that.
In the end he suggests keeping things in context and their proper places. Not a bad piece of advice at all, even if you don't exactly agree with him.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
5) Racism
Percentage of protagonists in Fellowship who are white: 100. Meanwhile the black antagonists and their black crow spies and their black glass seeing ball inhabit their black towers and perform black magic. Gosh, I wonder if there's some symbolism there?
I know this whole comment was a joke.. unlike some of the replies apparently so I'll bite
Star Wars, white farm boy rebels and destroys the life's work of a successful black man. Black leader of Cloud City, not only a smuggler, but an untrustworth asshole who betrays his friend. Is there symbolism there?
Of course I'm kidding too, though I get a little incensed when someone seriously makes these claims.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
... 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.
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
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.
DNA just wants to be free...
Actually, the three elven rings were never touched by Sauron, but he knew how they were made because he deceitfully gained the favor of the elf who made them. This is how he was able to gain power over them with the one ring, not because he made them. This was also why the elves never succumbed to Sauron when he possesed the one ring. They perceived him when he put it on, formed the last alliance and Isuldur cut it from his hand. The nine men were forever poisened, the dwarves lost most of them or they were destroyed by dragon fire. Only the three and the one remained to the third age for the events of the Lord of the Rings.
I agree that Mr. Brin is an unqualified git; wholly unsuited to review Tolkien's mythology.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
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.
Why should I have to? Its exactly as the original poster said, it isn't a social commentary its a fairy tale
Yeah, god forbid we should ever think about anything. Talking about a book couldn't possibly be enjoyable for its own sake
Later when Frodo is shown the future by the Lady of the Wood, the Dark Lord burns down people's houses and enslaves them.
Or, maybe she just showed him what she though would happen... or lied to him to get him to carry the ring to mt doom she was to scared and lazy to trasport herself.
Besides, if you buy consider Brin's hypothis that the book is a work of propaganda after the war was won, then of course it is going to portray him as a "bad" person.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
>>Brin
>>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
>pVoid
>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.
Well, while we're busy being irratated....
Many people have already pointed out Greek democracy was hardly the same thing that we have now. I'll point out that you've seriously missed the point:
Brin is saying that for 200 years some reasonable proportion of the world has lived in a democracy. The fact a few Greeks had something like it before the birth of Christ is irrelevant - it was almost forgotten and certainly never much practised in the next 2000 years or so. He didn't say it hadn't been INVENTED, only that it wasn't USED.
>>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?
I'll refer you to the history of mainland Europe, in particular you might like to read about what's now Belgium for a start.
>This guy hasn't read the Silmarillion probably.
I have. And the first 10 volumes of the History of Middle Earth, including the poetry (eek!) There's some merit in what you say, but its much more complex.
> It seems to me he's the typical Hollywoodist he >criticizes in his own essay: trying to attract >attention by shock value.
Actually, he's a widely respected sci fi author. He's been writing on these themes for several years. If he's using shock value its to needle you into thinking about the ideas he presents. You can disagree, of course, but that seems to be his motive to me.
Lord Pixel - The cat who walks through walls
A little bigger on the inside than out
My one response to Brin's article would be that it is possible to take pleasure in archetypical fantasies like LotR without it indicating a regressive Romantic yearning. This is complex and his chief complaint is persuasive. But the idea he describes--the conservative tendency to idealize the past, to imagine that the present represents perhaps the worst of all worlds, a world where the forces of evil have conspired to makes one's life miserable--is not the only incredibly dangerous idea implied in fantasy. The other dangerous idea is the related fantasy of stark and immediately identifiable divisions and affiliations between Good and Evil. These two ideas which have a deep affinity for each other are, in my opinion, the chief intellectual facades (and I mean "intellectual" in the broadest sense) behind which the most common and yet most virulent human evil hides. Brin mentions that the Nazis were deeply Romantic, and he's right.
Still, though, I take pleasure--both emotional and intellectual--in the "Lord of the Rings", and I believe that I do so with no great danger to my soul. That's because I, in short, know better.
Art is not Reality; reality is Reality. Art's job is not to perfectly represent reality--past, future, or possible. Its job is to abstract essences of the human experience of reality in a way that is pleasurable or increases comprehension--or, hopefully, both. Thus, what the art means, what it is doing, may be quite unlike its superficial appearance. In particular, Brin fails to acknowledge that an essential element of narrative art is the identification the reader has with the piece's protagonists. And so even if we have Kings, Elven Lords and elite, ancient Wizards, nevertheless they are common because we are common. In them we are not so much imagining a world ordered where others, or even ourselves, are at the top of the pyramid--we are imagining the expression of the best within each of ourselves. In this way our great stories have always served both great powers, always at war--the proclamation of the divine right of Kings and the inevitability of xenophobia intertwined with the individualism, egalitarianism, and the hope that maybe, just maybe, a peasant boy will seize the sword from the stone. It could be me. Or you.
In truth I wonder if this paradoxical clash of ideals is not one of the driving forces of narrative motion. Just what is it we really want? The thing of it is that we don't quite know. That's what's interesting.
Tolkien himself rejected this notion many times during his lifetime. The story was not a cipher for WWII or the atom bomb. It was just a story. If Brin did something more than simply topical reading/viewing, he would know this.
Brin DIDN'T say that LOTR was an alagory for WWII. That's just something the poster threw in. Brin just said that Tolken was writing the books at a time when the 'failure' of the scientific enlightenment was aperant.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
Bah! Brin is out of his mind. Although he has a lot of good thoughts in that article, I think he has read too much into his analysis. In fact, he negates his own commentary at a few points by noting that Tolkien was the most critical of the "Romantic" portions of his world, i.e., the elves and their desire to keep the world as it is and not allow progress.
In fact, this is the whole point of the books! It may be regrettable that the elves have to journey across the sea and Middle-Earth loses a part of itself that it can never get back. But that is the price of progress. And according to Tolkien, it is *inevitable* that we move forward; that progress happens. We will keep tokens of that older time in our lives, so that we don't forget it, but we will still move forward.
Tolkien strives for the balance that we all wish for - between the romanticism of the past in the context of technological progress.
Examples:
1) Gimli keeps a lock of hair of Galadriel, in order to remember her beauty, with the plan to encase it in a construct of dwarvish metalworking. Nature in Technology.
2) Later in the story, Gimli shows his desire for progress as he laments the decay of Minis Tirith and the ability of dwarvish *technology* to bring it back to life. Again, technology will provide the solutions to the ills of the world.
3) Gimli's description of the Caves of Aglarond, where he comments on their beauty to Legolas. Legolas, being an elf (one of those romantics Brin so despises), laments that dwarves would ruin the beauty if they found out, but Gimli immediately scolds him, saying the no dwarf could ruin such beauty. They would use their technology to *improve* the natural beauty. Clearly, Gimli illustrates Tolkien's desire for the balance between nature and science, the romantic past vs. the technological future.
4) It is the elves who are leaving Middle Earth. If the stories were so full of Romanticism, the elves would have stayed and continued to affect the non-progress of Middle Earth.
5) Arwen, an elf, turns away from her birthright and chooses the path of mortality. That is Tolkien's clearest indication anywhere that the progress of men is desired more than the ways of the romantic elves.
6) When the party stays in Lothlorien, at the end Aragorn comments that time flows slowly in the land of the elves, but they must leave soon because events continue on the outside world. If they intend to fight evil, they must move forward. Again, the romantic elves are not the path to enlightenment and freedom.
7) Gandalf gives Aragorn a directive and a challenge at the end of the stories that it is now the time of men. Much that has been will now pass away, but that does not mean that Aragorn should neglect his future. He should hold in his thoughts and heart the beauty of the past and use it to guide his way as he makes progress into the future.
In my opinion, Brin is completely off the mark in his analysis of LotR. I think Tolkien had the essence of progress in his heart as he wrote the books. He laments that the beauty of the elves is fading, but knows that it was that same group who caused the sufferering in the world and it is best for them to leave and for the race of men to guide things toward a more prosperous future.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Was he an elitist? Yes, of course he was. He was the product of his place and time. But as such, he was also a first-hand victim of technology. It's amazing to me that Brin misses entirely the impact of the First World War on Tolkien and his writing.
Tolkien fought at the Battle of the Somme, which was a slaughter of unprecidented scale. On the first day of the British attack, 20,000 men were mowed down by German machine guns - this coming after the British bombarded the German positions with hour after hour of relentless artillery. Tolkien lost two of his best friends to the war, and himself was sent home with trench foot.
Relentless belief in "progress" was a defining factor of the prewar period, and it took years of staggeringly innefective and grotesque fighting to convince most Europeans that progress wasn't all it had been made out to be. The men who fought the war and lived to tell the tale certainly harbored no illusions about it.
It's no wonder that Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings, a tale in which individual actions could make a difference. After seeing battlefields completely denuded of vegitation, turned to rotten, corpse-laden mud by machines of death, is it so surprising that he glorified the fields and trees and rivers? Perhaps the Dead Marshes aren't such a stretch when you've seen bodies littering the battlefield.
Tough to stay optimistic about the future when you've fought in one war that maimed you and killed your friends, and seen a second world conflagration that saw entire cities aflame and nations engulfed by mechanized armies.
Mr. Brin is right that we should look to the future. But in moving forward, let's not forget that there are things about the past that do bear preserving. Humanity, decency, individual responsibility, and mistrust of power seem like pretty damned useful concepts to me.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I had to say that seeing the beating Brin is getting here.
Like many I was charmed by LOTR, but I agree with Brin to some extent. To put it simpley
"good vs. evil, comic-book syndrome is getting old".
I am not suggesting that the LOTR is anything other than one of the best pieces of fiction ever written, *but* there are basic themes that evaluate to the simple comic-book syndrome.
This formula has bothered me since I was a kid watching "transformers" and "gi joe", often times hoping that cobra commander or megatron would win.
I watched "moulin rouge" thinking that in the story within the story, the "evil" king should have got the girl. Should a man that has given his life to rule his country and thus have little experience at love be denied because of his sacrifices?
"titanic" showed a perfectly beautiful couple tormented by a crass, angry aristocrate. That movie made all the money that it did because we're prone to enjoy "formula" movies. This is not necessarily always a bad thing btw.
Why are all the bad guys ugly and the good guys beautiful?
Just for fun, take a closer look at the movies showing, and look for it. The "us vs. them", "beauty vs. ugly", "good vs. evil". Compare with movies that break that dwell less on this formula eg "Changing Lanes" http://us.imdb.com/Title?0264472
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
The final page of the article summaries some important problems with modern pop culture, the real target of Brin's article I suspect.
It also pulls together Brin's admitedly wordy argument ( at least compared to the average slashdot story )
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
And his articles in Salon about them are interesting. As he says in the article, "It's how you get practice not just being a passive consumer, or critic, but a creative storyteller in your own right." I agree in large part with some of his discussion of Star Wars: there are many interesting directions Lucas could have taken with the story, none of which he did. Thus, Episodes I and II are tepid. Brin is spot-on about Tolkien's romantic longings. Tolkien wrote about a world in decline, where beauty was passing out of the world. That's the topic of the Silmarillion, and the Lord of the Rings just forms the last chapter in that saga. It's also hard to argue against the idea that the Lord of the Rings shows racist tendencies. However, Brin misses some of the points. Sauron is evil because he chose to follow Melkor/Morgoth in the the beginning of the world. Melkor/Morgoth was evil because he aimed to corrupt Illuvatar's design. The parallel is to (certain forms of) Christian morality. Evil is ugly because its exterior form mimics its interior darkness. Melkor was once the fairest of the Valar, but his evil ate away at that and he became menacing, not beautiful. Sauron wore a fair form before the fall of Numenor, but in its destruction he lost his ability to assume it. Gandalf and Saruman are powerful, not because of some secret knowledge they have, but because they are Maiar. Their powers are limited, which is why they can't destroy Sauron outright (Sauron was also once a Maiar, note), but flow from their nature. This idea might be undemocratic. However, in Tolkien's world, it's a fact: neither the Maiar nor the humans can do anything to change it. Democracy can't alter inherent inequality. As Brin notes, Tolkien's "heroes" aren't always heroic. The Elves, in particular, have a checkered past (e.g., the Kinslaying) and they show little willingness to fight in The War of the Ring. Many of the wizards, Maiar sent to help Middle-Earth against Sauron, either turn (Saruman) or forsake their duties; Gandalf alone holds steadfast. The Numenorean kings, from whose line Aragorn descends, ended up bringing destruction upon themselves. In Tolkien's world, everyone is subject to the forces of decay and corruption. I agree in some respects with Brin's criticism of Star Wars. However, Tolkien's work has far greater internal consistency. Taken in itself, it works, but it is an expression of Romanticism, many of whose ideals don't apply to our real world. Thus, many of the lessons you might take from Tolkien's work don't apply either.
Feudalism is a logical consequence of agriculture, but agriculture only goes back about 15,000 years. Human existence goes back something like 100,000 years, and during most of that time, we were hunter-gatherers. Brin's percentage should be 14.44.
The lives of hunter-gatherers were actually pretty sweet. A big farm demands constant work from everybody and you end up with dreary work ethics. Hunting and gathering leave a lot of free time, so you paint the insides of caves, play tunes on primitive instruments, and loaf.
We really need a literature that revels in the glories of hunter-gatherer societies. The closest we have right now are "Quest for Fire" and "Clan of the Cave Bear". Hey you authors, get to work.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
It's not about mythic heroes saving the day. Frodo bears the ring into Mordor - very heroically. Sam helps him, becoming a Ring Bearer as well. Togather they both become darker, and Frodo takes wounds that will haunt him - forever.
In the end it is NOT the mythic hero Frodo, favored heir of the richest man in the village, with his mithril coat and magic sword, who saves the day.
In the end Evil is defeated by squabbling against itself - as the corrupted Gollum seizes the ring and ends up getting cooked.
Lets look at the Fellowship of the Ring - a gathering of mythic heroes all. A returned King, assorted adventurer-hobbits, a wizard with assorted elves, dwarves, and horses.
What happens to this Fellowship? Well...the leader is slaughtered (albeit to return - being Maia real death is tricky buisiness), there is blood and betrayal amongst them...and they are scattered to the four winds.
So now you have mythic heroes wandering the landscape... So what do they manage? They bring down Saruman... but that's bungled as he ends up corrupting the Shire.
These wandering heroes do manage other heroic feats - the dead rise, wormtongues are dewormed, and so forth. Of course what this amounts to is mostly the heroes gathering to defend Minas Tirith because the *real battle* is in Frodo and Sams hands.
Gandalf shows some of his power defending the city, but in the end it is a woman - female empowerment! - who dares to ignore the mythic prophecies and exert her will over presumed Fate - who takes down the Witch King. That's a powerful message - one can transform oneself form an unimportant marginzalized bystander by telling the mythic "truth" to stuff it and then *making it so*.
Now, by the time Frodo is at the end game he isn't really that bright and shining heir of the richest man in the village anymore. He's become a simple soldier - marching to what he believes will be his death, sick, disheartened, and motivated by his duty to do what must be done.
At the end of the books, when Frodo passes into the West, he's not that much different. He's haunted by what he has done, he has wounds that will not heal, and much of the light in his own heart has guttered out. He's a fairly realistic war vet, not a idolized shining hero - even while Strider has become the archetypal Rightful King. Note: Strider, Mr. Mythic Hero from beginning to end, doesn't do all that much in the grand scheme of things - he secures his kingdom but does not save the world.
There is a message here - that if one is determined enough fighting the unbeatable immortal darkness one might win - but the cost will be high and being on the right side is no guarentee.
Frodo is rewarded for his toils with immortality in the West, as a wounded and darkened man. Think carefully about being that, in a land of shining Gods and happy bright elves - many of whom have never left paradise - he's going to be one of the very few with inescapable darkness. Forever.
That's *not* the end of a mythic hero, that's the end of a soldier, returning home to try to build a normal life after experiencing direst horror.
Mythic Hero Boy -> becomes ordinary soldier -> Saves World -> pays realistic price for the rest of his days.
In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
and that's the real problem with his article, whether you agree or disagree with his philosophical viewpoint.
First of all, the heroes of the story are clearly Frodo and Sam, and Tolkien explicitly portrays hobbits as "the commoners" of the story. Brin manages to completely ignore this.
> Did they all leave their homes and march to war
> thinking, "Oh, goody, let's go serve an evil
> Dark Lord"?
Tolkien explicitly states that the Easterlings were deceived and used by Sauron. There is no suggestion that they are inherently evil. Aragorn makes peace with the Easterling survivors after Sauron is destroyed. All the rants about how Tolkien considers the Easterlings subhuman are nonsense. You only have to read the scene where Sam discovers the dead Easterling to see this.
> count the number of powerful beings who are
> vastly uglier than anybody with that kind of
> power would allow themselves to be.
Brin needs to read the Silmarillion to see how Sauron made himself appear beautiful for hundreds of years in order to seduce the Numenoreans, and was afterwards cursed by the Valar and forced to appear ugly forever after.
> Consider the rings. Those man-made wonders are
> deemed cursed, damning anyone who dares to use
> them, especially those nine normal humans who
> tried to rise up, using tools to equalize and
> then usurp the rightful powers of their betters
> -- the High Elves.
This is nearly the exact opposite of what Tolkien describes. The rings were not made by men. They were made by Elves and Sauron and given to men in friendship.
Furthermore Tolkien repeatedly emphasises that the evil of the rings influenced by Sauron, especially the One Ring, can corrupt anyone. The whole point of the story --- the key to the plot --- is that his "everyman" characters, the hobbits, are the *least* corruptible. Brin seems to have missed that point completely. Or maybe he just ignored it because it didn't serve his agenda.
"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.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Witness the most amazing accomplishment of NASA -- managing to turn the exploration of space into a huge snore.
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?
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.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
But I don't *want* to 'examine the story from a different perspective'. I spend most of my waking hours 'analyzing' things...
I think one of the best things in being a grown-up is the ability
to live and enjoy a state of compexity and self-contradiction.
I went to see HP, and enjoyed it "like a child". I later discussed
it with my g.f. , and enjoyed it "like a grown-up", discussing the movie
in a similar vein to Mr Brin (though not as professionaly
The world is complex, and people are complex too. Enjoy fiction and fantasy this way today, another tommorow.
(In fact that's why I think one should read/view good art several times)
Working for necessity's mother.
Selective breeeding, divine right, whatever.
Both are based upon the presumption that your lineage is superior to anothers.
And no the reproductive rights in his book were determined by a council who got to choose
the criteria for desirability. Not the individuals.
Whether you call it fuedalism, eliteism, meritocracy etc. They are ALL based upon the
same core principal. I.E. some are more fit to rule than others. While this may be a true statement, this is what Brin knocks LOTR for, and then his books use the same idea cloaked in
a veil of science as justification.
As to your point about the probies. I totally disagree with you.
In the book, probies are sufferred to live at societies whim. They live under constant watch,
do menial jobs, and are denied what we take for granted as basic rights. I ask you, how would you behave in a similar circumstance?
Would you care to EARN the right to reproduce?
How about the ability to speak freeely?
Should you have to earn the right to live based
upon an arbitrary set of criteria?
Indeed we can see that the criteria are very arbitrary in his books. How you ask? When
the Avian's make a deal with the probationary chimp to test for the next level of uplift,
they are willing to give him reproductive rights, in return for naming them as protectors.
Brin's world is an ultrafascist dystopia.
Again, I like his books, my point is to turn the critical eye back upon his work.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
It is not a meritocracy. Ask Jojo the chimp who
while he can understand spoken language cannot talk with the use of the speaking machine.
Jojo is enourmously helpful, and could rightly be called a hero in the novel.
Problem is Jojoes DNA does not measure up to uberchimp version 6.66 result? no little Jojoes....
In a meritocracy, even the handicapped could have a place provided they can get the job done, and done well. In Brin's world, sorry it's all in your genes.....
Thus although some may fall from grace, the presumption and thus the opportunity, wealth, power and prestige go to the offspring of the
"Superior" Lineage.
My point about fuedalism is, the individuals in Brins novels are essentially from Noble families. Indeed the Blue card families are even eager to have a Green card join them. It has nothing to do with love or freedom or mutual interest. It has only to do with merging their line into a superior one.
Brin takes the most important act of being an individual able to make choices about existence, and turns it into a business transaction.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
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?
In other words - "If you don't like it, read something else." The point is not whether he "likes it". Brin claims that our culture is swinging towards fedual-romanticism and that the popularity of LOTR is a symptom.
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.
What he was criticizing was Tolkein's philosophy, which shone through when writing the stories. Tolkein was anti-industry, and that bias came through in his work in a very obvious way. Tolkein was entitled to his opinion, and that's no reason for the rest of us not to enjoy his books, Brin is just warning us against picking up the same bias as Tolkein through his work.
Brin advises that we should think about the things we read, and it's good advice. If you read things without thinking about your reaction to them there's always a chance that some of the preconceptions will sneak into your mind. That's one of the reasons why racism and prejudice is so hard to eliminate, because constant exposure can affect us without our conscious minds realizing it.
I read both science fiction and fantasy, and i think about what i read. If i was given the choice between being a common Joe in a high-tech 22nd century, or a King or hero in the 13th century or in an alternate magical world, i'd pick the 22nd century with no thought at all. That doesn't mean i can't enjoy the fantasy books though.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank