Brin's interpretation (valid, but not exclusive)
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
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.;-)
The one factor you fail to take into account is the terrorist mindset, which is very different from that of you or I. Terrorists justify the acts they perform by saying that it is the product of "ideological purity", ie. they claim that their beliefs justify any action no matter how inhuman. In essence they separate themselves from their humanity. This also generally leads them to exhibit a fanatical dedication to their cause. Few would argue that anyone is more dedicated to an idea than a terrorist. Because they have lost touch with their humanity, and because their resolve is so strong, they take the idea that no one has as strong a resolve as they do and translate it into "no one has a strong resolve *except* me". These people really do believe that we will roll over and do whatever we want if they make a graphic enough display of their resolve. If we (we being freedom-loving people everywhere) do not stand up and demonstrate, once and for all, that this is not the case, then the problem will only get worse. I do not like the idea of killing innocents to get at he people who did this, but I am afraid that it seems to be the only way that will produce results.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
;-), 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).
;-)
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
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.
The one factor you fail to take into account is the terrorist mindset, which is very different from that of you or I. Terrorists justify the acts they perform by saying that it is the product of "ideological purity", ie. they claim that their beliefs justify any action no matter how inhuman. In essence they separate themselves from their humanity. This also generally leads them to exhibit a fanatical dedication to their cause. Few would argue that anyone is more dedicated to an idea than a terrorist. Because they have lost touch with their humanity, and because their resolve is so strong, they take the idea that no one has as strong a resolve as they do and translate it into "no one has a strong resolve *except* me". These people really do believe that we will roll over and do whatever we want if they make a graphic enough display of their resolve. If we (we being freedom-loving people everywhere) do not stand up and demonstrate, once and for all, that this is not the case, then the problem will only get worse. I do not like the idea of killing innocents to get at he people who did this, but I am afraid that it seems to be the only way that will produce results.