Ringing in a Liberal or Conservative LOTR

[scotsboyuk]

Not everything that happens is the will of Eru, but 'Oft evil will evil mar'. Melkor sought to sing his own creation song, but Illuvatar pointed out "And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory." This did not mean that what Melkor did was OK, but that the creation he marred would now be capable of greater things because its inhabitants must now also be overcomers.

I actually see this as meaning that Melkor's evil was part of Eru's will too. Nothing that Eru created can truely be against his will, it is intrinsically a part of Eru.

This does not necessarily mean that there is no free will, for all are free to act as they please within Eru's plan and ultimately Eru's will is free in deciding what that plan should be.

Does this mean that evil does not exist? To me it does. There is no such thing as evil or goodness, they are mortal concepts we create to define our actions and they are terms, which are constantly subject to change. If there was true evil and true goodness then they would be immutable concepts, yet they are not. What we have is human action and thought, which we interpret based upon current values.

In the context of Tolkien's work this translates into the dichotomy of Melkor pitted against the Valar. Both are carrying out aspects of Eru's plan and both are ultimately part of Eru, they are both necessary for the events in that plan to unfold. The inhabitants of Middle Earth along with the Valar see Melkor as being evil, but look at how Eru treats Melkor's actions, as part of his plan. Eru alone does not judge what it good and evil for Eru recognises both as part of Eru and both to be reliant upon the other.

 

[Snaga]

I think it would be a disservice to Tolkien to say it is straightforwardly conservative or liberal. Real people do not often align neatly in all their views to a single political pole, and Tolkien did not. I think trying to hard to force this debate into the book is unhelpful: Tolkien doesn't address the desirability of a monarchy versus other more democratic forms of rule. He only suggests its better to have a good ruler than a bad one! What does the book say about the role of women? Is Eowyn a role model for emancipated women? Or is Arwen a better role model? Or is Tolkien actually just showing that there are different women in the world, without explicit comment?

On balance, I am well aware that Tolkien is much more conservative than I am. I can find many pointers to that in the book if I want to. Personally, that doesn't make me feel I need to agree with him. He was a fine writer, not a politician. I also find it annoying that people want to tie Tolkien to their own agenda, while trying to ignore the parts of their agenda they don't like. How many conservatives would agree with Tolkiens deep environmentalism?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I ... find it annoying that people want to tie Tolkien to their own agenda, while trying to ignore the parts of their agenda they don't like. How many conservatives would agree with Tolkiens deep environmentalism?

Well, now you put your finger on a general human tendency: groups of "believers," whether of politics or religion "kidnap" the famous and claim them as their own or as a salient example of/for their agenda. Most of the time it's done posthumously so the person in question can make no objections. It happened to Einstein; it happened to Terri Schiavo.

Barley

 

[scotsboyuk]

... Tolkien doesn't address the desirability of a monarchy versus other more democratic forms of rule. He only suggests its better to have a good ruler than a bad one!

Why is a monrchy necessarily undemocratic?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I always found it amusing in the 1960's (and since) that some "critics" contended that a book [LOTR] by such a devout Catholic was in fact a disguised homosexual story. It always seemed to me that that contention spoke volumes about the people making it, rather than saying anything about LOTR.

"Thou seest the mote in thy neighbor's eye, but not the beam in thine own." —Jesus

Barley

 

[Hobbit-GalRosie]

I think it would be a disservice to Tolkien to say it is straightforwardly conservative or liberal. Real people do not often align neatly in all their views to a single political pole, and Tolkien did not. I think trying to hard to force this debate into the book is unhelpful: Tolkien doesn't address the desirability of a monarchy versus other more democratic forms of rule. He only suggests its better to have a good ruler than a bad one! What does the book say about the role of women? Is Eowyn a role model for emancipated women? Or is Arwen a better role model? Or is Tolkien actually just showing that there are different women in the world, without explicit comment?

On balance, I am well aware that Tolkien is much more conservative than I am. I can find many pointers to that in the book if I want to. Personally, that doesn't make me feel I need to agree with him. He was a fine writer, not a politician. I also find it annoying that people want to tie Tolkien to their own agenda, while trying to ignore the parts of their agenda they don't like. How many conservatives would agree with Tolkiens deep environmentalism?

I agree with you about it being better just to let Tolkien's tale be a tale, all polotics aside. Just to make your point for you and contradict it at the same time, I'm conservative on many issues but am all for environmentalism, at least as far as the Tolkien style version goes. I think that since we're reaching the point where PETA claims that we shouldn't even have pets but just observe animals from a safe non-interfering distance Tolkien and I are on the same side, preserve nature whenever possible, but not at the cost of human lives, and don't shoot "shepherds for wolves" as I believe he once said, but I can't remember for sure, I think it was in On Fairy Stories but...could not even exist, or be from something else.

 

[scotsboyuk]

Perhaps it should be remembered that 'conservative and 'liberal' have different meanings outside of the U.S. Whilst I am somewhat conservative I am most definitely liberal by American standards. One should perhaps define exactly what each term means before applying them in any way to Tolkien.

 

[Eledhwen]

Tolkien showed remarkable perception in his portrayal of Eowyn. He was raised in the days when many women - often the youngest daughter - were left in spinsterhood, caring for elderly parents and/or sick siblings. Arwen is too remote from human experience for such comparisons (3000 years young) and was free to spend time in Lothlorien/Rivendell and maybe elsewhere at will. But note that even so, it was Elrond who laid the conditions for her marriage to a mortal (The dialogue of Athrabeth and Finrod points out that once an Elf has fallen in love, it almost never happens that they then choose another mate - exception=Feanor- so it was Aragorn or no-one).

Whoever's in charge, In his letters Tolkien gives me the impression he believes that, sooner or later, an Orc gets hold of a Ring of Power. By the time he wrote LotR he had lived long and seen mistakes on both sides. In the portrayal of the allies against Mordor, his work was not only Catholic (his words) but catholic.

 

[scotsboyuk]

By the time he wrote LotR he had lived long and seen mistakes on both sides. In the portrayal of the allies against Mordor, his work was not only Catholic (his words) but catholic.

How so? The battle between the forces of Man and Mordor has more in common with the political reality of WWII than it does with any single religion. I am loathe to draw even this comparison because it is not entirely applicable to LOTR.

 

[Eledhwen]

How so? The battle between the forces of Man and Mordor has more in common with the political reality of WWII than it does with any single religion. I am loathe to draw even this comparison because it is not entirely applicable to LOTR.

JRR Tolkien to Fr Robert Murray SJ:- The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

... that takes care of Catholic. 'catholic' simply means 'including a wide variety of things' (from Gk 'Katholikos' - universal)

 

[scotsboyuk]

JRR Tolkien to Fr Robert Murray SJ:- The Lord of The Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

Indeed. One wonders though, in the context of this thread, how literal such statements are meant to be taken. For one thing Tolkien was a proponent of not looking for too much in LOTR, rather enjoying it as a story.

Authors have the ability to impart a range of bias in their work, which isn't necessarily as Barthesian as may first appear. It is simple truth when speaking of literary works, not so much technical works. This bias can range from the deliberate to, as mentioned in the quotation, unconscious. But what exactly is being imparted?

Of course there is the Barthesian notion of authorial death and whilst I am not a great proponent of postmodernism there is also the very real prospect of readers interpreting works in any way they see fit. Hence this debate.

Of course one could make a valid argument that a dichotomy exists in LOTR with regards to religion and perhaps extrapolate from this a hypothesis concerning the religious motivations of the author, however, I choose to follow Tolkien's advice and enjoy the story.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

...I choose to follow Tolkien's advice and enjoy the story.

As do I! That keeps me from developing the heartburn that comes with engaging those who treat Tolkien's tales as some sort of Infallible Holy Writ, as if they comprise divinely revelated "Old and New Testaments of Tolkienism."

Barley

 

[joxy]

In the context of Barthesian notions, proponents of postmodernism, dichotomies, extrapolations, hypotheses, and religious motivations, I, too, choose to follow Tolkien's advice and enjoy the story. I prefer the story of course, to be Tolkien's story.

 

[Snaga]

Why is a monrchy necessarily undemocratic?

Because you don't get to vote for a monarch!

I agree with you about it being better just to let Tolkien's tale be a tale, all polotics aside.

I wasn't really saying that. I just don't like it when people falsely attribute to Tolkien (or anyone else) an agenda they have created themselves.

 

[scotsboyuk]

Because you don't get to vote for a monarch!

Britain has a monarchy yet is also democratic, I don't see any conflict between the two.

 

[Snaga]

We in Britain have a constitutional monarchy. It allows us to vote on some matters, but not others. In particular, we don't have an elected head of state. Does it matter? Perhaps not, you might think. On a day to day basis, it appears to make little difference, since an elected government makes key decisions and the queen doesn't. But in theory, the queen can dismiss a government on a whim, which would be wholly undemocratic. I suppose it is part of the constitutional settlement between the monarchy and parliament that she doesn't use this outrageous power. But it is still there. Worse, I believe, is the corrosive power of deference, nostalgia and pomposity that often pervades the public life of Britain - this is the worst effect of a monarchy.

(Sorry... this is now going way off topic.)

 

[joxy]

....in theory, the queen can dismiss a government on a whim....this outrageous power. But it is still there.

She cannot, and it is not.
However, the weekend has shown that all the deference, nostalgia, and pomposity still does pervade the monarchy - though not, as you claim, the country - and they have been mixed in with a nauseating amount of hypocrisy, both by and towards that monarchy.

 

[Inderjit S]

As a staunch republican, I can sympathise with Snaga's point that monarchies are not democratic (takes me back to that Monty Python sktech!) in that monarchs are not elected-well not the recent British monarchy at least, but even if the Queen could dissolve parliament (in the near future), the chances of that actually happening are virtually null, thus any points about the autorcratic nature of her powers are nullified, because her powers cannot be used and are non-existent.

 

[scotsboyuk]

We in Britain have a constitutional monarchy. It allows us to vote on some matters, but not others. In particular, we don't have an elected head of state. Does it matter? Perhaps not, you might think. On a day to day basis, it appears to make little difference, since an elected government makes key decisions and the queen doesn't. But in theory, the queen can dismiss a government on a whim, which would be wholly undemocratic. I suppose it is part of the constitutional settlement between the monarchy and parliament that she doesn't use this outrageous power. But it is still there.

The Queen has no such power. What the Queen can do is to dissolve a parliament at the request of the Prime Minister.

The one power that the Queen does still have is the ability to block legislation by not signing it. It is unlikely that this will ever be used again, the last time being three centuries ago.

The government itself is not exactly democratic. The British people cannot vote for the Prime MInister, we can only vote for MPs who can then choose the leader of their party who may become Prime Minister. The government is also more akin to an elected dictatorship in that it has the ability to pass any law it wishes without fear of it being blocked by the Lords. As mentioned above the only real check on the government's power is the ability of the monarch to block legislation e.g. if the government were to pass a Bill banning elections and used a sufficiently large majority and the Parliament Act to pass it then the Queen would be the only one with the legal ability to stop it becoming law.

Worse, I believe, is the corrosive power of deference, nostalgia and pomposity that often pervades the public life of Britain - this is the worst effect of a monarchy.

Those traits that you criticise so freely are present in all societies, arguably more so in republics. The economic and cultural gap between the rich and poor in America is far greater than it is in Britain. You will also find that the greatest supporters of the monarchy in Britain are chiefly drawn from the working classes. In fact, one finds that the upper class and the working class actually get on rather well, it is usually the middle class who cause the problems by trying to be upwardly mobile and look down upon others or fashionably working class and scornful of anything that may mark them out a snon-working class or 'of the people'.

What you pick out as being deferential others see as being a healthy respect for those leading our country. What you label nostalgia others see as remembering our past and realising that it helps define who we are. What you term pomposity others see as a British way of life, a love of tradition and and a determination to continue doing things as we have always done.

The monarchy may not be perfect and some of its members may cause embaressment, but it is an institution, which has worked well for Britain for over a thousand years. There is no great desire to get rid of the monarchy, even at its lowest ebb in the early 1990s, approval ratings were still around the 70% mark. Her Majesty has devoted her life to the service of Britain and she can never retire, until the moment she dies she will continue to serve this country; as did her father and his father before him and his father before him and his mother before him and so on.

Most Britons recognise the intrinsic value of having a monarchy in that it uniquely identifies us as being British and provides us with a link to that, which has come before our time. Only once in more than 5,000 years has Britain had any other system than a form of monarchy and that proved to be less than popular.

People are far to quick to look upon the negative aspects of the monarchy instead of appreciating its intrinsic qualities that help us define ourselves as a people. With an increasingly bland and postmodern world, in which people use 'celebrity' to define themselves, I am very proud to buck that trend and bow my head to Her Majesty knowing that I my Queen continues to represent all that is British.

 

[Inderjit S]

The government itself is not exactly democratic. The British people cannot vote for the Prime MInister, we can only vote for MPs who can then choose the leader of their party who may become Prime Minister. The government is also more akin to an elected dictatorship in that it has the ability to pass any law it wishes without fear of it being blocked by the Lords. As mentioned above the only real check on the government's power is the ability of the monarch to block legislation e.g. if the government were to pass a Bill banning elections and used a sufficiently large majority and the Parliament Act to pass it then the Queen would be the only one with the legal ability to stop it becoming law.

Technically speaking, that is about as likely as the queen using her powers, unless that is, the people elect a sufficient number of M.P's who are undemocratic. This would be a reflection of the political nature of the populace-a kind of Tocquevillian "tyranny of the majority" (an American phenomenon, as Tocqueville notes) in which the majority elect a undemocratic party, who subsequently set up a dictatorship. (Though sadly there will be few Aurelius's to take up the reins!) The likelihood of such a thing happening is low though.

In fact, one finds that the upper class and the working class actually get on rather well, it is usually the middle class who cause the problems by trying to be upwardly mobile and look down upon others or fashionably working class and scornful of anything that may mark them out a snon-working class or 'of the people'.

Hm..yes, the petty bourgeois do little. Oh yeah, if it wasn’t for the bourgeoisie democracy would never have been created or maintained but never mind that! And how are "those traits" more prevalent than in republics? I am interested in the demographics and stats which back up your views.