Ragnarok
Justin Alistair Lowde
Justin Alistair Lowde wrote in message ...
>In article <7jq0lo$1u...@drn.newsguy.com>, inkliing
><inkl...@newsguy.com> writes
>>so which is jesus - gandalf or frodo? (and don't say neither - that's too
easy)
<snip>
>
>But this is not the place for a long discussion of the Ragnarok spirit.
>Or is it?
>
>Ali
>--
>Justin Alistair Lowde
I vote YES!
R.L.V.
---#----
...I therefore offer some initial remarks.
I am also going to numerically sequence these ideas in imitation of
Wittgenstein. Why? Because I feel like it.
If you feel I've gone on too long please feel free to flame me
savagely...here goes
1. Our modern approaches to ethics are based on a curious mixture of
ingrained Christianity and woolly Existentialism.
1.1 By this is meant the abiding notions that Good wins in the end, that
to be moral is to choose the correct side, that if you repent you will
go to heaven, indeed that there is such a thing as heaven,
1.2 and also, conversely, that all is pointless, everything is relative,
there is no real good and bad, but we have to make our own lives up as
we go along.
2 Against this can be set the Ragnarok Spirit as seen through Tolkien's
eyes,
2.1 Which is his personal view and not the full original Ragnarok
approach.
3 Tolkien himself argued against the Ragnarok attitude of love of combat
and victory (or 'martial heroism' as he put it) in his 1936 lecture to
the British Academy, saying it was militarism for its own ends (note his
experience of the first world war, and the year he said this).
4 But Ragnarok has one crucial difference to all modern ideas, as
follows:
4.1 At Ragnarok, *evil wins in the end*!
4.2 I now quote T. A. Shippey, from The Road To Middle Earth (surely the
best book ever written on Tollers):
"...a major goal of The Lord of the Rings was to dramatise the Theory of
Courage, which Tolkien had said in his British Academy lecture was the
'great contribution' to humanity of the old literature of the north.
The central pillar of that theory was Ragnarok - the day when gods and
men would fight evil and the giants, and inevitably be defeated. Its
great statement was that defeat is no refutation. The right side remains
right even if it has no ultimate hope at all. In a sense this Northern
Mythology asks more of men, even makes more of them, than does
Christianity..."
5 This is what we see in Sam (elsewhere in this NG recently argued by me
and others to be the real hero), who says in what could be described as
Tolkien's great presentation of the Ragnarok Spirit, at the beginning of
Book 6 Ch.3, Mount Doom, "'So that was the job I felt I had to do when I
started', thought Sam, 'to help Mr. Frodo to the last step and then die
with him? Well, if that is the job then I must do it.'....but even as
hope died in Sam, or seemed to die, it was turned to new strength. Sam's
plain hobbit-face grew stern...".
5.1 This is the Ragnarok Spirit.
(5.2 Please go and re-read that whole bit! It is quite simply
magnificent!)
6 My own wording would be, "I'm going to choose the Good whatever you
think, because I'm going to. I don't need another reason. And damn the
lot of you!"
6.1 In the manner of a hero who, when faced with overwhelming odds,
simple decides to draw his sword and charge.
6.2 I therefore propose to this NG that we should all take on board this
attitude, and teach others of it, not in any religious-preaching type
way, but simply because it 'makes more' of us as people to choose this
attitude.
Ali
--
Justin Alistair Lowde
Öjevind Lång
Justin Alistair Lowde hath written:
<snip>
>
>6 My own wording would be, "I'm going to choose the Good whatever you
>think, because I'm going to. I don't need another reason. And damn the
>lot of you!"
>
>6.1 In the manner of a hero who, when faced with overwhelming odds,
>simple decides to draw his sword and charge.
>
>6.2 I therefore propose to this NG that we should all take on board this
>attitude, and teach others of it, not in any religious-preaching type
>way, but simply because it 'makes more' of us as people to choose this
>attitude.
>
>Ali
>--
It is, of course, an attitude that has also been found among Christians at
times. As for fighting the good fight against all odds: Have you read Robert
Brownings: "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came"?
Öjevind
Justin Alistair Lowde
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> writes
>
>It is, of course, an attitude that has also been found among Christians at
>times. As for fighting the good fight against all odds: Have you read Robert
>Brownings: "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came"?
>
>Öjevind
>
>
Yes indeed, all fine stuff, and in a sense you are right. But my point
is that however 'against all odds' the fight is, once you are *dead*
everything will be OK for ever more. Indeed it would be nonsense to
sacrifice eternal joy for 70-odd years of crime/corruption/whatever.
This is a powerful lure, and could indeed be considered selfish: being
good because you want to go to heaven is understandable, but childish.
Remember Pascal's famous wager (Le Pari) from 1630: if God doesn't
exist, no harm is done by being a Christian, but if he does you're a
fool not to be. Therefore on balance you're better off (in game theory)
to choose God, whether you believe or no. How far removed this is from
Ragnarok!
The point of being more of a man is to be found in my previous Sam quote
- in LOTR Sam (and others) definitely do not have any hope of the
hereafter, they are not religious. When Sam sets his face to his own
death in the pursuit of the good, there is no question of his having at
the back of his mind a hope of reward hereafter.
My remarks re the applicability of this concern such things as refusing
to 'sell out' of one's opinions or art: many authors become commercial
in order to be popular, many old socialists 'move with the times' in
order to stay in power. Yet it is usually those who stick to their guns
(an expression meaning fighting to the end) that we respect.
I'm sorry, it's 9.30pm on Saturday and I really must go to the pub. More
later. Ali.
--
Justin Alistair Lowde
RLV
Justin Alistair Lowde wrote in message ...
>In response to this:
>
>Justin Alistair Lowde wrote in message ...
>>In article <7jq0lo$1u...@drn.newsguy.com>, inkliing
>><inkl...@newsguy.com> writes
<snip>
Hello, Ali.
First thank you for following my vote on this subject. Yes, I know you were
wishing to, but thank's anyway. And sorry that it took me so long to get to
it.
>I am also going to numerically sequence these ideas in imitation of
>Wittgenstein. Why? Because I feel like it.
>
>If you feel I've gone on too long please feel free to flame me
>savagely...here goes
Don't tempt me! Don't you know how rabid an unprovoked flamer am I? ;-)
>1. Our modern approaches to ethics are based on a curious mixture of
>ingrained Christianity and woolly Existentialism.
>
>1.1 By this is meant the abiding notions that Good wins in the end, that
>to be moral is to choose the correct side, that if you repent you will
>go to heaven, indeed that there is such a thing as heaven,
Yes. Don't worry be happy.
>1.2 and also, conversely, that all is pointless, everything is relative,
>there is no real good and bad, but we have to make our own lives up as
>we go along.
Up to some point, and for some people. It's more like:
Let's be more or less good, each one in his way, until we get to heaven or
something like that.
>2 Against this can be set the Ragnarok Spirit as seen through Tolkien's
>eyes,
>
>2.1 Which is his personal view and not the full original Ragnarok
>approach.
>
>3 Tolkien himself argued against the Ragnarok attitude of love of combat
>and victory (or 'martial heroism' as he put it) in his 1936 lecture to
>the British Academy, saying it was militarism for its own ends (note his
>experience of the first world war, and the year he said this).
>
>4 But Ragnarok has one crucial difference to all modern ideas, as
>follows:
>
>4.1 At Ragnarok, *evil wins in the end*!
Yeah! Hurrah!
>4.2 I now quote T. A. Shippey, from The Road To Middle Earth (surely the
>best book ever written on Tollers):
"the best book ever written on Tollers"
Ein?
>"...a major goal of The Lord of the Rings was to dramatise the Theory of
>Courage, which Tolkien had said in his British Academy lecture was the
>'great contribution' to humanity of the old literature of the north.
>The central pillar of that theory was Ragnarok - the day when gods and
>men would fight evil and the giants, and inevitably be defeated. Its
>great statement was that defeat is no refutation. The right side remains
>right even if it has no ultimate hope at all. In a sense this Northern
>Mythology asks more of men, even makes more of them, than does
>Christianity..."
Well put. Yes, in Ragnarok people do good because it is good. In
Crhistianity people do good because it is:
a)- God's will
b)- Good
c)- the way to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
Selfish altruism.
Ragnarok is more akin to the Greek heroic spirit. The hero does what he has
to do, even if it means tragedy to him. Only that it is not exactly "good",
but "destiny". The true hero accepts his destiny and carries it to the
(usually bitter) end.
>5 This is what we see in Sam (elsewhere in this NG recently argued by me
>and others to be the real hero), who says in what could be described as
>Tolkien's great presentation of the Ragnarok Spirit, at the beginning of
>Book 6 Ch.3, Mount Doom, "'So that was the job I felt I had to do when I
>started', thought Sam, 'to help Mr. Frodo to the last step and then die
>with him? Well, if that is the job then I must do it.'....but even as
>hope died in Sam, or seemed to die, it was turned to new strength. Sam's
>plain hobbit-face grew stern...".
Yes, Sam is a hero, also in the Greek sense. His duty is to serve Frodo. He
must do so, even in the face of certain death.
Frodo too is a hero in the Greek sense, but I don't think he fits equally
well in Ragnarok. The difference is, Sam is sure that they both are going to
die, most important, Frodo is going to die, and so his mission will
ultimately fail. On the contrary, Frodo knows he is going to die, but he has
the hope of carrying his mission and saving ME. He is Greek-heroic because
he does his duty in spite of the fact that it will bring him doom, but he is
not Ragnarok-heroic because his mission is not doomed to fail (although in
some passages, he seems to think that he won't succeed).
>5.1 This is the Ragnarok Spirit.
>
>(5.2 Please go and re-read that whole bit! It is quite simply
>magnificent!)
Yes.
>6 My own wording would be, "I'm going to choose the Good whatever you
>think, because I'm going to. I don't need another reason. And damn the
>lot of you!"
>
>6.1 In the manner of a hero who, when faced with overwhelming odds,
>simple decides to draw his sword and charge.
>
>6.2 I therefore propose to this NG that we should all take on board this
>attitude, and teach others of it, not in any religious-preaching type
>way, but simply because it 'makes more' of us as people to choose this
>attitude.
YES, LET'S GO ALL TOGETHER! SWORDS OUT, LANCES AND MACES! GO FOR THEM!!!!
Ooops, got carried away! ;-)
Pardon my kidding, I'm feeling playful right now. But I appreciate and quite
agree with your points.
On the moral front, I agree with you in the defense of Good against all
odds, just for the sake of it. But the problem is to determine what is Good.
Here is where modern moral relativism has its say. "Sacred" good, given to
us by our elders or sages is no longer accepted just because it is
"written". People tend to question "morals" that previously were given as
fact. And so the lack of Ragnarok spirit. How are we going to fight the Ice
Giants, if we cannot distinguish them?
IMO, this is more good than bad. There have been too many times that some
people has told us that there were Ice Giants, and they turned out to be
people just like us. After they had been massacred, or they had massacred
us. I'm sure that many nazis fought valiantly to the end in pure Ragnarok
spirit against what they believed to be Ice Giants. Beware of Loki.
R.L.V.
---#----
Justin Alistair Lowde
In article <3767c...@sahara.cablecat.com>, RLV <xm...@tinn.net> writes
> The difference is, Sam is sure that they both are going to
>die, most important, Frodo is going to die, and so his mission will
>ultimately fail. On the contrary, Frodo knows he is going to die, but he has
>the hope of carrying his mission and saving ME.
I'm not sure Frodo had _you_ in mind *all* the time...
Hee Hee :-)
Ali
(NB serious response later tonight)
--
Justin Alistair Lowde
RLV
Justin Alistair Lowde wrote in message ...
>
>>die, most important, Frodo is going to die, and so his mission will
>>ultimately fail. On the contrary, Frodo knows he is going to die, but he
has
>>the hope of carrying his mission and saving ME.
>
Well, he should!
>Hee Hee :-)
Haa, haaa! (good one ;-)
>(NB serious response later tonight)
(It probably will not be able to check it until Friday, but go ahead,
please)
R.L.V.
---#----
Justin Alistair Lowde
>odds, just for the sake of it. But the problem is to determine what is Good.
>Here is where modern moral relativism has its say. "Sacred" good, given to
>us by our elders or sages is no longer accepted just because it is
>"written". People tend to question "morals" that previously were given as
>fact. And so the lack of Ragnarok spirit. How are we going to fight the Ice
>Giants, if we cannot distinguish them?
>IMO, this is more good than bad. There have been too many times that some
>people has told us that there were Ice Giants, and they turned out to be
>people just like us. After they had been massacred, or they had massacred
>us. I'm sure that many nazis fought valiantly to the end in pure Ragnarok
>spirit against what they believed to be Ice Giants. Beware of Loki.
I think you are touching on an important point here. Yes, 'Serb good
Albanian bad' doesn't lead to goodness, at one extreme, and also at the
other extreme, 'All belief systems are good, and Science is just one
belief system' is also incredibly dangerous.
So how to work out the difference, when you can't have 'it is written',
but you can't just decide your own 'good' for yourself?
This needs time. I'm going to think about this over the weekend...
And now for some new points.
I contend that 'The Battle of the Pelennor Fields' is very strongly a
working-through of Ragnarok. Different chapters have different themes,
but this is very clearly 'how to die'. Start just before, at the end of
'The Ride of the Rohirrim':
'The King sat upon Snowmane, motionless, gazing upon the agony of Minas
Tirith, as if stricken by anguish, or by dread. He seemed to shrink
down, cowed by age... Thay were too late! Too late was worse than
never!... <then Grond smashes the gate with a Boom!>...At that sound the
bent shape of the king sprang suddenly erect. Tall and proud he seemed
again.."Arise arise, Riders of Theoden! Fell deeds awake; fire and
slaughter!..."
This is Ragnarok, of course, because the fire and slaughter being
invoked is everyones' all round - although the spirit is tempered by
Heroic Pride, since Theoden is also moved by a desire to not be ashamed
in the mighty company of his fathers. That this is the right thing to do
is shown by the consequence, a (fairly bonkers actually! but a damn good
read.:-)) complete over the top description of Theoden's superhuman
charge (final paragraph of the chapter).
OK that's one vision of it, but still very Heroic, very mythologised -
if I could ride to battle like that I'd bloody well go for it too! It's
got too much actual power and strength for the real thing (which must be
pretty hopeless). And there's too much pride.
In the next chapter we get Eomer, who discovers (he thinks) that what he
really cares about in the world - his Dad and his Sis - are dead. This
leads him to the kind of Ragnarok Spirit that T. doesn't approve of,
that is, a wanton battle lust based on true despair, as he cries "Death!
Ride, ride to ruin and the world's ending!". This is getting Ragnarok
wrong. In fact, it is far too much like Denethor.
However, he gets it right a short while later, when he sees the Corsairs
arriving (he believes) and now truly, rationally, gets it right: 'Stern
now was Eomers mood, and *his mind clear again* (my emphasis JAL)...he
thought to make a great shield wall at the last, and stand, and fight
there on foot till all fell, and do deeds of song on the fields of
Pelennor, though no man should be left in the West to remember the last
King of the Mark...yet he laughed...For once more lust of battle was
upon him, and he was still unscathed, and he was young, and he was
king...
Stirring stuff. So this is what a barbarian hero should do. But let's
return to a getting-it-wrong: Eowyn. She also behaves correctly, like a
barbarian hero: "You stand between me and my Lord and kin. Begone, if
you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if
you touch him." Good so far. Yet her heart is in total despair:
'Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her
cheek...into Merry's mind flashed the memory of the face that he saw at
the riding from Dunharrow: the face of one that goes seeking death,
having no hope.' This is also wrong. We should not fight the last battle
because we seek death.
So here we have the barbarian heroes struggling to get the Ragnarok
spirit right, and often failing, for reasons of pride, despair,
selfishness, wanton blood-lust, etc. So what about us? where in all this
is the true synthesis, the real attitude we should take?
Read on, for here is how Merry reacts: 'Pity filled his heart and great
wonder, and suddenly the slow-kindled courage of his race awoke. He
clenched his hand. She should not die, so fair, so desperate! At least
she should not die alone, unaided....he hardly dared move...slowly,
slowly he began to crawl aside...'
Sam would do exactly the same.
I'm going to leave this here RLV cos I want your comments. Cheers!
:-)
--
Justin Alistair Lowde
RLV
Justin Alistair Lowde wrote in message ...
>>On the moral front, I agree with you in the defense of Good against all
>>odds, just for the sake of it. But the problem is to determine what is
Good.
>>Here is where modern moral relativism has its say. "Sacred" good, given to
>>us by our elders or sages is no longer accepted just because it is
>>"written". People tend to question "morals" that previously were given as
>>fact. And so the lack of Ragnarok spirit. How are we going to fight the
Ice
>>Giants, if we cannot distinguish them?
>>IMO, this is more good than bad. There have been too many times that some
>>people has told us that there were Ice Giants, and they turned out to be
>>people just like us. After they had been massacred, or they had massacred
>>us. I'm sure that many nazis fought valiantly to the end in pure Ragnarok
>>spirit against what they believed to be Ice Giants. Beware of Loki.
>
>I think you are touching on an important point here. Yes, 'Serb good
>Albanian bad' doesn't lead to goodness, at one extreme, and also at the
>other extreme, 'All belief systems are good, and Science is just one
>belief system' is also incredibly dangerous.
>
>So how to work out the difference, when you can't have 'it is written',
>but you can't just decide your own 'good' for yourself?
Dangerous, yes. But necessary. At the very least, the complete absence of
skepticism is much more dangerous than the excess of it.
As often, we have to find the middle ground. But I'm tilted towards
skepticism. You have to review all possible systems (within your
capabilities and possibilities) and decide which one is most convincing for
you. I've known religion (Catholic mostly; a few of some others) and I've
known Science (its general idea, at least) and I've known some
"superstitions" (or alternative belief systems, if you want). So far,
scientific method is the best system I've found, for me. Some other people
can reach other conclussions, and they do.
As thing go, it works like this: you receive a set of 'written beliefs'. You
swallow some of them whole (voluntarily or not) and you question some. Of
these, you keep some and you reject some. The process repeats and repeats.
It has always been so, only that nowadays there is more questioning and less
swallowing than in other times. Another times of much questioning would be
Classical Greece and The Renaissance. One time of swallowing would be the
Dark Ages and any Theocracy. Mmmm, well, maybe not all: Al-Andalus and most
of classical Islam were theocracies, but they encouraged free thinking and
investigation, as far as it was not against the Islam. And most often they
interpreted the Al-Khuram much more liberally than most Islamic countries of
today.
Isn't that straying a bit, not only off-Tolkien, but also off-Ragnarok? Not
that I mind ;-)
>This needs time. I'm going to think about this over the weekend...
>
>And now for some new points.
>
>I contend that 'The Battle of the Pelennor Fields' is very strongly a
>working-through of Ragnarok. Different chapters have different themes,
>but this is very clearly 'how to die'. Start just before, at the end of
>'The Ride of the Rohirrim':
Yes, I agree beforehand. At the beginning they think they might contribute
to the victory. When they see the enemy, they lose any hope, and enter
Ragnarok-mode, the joy of fighting for Good, even if they are going to fail.
>'The King sat upon Snowmane, motionless, gazing upon the agony of Minas
>Tirith, as if stricken by anguish, or by dread. He seemed to shrink
>down, cowed by age... Thay were too late! Too late was worse than
>never!... <then Grond smashes the gate with a Boom!>...At that sound the
>bent shape of the king sprang suddenly erect. Tall and proud he seemed
>again.."Arise arise, Riders of Theoden! Fell deeds awake; fire and
>slaughter!..."
Mmmm. Delicious.
>This is Ragnarok, of course, because the fire and slaughter being
>invoked is everyones' all round - although the spirit is tempered by
>Heroic Pride, since Theoden is also moved by a desire to not be ashamed
>in the mighty company of his fathers. That this is the right thing to do
>is shown by the consequence, a (fairly bonkers actually! but a damn good
>read.:-))
Damn good indeed!
>complete over the top description of Theoden's superhuman
>charge (final paragraph of the chapter).
>
>OK that's one vision of it, but still very Heroic, very mythologised -
>if I could ride to battle like that I'd bloody well go for it too! It's
>got too much actual power and strength for the real thing (which must be
>pretty hopeless). And there's too much pride.
I'll have to re-read. I'll try this weekend.
>In the next chapter we get Eomer, who discovers (he thinks) that what he
>really cares about in the world - his Dad and his Sis - are dead. This
>leads him to the kind of Ragnarok Spirit that T. doesn't approve of,
>that is, a wanton battle lust based on true despair, as he cries "Death!
>Ride, ride to ruin and the world's ending!". This is getting Ragnarok
>wrong. In fact, it is far too much like Denethor.
Maybe more into Berserker mode? I'm not sure were the Berserker warrior
would fit here.
>However, he gets it right a short while later, when he sees the Corsairs
>arriving (he believes) and now truly, rationally, gets it right: 'Stern
>now was Eomers mood, and *his mind clear again* (my emphasis JAL)...he
>thought to make a great shield wall at the last, and stand, and fight
>there on foot till all fell, and do deeds of song on the fields of
>Pelennor, though no man should be left in the West to remember the last
>King of the Mark...yet he laughed...For once more lust of battle was
>upon him, and he was still unscathed, and he was young, and he was
>king...
Yes, this sounds Ragnarok again.
>Stirring stuff. So this is what a barbarian hero should do. But let's
>return to a getting-it-wrong: Eowyn. She also behaves correctly, like a
>barbarian hero: "You stand between me and my Lord and kin. Begone, if
>you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if
>you touch him." Good so far. Yet her heart is in total despair:
>
>'Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her
>cheek...into Merry's mind flashed the memory of the face that he saw at
>the riding from Dunharrow: the face of one that goes seeking death,
>having no hope.' This is also wrong. We should not fight the last battle
>because we seek death.
>
>So here we have the barbarian heroes struggling to get the Ragnarok
>spirit right, and often failing, for reasons of pride, despair,
>selfishness, wanton blood-lust, etc. So what about us? where in all this
>is the true synthesis, the real attitude we should take?
>
>Read on, for here is how Merry reacts: 'Pity filled his heart and great
>wonder, and suddenly the slow-kindled courage of his race awoke. He
>clenched his hand. She should not die, so fair, so desperate! At least
>she should not die alone, unaided....he hardly dared move...slowly,
>slowly he began to crawl aside...'
>
>Sam would do exactly the same.
Very good, very good indeed. I'm sorry I'm now responding just a bit too
quickly. This deserves more thought, but I wanted to give you some answer
and a few thoughts before next week.
I find very interesting your fine separation of the "good" R-spirit: (the
joy of fighting and dying for a good cause, even if it is hopeless), and the
"bad" R-spirit: (the desire to die fighting). In the second, the cause is
less relevant. It is some kind of suicide, and, yes, akin to Denethor's acts
in his despair. Good R is suicidical in nature (they are going to die, and
furthermore, they are going to lose), but the important thing is to fight
the good cause. If you do not fight, this is no good R.
Now that I put those definitions so bluntly, the separation looks not so
fine. But before you pointed those passages to me, I hadn't noticed so
clearly the changes in spirit.
I know a bit better the Greek classics than the Nordic ones (not much of
either of them, I'm sorry), so I wouldn't want to forget the Greek-heroism
point of view, as partially coincident with good-R (and bad R?). This would
allow us to re-introduce good ole Frodo, who I think (as I stated earlier,
whether here or in the "who is the hero" thread) is more a Greek hero than a
R-hero.
But I cannot find a way to introduce poor Pippin here. I'll try later, you
do what you can.
I'll be back.
R.L.V.
---#----
Justin Alistair Lowde
opines:
>As thing go, it works like this: you receive a set of 'written beliefs'. You
>swallow some of them whole (voluntarily or not) and you question some. Of
>these, you keep some and you reject some. The process repeats and repeats.
This is known as coherentism, or Coherence (for those who don't like new
unnecessary 'isms') in philosophy circles. But it would be a bit off-
topic to go into that right now...
> Al-Andalus and most
>of classical Islam were theocracies, but they encouraged free thinking and
>investigation, as far as it was not against the Islam. And most often they
>interpreted the Al-Khuram much more liberally than most Islamic countries of
>today.
>
Concerning this period, Bertrand Russell says in his History of Western
Philosophy that: 'Arabic philosophers...were looked upon with suspicion
by the populace, which was fanatical and bigoted; they owed their safety
(when they were safe) to the protection of comparatively free-thinking
princes.' (Ch.X, 'Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy'.) I know nothing
about it, but it seems possible that the Arabic scientific development
was due to a very small number of people (as it usually is), and that
'free-thinking and investigation' were not generally encouraged at all.
However, elswhere Russell proves to be wrong, so...
>Isn't that straying a bit, not only off-Tolkien, but also off-Ragnarok? Not
>that I mind ;-)
I think Tollers would have been jolly interested.
>I know a bit better the Greek classics than the Nordic ones (not much of
>either of them, I'm sorry), so I wouldn't want to forget the Greek-heroism
>point of view, as partially coincident with good-R (and bad R?). This would
>allow us to re-introduce good ole Frodo, who I think (as I stated earlier,
>whether here or in the "who is the hero" thread) is more a Greek hero than a
>R-hero.
>
Sorry, old fruit, but you're actually going to have to launch into a
real explanation. My understanding of Greek heroes is fairly limited.
>But I cannot find a way to introduce poor Pippin here. I'll try later, you
>do what you can.
Here goes:
Re. my remarks concerning Merry:
1 Pippin is very strongly 'one of us', i.e. ordinary:
1.1 'The black gate opens', Bk 5 ch. 10: (8th para from end) 'Pippin had
bowed crushed with horror when he heard Gandalf reject the terms and
doom Frodo to the torment of the tower.' Now this is the end for him -no
high stuff for Pippin, he's thinking about his mates (as you would, as I
would). and yet:
2 'but he had mastered himself, and now he stood beside Beregond in the
front rank...For it seemed best to him to die soon and leave the bitter
story of his life, since all was in ruin.' This is in the style of
Eomer's first Ragnarok and Denethor's, and as I said before, not what we
want. However:
3 'He drew his sword and looked at it, and the intertwining shapes of
red and gold..."This was made for just such an hour...If only I could
smite that foul messenger with it, then almost I should draw level with
old Merry. Well I'll smite some of this beastly brood before the end..."
At this point he gets it right, but interestingly from a very very human
and gentle point of view. More than anyone else he seems to be just an
ordinary bloke, thinking about beer with his mates, and this is what
makes the Ragnarok spirit accessible to us. Just as two other good
friends have an orc-slaying competition, so Pippin seems to spend the
last moments of the Last Battle (as he percieves it) worrying about
drawing level with his best mate. This is not despair, really a
celebration of friendship. And this in turn adds another level to what
we have spoken about concerning the difference between Good Rag. and
bad.
4 The fact that he *does* perform a heroic deed, and to save the life of
someone else (Beregond), makes his action a smaller and more 'human'
version of Merry's. (Note how pleased he is about it - "Down on your
knees in the road and ask pardon, or I will set this troll's bane in
you!", The Scouring of the Shire Bk 6 Ch 8. He's the only hobbit ever to
mention his own heroism in their saving of the Shire.)
5 Which I think leaves you with Frodo...
Ali
--
Justin Alistair Lowde
Look, if I could make one thing perfectly clear,
then believe me I would.
RLV
Justin Alistair Lowde wrote in message ...
You
>>swallow some of them whole (voluntarily or not) and you question some. Of
>>these, you keep some and you reject some. The process repeats and repeats.
>
>unnecessary 'isms') in philosophy circles. But it would be a bit off-
>topic to go into that right now...
Really? Off-topic? I can't imagine it.
It's OK, this is already straying a lot.
>> Al-Andalus and most
>>of classical Islam were theocracies, but they encouraged free thinking and
>>investigation, as far as it was not against the Islam. And most often they
>>interpreted the Al-Khuram much more liberally than most Islamic countries
of
>>today.
>>
>Concerning this period, Bertrand Russell says in his History of Western
>Philosophy that: 'Arabic philosophers...were looked upon with suspicion
>by the populace, which was fanatical and bigoted; they owed their safety
>(when they were safe) to the protection of comparatively free-thinking
>princes.' (Ch.X, 'Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy'.) I know nothing
>about it, but it seems possible that the Arabic scientific development
>was due to a very small number of people (as it usually is), and that
>'free-thinking and investigation' were not generally encouraged at all.
>However, elswhere Russell proves to be wrong, so...
From my remembrance of history books, it varied from period to period.
Afther the conquest of Iberia, the muslims found a land much more
comfortable than North-Africa and Arabia: it had plenty of woods and water
(at least compared to their home coutnries). Also, after their defeat by
Charles Martel in South-France, were stalled in the military: they couldn't
conquer more, but they had no serious enemy in the Peninsula. So, they
settled down and enjoyed (in general terms; exceptions abounded).
This is the period of maxim splendour of Iberic Islam, and arts flourished.
Much of the population was still Cristian, and they were not forced to
convert as far as they behaved respectfully to Islam. Others converted to
the victor's faith, but kept their traditions and habits. There were also
significant communities of Jews. Cultural intermingling was common.
Quite later (the exact dates escape me; I ought to check them) the Cristian
reigns in the North became more powerful and pressed south, and the kingdom
of Al-Andalus became fragmented. After some defeats, this was seen as a
threat by the more militant and less civilized tribes of North-Africa. Some
religiously militant tribes crossed the strait and took power in Al-Andalus,
to keep the Yhad against the threatening Cristians. Those peoples were much
less civilized and unused to cultural convivence; during those periods,
non-purely-Islamic artists and scientists were in danger, and only
cultivated princes were able to protect them.
In the end, the Cristian kingdoms win, and much of the Islamic culture is
lost, but much is preserved. The expulsion of Morisc and Jews comes a bit
later.
Buff!
>>Isn't that straying a bit, not only off-Tolkien, but also off-Ragnarok?
Not
>>that I mind ;-)
>
>I think Tollers would have been jolly interested.
Maybe I catch it now: is Tollers an affective name for Tolkien Himself?
>>I know a bit better the Greek classics than the Nordic ones (not much of
>>either of them, I'm sorry), so I wouldn't want to forget the Greek-heroism
>>point of view, as partially coincident with good-R (and bad R?). This
would
>>allow us to re-introduce good ole Frodo, who I think (as I stated earlier,
>>whether here or in the "who is the hero" thread) is more a Greek hero than
a
>>R-hero.
>>
>Sorry, old fruit, but you're actually going to have to launch into a
>real explanation. My understanding of Greek heroes is fairly limited.
>
>>But I cannot find a way to introduce poor Pippin here. I'll try later, you
>>do what you can.
>
I see you have done your housework most excelently. An A, no doubt. You will
make me reread the whole book.
Frodo as a Greek Hero.
My point is: in Greek Myths, a hero is a person who accepts and willingly
fulfills his own **destiny**, in spite of the fact that it will bring doom
to him/her or his/her people.
It has points of contact with Ragnarok in the fact that the hero has no hope
of a "happy" ending for him. (Happy as in he gets out alive and well and
marries the girl). Usually the destiny is death or some kind of sorrow (loss
of loved ones, mutilation, loss of kingdoms; this kind of nasty things).
The difference with R is that the good / evil dicotomy plays no part here.
The destiny of the hero needs not be a goody quest. It can be a revenge, to
clean his own honour even if it means doing some nasty things, it can be a
defiance to the Goods. There are many possibilites, but it is always what he
has to do, because it is his duty and his destiny.
Frodo is in this Greek Hero mode, since he doesn't despair about his mission
(he does, sometimes, but most often he keeps a last hope of being able to
fulfill it), even if he has despaired of getting out of it. He does his duty
knowing that he will die doing it, but with the hope that he will acomplish
his mission and save M.E. (note the dots :-).
He also lacks completely the joy and freedom of spirit that good-R gives. He
is not enjoying his quest, it is a most fearsome burden, and he carries it
just because he musts.
That's it, more or less. I'll leave it for a person more learned in Greek
myths than me to correct and expand as he sees fit.
See you,
R.L.V.
---#---
Justin Alistair Lowde
>
>Maybe I catch it now: is Tollers an affective name for Tolkien Himself?
Yes. (If you mean 'affectionate'.) It's an Oxford thing. (the Cricket
correspondent Jonathan Agnew is known as Aggers, for example.) I was
Lowders at school: another aspect is that in Public School one refers to
people by surnames. There were people who were friends of mine whose
first names I didn't know until the age of about 15 when we all
discovered girls and became real people.
Tollers is what Jack Lewis called Tolkien. As in the I believe fairly
famous remark at an Inklings meeting in the Bird and Baby (Eagle and
Child) when Tolkien read out Bk 3 Ch 10, The Voice of Saruman. There was
a long pause and Lewis said "Come on Tollers, you can do better than
that". Tolkien went away and re-wrote it, that's the version we have
today.
More later.
T. Anderson
>knees in the road and ask pardon, or I will set this troll's bane in
>you!", The Scouring of the Shire Bk 6 Ch 8. He's the only hobbit ever to
>mention his own heroism in their saving of the Shire.)
Doesn't (no books handy sorry if I misquote) "Save your breath! I have a
better" during the scouring count as at least an indirect reference to
Merry's deeds? Just a question. Interesting post, I wish I'd caught the
thread earlier.
RLV
Justin Alistair Lowde wrote in message ...
<snip>
>Tollers is what Jack Lewis called Tolkien. As in the I believe fairly
>famous remark at an Inklings meeting in the Bird and Baby (Eagle and
>Child) when Tolkien read out Bk 3 Ch 10, The Voice of Saruman. There was
>a long pause and Lewis said "Come on Tollers, you can do better than
>that". Tolkien went away and re-wrote it, that's the version we have
>today.
Thank you for the info. I guess I need more background on the man.
Regarding your original question:
"I think Tollers would have been jolly interested."
Yes, probably. At least more than in the shape of his elves or the
wingedness of his Balrogs.
I'll await the "more later".
R.L.V.
---#---
RLV
T. Anderson wrote in message <7kmep6$1hc$1...@news.rapidnet.com>...
You are gleefully invited to join. What kind of heros do you like the most?
:-)
R.L.V.
---#---
Paris
It used to be called 'Stiff upper lip'.
The British have always considered valiant loosers with great reverance.
Look at Scott of the antarctic, or Eddie the Eagle. Or the Scottish
Football Squad :^)
We have a 'brave looser' culture.
We know that it is ok to loose, as long as we have given it our all.
This is perhaps why our soldiers are so good.
'Into the vally of death rode the 600'...
'The thin red line'.
Agincourt..
The Somme..
Dunkirk.. (the 'Dunkirk Spirit?' I have heard that before)
'We shall fight them on the beaches, and we shall never surrender...'
I don't think it is uniquely British, but I know that we are famous for
it. It permiates our whole society. Perhaps this is why Tolkien
espoused these virtues?
I have never really thought about where this attitude comes from until
now. I suppose it is a Norse legacy.
'The Ragnarok Spirit'. I like it! It's snappy.
Here is some related/unrelated text
'Richard of York gave battle in vain'. (Acronym for colours of the
rainbow)
'If at first you don't succeed try, try again'.
'I get knocked down, but I get up again, you're never going to keep me
down'
'Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paris. Not the City
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Justin Alistair Lowde
<jan...@rapidnet.com> writes
>(Note how pleased he is about it - "Down on your
>>knees in the road and ask pardon, or I will set this troll's bane in
>>you!", The Scouring of the Shire Bk 6 Ch 8. He's the only hobbit ever to
>>mention his own heroism in their saving of the Shire.)
>
>
>Doesn't (no books handy sorry if I misquote) "Save your breath! I have a
>better" during the scouring count as at least an indirect reference to
>Merry's deeds? Just a question. Interesting post, I wish I'd caught the
>thread earlier.
>
>
was Pippin, although he was moved by friendship for Frodo and refusal to
let him be called a cock-a-whoop.
Welcome to the Ragnarok debate! The main task now is to decide what kind
of exploration of heroism is found in Frodo's character...
Melissa
>
> In article <376e8...@sahara.cablecat.com>, RLV <xm...@tinn.net> writes
> >
>
> correspondent Jonathan Agnew is known as Aggers, for example.) I was
> Lowders at school: another aspect is that in Public School one refers to
> people by surnames. There were people who were friends of mine whose
> first names I didn't know until the age of about 15 when we all
> discovered girls and became real people.
>
> famous remark at an Inklings meeting in the Bird and Baby (Eagle and
> Child) when Tolkien read out Bk 3 Ch 10, The Voice of Saruman. There was
> a long pause and Lewis said "Come on Tollers, you can do better than
> that". Tolkien went away and re-wrote it, that's the version we have
> today.
>
>
> Ali
> --
> Justin Alistair Lowde
>
> Look, if I could make one thing perfectly clear,
> then believe me I would.
Wow. That's quite an anecdote...I couldn't imagine reading anything
I've written to the Inklings, let alone not being absolutely destroyed
if someone like Lewis said that to me...then again, they were
contemporaries and peers, not to mention friends (the lucky guys), so it
probably wouldn't crumple Tolkien as badly. Still...
--Melissa
Öjevind Lång
Melissa hath written:
>Justin Alistair Lowde wrote:
>>
>> In article <376e8...@sahara.cablecat.com>, RLV <xm...@tinn.net> writes
>> >
>> Tollers is what Jack Lewis called Tolkien. As in the I believe fairly
>> famous remark at an Inklings meeting in the Bird and Baby (Eagle and
>> Child) when Tolkien read out Bk 3 Ch 10, The Voice of Saruman. There was
>> a long pause and Lewis said "Come on Tollers, you can do better than
>> that". Tolkien went away and re-wrote it, that's the version we have
>> today.
>>
>> More later.
>>
>> Ali
>> --
>Wow. That's quite an anecdote...I couldn't imagine reading anything
>I've written to the Inklings, let alone not being absolutely destroyed
>if someone like Lewis said that to me...then again, they were
>contemporaries and peers, not to mention friends (the lucky guys), so it
>probably wouldn't crumple Tolkien as badly. Still...
>
>--Melissa
That must have been an unusual reaction on Tolkien's part, from what I've
read. Apparently, mostly he did not react at all when the other Inklings
criticized what he read aloud to them. So in this case he must have realized
that he could do better. As it stands now, "The Voice of Saruman" is a
wonderful depiction of an intellectual fellow-traveller (Fascist or
Communist), a passage which it is quite impossible not to see as inspired by
political deiscussions in our world.
Öjevind
Justin Alistair Lowde
>
>I'll await the "more later".
>
OK...
"Treebeard marched on, singing with the others for a while. But after a
time his voice died to a murmur and fell silent again. Pippin could see
that his old brow was wrinkled and knotted. At last he looked up, and
Pippin could see a sad look in his eyes, sad but not unhappy. There was
a light in them, as if a green flame had sunk deeper into the dark wells
of his thought.
'Of course, it is likely enough, my friends,' he said slowly,
'likely enough that we are going to *our* doom: the last march of the
Ents. But if we stayed at home and did nothing, doom would find us
anyway, sooner or later. That thought has long been growing in our
hearts; and that is why we are marching now. It was not a hasty resolve.
Now at least the last march of the Ents may be worth a song. Aye,' he
sighed,'we may help the other peoples before we pass away. Still, I
should have liked to see the songs come true about the Entwives. I
should dearly have liked to see Fimbrethil again...."
Points:
1 this is so like Pippin's thoughts at the last battle that I suggest
that it was here that Pippin learnt how to go to Ragnarok. Part of his
growing in stature to become 'among the great', as Gandalf says, is the
lesson he learns here.
2 This is why we should espouse this spirit: believing it to be
hopeless, they marched anyway, not least to 'help the other peoples
before we pass away'. In so doing they defeated Saruman, freeing Rohan
to make its decisive intervention on the Pelennor, which in turn freed
the Captains of the West to make their stand before the Black gate,
bringing Sauron's concentration out to free the Ringbearer to fulfil his
quest.
2.1 Therefore the West would have been lost if Treebeard hadn't had the
Ragnarok Spirit.
3 Treebeard, Merry and Pippin all get it right because they have
fighting the last battle *for others* as being important.
4 Also emphasised again is that the manner of your passing should be
worth a song, even if no-one is left to sing it. (c.f. Eomer). This is
more important than self-preservation.
5 "Sad but not unhappy"????????? What a complex little phrase...!
Over to you RLV...
--
Ali
|\ /|
Get in touch | \ / |
With your inner | \O/ |
Balrog \ / \+---
\|_|/
| |
Justin Alistair Lowde
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> writes
<schnipps>
> As it stands now, "The Voice of Saruman" is a
>wonderful depiction of an intellectual fellow-traveller (Fascist or
>Communist), a passage which it is quite impossible not to see as inspired by
>political deiscussions in our world.
I am fascinated by Saruman.
He is totally unlike anyone else in the whole mythology. Just as TB is
the spirit of the countryside, so Saruman is the Spirit of the Times
(i.e. middle of C.20) incarnate.
He's a politician, he's Nixon...he twists the truth with flattery,
ommission and half-truths. He's an imperialist, who wants to have the
big weapons (ring/nuclear power) so that he can dominate by threat when
persuasion doesn't work.
He loves machinery and big metal things with fire and wheels, and spoils
the countryside to do so (? = the antithesis of TB. As TB is least
affected by the Ring, so Saruman is *most*.).
Tolkien never forgot the shabby spoiling of the countryside when he was
a child (= Saruman spoiling the shire). Also, the letters show T.
horrified when his next-door neighbour cuts a great tree down in his
garden, 'for no other crime than that it was large and alive'. How
important was it for him to have 'the tree-killer', as Quickbeam calls
him, defeated in the end by the trees!
And as I say in my latest Ragnarok post this is the pivotal turning
point in the whole war.
You posted elsewhere about money. Well 'Economics' is not in the work
because it is a Saruman word. So too are most of the C20's political
jargons. And in serving Saruman and his ideals, like Ted Sandyman does,
we end up only serving Mordor and the Dark Lord (the final stroke of the
war against Mordor happening at Bag End). This is a lesson to those of
us who don't think about the wider issues. Margaret Thatcher was a
Saruman figure, as are many 'world leaders' today.
Öjevind Lång
Justin Alistair Lowde hath written:>In article<snip a lot of interesting stuff>
those of
>us who don't think about the wider issues. Margaret Thatcher was a
>Saruman figure, as are many 'world leaders' today.
>
>--
>Ali
>
Bill Clinton, however, is hardly a Saruman figure; he's more like a Pippin
who never learned anything. By the way, there is a Swedish verb "pippa"
which means "to futter" or "to tup"; that is to say, it's a mild word for
having sexual intercourse. In one place in LotR, Pippin says that he
sometimes is called "Pip" for short. The Swedish translator once again
showed his oft-times manifested lack of judgment by letting him say in
Swedish that he was called "Pipp".
Of course, there is also an English slang word "to roger" with the same
meaning. Like in "Roger Moore".
Öjevind
Melissa
> I am fascinated by Saruman.
> He is totally unlike anyone else in the whole mythology. Just as TB is
> the spirit of the countryside, so Saruman is the Spirit of the Times
> (i.e. middle of C.20) incarnate.
> He's a politician, he's Nixon...he twists the truth with flattery,
> ommission and half-truths. He's an imperialist, who wants to have the
> big weapons (ring/nuclear power) so that he can dominate by threat when
> persuasion doesn't work.
> He loves machinery and big metal things with fire and wheels, and spoils the countryside to do so (? = the antithesis of TB. As TB is least
> affected by the Ring, so Saruman is *most*.).
> Tolkien never forgot the shabby spoiling of the countryside when he was
> a child (= Saruman spoiling the shire). Also, the letters show T.
> horrified when his next-door neighbour cuts a great tree down in his
> garden, 'for no other crime than that it was large and alive'. How
> important was it for him to have 'the tree-killer', as Quickbeam calls
> him, defeated in the end by the trees!
> And as I say in my latest Ragnarok post this is the pivotal turning
> point in the whole war.
> You posted elsewhere about money. Well 'Economics' is not in the work
> because it is a Saruman word. So too are most of the C20's political
> jargons. And in serving Saruman and his ideals, like Ted Sandyman does,
Saruman figure, as are many 'world leaders' today.
H'm. I can't agree completely with your statements that Nixon and
Margaret Thatcher are Saruman figures (I'd be more apt to mention
certain other more contemporary politicians *ahem* who I refuse to name
as I have no intentions of starting a partisan thread, and on the
grounds it would incriminate me as a conservative--well, damn, already
done that, ain't I?), but have you ever read That Hideous Strength, by
another Inkling, Mr. Lewis? It is more openly allegorical, of course,
in the spoiling of nature (and other disagreeable pursuits of the modern
world). It seems to be a strong theme in Tolkien as well as Lewis, that
through modernisation and over-wrought, artificial social reform, we
lose not only the beauty and harmony of the natural world, but our
humanity and souls as well. Saruman seemed to be quite happily working
toward this goal.
--Melissa
Ed Robillard
"Öjevind Lång" wrote:
[snip]
> Bill Clinton, however, is hardly a Saruman figure; he's more like a Pippin
> who never learned anything. By the way, there is a Swedish verb "pippa"
> which means "to futter" or "to tup"; that is to say, it's a mild word for
> having sexual intercourse. In one place in LotR, Pippin says that he
> sometimes is called "Pip" for short. The Swedish translator once again
> showed his oft-times manifested lack of judgment by letting him say in
> Swedish that he was called "Pipp".
> Of course, there is also an English slang word "to roger" with the same
> meaning. Like in "Roger Moore".
Clinton is not much like Pippen. Pippen never raped anyone or betrayed
his country by selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese in exchange for
campain contributions.
If I were to compare Clinton to anyone in LotR, it would be Grima
Wormtongue: A smooth talker who is constantly placating and soothing
people even as he plots to betray them and help another, greater power
encompass their downfall. All the while, he covets the things he desires
(as Grima did with Eowyn) while good people gnash their teeth helplessly
because the King (the People of the US) remain infatuated with him.
Grima came to a bad end. One can only hope that Clinton will suffer the
same fate.
Tuor
Jeff Blanks
> H'm. I can't agree completely with your statements that Nixon and
> Margaret Thatcher are Saruman figures...
But I can't connect, say, George McGovern or ThatDamnNewAgeGranolaCrowd
with something like the N.I.C.E.--and they're about as liberal as they
come. OTOH, today's conservatives keep courting real estate developers
and weapons manufacturers. About the only thing they're conservative
about is making sure everything still looks like NormanRockwellLand.
_Everyone_ decries "Saruman-figures," and _everyone_ says that they're all
on the _other_ side politically. Sorry--that won't wash. Yes, liberalism
in the 20th Century has a heavy Machine Age heritage, but the Sixties
changed a lot of that (or tried to), and it says something to me that the
Democratic Party at least tried to reach out when the Republicans didn't.
The thing about Tolkien's critique of modern society is that he couldn't
see a way in which salvation could come from the left.
--
"I didn't come here to learn from you;
I came here to show you what _I've_ learned." --Heitor Villa-Lobos
Ed Robillard
Jeff Blanks wrote:
[snip]
> _Everyone_ decries "Saruman-figures," and _everyone_ says that they're all
> on the _other_ side politically. Sorry--that won't wash. Yes, liberalism
> in the 20th Century has a heavy Machine Age heritage, but the Sixties
> changed a lot of that (or tried to), and it says something to me that the
> Democratic Party at least tried to reach out when the Republicans didn't.
> The thing about Tolkien's critique of modern society is that he couldn't
> see a way in which salvation could come from the left.
'Reach out'? Don't you mean 'cynically exploit'? The only real
difference between Repubs and Dems are the people they exploit to gain
power.
Tuor
Michael Martinez
>That must have been an unusual reaction on Tolkien's part, from what I've
>read. Apparently, mostly he did not react at all when the other Inklings
>criticized what he read aloud to them. So in this case he must have realized
>wonderful depiction of an intellectual fellow-traveller (Fascist or
>Communist), a passage which it is quite impossible not to see as inspired by
>political deiscussions in our world.
I never associated it with any political movements or views.
--
\\ // Worlds of Imagination on the Web in...@xenite.org
\\//
//\\ [http://www.xenite.org/index.htm]
// \\ENITE.org...............................................
Öjevind Lång
Michael Martinez hath written:<snip>
have realized
>>that he could do better. As it stands now, "The Voice of Saruman" is a
>>wonderful depiction of an intellectual fellow-traveller (Fascist or
>>Communist), a passage which it is quite impossible not to see as inspired
by
>>political deiscussions in our world.
>
>I never associated it with any political movements or views.
>
to a lesser extent Communism, though there the arguments tended to be
couched in different terms) that sounded precisely like Saruman. Take these
words of his, for example, as recounted verbatim by Gandalf at the Council
of Elrond:
"A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not
avail us at all. There is no hope left in Elves or dying Númenor. This then
is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would
be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there
will be rich reward for those that aided it. As the Power grows, its proved
friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience
come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we
can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way
but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the
things we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than
helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be,
any real change in our designs, only in our means."
Statements exactly like these were often made in Europe in the thirties and
forties by fascist intellectuals to allure other conservative intellectuals;
and they were often very successful. Tolkien was quite aware of the
political debates that went on during his life-time; Oxford wasn't quite the
ivory tower it is sometimes depicted as. How could it have been? It was full
of intellctuals of all political stripes, debating. C. P. Snow, among
others, has described it.
The argument "Join them, because History is on their side and they will
inevitaly win" was also used with considerable success by Communist
agitators from the twenties onwards. Furthermore, the appeal to "Knowledge,
Rule, Order" apparently has a particular allure for intellectuals, who
frequently have little patience with the disorderly and disrespectful
proceedings of a democracy.
Öjevind
Michael Martinez
>'Reach out'? Don't you mean 'cynically exploit'? The only real
>difference between Repubs and Dems are the people they exploit to gain
>power.
Both the Republicans and Democrats have exploited minorities, especially
black voters, to build up their power bases and political machines. The
Republicans did it first because the Democrats screwed up the country and
then the Democrats did it because the Republicans screwed up the country
and now that they've both screwed up the country the people are sick of
both parties and want to be exploited by someone who is capable of offering
new lies and bribes to win favor and political office.
Öjevind Lång
Öjevind Lång skrev i meddelandet ...
>
>>
>One doesn't have to; but I've read contemporary apologias for Fascism (and
>to a lesser extent Communism, though there the arguments tended to be
>couched in different terms) that sounded precisely like Saruman.
By "contemporary", I of course mean contemporary with Tolkien as he wrote
"The ellowship of the Ring".
Öjevind
Prembone
Martinez) wrote:
>In article <37743616...@yahoo.com>, Ed Robillard <tu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>'Reach out'? Don't you mean 'cynically exploit'? The only real
>>difference between Repubs and Dems are the people they exploit to gain
>>power.
>
>Both the Republicans and Democrats have exploited minorities, especially
>black voters, to build up their power bases and political machines. The
>Republicans did it first because the Democrats screwed up the country and
>then the Democrats did it because the Republicans screwed up the country
>and now that they've both screwed up the country the people are sick of
>both parties and want to be exploited by someone who is capable of offering
>new lies and bribes to win favor and political office.
Jesse Ventura for President? ;-)
(Speaking as a Minnesotan, here...)
"Fish to fish, chips to chips, fish to chips and chips to fish;
each to its own, as each desires, and may all be well fed! Jolly good."
The Prembone Pages http://www.geocities.com/~prembone
CyberKaryn: The Writings http://clik.to/cyberkaryn
The Secular Paganist http://www.geocities.com/~secularpagan
Ed Robillard
Prembone wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 06:20:23 GMT, Mic...@xenite.org (Michael
> Martinez) wrote:
>
> >In article <37743616...@yahoo.com>, Ed Robillard <tu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>'Reach out'? Don't you mean 'cynically exploit'? The only real
> >>difference between Repubs and Dems are the people they exploit to gain
> >>power.
> >
> >Both the Republicans and Democrats have exploited minorities, especially
> >black voters, to build up their power bases and political machines. The
> >Republicans did it first because the Democrats screwed up the country and
> >then the Democrats did it because the Republicans screwed up the country
> >and now that they've both screwed up the country the people are sick of
> >both parties and want to be exploited by someone who is capable of offering
> >new lies and bribes to win favor and political office.
>
> Jesse Ventura for President? ;-)
>
> (Speaking as a Minnesotan, here...)
Ah yes, Jesse. A good man, but how long will he resist the temptations
of Power? Politics is its own Ring (to put a Tolkienish spin on it). If
he is wise, he will stay with being Governor and avoid Washington DC as
much as possible.
Even so, Jesse is not an entire political party. The Repub-Dem duopoloy
is firmly entrenched and, IMHO, anyone who might seriously endanger
their position will likely end up having an unfortunate but fatal
accident. Several politicians would attend the funeral and make nice
solemn speeches, then everyone would 'move on' and go back to 'doing the
People's business' (that is, lying to and extorting from them).
Tuor
Political Cynic and Professional Pessimist
Michael Martinez
>Michael Martinez hath written:
>>In article <_RJc3.1584$iK3....@nntpserver.swip.net>, "Öjevind Lång"
><ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote:
><snip>
>>>have realized
>>>that he could do better. As it stands now, "The Voice of Saruman" is a
>>>wonderful depiction of an intellectual fellow-traveller (Fascist or
>>>Communist), a passage which it is quite impossible not to see as inspired
>>>by political deiscussions in our world.
>>
>>I never associated it with any political movements or views.
>>
>to a lesser extent Communism, though there the arguments tended to be
>words of his, for example, as recounted verbatim by Gandalf at the Council
>of Elrond:
You said it was "quite impossible not to see as inspired by political
deiscussions in our world". Well, I was pointing out I don't see it that
way. Never have. Don't know if I ever will.
Michael Martinez
>I have an addendum to make:
>Öjevind Lång skrev i meddelandet ...
>>
>>>
>>to a lesser extent Communism, though there the arguments tended to be
>>couched in different terms) that sounded precisely like Saruman.
>
>"The ellowship of the Ring".
I just cannot believe that Hitler approached Tolkien and asked him to
join the Third Reich.
Ed Robillard
James Kuyper wrote:
>
> Ed Robillard wrote:
> >
> > Prembone wrote:
> ....
> > Even so, Jesse is not an entire political party. The Repub-Dem duopoloy
> > is firmly entrenched and, IMHO, anyone who might seriously endanger
> > their position will likely end up having an unfortunate but fatal
> > accident. Several politicians would attend the funeral and make nice
>
> You've seen a little too much television. There's no need to use murder
> for that purpose. The "duopoly", as you call it, is defended primarily
> by our majority rule system - a party that has the support of
> significantly less than half the voters will never elect anyone, so
> there's no room for more than two political parties. We've had third
> political parties of significant strength, but never for very long. The
> Republicans replaced an older political party (the Whigs?); with that
> one exception, third parties in American politics have usually been
> absorbed into or had their agendas coopted by one of the two major
> political parties.
First of all, I almost never watch TV.
Secondly, if you had 20 people from a third party, let's call it the NR
(New Rulers), elected to the Senate, they would be a force to be
reckoned with.
There *is* room for a third party, but the powers-that-be ensure that
such ideas never take hold. Also, new parties usually end up as you've
described above: co-opted or absorbed.
None of this really counters my initial premise that the Republicans and
Democrats are very much the same thing and that they also tend to work
together to ensure that only they play the power game. *Both* of them
want to see Jesse in a political camp -- preferably theirs, but either
one would do.
As far as my off-the-cuff comments about 'unfortunate accidents': I
think they happen and not just to politicians, but to *anyone* who might
cause problems. Also: accidents would only occur after less severe
methods (such as destroying someone's credibility or cutting off any
channel (such as the media) for 'getting the word out' to warn people)
has already failed.
> It takes other, more complicated voting schemes, such as the
> proportional representation scheme used in many (most?) European
> parliaments to promote more than two parties.
Yes, and an overpoliferation of parties leads to nothing being done
(which is often a good thing in Government).
Tuor
James Kuyper
>
> Prembone wrote:
....
> Even so, Jesse is not an entire political party. The Repub-Dem duopoloy
> is firmly entrenched and, IMHO, anyone who might seriously endanger
> their position will likely end up having an unfortunate but fatal
> accident. Several politicians would attend the funeral and make nice
You've seen a little too much television. There's no need to use murder
for that purpose. The "duopoly", as you call it, is defended primarily
by our majority rule system - a party that has the support of
significantly less than half the voters will never elect anyone, so
there's no room for more than two political parties. We've had third
political parties of significant strength, but never for very long. The
Republicans replaced an older political party (the Whigs?); with that
one exception, third parties in American politics have usually been
absorbed into or had their agendas coopted by one of the two major
political parties.
James Kuyper
....
> Secondly, if you had 20 people from a third party, let's call it the NR
> (New Rulers), elected to the Senate, they would be a force to be
> reckoned with.
With our electoral system, that requires that there be twenty entire
states where the New Rulers were the majority party. That's the barrier
that prevents third parties from taking hold. A party that had the
support of 45% of the voters, but doesn't have a solid majority in any
one state, can't elect even a single senator. A party that has 51% of
the voters in any state, no matter how small, and has 0% support in the
other 49 states, will have infinitely more representation in the Senate:
1 senator instead of 0.
Panurge
> I just cannot believe that Hitler approached Tolkien and asked him to
> join the Third Reich.
Come on, Michael--it's nothing so simple as that, and you know it. (BTW,
Hitler is once supposed to have wondered why the UK didn't join with
him--"common heritage" and all that.)
Panurge
> The argument "Join them, because History is on their side and they will
> inevitaly win" was also used with considerable success by Communist
> agitators from the twenties onwards.
"To such thinking you have only to say 'the land you loved is doomed' to
excuse any treachery, even to glorify it." --JRRT, "On Fairy-Stories"
Öjevind Lång
Michael Martinez hath written:
<snip>
>You said it was "quite impossible not to see as inspired by political
>deiscussions in our world". Well, I was pointing out I don't see it that
>way. Never have. Don't know if I ever will.
>
>
That's your privilege. All I can say is that Saruman's attempts to persuade
Gandalf and others to join forces with Sauron are remarkably like the
arguments of Communist and Fascist fellow-travellers from the twenties
onwards.
Öjevind
Arkady
> > It takes other, more complicated voting schemes, such as the
> > proportional representation scheme used in many (most?) European
> > parliaments to promote more than two parties.
>
Not true. The European nations that use Proportional Representation are at
least as succesfull if not more than those that don't (Britain). They are
also much fairer.
Ron Barber
>
> Ed Robillard wrote:
> >
> > Prembone wrote:
<who was that masked snipper?>
> The "duopoly", as you call it, is defended primarily
> by our majority rule system - a party that has the support of
> significantly less than half the voters will never elect anyone, so
> there's no room for more than two political parties.
In fact, as far as the US President goes, the rules of the electoral
college preserve the two party system. To win in the Elec. Coll., a
candidate must have a majority of electors' votes: a three-way race with
only a plurality would be decided by the House of Representatives. I've
always thought it interesting to speculate what would have happened if
Perot had garnered enough votes to force the Clinton/Dole/Perot race
into the Republican-controlled House.
> We've had third
> political parties of significant strength, but never for very long. The
> Republicans replaced an older political party (the Whigs?); with that
> one exception, third parties in American politics have usually been
> absorbed into or had their agendas coopted by one of the two major
> political parties.
<snip>
As a matter of fact, neither modern political party is truly the same as
those that existed in the Adams/Jefferson races when political parties
really began to control national politics here. So, meaty third parties
have crawled out of the soup from time to time, but generally in times
of fairly significant and already-existing political upheaval, and often
<if not always> with odd results at the Presidential level because of
the rules of the Electoral College.
RB
Ron Barber
> Ed Robillard wrote:
> > Secondly, if you had 20 people from a third party, let's call it the NR
> > (New Rulers), elected to the Senate, they would be a force to be
> > reckoned with.
> With our electoral system, that requires that there be twenty entire
> states where the New Rulers were the majority party.
<snip>
Well, ten states, actually.
RB
James Kuyper
You're right - if you're willing to wait up to six years for the second
senator for each state to come up for re-election. I was thinking in
terms of doing in a single election year, but that wasn't specified in
the statement I was responding to.
Ron Barber
>
> Ron Barber wrote:
> > Well, ten states, actually.
> You're right - if you're willing to wait up to six years for the second
> senator for each state to come up for re-election. I was thinking in
> terms of doing in a single election year, but that wasn't specified in
> the statement I was responding to.
Well, up to four years, actually. :) Sorry, couldn't resist.
But you're right... I see your point.
RB
db
db
Öjevind Lång wrote in message ...
>>
>Bill Clinton, however, is hardly a Saruman figure; he's more like a Pippin
>who never learned anything. By the way, there is a Swedish verb "pippa"
>which means "to futter" or "to tup"; that is to say, it's a mild word for
>having sexual intercourse. In one place in LotR, Pippin says that he
>sometimes is called "Pip" for short. The Swedish translator once again
>showed his oft-times manifested lack of judgment by letting him say in
>Swedish that he was called "Pipp".
> Of course, there is also an English slang word "to roger" with the same
>meaning. Like in "Roger Moore".
>
>Öjevind
>
>
Melissa
>
> In article <3773AC...@nas.com>, par...@nas.com wrote:
>
> > H'm. I can't agree completely with your statements that Nixon and
> > Margaret Thatcher are Saruman figures...
>
> But I can't connect, say, George McGovern or ThatDamnNewAgeGranolaCrowd
> with something like the N.I.C.E.--and they're about as liberal as they
> come. OTOH, today's conservatives keep courting real estate developers
> and weapons manufacturers. About the only thing they're conservative
> about is making sure everything still looks like NormanRockwellLand.
>
> on the _other_ side politically. Sorry--that won't wash. Yes, liberalism
> in the 20th Century has a heavy Machine Age heritage, but the Sixties
> changed a lot of that (or tried to), and it says something to me that the
> Democratic Party at least tried to reach out when the Republicans didn't.
> The thing about Tolkien's critique of modern society is that he couldn't
> see a way in which salvation could come from the left.
>
> "I didn't come here to learn from you;
> I came here to show you what _I've_ learned." --Heitor Villa-Lobos
I have to agree with Tolkien I'm afraid. I don't see salvation coming
from the left--or from the right, for that matter. I have come to abhor
"isms" of all sorts (except skepticism) and I'm not sure what camp that
throws me into. Into what camp that throws me. Whatever. That's all
I've got to say on the matter; I'm poorly qualified to talk politics ;o)
--Melissa
Jeff Blanks
> I have to agree with Tolkien I'm afraid. I don't see salvation coming
> from the left--or from the right, for that matter. I have come to abhor
> "isms" of all sorts (except skepticism) and I'm not sure what camp that
> throws me into. Into what camp that throws me.
Any outlook can be an -ism. You just have to figure out whose outlooks
are the most like yours. Besides, the problem isn't -isms; it's treating
them as masters rather than tools.
Justin Alistair Lowde
> I'm not sure what camp that
>throws me into. Into what camp that throws me.
Isn't that unnecessary correction a grammarianism?
--
Ali
"I disagree with your usage of the word 'pedant'"
Melissa
>
> In article <377794...@nas.com>, par...@nas.com wrote:
>
> > I have to agree with Tolkien I'm afraid. I don't see salvation coming
> > from the left--or from the right, for that matter. I have come to abhor
> > throws me into. Into what camp that throws me.
>
> are the most like yours. Besides, the problem isn't -isms; it's treating
> them as masters rather than tools.
>
> --
> "I didn't come here to learn from you;
> I came here to show you what _I've_ learned." --Heitor Villa-Lobos
Agreed.
--Melissa
Melissa
>
> In article <377794...@nas.com>, Melissa <par...@nas.com> writes
> > I'm not sure what camp that
> >throws me into. Into what camp that throws me.
>
>
> --
> Ali
>
> "I disagree with your usage of the word 'pedant'"
Probably. Prepositions give me headaches ;0)
--Melissa
Justin Alistair Lowde
You will be delighted to know that there are no rules except what you
say. The rule 'Never use a preposition to end up with' is self
defeating, I find...!:-)
I posted this sentence once before, but it's relevant again:
"Daddy, what did you bring that book I don't want to be read to out of
up for?"
Basically if someone tells you you 'shouldn't' do in language what is
coming very naturally to you, then that person needs to go on a basic
linguistics course to find out some actual knowledge.
Cheers! :-)
Ali
--
Justin Alistair Lowde
Look, if I could make one thing perfectly clear,
then believe me I would.
joven
-joven the not-quite-sure-of-my-point-
*cut*
Öjevind Lång
joven hath witten:
>trask, language; the basics?
>
>-joven the not-quite-sure-of-my-point-
>
Trask? What is trask?
Öjevind
Support your local Balrog.
Miller Family
On Grammar-
"Any fool can make a rule
And every fool will mind it."
-Thoreau, Journal, Feb. 3, 1860
Regards,
Zac Miller
joven wrote:
> trask, language; the basics?
>
> -joven the not-quite-sure-of-my-point-
>
joven
Öjevind Lång wrote...
>
>joven hath witten:
>
>>trask, language; the basics?
>>
>>-joven the not-quite-sure-of-my-point-
>>
>
>
>Öjevind
>
>Support your local Balrog.
>
>
it does sound kind of sinister, doesn't it?
I meant r. l. trask who wrote the linguistics book in which may be found the
example on prepositions:
"Daddy, what did you bring that book I don't want to be read to out of
up for?"
I'd just finished reading the book and when I saw it I thought that maybe
someone else had read it, too..
-jovennala-
Öjevind Lång
joven hath written:
>
>Öjevind Lång wrote...
>>
<snip>
>>Trask? What is trask?
>>
>>Öjevind
>>
>>Support your local Balrog.
>>
>>
>
>it does sound kind of sinister, doesn't it?
>
>I meant r. l. trask who wrote the linguistics book in which may be found
the
>example on prepositions:
> "Daddy, what did you bring that book I don't want to be read to out of
>up for?"
>
>I'd just finished reading the book and when I saw it I thought that maybe
>someone else had read it, too..
>
>-jovennala-
Thank you. To me it sounded lika some unusually nasty piece of language
manipulation. "Let's trask this message until the poor saps don't understand
what hit them", something like that.
Öjevind
Justin Alistair Lowde
<ojevin...@swipnet.se> writes
>
>joven hath written:
>>I meant r. l. trask who wrote the linguistics book in which may be found
>the
>>example on prepositions:
>> "Daddy, what did you bring that book I don't want to be read to out of
>>up for?"
>>
>>I'd just finished reading the book and when I saw it I thought that maybe
>>someone else had read it, too..
Correct - although it gets mentioned all sorts of places.
However I think we should use trask as a verb, excellent idea.
joven
Öjevind Lång kirjoitti viestissä ...
>
>joven hath written:
>>
>>Öjevind Lång wrote...
>>>
><snip>
>
>>>Trask? What is trask?
>>>
>>>Öjevind
>>>
>>>Support your local Balrog.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>it does sound kind of sinister, doesn't it?
>>
>>
>>-jovennala-
>
>
>Thank you. To me it sounded lika some unusually nasty piece of language
>manipulation. "Let's trask this message until the poor saps don't
understand
>what hit them", something like that.
>
>Öjevind
>
>
*lol* it does. I hadn't thought of that.
I trask someone'll find a good definition for it before long..
joven
Öjevind Lång
joven hath written:
>
>Öjevind Lång kirjoitti viestissä ...
>>
<snip>
>>
>>
>>Thank you. To me it sounded lika some unusually nasty piece of language
>>manipulation. "Let's trask this message until the poor saps don't
>understand
>>what hit them", something like that.
>>
>>Öjevind
>>
>>
>
>*lol* it does. I hadn't thought of that.
>I trask someone'll find a good definition for it before long..
>
>joven
Terve!
Yes, perhaps Ali can find a good definition for it, one that doesn't trask
us whose native tongue isn't English too much...
Öjevind
joven
Justin Alistair Lowde kirjoitti viestissä ...
>In article <gCFg3.5355$nZ5....@nntpserver.swip.net>, Öjevind Lång
><ojevin...@swipnet.se> writes
>>
>>joven hath written:
>>>
>>>I'd just finished reading the book and when I saw it I thought that maybe
>>>someone else had read it, too..
>
>Correct - although it gets mentioned all sorts of places.
>
>However I think we should use trask as a verb, excellent idea.
>
to trask [tra:sk]; verb: to inflict jaggedy checkered injuries on sbdy with
a trasker, ie. ''he was trasked till he was blue-and green''
joven
joven
Öjevind Lång kirjoitti viestissä
>
>joven hath written:
>>
>>Öjevind Lång kirjoitti viestissä ...
>>>
><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I trask someone'll find a good definition for it before long..
>>
>>joven
>
>
>Terve!
>Yes, perhaps Ali can find a good definition for it, one that doesn't trask
>us whose native tongue isn't English too much...
>
>Öjevind
>
>
>
god morgon!
I tried to think of a good one, but it proved much too trasking for me. so I
decided to trask the idea, at least for a while. maybe I'll trask up an
inspiration soo, who trasks?
joven
joven
inspiration soon, who trasks?
joven
Öjevind Lång
joven hath written:
>
<snip>
>>
>
>god morgon!
>I tried to think of a good one, but it proved much too trasking for me. so
I
>decided to trask the idea, at least for a while. maybe I'll trask up an
>
>joven
All right; we'll leave that demaning trask to others.
Öjevind
Jim
Martinez) wrote:
>I never associated it with any political movements or views.
>
How can you not? Especially "The Scouring of the Shire" with the
"gatherings" (redistribution of wealth as an excuse for theft), the
puppet Chief, the "not holding with" beer and tobacco, the
industrialization, the use of collaborators, etc.
Not that this can be associated with a *specific* political movement.
That would not be universal, and LOTR is a book for all time. Nor is
it strictly an allegory -- rather it adds a terribly wistful and
powerful view of evil. "This is Mordor", says Frodo, and in that
sense it is right.
Instead we are looking at, well, politics in its purest form. The
system is perpetuated by people who "want to be big": (Saruman who can
only be "big" now by lording it over hobbits; foolish hobbits that
want to be better than their fellows). And the technique is simple
and age-old:
- forbid minor evils (pipe weed, beer, overeating) as an excuse for
perpetuating major ones. One can argue over whether these are evils
at all (some of them are health risks, but evil?)
- demoralize the people. This is best done by sowing distrust
(collaborators have as much value in creating distrust as in any
actual spying)
- argue to the unconscious, not to the conscious (the Voice of
Saruman). People are taken off-guard and can't argue back properly,
until later.
I only review the psychological methods because the physical ones are
secondary (Saruman & his ruffians are *far* inferior in battle to the
united front of hobbits).
Without allegory, there can still be applicability. You can tell a
"politician" (in the bad sense, and in whatever field of life) by
these same signs:
- Worrying about small things. Compared to the evil of Mordor, how
ridiculous does it sound to worry about pipe-weed and beer, a little
hobbit cheer? Compared to world poverty, industrial waste, and
corrupt govenment, how can any leader care about flag-burning
(arguably not an evil), marijuana (arguably not an evil), or
homosexuality (definitely arguably not an evil)? Imagine Aragorn
bravely launching a crusade against Gondorian pornography
(conservative), or against jokes about the Rohirrim (liberal).
Crusaders against the little joys (and the big joys) of life are the
subtlest Morgul weapons about.
- Talking dishonestly. This doesn't mean presenting false facts ("I
didn't do ***"), or even disassembling, but rather in methods that
render discussion impossible. Such as reverting to blind patriotism
(such as casting opponents of a war as opponents of "our troops"),
pointing the Finger of Accusation (of racism, sexism, feminism, or
whatever witch is being hunted for at the moment), and most of all
appealing to They are Wrong, so We are Right ("they are criminals, so
we can put them in jail forever", "he is a terrorist, so we're
justified bombing his people", "she didn't pay her social security
tax, so she can't possibly be in the Cabinet"). Anything done "for
the children" and "for the family" goes down the same hole (unless you
find it impossible for the same words to drool out the lips of some
Wormtongue).
Sorry to talk about morals -- but damn it, it's a moral book! You can
tell that Tolkein took his religion seriously, because it's not the
characters who prate on goodness who are the heroes in his books, but
the ones who are forgiving to others and strong within themselves.
Jim
William A Howe
age)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------