Who were the real heroes of Middle-earth?
Read the article this discussion is about
- isengar
- robertjrubin
- isengar
- Michael_Martinez
- isengar
- Michael_Martinez
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» isengar - More thinking, less blabbing
I am shocked at how a carefully written article that delineates a particular point can let slip a remark that’s ignorant and offensive. I speak of the following:“The senseless slaughter and gradual abandonment of civilization by Europeans hovers across the starkly denuded landscape of Eriador as Tolkien’s ‘Tale of Years’ records the gradual withering of the Dunadan realms in Middle-earth.”
WWI may have senselessly slain millions, making it simple to point fingers at Europeans, but if so then what about Vietnam or even the war on Iraq President Bush will certainly make happen? And how can the European involvement in WWI be called a “gradual abandonment of civilization” when they are the ones that have made the current staples of civilization possible, namely democracy, codes of law and even its people whose descendants are now Americans?
Tolkien shows that it’s human nature to be greedy and power-hungry and thus engage in “senseless slaughter” a.k.a. war. What Tolkien wished to exploit about war was how it places our accomplishments as a people, even our own future existence, in danger. Can war be called a “gradual abandonment of civilization”? Well, there’s nothing gradual about it. War is selfish abandon, period. Abandon for others, for the environment, for centuries of progress, for life itself. For example, we know the U.S. will soon go to war with Iraq but for what? The no spin truth is that the U.S. is in a difficult recession and war stimulates the economy.
Tolkien is clear on the issue of war. The war of the Noldor against Morgoth is futile because it was spawned by selfish greed and material obsession, begun by Fëanor and consecrated by a deadly oath. The first indication that something was dead wrong with this war for the Silmarils was the slaying of Kin at Aqualondë. No cause is worth killing your brothers. The theme of that story runs parallel to that of Cain and Abel.
So one has to ask oneself why is it that Beren and Luthien were granted the victory of snatching a Silmaril from Morgoth’s crown—a feat unmatched in all Middle-earth history? Very simple. Because they did it for love. Neither Beren or Luthien gave a damn about the Silmaril. They did it because that was Thingol’s price for Luthien’s hand in marriage, and the fact that Luthien took an active part in making this happen says a lot about their love and puts an ironically corrective twist on the medieval damsel-in-distress concept.
Also, many times Elves, Men and Dwarves fight against Morgoth for survival and Tolkien points out that they could, if they stuck together, overcome anything Morgoth threw at them… But they don't. Men are primarily at fault for this, being easy to tempt and delude. Men always seem to need guidance from those who care and know better. Knowing this, we see that Tolkien did suffer under the heinous atrocities of WWI but distinguished between fighting for power and material gain (War of the Silmarils, War of Dwarves and Orcs) and fighting for love and/or survival (Beren and Luthien, War of the Rings, War of Wrath).
Keeping this in mind, it’s very harsh to say that the Europeans have ever engaged in the “gradual abandonment of civilization” regardless of how senseless the slaughter without putting it into the greater perspective of the audacity and decay of Men across the world. Considering that the U.S. is about to enter another time of “senseless slaughter” on its end, I doubt we’d want to be depicted anywhere in such a crude fashion.
-- posted by isengar
» robertjrubin - Re: More thinking, less blabbing
In response to message posted by isengar:While I agree regarding your distinction between types of wars, I tend to disagree regarding which wars are which. In Tolkien's world, the first ward of the ring (in the second age) can be in large part blamed on the Elvish desire for controlling time. They would not have been a target for Sauron if they had not forged the 3 rings. The same problems that gave rise to the War of the Silmarils engendered the first war of the rings (the latter war of the rings was truly an act of desparate self-defense).
The War of the Dwarves and Orcs was initiated by an act of cruel murder aimed at Thror whose crime was to (in a state of insanity) wish to revisit his home - Moria. Unfortunately in our world as well as Tolkien's, not defending ones rights does not result in being left alone, but in being slowly reduced to servitude. If the Dwarves would have ignored the insult, this would have been an open invitation to drive them from their remaining homes. Passivity in the face of hostility encourges more hostility.
Regarding current events only history will tell us if Iraq is a true threat. Unfortunately, the wait for a smoking gun may be fatal. Guns generally don't smoke until they are fired. You have a choice of whether to trust Sadaam Hussein more than George Bush.
-- posted by robertjrubin
» 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
» Michael_Martinez - Re: On War and Love
In response to message posted by isengar:The article was addressing the comparisons some people have made between World War II and Tolkien's story. That context does not demand that I write about the atrocities which have occurred in other parts of the world (or in other eras). Tolkien himself noted that his was an English story, which would be familiar to an Englishman. By extension, it is also a European tale, familiar to a European. And further extension makes it a human tale, familiar to all humanity.
But the story itself is rooted in Tolkien's education and experience, and his war experience comes from World War I, where he served in France as an English soldier. One cannot relate what happened in, say, Cambodia in the 1970s and 1980s, to Tolkien's experience. Such events occurred after his death and had no impact on his writing.
No one should take offense at a simple reference to the facts Tolkien had to deal with.
-- posted by Michael_Martinez
» isengar - When one should take offense
In response to message posted by Michael_Martinez:“Senseless slaughter” was indeed a fact Tolkien had to deal with. However, that the “gradual abandonment of civilization by Europeans” was a fact he had to deal with is simply not true. That statement is false and offensive if you’re European or respect Europeans. No one with any sense or understanding of the facts of history can buy that. 1) If you’re going to head that route, it wasn’t “gradual.” 2) It’s a very harsh statement to make of any community without putting it in the right perspective. I’m sure Tolkien would not have discussed his country’s involvement in that war quite like that. But, you see, the problem is not so much with what you say but HOW you say it. It’s how you phrase it that matters.
-- posted by isengar
» Michael_Martinez - Re: When one should take offense
In response to message posted by isengar:There is nothing civilized about following a course of action which leads to the deaths of millions. Whether the process was gradual is a subject for debate with no clearly universally convincing arguments. There are people who blame Arminius for the world wars, because he turned against Rome and helped the Germans break free of Roman influence, thus dividing Europe for the past 2,000 years.
The article wasn't intended to cause offense, but if people are going to insist on being offended, I'm not going to lose any sleep over such insistence.
Keep in mind that "how you say it" cuts both ways.
-- posted by Michael_Martinez
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.