Shallow “Representation”

[Deimos]

The Frankfurt School were the apologist Marxists who were confronted with the obviousness of Nazism and Bolshevism being catastrophic failures at creating "a workers Utopia." They collectively blamed a new culprit: the "superstructure" composed of religion, culture, family, tradition, race and patrimony that favored oppressors and perpetuated the oppressed. So they recommended "cultural revolution," or a complete deconstruction of every shred of religion, culture, family, tradition etc.

When I say the Inklings "vowed" to counter the Frankfurt School, I did not mean the minutes of the Inklings include a solemn ceremony where all members of the society swore an oath. I mean that literally everything the Frankfurt School stood for, the dismantling of legend, religion, tradition and family, was the exact OPPOSITE of what the Inklings ALL sought to promote, preserve and advance. As a group the Inklings mostly despised politics . . . again, the opposite of the Frankfurt School who famously believed "everything is political." The only discussion I've ever read about the group having any kind of ideological "litmus test" was Williams' notes on the lively debate that occurred when Lewis suggested his wife, Joy Davidman, a former atheist and American communist activist, be invited to join in their regular discussions. Again, that discussion ended with agreement to adopt a liberal western "free speech" approach for the Inklings - another position taken completely opposing the "mind control" propagandization advocated by Frankfurt schooler Erick Fromm. Is it purely "coincidental" that this group of well-educated and wide-world-viewed Oxford dons just happened to take positions routinely opposite the leading think tank in Germany at the time? My research suggests such an assumption severely underestimates the collective brilliance of Lewis, Tolkien, Williams and others.

So, I've got to ask this...: Was Joy Davidman allowed to join the discussions?
I have to confess that based on what I've read about her, including what Lewis wrote, I've never liked her.
(Channeling Humphrey Bogart: "pushy broad.")

 

[Trevaduin]

Wow, you are tedious. I've explained that you interpret "vow" wrong. It is used more like "Frodo vowed to keep Farmer Maggot's threat in mind." No, they did NOT have a ceremony and I never said they did. That argument is just "petty." See my post above for actual "meaning."

As for the Battle of the Thousand Caves being the "only fierce bloody war" between Elves and Men, "If all the grievances that stand between Elves and Dwarves are to be brought up here, we may as well abandon this Council (Gandalf)." You miss that Mim accused elves of "hunting his kin" even before the Battle, and that Beren led a host of men and elves against the Dwarves of Nogrod after the Battle. You also forget that the narrator in the hobbit explains that the ill will between the elves of Mirkwood and the dwarves goes back to "wars" (plural) fought over the years specifically regarding disputed treasure.

Your suggestion that "it isn't a race war if all members of the race didn't participate" is absurd. Conscientious objectors exist in all race wars, on Earth, and it can be assumed, in Middle-Earth as well.

Another tedious argument is your similar misapplication of set theory when it comes to intermarriage. Beren/Luthien, Tuor/Idril, and Aragorn/Arwen do not "prove" intermarriage between elves and men . . . the fact that these unions are called out as historically significant exceptions means they are exactly that, EXCEPTIONS to a rule that elves don't intermarry with humans. You argue as though, if any distant relative of a Fellowship member married the distant relative of any other Fellowship member, my assertion is somehow proven wrong. But my point actually was that ALL of Peter Jackson's casting of the Fellowship likely had a common ancestor within the last 400 years . . . but that is not and could never be true of Tolkien's Fellowship because of the lack of intermarriage between the races represented (as a general rule).

I agree with the commenter who noted that this petty bickering over differing word usage is a waste of time. Once I've clarified my meaning, you may still disagree . . . but disagree providing facts and references that address the "meaning." Tolkien could have taken a Faerie Queene approach to elves and dwarves, but instead filled their history with conflict from their very conception by Iluvatar and Aule. My article suggests he did that "on purpose." Debate that!

 

[Amon Rudh]

I think this has actually been an amazing debate, much of which is still above my head as a relative Tolkien novice. I do think that it's right to (politely and within forum rules) challenge statements purporting to be fact (i.e. what Tolkien (and CT) said or wrote or is evidenced in some other verifiable medium) and perhaps this illustrates that its important to clearly state whether an assertion is fact or deliberation and if the former, the source. This seems, based on recent tussles to be critical if wishing to avoid reasonable challenges if it appears to be the latter but apparently stated as fact.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

Wow, you are tedious.

No doubt.

I've explained that you interpret "vow" wrong. It is used more like "Frodo vowed to keep Farmer Maggot's threat in mind." No, they did NOT have a ceremony and I never said they did. That argument is just "petty." See my post above for actual "meaning."

I think I acknowledged your admitting there was no vow, and no evidence of them referring to the Frankfurt school.
I don't think I mentioned anything about a "ceremony", so I am at a loss as to why you are referring to a ceremony.

As for the Battle of the Thousand Caves being the "only fierce bloody war" between Elves and Men, "If all the grievances that stand between Elves and Dwarves are to be brought up here, we may as well abandon this Council (Gandalf)."

I think you mean Elves and Dwarves rather than Men.
And I think I mentioned earlier something about some grudges being held.

You miss that Mim accused elves of "hunting his kin" even before the Battle,

You had not mentioned Mim previously.
But yes some Elves hunted the Petty-Dwarves,not realizing they were Incarnates, when the Petty-Dwaves first showed up in Beleriand (before the Dwarves of Belegost and Nogrod came into Beleriand). So 8000 years or something before the events of LotR.
They stopped when they realized that the Petty-Dwarves were some sort of Dwarf-kind, and left them alone after.

and that Beren led a host of men and elves against the Dwarves of Nogrod after the Battle.

Part of the same 'war'. Again 6500 years prior, and not Gimli's folk.
Also it was not a "host of men and elves", but just elves and in one variant Ents. No Men saw Beren after he and Luthien returned from Mandos.

You also forget that the narrator in the hobbit explains that the ill will between the elves of Mirkwood and the dwarves goes back to "wars" (plural) fought over the years specifically regarding disputed treasure.

"In ancient days they had had wars with some of the dwarves, whom they accused of stealing their treasure. It is only fair to say that the dwarves gave a different account, and said that they only took what was their due, for the elf-king had bargained with them to shape his raw gold and silver, and had afterwards refused to give them their pay. If the elf-king had a weakness it was for treasure, especially for silver and white gems; and though his hoard was rich, he was ever eager for more, since he had not yet as great a treasure as other elf-lords of old."
This is a reference to the events involving Thingol and the Dwarves of Nogrod.
And "In ancient days" does not equal "for most of known history".
And "...Thorin’s family had had nothing to do with the old quarrel I have spoken of."

Your suggestion that "it isn't a race war if all members of the race didn't participate" is absurd. Conscientious objectors exist in all race wars, on Earth, and it can be assumed, in Middle-Earth as well.

You keep providing quotes of things I did not say.
What you claimed was:
"But Tolkien’s version stitches together a “Fellowship” whose families don’t intermarry, comprising races at
(Notice how I actually quote you, rather than inventing a quote and attributing it to you.
What I asked was:
"Which groups of the Fellowship's races are at fierce bloody war with each other?"
So far you have provided none. But rather made some excuse about what you claimed was "fierce bloody war with each other for most of known history" as meaning "cold war"....

Another tedious argument is your similar misapplication of set theory when it comes to intermarriage. Beren/Luthien, Tuor/Idril, and Aragorn/Arwen do not "prove" intermarriage between elves and men

Your claim was "“Fellowship” whose families don’t intermarry,".
I pointed out there was intermarriage in the families.
It strange to claim that the intermarriage of Elves and Men does not prove intermarriage of Elves and Men.

. . . the fact that these unions are called out as historically significant exceptions means they are exactly that, EXCEPTIONS to a rule that elves don't intermarry with humans.

Correct, such intermarriages were very rare.
Is that what you meant to say when you claimed about the Fellowship "whose families don’t intermarry?
Did you mean rather that Elves and Men only very rarely intermarry?

You argue as though, if any distant relative of a Fellowship member married the distant relative of any other Fellowship member, my assertion is somehow proven wrong.

If your assertion was "“Fellowship” whose families don’t intermarry,", and I noted intermarriage in various families in the Fellowship, then your claim is wrong.

But my point actually was that ALL of Peter Jackson's casting of the Fellowship likely had a common ancestor within the last 400 years . . . but that is not and could never be true of Tolkien's Fellowship because of the lack of intermarriage between the races represented (as a general rule).

Gandalf looks like an old man, and Tolkien describes Gandalf as looking like an old man.
Aragorn is the product of intermarriage between Elves and Men (and a Maia).
Aragorn and Boromir should bear some resemblance to each other, both being tall, fair, dark-haired Men of Numenorean descent.
The Hobbits should bear some resemblance to each other (small, unbearded) and Frodo, Merry and Pippin were related.
While Gimli should be short, thick and bearded.
They (Gimli and the Hobbits) are made to appear that way
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Peter Jackson’s film adaptation makes the group look superficially homogenous".
Homogeneous how, exactly?

I agree with the commenter who noted that this petty bickering over differing word usage is a waste of time. Once I've clarified my meaning, you may still disagree . . . but disagree providing facts and references that address the "meaning." Tolkien could have taken a Faerie Queene approach to elves and dwarves, but instead filled their history with conflict from their very conception by Iluvatar and Aule. My article suggests he did that "on purpose." Debate that!

You might not need to clarify your meaning, if you would more carefully choose your words.
Because, so far, your various initial usage of words such as:
"The Inklings vowed to fight the cynicism and godlessness of their counterparts at the Frankfurt School in Germany."

Has turned out to be clarified as you not meaning they actually vowed something about the Frankfurt School.

and:
"But Tolkien’s version stitches together a “Fellowship” whose families don’t intermarry, comprising races at fierce bloody war with each other for most of known history."

Has turned out to mean a 'cold war' or 'grievances' after a war 6500+ years ago between between some Elves related to Legolas, and Dwarves not related to Gimli, rather than a fiece bloody war that has gone on for 6500+ years...
Or some distrust on the part of the Hobbits...
While the "don't intermarry" turns out to mean there was some intermarriage...

 

[Olorgando]

The only discussion I've ever read about the group having any kind of ideological "litmus test" was Williams' notes on the lively debate that occurred when Lewis suggested his wife, Joy Davidman, a former atheist and American communist activist, be invited to join in their regular discussions.

Charles Williams died in 1945.
Joy Gresham née Davidman first wrote C.S. Lewis a fan letter a few months before April 1950. They first met in person in 1952. They were married ("only" in a civil ceremony) on 23 April 1956, and in a Church of England Ceremony on 21 March 1957.

Charles Williams could never have made any notes on Joy Davidman in any form, this statement completely contradicts historical facts.

 

[Trevaduin]

Charles Williams died in 1945.
Joy Gresham née Davidman first wrote C.S. Lewis a fan letter a few months before April 1950. They first met in person in 1952. They were married ("only" in a civil ceremony) on 23 April 1956, and in a Church of England Ceremony on 21 March 1957.

Charles Williams could never have made any notes on Joy Davidman in any form, this statement completely contradicts historical facts.

Finally, a comment that enlightens and corrects. According to Emma Plaskitt, writing for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/92544), "As with many Oxford societies during this time, membership was exclusively male, and members reacted with discomfort and some resentment when Lewis later made attempts to include his American wife, the Jewish writer and former communist and atheist Joy Gresham (née Davidman)." So the event took place, but it was not, as you say, Williams who wrote about it. I stand corrected on THIS POINT.

The question now is who wrote most extensively about this event that "caused discomfort and resentment" (and for me, why Williams' defense of "free speech" came to mind)? The most direct connection between Davidman and Williams was their common friendship with Dorothy Sayers, and I will search "Dorothy and Jack: The Transforming Friendship of Dorothy L. Sayers and C.S. Lewis" by Gina Dalfonzo. Dorothy first became aware of the Inkling discussion group (to which she was "definitely not invited") through her friendship with both Lewis and Williams.

I note that Humphrey Carpenter lists only 19 men as having been part of the Inklings. His superior research suggests to me the debate ended without Joy Davidman becoming a "member" - a word I tremble to mention as it will undoubtedly draw a swarm of criticism that the "Inklings had no membership roster," and "How do I know she wasn't member?," and "Which 'Inkling' group (multiple groups used that name over time) was she NOT a member of?"

My recollection is that the same source linking Williams' defense of free speech to the question of Davidman's inclusion mentioned Davidman's declining health and the fact that, whether invited or not, she was simply unable to attend. Which also could be why Carpenter didn't include her.

 

[Olorgando]

Is it purely "coincidental" that this group of well-educated and wide-world-viewed Oxford dons just happened to take positions routinely opposite the leading think tank in Germany at the time?

It could very well be coincidental, and until I see conclusive quotes to the contrary, I lean heavily towards the conclusion that it was.

The Inklings came from quite varied backgrounds, had in common (to a degree) a conservative Christian world-view - with some decisive differences, which Humphrey Carpenter points out in his 1978 biography of the group.

The Frankfurt School was a school of social theory and critical philosophy associated with an institute at Frankfurt University beginning 1929, leaving Germany in 1933 after Hitler's rise to power, and returning to Frankfurt University in 1953. So very much more a formal, institutional group than the very informal friends of C.S. Lewis who comprised the Inklings.

That the known (published) views of the Inklings were incompatible with those (published) of the Frankfurt School - well, so were the views of innumerable other groups on either side of the divide, without any one specific group necessarily forming their views in opposing reaction to a specific group of the other side. That the Inklings (or perhaps only single members) had taken note of the Frankfurt School is possible, given the 10-year overlap between the latter's foundation in 1929 and Charles Williams joining the former in 1939. That the Frankfurt School was ever a topic for discussions of the Inklings remains entirely unclear so far.

As to 'coincidence'.
I've done quite a bit of reading on neuroscience since German science author Stefan Klein's 2002 book "Die Glücksformel", translated into English in 2006 under the title "The Science of Happiness", but more on topic his 2004 book "Alles Zufall" (apparently untranslated).
In a nutshell:
In the trinity "causation, correlation and coincidence" we humans hunt for the first like a junkie looking for his next fix, while we rebel at the last. It comes down to non-professionals being pathetically lousy in probability and statistics (as intuitive statisticians, lots of insects like ants have us beat!). Actually, causation turns out to be a hummingbird to coincidence's brachiosaurus (or if you prefer an animal not yet extinct - if just barely - blue whale). This deficiency of ours might be related to the one that leads us to recognize faces all over the place where they ain't; unless perhaps one is an aficionado of some of the modern forms of art like impressionism, expressionism, surrealism, cubism, dadaism and I don't know what other -ism.

 

[Trevaduin]

No doubt.




I think I acknowledged your admitting there was no vow, and no evidence of them referring to the Frankfurt school.
I don't think I mentioned anything about a "ceremony", so I am at a loss as to why you are referring to a ceremony.


I think you mean Elves and Dwarves rather than Men.
And I think I mentioned earlier something about some grudges being held.



You had not mentioned Mim previously.
But yes some Elves hunted the Petty-Dwarves,not realizing they were Incarnates, when the Petty-Dwaves first showed up in Beleriand (before the Dwarves of Belegost and Nogrod came into Beleriand). So 8000 years or something before the events of LotR.
They stopped when they realized that the Petty-Dwarves were some sort of Dwarf-kind, and left them alone after.


Part of the same 'war'. Again 6500 years prior, and not Gimli's folk.
Also it was not a "host of men and elves", but just elves and in one variant Ents. No Men saw Beren after he and Luthien returned from Mandos.


"In ancient days they had had wars with some of the dwarves, whom they accused of stealing their treasure. It is only fair to say that the dwarves gave a different account, and said that they only took what was their due, for the elf-king had bargained with them to shape his raw gold and silver, and had afterwards refused to give them their pay. If the elf-king had a weakness it was for treasure, especially for silver and white gems; and though his hoard was rich, he was ever eager for more, since he had not yet as great a treasure as other elf-lords of old."
This is a reference to the events involving Thingol and the Dwarves of Nogrod.
And "In ancient days" does not equal "for most of known history".
And "...Thorin’s family had had nothing to do with the old quarrel I have spoken of."


You keep providing quotes of things I did not say.
What you claimed was:
"But Tolkien’s version stitches together a “Fellowship” whose families don’t intermarry, comprising races at
(Notice how I actually quote you, rather than inventing a quote and attributing it to you.
What I asked was:
"Which groups of the Fellowship's races are at fierce bloody war with each other?"
So far you have provided none. But rather made some excuse about what you claimed was "fierce bloody war with each other for most of known history" as meaning "cold war"....



Your claim was "“Fellowship” whose families don’t intermarry,".
I pointed out there was intermarriage in the families.
It strange to claim that the intermarriage of Elves and Men does not prove intermarriage of Elves and Men.




Correct, such intermarriages were very rare.
Is that what you meant to say when you claimed about the Fellowship "whose families don’t intermarry?
Did you mean rather that Elves and Men only very rarely intermarry?


If your assertion was "“Fellowship” whose families don’t intermarry,", and I noted intermarriage in various families in the Fellowship, then your claim is wrong.



Gandalf looks like an old man, and Tolkien describes Gandalf as looking like an old man.
Aragorn is the product of intermarriage between Elves and Men (and a Maia).
Aragorn and Boromir should bear some resemblance to each other, both being tall, fair, dark-haired Men of Numenorean descent.
The Hobbits should bear some resemblance to each other (small, unbearded) and Frodo, Merry and Pippin were related.
While Gimli should be short, thick and bearded.
They (Gimli and the Hobbits) are made to appear that way
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Peter Jackson’s film adaptation makes the group look superficially homogenous".
Homogeneous how, exactly?



You might not need to clarify your meaning, if you would more carefully choose your words.
Because, so far, your various initial usage of words such as:
"The Inklings vowed to fight the cynicism and godlessness of their counterparts at the Frankfurt School in Germany."

Has turned out to be clarified as you not meaning they actually vowed something about the Frankfurt School.

and:
"But Tolkien’s version stitches together a “Fellowship” whose families don’t intermarry, comprising races at fierce bloody war with each other for most of known history."

Has turned out to mean a 'cold war' or 'grievances' after a war 6500+ years ago between between some Elves related to Legolas, and Dwarves not related to Gimli, rather than a fiece bloody war that has gone on for 6500+ years...
Or some distrust on the part of the Hobbits...
While the "don't intermarry" turns out to mean there was some intermarriage...

The Oxford Reference dictionary on "vows" - "A solemn promise made with a religious sanction. Jacob vowed that if God protected him he would give him a tenth of what he earned (Gen. 28: 20–22)." Other than the author of Genesis deeming that a failure to tithe would trigger a religious sanction recognized by Jacob, what "evidence" is presented that Jacob actually "took a vow?" To be annoyingly querulous - where do I mention a "vow" naming the Frankfurt School? My actual verbiage (which you have misquoted now more than once) is that the Inklings vowed "to fight the cynicism and godlessness" - two subjective traits that I, as author, ascribe to the Frankfurt School. Did you want to engage in a discussion of Inkling views on "cynicism," (def. an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest) and godlessness? That would be more productive.

For a good taste of how one Inkling viewed the religious sanction against "cynicism" read any Williams novel. Sorina Higgins, in her Introduction to Charles Williams, states "In each novel, sacramental objects or occult adepts unleash spiritual forces that threaten destruction. Preservation is achieved by the imperial mastery of a person surrendered to divine will." An entire literary legacy where "cynicism" is punished by destruction, rescued only by subjugating self-interest to God's will - possibly more consistent than Jacob paying his tithe . . . and Oxford deemed that a "vow." I stand by my word usage.

Yes, some have suggested the Hobbit narrator was referring to the Battle of Menegroth . . . but you seem to ignore the plural "wars." Tolkien's narrator was either "wrong," or you are and the Battle of the Thousand Caves was merely one battle in multiple "wars."

It matters nothing how demeaning either you or Tolkien's First Age elves were of "petty dwarves," a name, I point out, never assumed by the dwarves themselves. The real question is not how elves viewed petty dwarves, but how the Seven Fathers viewed the hunting (fierce) and killing (bloody) of their relatives. Again, my point is made if THEY (not you) viewed that practice as a fierce bloody assault on "their kind."

Again, in the context of the discussion, racial hatred is often spurred by one oft-repeated, frequently exaggerated-over-time offense. But the exaggeration serves only to perpetuate further violence and the PERCEPTION of violence. I will grant you that the slaying of Thingol may be such a seminal event . . . but the fact that it is still cited and "top of mind" (at least at the Council of Elrond) tells us that it was not likely the only, nor the last "fierce bloody violence" perceived between elves and dwarves. Again, my point in context is made not if you, as a Tolkien reader, can cite multiple events of elf-dwarf violence. My point is that Tolkien wrote Legolas and Gimli as characters who would perceive themselves to be the generational heirs of a history of fierce, bloody conflict - where the awakening of Duren's Bane is held by the elves as an offense caused by dwarves, and the failure of elves to support the Battle of Azanulbizar is blamed by dwarves for the greatest carnage of their race in history.

Do you see how your petty "word-parsing" is both incorrect, and fails when turned back on yourself, and more importantly, misses a much more intriguing inquiry into why Tolkien wrote what he wrote?

 

[Tar-Elenion]

The Oxford Reference dictionary on "vows" - "A solemn promise made with a religious sanction. Jacob vowed that if God protected him he would give him a tenth of what he earned (Gen. 28: 20–22)." Other than the author of Genesis deeming that a failure to tithe would trigger a religious sanction recognized by Jacob, what "evidence" is presented that Jacob actually "took a vow?" To be annoyingly querulous - where do I mention a "vow" naming the Frankfurt School? My actual verbiage (which you have misquoted now more than once) is that the Inklings vowed "to fight the cynicism and godlessness" - two subjective traits that I, as author, ascribe to the Frankfurt School. Did you want to engage in a discussion of Inkling views on "cynicism," (def. an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest) and godlessness? That would be more productive.

I don't recall mentioning Genesis, Jacob or tithing.
Your actual quote, which I provided in the post you are quoting was:
"The Inklings vowed to fight the cynicism and godlessness of their counterparts at the Frankfurt School in Germany."

You have yet to provide any evidence of this.

For a good taste of how one Inkling viewed the religious sanction against "cynicism" read any Williams novel. Sorina Higgins, in her Introduction to Charles Williams, states "In each novel, sacramental objects or occult adepts unleash spiritual forces that threaten destruction. Preservation is achieved by the imperial mastery of a person surrendered to divine will." An entire literary legacy where "cynicism" is punished by destruction, rescued only by subjugating self-interest to God's will - possibly more consistent than Jacob paying his tithe . . . and Oxford deemed that a "vow." I stand by my word usage.

You can stand by your word usage all you want. You have yet to provide any vow from the Inklings about the Frankfurt School or their "counterparts" therein.

Yes, some have suggested the Hobbit narrator was referring to the Battle of Menegroth . . . but you seem to ignore the plural "wars." Tolkien's narrator was either "wrong," or you are and the Battle of the Thousand Caves was merely one battle in multiple "wars."

Name the multiple wars.
And still in "ancient days" not what you claimed, which was "at fierce bloody war with each other for most of known history" .and are unable to support.

It matters nothing how demeaning either you or Tolkien's First Age elves were of "petty dwarves," a name, I point out, never assumed by the dwarves themselves. The real question is not how elves viewed petty dwarves, but how the Seven Fathers viewed the hunting (fierce) and killing (bloody) of their relatives. Again, my point is made if THEY (not you) viewed that practice as a fierce bloody assault on "their kind."

The great Dwarves despised the Petty-Dwarves whom they had driven out of their communities. However they acknowledged kinship and resented their treatment by the Elves.
This grievance was set aside (by the great Dwarves) when they made treaties with the Sindar and it was noted that the Petty-Dwarves had attacked the Sindar with out warning and in ambush.

Your point, and I will quote it again, was that the "“Fellowship” whose families don’t intermarry, comprising races at fierce bloody war with each other for most of known history."

You have provided instances of fighting between some Dwarves (who specifically are not part of Gimli's people and some Elves (who have some relation too Legolas.
That happened 6500+ years in the past. Not through most of known history.

And Hobbits being suspicious of outsiders.

Again, in the context of the discussion, racial hatred is often spurred by one oft-repeated, frequently exaggerated-over-time offense. But the exaggeration serves only to perpetuate further violence and the PERCEPTION of violence.

Hmmm... "exaggeration" like 'fierce bloody wars through most of known history'....

I will grant you that the slaying of Thingol may be such a seminal event . . . but the fact that it is still cited and "top of mind" (at least at the Council of Elrond) tells us that it was not likely the only, nor the last "fierce bloody violence" perceived between elves and dwarves. Again, my point in context is made not if you, as a Tolkien reader, can cite multiple events of elf-dwarf violence.

Your point would made if you could if you cite the multiple fierce bloody wars the races that comprised the Fellowship fought with each other through history, instead all you have noted is a couple of battles 6500 years in the past.
And some incidents with the Petty-Dwarves (who were not members of the Fellowship) longer ago than that.

My point is that Tolkien wrote Legolas and Gimli as characters who would perceive themselves to be the generational heirs of a history of fierce, bloody conflict - where the awakening of Duren's Bane is held by the elves as an offense caused by dwarves, and the failure of elves to support the Battle of Azanulbizar is blamed by dwarves for the greatest carnage of their race in history.

Where exactly did Tolkien write about the Dwarves blaming Elves for failing to support the Battle of Azanulbizar?

Now the "fierce, bloody" wars for "most of known history" are a perception.....

Do you see how your petty "word-parsing" is both incorrect, and fails when turned back on yourself, and more importantly, misses a much more intriguing inquiry into why Tolkien wrote what he wrote?

What I see is that you made a bunch of ill-considered statements, pretended they were facts and became upset when this was pointed out...

 

[Olorgando]

The Inklings vowed to fight the cynicism and godlessness of their counterparts at the Frankfurt School in Germany.

This is from the fourth paragraph of your original post. It is an unequivocal and unambiguous statement.

To be annoyingly querulous - where do I mention a "vow" naming the Frankfurt School?

In exactly this part of your original post.
Did you say that the Inklings were "opposed" to "cynicism and godlessness" generally? No, and I'd guess they were in each his own way cynical about parts of the modernity that they were all uncomfortable with in various ways, to say the least, and probably stated such cynicism at times.

No. You said "they vowed". Not just that but "vowed to fight". Not "cynicism and godlessness" generally, but specifically "of their counterparts at the Frankfurt School in Germany." You claim that they actively did something - vow - and that the vow was to actively do something else - fight - and that this vow to fight was aimed at a specific group - the Frankfurt School. You dug the trap you're in with this ill-considered claim, all by yourself. There's something C.S. Lewis-ish about your above post (Lewis was aware of his tendency to dogmatic statements, but didn't refrain from them until early in 1948, Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, attacked claims Lewis had made in his 1947 book "Miracles". "Certainly after it all was over, Lewis himself was in very low spirits." (Carpenter, "Inklings"). And had learnt his lesson. (ibid))

 

[Trevaduin]

The answer citing Jacob in usage of "vow" is Biblical and quoted verbatim from Oxford Reference - it is cited to illustrate how YOUR usage is incorrect and is not the conventional one.

"You apparently vow to pick fights with scholars who are more serious than yourself."

Now diagram that sentence: You pick fights . . . . but whether or not it is with a "scholar" is not attributed to you, but is a title bestowed by the author of the sentence, and the additional parenthetical "who are more serious than yourself" is entirely an opinion with which you may disagree. Now, go and diagram the sentence about Inklings using that same construction (as you now know the author intended).

How many times must a person write the words "in context" for you to admit that "in context" the discussion of race war was ALWAYS ABOUT PERCEPTION and it was your mistake to ever assume it was otherwise.

This will be my last post disagreeing with you on how to read plurals, parse the meaning of simple words, and bicker over a construction of a sentence incorrectly diagrammed by you (especially after the author informs you of the correct construction).

All other commenters on this thread are welcome and appreciated, and I look forward to engaging with you.

 

[Tar-Elenion]

The answer citing Jacob in usage of "vow" is Biblical and quoted verbatim from Oxford Reference - it is cited to illustrate how YOUR usage is incorrect and is not the conventional one.

"You apparently vow to pick fights with scholars who are more serious than yourself."

Now diagram that sentence: You pick fights . . . . but whether or not it is with a "scholar" is not attributed to you, but is a title bestowed by the author of the sentence, and the additional parenthetical "who are more serious than yourself" is entirely an opinion with which you may disagree. Now, go and diagram the sentence about Inklings using that same construction (as you now know the author intended).

Your actual quote was:
"The Inklings vowed to fight the cynicism and godlessness of their counterparts at the Frankfurt School in Germany."

You have yet to provide any evidence of this.

Other than seeming to say that when you wrote they vowed, you did not mean they vowed and that by Frankfurt School you did not mean the Frankfurt School.? Or something...

How many times must a person write the words "in context" for you to admit that "in context" the discussion of race war was ALWAYS ABOUT PERCEPTION and it was your mistake to ever assume it was otherwise.

The context you started with:
"“The Lord of the Rings” is, in its essence, a study in racial conflict and comparative merit in coexistence and cooperation. “Representation” is a thing in Tolkien as each member of his Fellowship is selected to “represent their peoples.” Peter Jackson’s film adaptation makes the group look superficially homogenous. But Tolkien’s version stitches together a “Fellowship” whose families don’t intermarry, comprising races at fierce bloody war with each other for most of known history."

There is nothing in there about "perception"
It is simply a bald statement. You claim the races of the Fellowship have been at fierce bloody war with each other for most of known history. You attempt to back this up with a 'bloody war' that took place in ancient history, and a battle that did not happen, in recent history.
( And Hobbits being suspicious of outsiders.)
It is only in your latest posts that you are introducing this {as a 'perception' of the characters, rather than a reality of the history?).
Perhaps it is just your perception and you are transferring that to what Tolkien wrote.

This will be my last post disagreeing with you on how to read plurals, parse the meaning of simple words, and bicker over a construction of a sentence incorrectly diagrammed by you (especially after the author informs you of the correct construction).

All other commenters on this thread are welcome and appreciated, and I look forward to engaging with you.

That is a shame.
I take it that you can not supply where Tolkien wrote about "the failure of elves to support the Battle of Azanulbizar is blamed by dwarves for the greatest carnage of their race in history."?

or if "The fact that Fallohides were described as "fair of skin," doesn't mean "white," what it does mean?


Or what you mean by "Peter Jackson’s film adaptation makes the group look superficially homogenous".
Homogeneous how, exactly?

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

...Least of all would he be accepting of any sort of globalism..

May I have your pardon for finding out such description"Riches again start flowing into the city and city itself is renovated, made more fair and beautiful than ever before. Northern lands of the reunited Kingdom are connected with the south again, and riches emerge even in the North, where Shire prospers,", could this source be considered as a phenomenon of "ME's globalism" cause it's a act of belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered.
Why such source still not prevent JRRT's much acceptance of globalism?

 

[Aldarion]

May I have your pardon for finding out such description"Riches again start flowing into the city and city itself is renovated, made more fair and beautiful than ever before. Northern lands of the reunited Kingdom are connected with the south again, and riches emerge even in the North, where Shire prospers,", could this source be considered as a phenomenon of "ME's globalism" cause it's a act of belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered.
Why such source still not prevent JRRT's much acceptance of globalism?

You are confusing globalism with free trade. What the passage there describes is free trade; but look at how Tolkien had Aragorn (his ideal king) handle Shire (his ideal land):

1427 Will Whitfoot resigns. Samwise is elected Mayor of the Shire. Peregrin Took marries Diamond of Long Cleeve. King Elessar issues an edict that Men are not to enter the Shire, and he makes it a Free Land under the protection of the Northern Sceptre.

And also the Druedain:

Without haste and at peace they passed into Anórien, and they came to the Grey Wood under Amon Dn; and there they heard a sound as of drums beating in the hills, though no living thing could be seen. Then Aragorn let the trumpets be blown; and heralds cried: 'Behold the King Elessar is come! The Forest of Drúadan he gives to Ghân-buri-ghân and to his folk, to be their own for ever; and hereafter let no man enter it without their leave!' Then the drums rolled loudly, and were silent.

This is basically an endorsement of ethnic nationalism on Tolkien's part. This by no means prevents people from also trading with each other, and Tolkien's political ideas are actually fairly complex for all that they do not get much "screentime" in his works. But just because goods can cross national borders unfettered (and we do not know that they can - in fact, on several occasions tariffs are mentioned, most notably in Lake town), it does not follow that people can, too.

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

Thanks, @Aldarion, now I realize that globalism wasn't that simple, JRRT's accpetance about modern stuff was much more prudent than I thought.
In addition, @Trevaduin, Here, this thread might be a example to help you