Who were the real heroes of Middle-earth?: On War and Love

» isengar - On War and Love

In response to message posted by robertjrubin:

I agree with you on your first point although I feel it’s important to distinguish between The Last Alliance of Elves and Men and the War of the Ring that takes place in the Third Age. While you say it was an “act of desperate self-defense” I believe it was more than that: it was a love for life and Middle-earth that urged so many differing peoples and creatures to cooperate in such an uncustomary fashion. Think about the unique bond between Legolas and Gimli, one unmatched in all Middle-earth’s history. It’s doubtful it could’ve occurred in any other time considering the general lack of respect and tolerance between Elves and Dwarves. Tolkien himself indicated the following in the Foreword to the 2nd Ed. of LOTR:

“If [WWII] had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves.”

So it’s relatively safe to say that the War of the Ring is akin to the War of Wrath, one in which those responsible for it in the first place seek pity and forgiveness so that they may overcome the bad roots they have sown and which threaten to destroy them and their world.

As to the Dwarves, regardless of how much you may sympathize or word it, their undoing has always been their overfondness for wealth. It’s Thror’s hope of finding what treasure remained in Moria that led him there. He bequeaths his ring of power to his son and tells him “it needs gold to breed gold.” So if you want to call the Dwarves’ greedy lust for gold a “state of insanity” then I agree. However, I believe you’re confusing Thror with Gimli, who really wanted to revisit his home with hopes of being reunited with his uncle Balin. I also don’t see any indication that the Orcs were planning to liquidate the Dwarves; they just wanted them to stay out of Moria. If anything it’s the Dwarves who went around killing all the Orc hoards and this was not self-defense but foolish pride and still more greed, since the other Dwarf families say themselves the following:

“Khazad-dûm was not our Fathers’ house. What is it to us, unless a hope of treasure? But now, if we must go without the rewards and the weregilds that are owed to us, the sooner we return to our own lands the better pleased we shall be” (p.1049).

Their “hope of treasure” is the hope of gaining the last Dwarvish ring of Power since the story of Durin’s Folk in the appendices of LOTR is riddled with talk of Dwarves’ pursuit of gold and the final ring of the Seven that is lost at last with Thráin’s capture.

I don’t agree with your maxim: “Passivity in the face of hostility encourages more hostility” unless by “passivity” you mean inaction. I have found often that confrontations in which one does not resort to violence or aggression do end up being more favorable for both sides. The message of Love that has been clichéd nowadays is the better way, but if you’re facing opponents who will stop at nothing to hurt you, you do need to neutralize them and neutralize them for good.

As to current events, I don’t place faith in either Hussein or Bush. If I have to choose I’m with Europe, the “light” of the Western World and which made a country like the U.S. possible. To me, the fact that Europe is currently reluctant to side with the U.S. unconditionally indicates they probably feel that choosing between Hussein and Bush is equivalent to choosing between the lesser of two evils. Obviously they’re not clear which is worse. And that might be scary but realize that it was Europe that fought the Nazis for the majority of the war’s duration on their home turf. The U.S. didn’t jump in until Pearl Harbor and our home turf remained unscathed.

It’s WWII that made the U.S. the power it is today and it was at the expense of Europe. It seems they resent the influence the U.S. has on them and the rest of the world, particularly since most of the time it’s not positive. The point I’m making is that most of the world today, including Europe it seems, do no sympathize with the U.S. and do not feel the U.S. is the tremendously positive force it pretends to be. Are they right? You can decide for yourself but they are the majority. The U.S. will need to rethink its conception of itself before it loses many key potential allies. I’d hate to find the U.S. up against an Iraq that has gained the support of France and Germany. Don’t you?

-- posted by isengar