= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gondolinian comments on Rationality Quotes January 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (148)
— George R. R. Martin, Rolling Stone interview (emphasis mine)
Although the main point of this quote is valid (that sound policies rather than great men are the cause of good government), criticizing Lord of the Rings for having a “medieval philosophy” is a bit silly – it is like criticizing Johnny Cash for sounding “kind of country”. More so than an author of fiction, Tolkien was a scholar who focused much of his effort on studying medieval literature and translating that literature into modern English. Medieval literature was an inspiration and a major influence on his fiction. Of course the Lord of the Rings has a medieval philosophy; it was intended to have a medieval philosophy.
Does the intent matter? Intended or not, Lord of the Rings has come to occupy a certain cultural position; surely it's right to ask whether it's fit for it, even if that position is not the one the original author intended?
I think that our culture is big enough to accommodate the literature of J. R. R. Tolkien and George R. R. Martin and Michael Moorcock; we as a society don’t really need to choose among them (although some individuals will obviously prefer one over another). Aumann’s theorem does not apply to literature; not all rational authors have to write identical styles of fiction.
True as far as it goes, but is really likely that men, elves, and orcs (really all but hobbits) could have that many thousands of years of civilization at a stable or declining level of technology and magic, with so many wars and disruptions of bloodlines, without trying out any form of government other than a kingdom? I know elves are stubborn, but that seems a bit much, even if there is a literal Divine Right of Kings passed down from Numenor.
Yes, actually. Look at the history of say China before major Western contact, or Japan, or India, or Mesopotamia, or Ancient Egypt, or really anywhere outside Europe or extremely heavy European influence.
More importantly they're immortal.
Maybe. However many scholars and other authors (Isaac Asimov comes to mind) have criticized this tendency in Tolkien. There's an extent to which Middle Earth post-War and the Shire in particular are wish fulfillment. This is what Tolkien wants the world to be. For one recent take see The Anti Tolkien in the latest issue of the New Yorker which gives Michael Moorcock his say:
Or rather a middle class with values that Moorcock doesn't like. (Probably because they don't let him get high on claimed moral superiority.)
Although I have read and enjoyed several Moorcock novels in years past, I did not see much of substance in Moorcock’s views as described by the New Yorker blog post (FWIW, The Anti-Tolkien is a blog post; it is not in the latest print issue). In particular, the passage you quoted sounds like empty rhetoric from an aging pseudo-intellectual Marxist. Specifically, it raises several questions: 1. What makes Moorcock think that members of the middle class are apt to be morally bankrupt? 2. Are members of the middle class more apt than members of the upper and lower class to be morally bankrupt? If so, what evidence is there for this? If not, wouldn’t it be more descriptive to refer to “morally bankrupt society”? 3. Even if you accept that the middle class is morally bankrupt (which I do not), how is Tolkien’s “vast catalogue of names, places, magic rings, and dwarven kings” a “pernicious confirmation of the values” of that middle class? I don’t see any connection between a vast catalog of names, places, etc., and middle-class values (whatever those might be).
Not to endorse the view, but criticism of specifically the middle class is not novel: (from a comment on Paul Fussell's Class):
This is true. In fact, reflexive bourgeoisie-bashing is so ubiquitous in some circles that it has become a cliché. This is what led me to liken Moorcock’s comment to empty pseudo-intellectual Marxist rhetoric.
Being good isn't enough, but being wise and good is. Tolkien may not be able to answer all those questions, because he's probably not wise enough to make those hard decisions well, but Aragorn was.
It's emphatically not enough. Jonathan Swift may have been wise enough to figure out certain evolutionary principles; he may have been good; he was also wrong on the facts, because science is fscking hard.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be hard. I'm saying that being able to make the hard decisions is part of being a "wise ruler". I admit I never finished the Lord of the Rings, so I don't know what Tolkien actually said, but from what Martin quoted, Tolkien never said it would be easy. If anything, specifying that Aragorn was wise was suggesting that it was hard.
Yes, these are interesting questions. They're beyond the scope of what he wanted to write, and I don't think it's wrong for him to ignore them. It is also right for Mr. Martin to write about them, because they are within the scope of what he wants to write.
In fairness, real life kings were essentially indifferent to commoners a lot of the time. Having good intentions is a good start to being a better ruler than them.