Good call on Gimli. Some more thoughts on why Brin was being silly (and the jokes on the last page don't make the arguments on the first three any more correct):
I kind of bought his arguments about Star Wars in his previous articles, but now he's starting to sound like someone with only one idea, trying to apply it where it doesn't belong.
1. Brin pretty much ignores the entire hobbit race, which embodies the idea of regular people living their lives without nobility barging in.
2. Brin ignores the fact that the hobbits who performed this amazing feat were just regular guys. Tolkien goes on & on talking about small people can rise up in difficult times. If we go back to Tolkien's life, he's talking about (or so people claim) all the normal people who saved the world from Germany in WWI. Frodo didn't have any mystical powers he inherited from his father (or midichlorians). So it's much harder to make the "epic hero" argument that Brin rather effectively makes re SW. And the Scouring of the Shire -- which Tolkien stuck into the trilogy even though by "standard fantasy" rules it shouldn't be in there -- is very much a grass roots effort, even if it's partially led by the returning heroes.
3. Aragorn is not interested in power. The bad guys are portrayed as obsessed with power (even back to the Silmarillion, right?) - not to mention involved in slavery, torture, etc. Discounting Brin's silly, "Maybe that's just what the *historians* said about Sauron!" this shoots a hole in his argument that Tolkien wants a pyramidal society. And I totally don't buy his interepretation of the Ringwraiths. Sure, it's good to aim high, but that's not the same as a lust for power.
4. Similarly, Aragorn is not at all obsessed with the past. He seems to live very much in the present as a Ranger, really, though perhaps with an eye to future. And Tolkien wrote all about how even the best dynasties fail, hardly a romantic yearning for aristocracy. In fact, I would argue that Denethor (and Boromir) represent the last dying breath of a failed dynasty. Aragorn has a respect for the past, but realizes he needs to prove himself worthy of kingship. He gets the princess, but because he earned her love through loyalty & a kind heart, not out of noblesse oblige.
5. Brin admits that Tolkien said - and described in the Silmarillion - the elves' desire to live in the past was doomed to failure. But then boo-hoos that LOTR didnt' have enough of that theme, and tries to claim that Tolkien was arguing the opposite in the more popular books. Brin also admits that Tolkien wrote about the inevitable passing of age into age, but argues that Tolkien didn't want it to happen. I dunno, I see a reluctance for the passing age, but the view towards progress is still pretty optimistic. Just ask Rosie Gamgee.
6. Brin basically ends up saying that any book set in medieval (or pseudo-medieval) times is Romantically pining for all the bad pre-Enlightenment days. That's just silly stereotyping. A sci-fi writer ought to know that the setting for a sci-fi story is just one tool that helps set forth the author's ideas. The plot is more important, no? In its anti-industrialization warnings, LOTR is actually repeating a theme most often seen in the sci-fi that Brin praises!
[Speaking of Sci-fi, I'll take the opportunity for a shameless plug and argue that Babylon 5 is much more realistic about the future than Star Trek, while not losing a central core of optimism and belief in progress. After all, why did they build B5 after the first 4 stations were sabotaged or disappear?]
Sorry, Dr. Brin. I applaud your respect for democracy, progress, and the potential of every human being. And I even accept that Lucas may fall too far onto the Romantic Dark Side. But you can't shoehorn every sci-fi/fantasy classic into an anti-progress agenda. Believe it or not, a lot of us still believe in progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Good call on Gimli. Some more thoughts on why Brin was being silly (and the jokes on the last page don't make the arguments on the first three any more correct):
I kind of bought his arguments about Star Wars in his previous articles, but now he's starting to sound like someone with only one idea, trying to apply it where it doesn't belong.
1. Brin pretty much ignores the entire hobbit race, which embodies the idea of regular people living their lives without nobility barging in.
2. Brin ignores the fact that the hobbits who performed this amazing feat were just regular guys. Tolkien goes on & on talking about small people can rise up in difficult times. If we go back to Tolkien's life, he's talking about (or so people claim) all the normal people who saved the world from Germany in WWI. Frodo didn't have any mystical powers he inherited from his father (or midichlorians). So it's much harder to make the "epic hero" argument that Brin rather effectively makes re SW. And the Scouring of the Shire -- which Tolkien stuck into the trilogy even though by "standard fantasy" rules it shouldn't be in there -- is very much a grass roots effort, even if it's partially led by the returning heroes.
3. Aragorn is not interested in power. The bad guys are portrayed as obsessed with power (even back to the Silmarillion, right?) - not to mention involved in slavery, torture, etc. Discounting Brin's silly, "Maybe that's just what the *historians* said about Sauron!" this shoots a hole in his argument that Tolkien wants a pyramidal society. And I totally don't buy his interepretation of the Ringwraiths. Sure, it's good to aim high, but that's not the same as a lust for power.
4. Similarly, Aragorn is not at all obsessed with the past. He seems to live very much in the present as a Ranger, really, though perhaps with an eye to future. And Tolkien wrote all about how even the best dynasties fail, hardly a romantic yearning for aristocracy. In fact, I would argue that Denethor (and Boromir) represent the last dying breath of a failed dynasty. Aragorn has a respect for the past, but realizes he needs to prove himself worthy of kingship. He gets the princess, but because he earned her love through loyalty & a kind heart, not out of noblesse oblige.
5. Brin admits that Tolkien said - and described in the Silmarillion - the elves' desire to live in the past was doomed to failure. But then boo-hoos that LOTR didnt' have enough of that theme, and tries to claim that Tolkien was arguing the opposite in the more popular books. Brin also admits that Tolkien wrote about the inevitable passing of age into age, but argues that Tolkien didn't want it to happen. I dunno, I see a reluctance for the passing age, but the view towards progress is still pretty optimistic. Just ask Rosie Gamgee.
6. Brin basically ends up saying that any book set in medieval (or pseudo-medieval) times is Romantically pining for all the bad pre-Enlightenment days. That's just silly stereotyping. A sci-fi writer ought to know that the setting for a sci-fi story is just one tool that helps set forth the author's ideas. The plot is more important, no? In its anti-industrialization warnings, LOTR is actually repeating a theme most often seen in the sci-fi that Brin praises!
[Speaking of Sci-fi, I'll take the opportunity for a shameless plug and argue that Babylon 5 is much more realistic about the future than Star Trek, while not losing a central core of optimism and belief in progress. After all, why did they build B5 after the first 4 stations were sabotaged or disappear?]
Sorry, Dr. Brin. I applaud your respect for democracy, progress, and the potential of every human being. And I even accept that Lucas may fall too far onto the Romantic Dark Side. But you can't shoehorn every sci-fi/fantasy classic into an anti-progress agenda. Believe it or not, a lot of us still believe in progress.
-Amir