David Brin On LOTR 578
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."
Waxing Romaontic (Score:3, Insightful)
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.....
Re:Waxing Romaontic (Score:3, Insightful)
Typical geek answer! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what I read (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Waxing Romaontic (Score:3, Informative)
But Brin's characters specifically fights AGAINST this regime, showing the flaws in the system. Brin paints Humanity as the exception to the rule. And the characters are generally an ensemble of good people all going through their lives, happening to be in the right place and the right time to make a difference... not superhuman heroes who carve chunks from dragons as a matter of daily course.
So Brin's Uplift world is about normal humans (or monkeys, or dolphins, or aliens) in spectacular situations, NOT like heroic fantasy in which it is about spectacular humans overcoming spectacular odds.
I think that if you believe that the Uplift trilogy is about the success of fuedal/fascist society, you have not read it very well, if at all.
P.S. I greatly enjoy LOTR and other works of heroic fantasy. I think Brin is a rather preachy person, though I love his books too. But he is NOT hypocritical, his books follow his philosophy very closely.
Literalism (Score:3)
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.
Meritocracy not.... (Score:3)
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.
I think it's silly... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:3, Insightful)
As you say you're not a fan, you can be forgiven for not knowing this. But Tolkien's point was to create an English mythology, not to entertain. (Well, "The Hobbit" was to entertain his son, but I digress. And apart from that I'm getting off the point.) He wrote that he had very little hope or expectation that anyone else would want to read it.
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:3, Funny)
Well, I would think a century of popular mass media would have settled that question. The answer of course is "Yes".
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:2, Insightful)
What's wrong with looking backwards? We do plenty of looking forward in our culture. We live so totally oriented towards the future that most of us have spent several months ahead of our actual earned income. It this a 'good' thing? Maybe we need some perspective?
Many who appreciate these 'backward' looking authors wonder if we haven't over-extended ourselves in other ways, as well. Moral, spiritual, or perhaps 'psychological' if you're too modern to use those old, outdated terms. Maybe we need some perepctive in this area, too. So 'looking backward' does not have to be a denial, it might be an acknowledgement of the changes we have been passing through. But it seems that everyone who bothers to notice anything related or oriented to older culture values automatically assumes it's 'anti-modern', a denial of progress. Hmmm....
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:2, Insightful)
Brin may have credentials up the wazoo as a sci-fi/fantasy author, but he completely missed the boat on TLOTR. It's a mythic story, delineating fundamental truths within each of us concerning good and evil.
Anyone who buys into Brin's PC line of thinking with regard to this story needs to forget the damn movies, re-read TLOTR and the Silmarillion and get back in touch with what Tolkien was actually doing.
Anyway, who's going around lamenting the loss of feudalism for chrissakes? It's alive and well in our corporations and making strong headway under the current Bush administration. And ain't it grand.....
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:5, Insightful)
I vaguely remember a C.S. Lewis quote on the issue of whether or not to raise children on fairy tales and fiction. At the time, it was considered "forward-thinking" to raise children on reality rather than fantasy. (Still is, for some parents.)
I can't find the exact words right now, but in effect, he said that he would rather a child hearing a mysterious bump in the night think of a monster under the bed than a burglar. And yes, there are witches and monsters to frighten, but there are also heroes and knights to look up to, with timeless values such as courage and honesty.
In another much more recent bit of creative fantasy [amazon.com], one main character points out that humans need the little stories and lies in childhood as practice. Practice for believing in the big, important things. Things like Honor and Justice.
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget Faith. It's really important that people still belive all the big lies throughout their whole lives.
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:3, Interesting)
And which side does the child identify with? What happens when the child see's her/his mistakes as "evil"?
Child: Since there are only two types of people in the world, I must be evil right?
I don't believe we should take fairy tales from kids, god forbid. But I do believe we under-estimate their capacity to handle the truth, ie. there is good and evil in everybody.
DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE!? (Score:5, Insightful)
*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.
Re:DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE!? (Score:3, Insightful)
When I open a book/watch a movie I want to drop into a different world and not analyze it, I want to trust the author and believe him, I want to *escape* and the best bit is I can, because there are no realities and no consquences to impinge upon this luxury.
I hate this kind of article: 'don't forget the real world when reading/watching fantasy'. That is *exactly* what I want to do, in fact it is the whole damned point!
Re:Enjoy both worlds (Score:3)
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)
Re:DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Brin did the same thing with Star Wars a while back -- consider the Empire as a force of good and Yoda as an arrogant turd, or some such thing. I vaguely remember the review...
This guy evidently has a drum to beat, namely to turn over various media interpretations of literature to look at them from different perspectives. Basically, he didn't need four "pages" to do this -- he could write this in a couple of paragraphs. The review seems to be mostly an exercise in being a smarty-pants who is trying call Tolkien an elitist, sexist, racist while being too cute by half. Any point he may have been trying to make was muted by his overbearing, prickly style. Classic "Salon" writing for you.
Fuck 'im. He's wrong anyway. The story isn't black and white. Saruman was good, but was corrupted and turned to evil. The King of Rohan and Denethor were good people corrupted by evil, with different results. Gollum is a mixture of good and evil, or at least evil and less evil. Butterbur is good tempered by stupidity. The "good" allies have divisions - the elves vs. dwarves. The humans vs. elves, the men of Minas Tirith and Rohan have little/no love for Galadriel and the Ents, the Steward of Gondor vs. Aragorn, etc.
I think Brin gave a simplistic reading of the book and then looked for another way to repackage his review of Star Wars in order to make some change from Salon. Coming from someone whose apparent point is to look at the "standard" tale and turn it over before making judgments, he seems to ignore much of what is in there that doesn't comport with his interpretation of the book.
GF.
Re:DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE!? (Score:3, Funny)
Just kidding. Awesome reply though.
Think about it. (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE!? (Score:5, Funny)
That was from a quote by JRRT. And it's a real word, listed in the Oxford English Dictionary as a variant of "pleasance". He did, recall, have a day job as a professor of mediaeval languages, and was an expert in old English and Norse languages. Be very sure before you try to correct him.
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good questions... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, my thinking is that books and automobiles both don't do much if they are just laying around, immobile. The utility of these objects is when they are used, over time. Eyes scan words on pages over a finite amount of time, just as wheels roll on land over a finite amount of time. Just as an automobile has a 'forward momentum' about it, so does a book or a posting on Slashdot. (yes, I agree that one can put a car in 'reverse', but that doesn't mean one is backing up in time).
So, my thinking is that, because of the directionality of time, a fairy tale should address social comentary and ensure that humanity continues sometype of progress. I would go so far as to say that most all of the successful fairy tales have been based on social commentary, as the social commentary aspect is what allows us to understand the fairy tale. (For instance, imagine a fairy tale written about the molecular cohession between two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom in a water molecule. Without some type of social commentary and anthropomorphic structure to the story, the proposed fairy tale is alien and incomprehensible. At the very least, it would make for a dreadfully boring story.) So, my thinking is that a story or fairy tale should have social commentary and be forward thinking.
My claim and thesis is that social commentary and forward thinking may be inherent in the definition of a fairy tale. I would also go so far as to claim that the following are fairy tales, because they possess social commentary on the future of science:
"Blade Runner", "Rollerball", "Silent Running", "1984", "Fail-Safe", "The China Syndrome", "Terminator", "The Hot Zone", "Logan's Run", "The Postman", "Fahrenheit 451", "Neuromancer", "Count Zero", "Mona Lisa Overdrive", "Jurassic Park"
Note, that the utility of fairy tales is to allow an uninitiated person the opportunity follow, in other people's footsteps as it were, the predictive reasoning and forecasting of certain sequences of events. The decision making process is composed of four parts: Define the problem, define alternative solutions, forecast results of solutions, and & collapse possibilities by acting on a solution (this is reinterpreted to varying degrees by people, but is a pretty good model). Anyhow, fairy tales are used for giving messages of the sort, 'this kind of action is bad, because it leads to this kind of result'. Reference the Brothers Grimm for a plethora of such fabals, fairy tales, and stories.
In my thinking, LOTR succeeds in many areas, because it is an epic fairy tale, with epic consequences, and epic social commentary. As far as social commentary goes, I would have to agree with Mr. Brin's analysis of LOTR. He makes a very valid point that history is written by the victors, and I believe that there is a valid interpretation that LOTR is propoganda and marketing hype produced by the victors of the War of the Rings. Lastly, it just goes to show that LOTR is so interesting, because it has social commentary and allows us to forcast into the future, at very levels.
Re:I think it's silly... (Score:3, Interesting)
What BS. Give me LOTR any day.
Why I never cared much for LOTR (Score:2, Funny)
1) They switched Darrens
Look closely and you'll notice the human member of their party is played by two different actors at different points of the movie (it takes a sharp eye to notice, but one of them has red hair, one black).
2) Violence
Give me one reason that story couldn't have been told without all the fighting.
3) I'll have to rent that one
The rushed-through story the screenwriter threw in as the first ten minutes of Fellowship of the Ring looked a lot more interesting than the movie we were forced to watch. Why didn't somebody make a movie off that instead?
4) Magic Mechanics
Experts on the occult say in order for a wizard to floorspin a fully-grown man like Gandalf, he'd need three magical staffs, not two.
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?
That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I certainly didn't have as many beefs with the Star Wars epics or even with the most recent Star Trek: Nemesis movie (the one where Data dies -- it's in most theaters now I believe).
I never got into those Magic: The Gathering cards either, so perhaps I just don't like the whole wizard genre of films and books.
Data Dies? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why I never cared much for LOTR (Score:2, Funny)
Look closely and you'll notice the human member of their party is played by two different actors at different points of the movie (it takes a sharp eye to notice, but one of them has red hair, one black)."
Well whenever you notice something like that; a wizard did it!
Bewitched (Score:2)
You're thinking about Bewitched, not LoTR. Nobody cared then, either.
Re:Why I never cared much for LOTR (Score:2)
2) Violence
Give me one reason that story couldn't have been told without all the fighting.
Hmm lets see the plot begs an epic problem as large as WW2, or do you believe the holocost didn't happen, and we shouldn't have gotten involved?
The rushed-through story the screenwriter threw in as the first ten minutes of Fellowship of the Ring looked a lot more interesting than the movie we were forced to watch. Why didn't somebody make a movie off that instead?
personlly I would have preferred a 5-6 hour version of each book, but as it was the only thing the damn critics could find wrong with the fellowship was that it was too long...I loved critics comments like "Action packed, fast paced, enthraling, but too long." WTF?
4) Magic Mechanics
Experts on the occult say in order for a wizard to floorspin a fully-grown man like Gandalf, he'd need three magical staffs, not two.
One word. FICTION.......dumbass...(ok two words)
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?
First off the basic premise of LOTR is a dualistic (and fictionally idealistic) Good vs evil. which is why saurmon had fallen (white guy), boromir (white guy), orcs are created servants, so what the hell is your BS racist pt? Oh yeah the dwarves and the elves dont' like each other, but wait Gimli and Legolas over come thier differences and become great friends....such tension is what makes the relationships real. We do live in a world where people overcome thier prejudices all the time!
Now that I've spent entirely too much time on a Troll I'll get back to work
Re:Why I never cared much for LOTR (Score:5, Funny)
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.
And yet . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Transparent Society (Score:2)
If most
Excellent article... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Excellent article... (Score:4, Informative)
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. The perpetuation of this myth is just out and out intellectual laziness.
Remember, "Any resemblance to actual events or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."
GF
Ugh, god damnit (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Excellent article... (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong
RTF Introduction to LOTR by Tolkien himself!
He absolutely was not writing about WWII and spoke of his personal distaste for allegory and specifically states that LOTR is not about anything other than what is in the book.
He also states that he thinks that many people confuse applicability with allegory. Since LOTR deals with such universal concepts, and is in essence a myth, it is applicable to lots of situations, but not a thinly veiled text about WWII. That would cheapen the book. Think of it in the same light as the Illiad, Odyssey, Anead or any great mythology.
Frodo often seen as ``everyman'' (Score:3, Interesting)
Even Aragorn begins by seeming quite commonplace and ordinary and certainly the, ``Scouring of the Shire'' sequence (okay, we're into the next book, but...) argues for the necessity and virtue of the ordinary person doing what is right because it is right and theirs (and no one else's) to do.
At least he later says, ``All right, I read Tolkien's epic trilogy a bit unconventionally,''
I've never understood why people complain of royalty and their perquisites---certainly ``lese majeste'' was balanced by ``oblesse noblige''---far more appropriate than the riches of robber and merchant ``barons''. Should we argue for taking away the wealth of the Kennedys and Rockefellers as well? I find a family who traded power into a position of responsibility far more laudable than one which went for the root of all evil instead.
Tolkien is far more moral and complex than Brin makes him out to be and the ascension of royalty is far more complex than the black / white, good bad thing which he describes it as.
William
(who couldn't bring himself to read beyond the first page---moderate accordingly)
Re:Frodo often seen as ``everyman'' (Score:4, Insightful)
This is where Brin's criticism of LOTR breaks down. Frodo might have been well-to-do, but he didn't have any idea that his armor was worth that much. Nor did he, or Bilbo, for that matter, realize that they had the "One Ring" on their mantelpiece. Sure, Frodo was comfortable, but he wasn't some sort of political power, even in the Shire.
As much as Brin wants to concentrate on Elrond, Galadriel, and the rest of the High Elves the story was really about a 4 foot tall hero from the middle of nowhere, and a pile of his diminuitive friends. Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry are the folks that really make the difference, and I could probably throw any one of them across the room. Comparing those folks with "kings" is absolutely ridiculous. Especially since when their adventure was done they went back to the Shire as if nothing had happened.
Brin also misses the point that TLOTR is about the end of an era. The new era is ruled not by elves, but by the son of a woodsman. Aragorn may have been descended from "noble" blood, but his people spent generations as woodsmen protecting a people that mistrusted them. Aragorn starts the story as a nomad with a broken sword. He can hardly be considered a king. In fact, of the original fellowship only Boromir can really be considered as nobility, and look what happened to him.
The rest of the fellowship just happened to be the best that could be assembled at the time. Gandalf wasn't the chief of the wizards (Saruman was), but he was the best that was to be had. Legolas wasn't a High Elf, but he was willing to go, and Gimli went to represent the dwarves.
Speaking of Gimli and Legolas, Brin makes a big deal out of the fact that JRRT is some sort of a closet racist because he allows for the total destruction of the Orcs, but he forgets to mention the very important subplot where Gimli and Legolas face their racial prejudices and become friends.
In short, Brin is stretching. He has an axe to grind and he is trying to get the story to fit his preconceived notions.
Re:Frodo often seen as ``everyman'' (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the Hobbit starts out by saying that the Tooks were richer than the Bagginses, and that Bilbo's father built Bag End with his wife's (a Took) money. The Bagginses were more respectable, but the Tooks were far more wealthy. The fact that outsiders to the Shire valued Bilbo's Mithril coat more than the rest of the Shire has very little to do with anything. Bilbo didn't know that the the coat was so valuable, and neither he nor Frodo were likely to sell it. Had it not been for the fact that Bilbo picked up the even more amazingly valuable "One Ring" the Mithril coat would have spent an eternity as a minor exhibit in a backwater Hobbit museum. Saying that Bilbo's coat made him the richest man in the Shire is like saying that the Bedouins of the Saudi Arabian Peninsula that were alive at 400 B.C. were rich because they were sitting on massive oil reserves.
Bilbo was certainly wealthy enough that he was able to live off his investments, but so is every retired person that you have ever met. Plenty of folks are able to retire early. And the book suggests that Bilbo actually spent most of his treasure before turning Bag End over to Frodo. Remember, some of the younger Hobbits even went so far as to dig for treasure in Bag End, but Bilbo had already spent it.
And that isn't even taking into consideration the fact that in many ways it is actually Sam that is responsible for the destruction of the One Ring, and you can't tell me that Sam was some sort of a high roller. He was a gardener!
Re:Frodo often seen as ``everyman'' (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I read the article. Although I admit that I was skimming near the end. You see, it was fairly clear to me that David Brin hadn't actually read the same story that I had. He was so deadset on proving that the LOTR was a romantic backlash against modernization he simply skipped along to the parts that could be rigged to fit his little theory.
For example, Brin makes a big deal about Saruman cutting down trees after he allies himself with Sauron. In his mind that is clearly symbolic of modernization and industry. However, it can just as easily be attributed to JRR Tolkien's attention to detail. When Saruman changed allegiances he started building an army of Orcs. Arming those Orcs requires steel, and steel requires a large amount of charcoal (or coal if you can get it). It's no wonder that Saruman started cutting down trees, he was making steel weapons. His only problem was that the nearest source of lumber just happened to be a forest in which the trees could fight back.
Now you could see that as symbolic of nature versus industrialization except for the fact that the Ents were in decline long before Saruman ever switched sides. They had been in decline the entire time Sauron was dormant and Saruman still working for the forces of light. The real reason for the Ents decline is that the Entwives actually preferred man's cultivated areas to the primeval forest of the Ents. In other words, the story of the Ents is nothing more than just another tragedy in a long string of bitter-sweet outcomes. The whole world was changing, and many of the changes were not particularly good. Sauron was thwarted, but at a great price.
Gandalf, Aragorn, and the rest didn't oppose Saruman and Sauron because they were bad for the environment, they did so because they were evil. That's why they also refused to use the ring. They would rather die than become like Sauron. Brin was quick to point out that the depictions of Sauron were much like ancient propaganda, but sometimes people are just evil. The propaganda leveled at Hitler during WWII didn't even begin to touch the surface of the atrocities committed by him and his henchmen. Tolkien created a world in which the lines between good and evil were more clearcut, but that's hardly revolutionary.
As for the Hobbits returning to the Shire to take on leadership roles, Sam, the former gardner was elected Mayor, but who wouldn't want Sam for a Mayor? That's Meritocracy if I have ever seen it. Sam rocks. Someone has to be Mayor, and instead of electing someone rich, the Hobbits elected a former gardner.
Aragorn shirking his duties is another reason why Brin is all wet. Aragorn might have been descended from kings, but that had been generations ago. The fact of the matter was that Aragorn was a nomad with a broken sword. Boromir certainly didn't treat Aragorn like his sovereign, and I have no doubt that had he not shown up with the riders of Rohan in tow he would have been completely ignored by the folks in Gondor, and the only reason he still had an army at his back when he arrived in Gondor was because Merry and Pippin got the Ents to save their butts at the Battle of Helm's Deep.
Brin's arguments about Star Wars are spot on, that story is chuck full of uber-men who live above the rest of mortality. The LOTR, on the other hand, is all about mostly normal folks that pitched in and made a difference when it counted. It's also about Gimli and Legolas seeing past their prejudices, and Frodo seeing the good that still existed in Gollum.
You know what I think.. (Score:2)
By going on about the social ramifications of such films in todays world...he's really just trying to get his name in the paper so people will buy his books.
With the way the media has twisted news reporting these days though, who can blame him? Talk shows and the like have taught us that one of the most affective ways to advertise is through the "news".
One small complaint on his arguments.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, who can tell me the one logical flaw here? Yes, you in the back? That's right - here's a sucker.
I was not even borth in the 1960. I was barely conscious in the 1970s - so I missed out on the whole "culture changing" event of those decades.
So for me, the LoTR movies is partly about telling a story (a rather good one in condensed format), as well as the friendship of watching the movies with those who "get it" (reasons why I'm seeing the movie tonight at 12:01 AM - not because I really want to see the movie that badly, but because I'll hang around with all of my friends and people who "get it").
Now, once all the hoopla is over, and a whole new generation is introduced to the fairy tale and wonder of Tolkien, then I'll have no problem with people looking to make their own things, or people inspired to mix and match the future with Tolkein's view.
I think Mr. Brin is right in some respects - new things are always a good idea, to look at both sides of the equation rather than just lumping "good vs evil" arguments. But I'd hardly call the new movies "backwards looking" - just retelling of a story for those old enough to remember it when it was fresh and new, and for a whole new generation for whom these stories are new to their minds and can experience it with their friends.
Like me.
not again (Score:2, Interesting)
Enough with the optimism (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
I find a central theme in Tolkien to be the passing of the mystical third age into the fourth age of man, and with it a passing of all that has come before. No longer will there be mystical eternal elves; the world is broken and round, and magic is passing from the world. We enter now into the unknown, the age of man. In man, Tolkien sees not the dichotomy of good and evil, the old heroic notions of old that are so present in his talks of past ages. Tolkien sees an unpredictable free will, no disposition to heroics, good or evil. Man is the great enigma, in both his complete unpredictability and his untethered potential.
Tolkien, in this writing, is much like C.S. Lewis - Lewis believed that the world had become devoid of the certain magic and mysticism of being alive. With the decline of religion and morality, the world had lost its spark of charm and character. While Lewis took it as his mission to "re-enchant" the world, I feel that Tolkien did not take so much of a reconstructionist attitude; rather, he recognized the passing and change, and put his faith, albeit haltingly, in the self-creation and free will of mankind. He was not optimistic. He was not pessimistic. He was truly unsure of the future to come, and merely hoped for the best. It is this unpredictability, this certainty in nothing but change, this is what Tolkien was truly attempting to express.
The Lord of the Rings is Tolkein's last hurrah of heroism. It is the final shout of classical myths and larger than life heroes, one last tale to remind us of the fading magic of being alive. Just as we all must eventually lay down the books themselves, eventually we too must emerge from this classical perspective into our own contemporary worldview. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't still lessons to be learned from the tales of our enchanted past, the middle-earth.
Re:Enough with the optimism (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Enough with the optimism (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Powers of Rings (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
anti-industrialist (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Seriously. (Score:2)
Why shouldn't we be more Romantic about it? It's fantasy. It's, more to the point, a romantic fantasy (from a classical standpoint).
How about this: Swords, battles, Orcs, Legolas killing things, a couple of White Wizards, Kings, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, and a great and terrible evil that must be destroyed at all costs.
Maybe we should, oh, I don't know, sit back and enjoy the films? Hello? Doesn't that just seem a little more reasonable? I mean, I love the stories, they are wonderful and they are timeless (including the Silmarillion, go read it if you haven't). Tolkien created a world to play in, and he gave that world to us. Lets play in it and enjoy it instead of overanalyzing it.
On a side note, I really hate it when people try to interpret works in absolutely ridiculous ways. I also hate it that they do it to books whose author has died. Then, the author can't say "No, that's not what I was saying at all. What were you smoking boy?"
What a maroon... what a ta-ra-ra-boom-deeyay! (Score:3, Insightful)
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..."
Re:What a maroon... what a ta-ra-ra-boom-deeyay! (Score:3, Funny)
Is that (hasty) Entish?
-peter
Re:What a maroon... what a ta-ra-ra-boom-deeyay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, it was also written after WWI and into WWII. If you think that didn't have an effect on somebody living throught it....
2. It's also about a world in transition, and the dawn of Man's dominance, so in that sense it is forward-looking.
Okay, but that's streching a point compared to the idealization of the country folk vs. the users of engines and technology. That's not reading something into it. It's more or less stated.
3. Is anybody else sick to death of comparisons with Star Wars? Puh-lease...
Yeah, well maybe you shouldn't be reading articles about modern myths. Star Wars had a huge impact on the psyche of millions of Americans. It's going to mentioned in these discussions. Get over it
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.
Not half as much as I am of dismissive idiots who substitute scorn for thought. Look, parts of these books were written in the form of letters to his son in RAF. So, here's a guy. Lived through WWI. Living through WWII. Knows a lot about myths. Is generally in the position of an intellectual during a time that most intellectuals are convinced that the world is possibly ending. He's basing a tale on a body of knowledge he knows a lot about. He's also living throught one of the worst times for England in modern history. Both of these things are influencing him. Both of them.
Brin isn't asking you to dismiss the work, not like it, or deny it's other aspects. He's simply pointing out that there are more influences on this than how great it would be to be a Hobbit or an Elf or something.
p.c. sweetness (Score:3, Insightful)
Earth. Glory Season.
The Rightful King (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Rightful King (Score:3, Insightful)
That's an argument for a formal system of succession, probably administered through the common church. Or a free choice of heir for the sitting monarch. Or ordering every noble in the realm in line of succession, down to the lowliest squire...
One tyrant is bad--the Magna carta's a direct result of a tyrant's rule--but a succession of tyrants doing what their fathers did will mean MORE misery than a relatively short war of succession.
Re:The Rightful King (Score:3, Funny)
No, no, no. The best form of government in medieval society is the anarcho-syndicalist commune. You see, you take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major ones.
Re:The Rightful King (Score:3, Interesting)
Your first part is true. Your second is a complete misreading of Tolkien.
Aragorn does not become King of Gondor and Arnor because he's descended from a royal bloodline. All of the Rangers are descended from Numenoreon aristocracy, and Aragorn is the scion of a less noble branch of the old Numenoreon Kings, something which Elrond alludes to when stating that if he wishes to follow in Turin's footsteps, he must make his line as great.
Aragorn doesn't reforge Narsil, march to Gondor, unseat Denethor, and lead Gondor against the enemy. He spends years wandering the wilderness as an ordinary man. In fact, he refuses every kingly offering (other than the re-forged Narsil) until near the end of the book, when the battle for Gondor is won. Tolkien is going back to the older, Germanic concept that the rightful King is not just the bloodline, but the deed. Aragorn walks the Paths of the Dead; he proves he has the right to call the Oathbreakers, he descends on the Corsairs, and he comes to Gondor in it's hour of need.
Even after unfurling his standard as a descendant of the royal household, he does not enter Gondor until invited. Like an old Anglo-Saxon or Norse King, he is ruler not by rules of primogeneture or a divine right (both concepts primarily introduced through the Catholic Church's alliance with the French royal family). He is rule because, yes, he has the required lineage, but because he's proven himself as fit to be King.
Tolkien's fall of Numenor is in fact a warning against the "absolute tyrant" being better. It mirrors mnot just the descnet of Rome and also of nations like Spain and France under idiot monarchs. Aragorn is restoring the way things ought to be - the monarch arising through both blood right and proving his suitability to rule (and, for that matter, finishing himself off when his powers faded toward senility). It's not strictly hierarchal, because Aragorn feels the need to have the approval of not only a peer group (the royal family of Rohan, the Stewards of Gondor, other leaders of Middle Earth) and of the people of Gondor themselves.
The closest concept in modern times would be if the next King of England were to be elevated, not as a result of being the issue of a mad Greek and the greedy scion of a German line, but by being elected by and from the House of Lords as the most suitable of the aristocracy to lead the nation.
I enjoy reading David Brin but... (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Motivation, not actions. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Ooooh boy... (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re:Ooooh boy... GOOOD (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Ooooh boy... GOOOD (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Ooooh boy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Your assumption that all democracies are equal is ill-founded.
Re:Ooooh boy... (Score:3, Informative)
But not democracy as you know it. The Athens 'electorate' was a very small proportion of the total population. Not much chance of the Athenians giving the slaves the vote to start with :-). Plus it was a direct democracy, no elected representatives, the few people eligible to vote did so in person.
Representative democracy with univeral sufferage is a much more recent development and is probably what Brin is referencing.
Democracies, and speaking of debunking (Score:4, Insightful)
>>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.
He talks about the 'dogma of nostalga' (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Oh now I remember... (Score:2, Funny)
They pay money for articles like that.
I think he sorta had a point in there, but it
got lost
toward
the
end.
In the spacing.
But we can't look ahead to the future because ... (Score:2)
JFK (Score:3, Interesting)
Way to forget the utter deification of Kennedy.
why this fantasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [annmariabell.com]
He's missed the point (Score:4, Insightful)
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
The Ring is Authoritarianism (Score:5, Insightful)
A rather cynical view... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
____________________________________
Re:A rather cynical view... (Score:3, Interesting)
At core, people don't change much over the millennia, and neither do their targets. There will always be romanticists, futurists, deconstructionists, and all the other -ists, busily writing about how the *rest* of the -ists have it completely wrong and will send us all to hell in a handbasket.
The trick is for the rest of us to learn to not take them any more seriously than they deserve.
Brin's having fun and making a point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Some Good Points From the Article... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not so bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Provocative (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Tolkient Anti-Progress??? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Brin conveniently forgets WWI (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Don't reject Brin's ideas because you loved LOTR (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Please read page 4 of the article before replying (Score:3, Informative)
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 )
Brin enjoys taking contrarian views . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Feudalism isn't that old (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The Point of the LOTR (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Brin doesn't know his Tolkien (Score:4, Insightful)
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 best quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Bzzzt, you lose (Score:3, Interesting)
It does have it's moments, to be sure, but funniest ever?
Lord Of The Rings is not backwards-thinking (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Brin gets it wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:He's right - Return of the Ring will be better. (Score:2)
Re:If Peter Jackson were to do another in this gen (Score:3, Funny)
OOH OOH! I know! He could do Shannara! Same story, same characters, subsitute "sword" for "ring" and do a few chinese action sequences so the overdubbing when the characters say "sword" instead of "ring" fits, and hes got an instant million-seller!
Maeryk
Re:If Peter Jackson were to do another in this gen (Score:2)
Re:Well, Brin's article was mostly successful (Score:3, Interesting)
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?