Jump to content

Why Tolkien is not coddling his readers, why Tolkien is awesome


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Oh I do agree Sauron's rule in Mordor proper could be described as totalitarian. But to play devil's advocate one more time: Mordor was overwhelmingly populated by Orks and no one, not the Hobbits, Elves, dwarves or humans of all factions hold them in high regard or consider their life of much value. 

And actually we have no idea or objective view how Sauron ruled over his human subjects. We do know though that crazy, lunatic Morgoth had quite a "Laisser-faire" approach over his Easterlings in the First Age. The Narn I Chin Hurin gives the impression that the Easterlings under Morgoth could rule relatively autonomous in "inner matters". Of course as long as they were totally loyal towards Morgoth. 

Ockham's razor would tell me now that there is no reason why this should have been different under Sauron, the opposite is the case: 

- Sauron was less paranoid than Morgoth - Sauron had less power projection capabilities than Morgoth, both in the 2nd and 3rd age (I mean on the height of his power in Middle Earth, Sauron could do nothing but accept a strong Numenorean colonial empire on "his home turf" and he couldn't crush down the Elven realms of Gil-Galad and Oropher). 

A totalitarian approach to rule only works when you do not have to fear significant resistance. Sauron never had this power, his propaganda notwithstanding. 

Again, consider this as devils advocate ;)

The fertile parts of Mordor were worked by slaves, though (presumably human beings) to whom Aragorn gave the country, at the end of the War.  How harshly they were treated would probably depend on how easily they could be replaced. 

My guess would be that Mordor was a very nasty place to live in (Stalin's Russia is probably a fair comparison).  I imagine that life would be rather better in the realms of Khand, Harad, and Umbar (more like an average tyranny, where you can lead not too bad a life if you keep your head down).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SeanF said:

My guess would be that Mordor was a very nasty place to live in (Stalin's Russia is probably a fair comparison).  I imagine that life would be rather better in the realms of Khand, Harad, and Umbar (more like an average tyranny, where you can lead not too bad a life if you keep your head down).

Yes, my thoughts. Slavery is obviously bad (but nothing outrageously mythological evil bad) but otherwise? How "free" can you be as an average farmer in a feudal society anyway? 

You know but this is the very interesting aspect about Tolkien...I know "death of author" and all that but I am totally convinced that to understand Tolkien's attitude towards Sauron, one must take his personal background into account. Tolkien grew up in a fairly liberal society with quite a democratic tradition and an ingrained dislike for authoritarian "strong men" plus an emphasis on individuality. And of course given this background a rule like that of Sauron must seem to him as the worst thing ever since Haggis...but for people from countries with a slightly different socio-cultural background, maybe with less an emphasis on individuality and more on the community, and where "stability and order" are highly valued, a rule of Sauron might seem bad but not THAT bad like Tolkien wants to convince me. I am obviously speaking as a cliche German here but just food for thoughts. For example it cannot be denied that Germans really do like "stability and order" and a political "chaos" like in Italy would drive most Germans mad :)). 

But you see, this is why Tolkien is still so great because he allows for such philosophical mind games like no other first tier sci-fi/fantasy author (with the exception of Frank Herbert). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Yes, my thoughts. Slavery is obviously bad (but nothing outrageously mythological evil bad) but otherwise? How "free" can you be as an average farmer in a feudal society anyway? 

You know but this is the very interesting aspect about Tolkien...I know "death of author" and all that but I am totally convinced that to understand Tolkien's attitude towards Sauron, one must take his personal background into account. Tolkien grew up in a fairly liberal society with quite a democratic tradition and an ingrained dislike for authoritarian "strong men" plus an emphasis on individuality. And of course given this background a rule like that of Sauron must seem to him as the worst thing ever since Haggis...but for people from countries with a slightly different socio-cultural background, maybe with less an emphasis on individuality and more on the community, and where "stability and order" are highly valued, a rule of Sauron might seem bad but not THAT bad like Tolkien wants to convince me. I am obviously speaking as a cliche German here but just food for thoughts. For example it cannot be denied that Germans really do like "stability and order" and a political "chaos" like in Italy would drive most Germans mad :)). 

But you see, this is why Tolkien is still so great because he allows for such philosophical mind games like no other first tier sci-fi/fantasy author (with the exception of Frank Herbert). 

One would need to consider Tolkien's religious views as well.  He would have regarded the worst kind of society as being one in which the ruler was treated like a god.

I don't know what the condition of the average working class inhabitant of Gondor or Rohan was like (or the condition or working class Elves and Dwarves).  Life doesn't seem too bad for the working class hobbits we meet.  No doubt there are nasty landlords and employers in all the free countries.   But, I imagine that rule by The Mouth of Sauron would be a good deal more unpleasant for them than rule by Denethor, Théoden, Galdriel, Thranduil, or Dain.  They would likely have to labour much harder, and be subject to a much more arbitrary and brutal form of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

One would need to consider Tolkien's religious views as well.  He would have regarded the worst kind of society as being one in which the ruler was treated like a god.

I don't know what the condition of the average working class inhabitant of Gondor or Rohan was like (or the condition or working class Elves and Dwarves).  Life doesn't seem too bad for the working class hobbits we meet.  No doubt there are nasty landlords and employers in all the free countries.   But, I imagine that rule by The Mouth of Sauron would be a good deal more unpleasant for them than rule by Denethor, Théoden, Galdriel, Thranduil, or Dain.  They would likely have to labour much harder, and be subject to a much more arbitrary and brutal form of government.

But wasn't Sauron more like the Pope ;) and Melkor the "god"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arakan said:

But wasn't Sauron more like the Pope ;) and Melkor the "god"?

While he did act as Melkor's prophet in Numenor, they did end up worshipping him as a god.

In Middle Earth, IIRC, he claimed to be Melkor reincarnated to his subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SeanF said:

While he did act as Melkor's prophet in Numenor, they did end up worshipping him as a god.

In Middle Earth, IIRC, he claimed to be Melkor reincarnated to his subjects.

Well, you see another example of how smart and pragmatic Sauron was. Declaring himself the avatar of Melkor instead of simply "another god" shows his superior intellect :)). Clever appeal to higher authority while still making sure to be worshipped like a god. Sauron is the guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Arakan said:

Well, you see another example of how smart and pragmatic Sauron was. Declaring himself the avatar of Melkor instead of simply "another god" shows his superior intellect :)). Clever appeal to higher authority while still making sure to be worshipped like a god. Sauron is the guy. 

I think that, in many ways, Sauron was a better strategist than the Wise, at least in the Third Age. While the elves and dwarves hid out and men abandoned the Last Alliance, Sauron spent the time slowly rebuilding his ties with the Southrons and Easterlings, groups ignored by the Numenoreans. He also waged an unending campaign to weaken the Dunedain realms of Arnor and Gondor without provoking massive retaliation from either one. Even after the Istari arrived, the Wise tended towards watching rather than acting, something you didn't see much from Sauron.

Also, do you notice that Sauron's people showed more loyalty to their boss than the good guys did to theirs? Three of the Istari went astray and one went native, but you never saw orcs or Haradrim engaged in any significant treason. Sure, the orcs were undisciplined and quarrelsome, but they weren't staging massive revolts against Barad-dur. There's no Mordor equivalent of Saruman, is there? I guess Sauron offered a really good benefits package, and I'll bet the orcs were fully vested in their 401Ks from their start date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Arakan said:

You know but this is the very interesting aspect about Tolkien...I know "death of author" and all that but I am totally convinced that to understand Tolkien's attitude towards Sauron, one must take his personal background into account. Tolkien grew up in a fairly liberal society with quite a democratic tradition and an ingrained dislike for authoritarian "strong men" plus an emphasis on individuality. And of course given this background a rule like that of Sauron must seem to him as the worst thing ever since Haggis...but for people from countries with a slightly different socio-cultural background, maybe with less an emphasis on individuality and more on the community, and where "stability and order" are highly valued, a rule of Sauron might seem bad but not THAT bad like Tolkien wants to convince me. I am obviously speaking as a cliche German here but just food for thoughts. For example it cannot be denied that Germans really do like "stability and order" and a political "chaos" like in Italy would drive most Germans mad :)).

He quite liked General Franco, of course, but that is the pre-Vatican II conservative catholic in him. He wasn't an Enlightenment Liberal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Seiche said:

As an aside, the link below is a reflection on the Istari by Jeff LaSala from tor.com.  He has a number of thoughtful posts about Tolkein's work.

http://www.tor.com/2015/07/15/the-unquiet-voice-of-saruman/

Neat little essay. I'd also add that after Saruman gets murdered by Wormtongue, we're treated to that "rapid decay" scene, and a wind out of the West blowing his spirit away. Clearly, not just Gandalf, but Valinor regarded Saruman as Maia non grata at that point.

Oh, and Mairon/Sauron was a Maia of Aulë too. So that's another thing he had in common with Saruman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Also, do you notice that Sauron's people showed more loyalty to their boss than the good guys did to theirs? Three of the Istari went astray and one went native, but you never saw orcs or Haradrim engaged in any significant treason. Sure, the orcs were undisciplined and quarrelsome, but they weren't staging massive revolts against Barad-dur. There's no Mordor equivalent of Saruman, is there? I guess Sauron offered a really good benefits package, and I'll bet the orcs were fully vested in their 401Ks from their start date.

Betraying Gandalf won't get you fed to a giant spider. Betraying Sauron will - and that's only if he has nothing to gain from torturing you as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

He quite liked General Franco, of course, but that is the pre-Vatican II conservative catholic in him. He wasn't an Enlightenment Liberal.

 

No, absolutely not. This is correct. In many regards he was a social conservative (albeit IMO with a "live and let live" attitude). I was more refering to his British background in general and the difference to let's say the much more authoritarian  German or Russian Empire.  Tolkien always emphasized individual freedom (something which never was a primary value in the Prussian/German context up until the 1960s). But of course you do not have to be an enlightened liberal to value individuality (even though its a mindset alien to me personally but it seems to work in conservative America). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arakan said:

No, absolutely not. This is correct. In many regards he was a social conservative (albeit IMO with a "live and let live" attitude). I was more refering to his British background in general and the difference to let's say the much more authoritarian  German or Russian Empire.  Tolkien always emphasized individual freedom (something which never was a primary value in the Prussian/German context up until the 1960s). But of course you do not have to be an enlightened liberal to value individuality (even though its a mindset alien to me personally but it seems to work in conservative America). 

I don't know that Tolkien's conceptions of "individual freedom" fit with any kind of particular "liberal" mindset (especially not in the postwar sense). And I don't know that Germany post-1918 until at least 1932 had an especially authoritarian ethos (see Free State of Prussia). 

Anyway this is a great thread. I don't know that my memory of Tolkien's primary sources is adequate to participate much, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2016 at 8:19 PM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Betraying Gandalf won't get you fed to a giant spider. Betraying Sauron will - and that's only if he has nothing to gain from torturing you as well.

I don't know...it seems to me that Sauron had to be using more than just the threat of retaliation; after all, if the Haradrim or Easterlings had simply abandoned Sauron, he would have been crushed by his many enemies and would have been in no position to feed anyone to Shelob.

As I recall, somewhere in the RotK appendices it's stated that Sauron inflamed the resentment of these peoples against Gondor, and I expect there was a good deal of resentment to inflame. The Numenoreans were clearly disdainful of the Haradrim, calling them "Men of Darkness" and putting them at the bottom of the human quality table. (I am still gobsmacked at the casual was Faramir explains the hierarchy of men to Frodo and Sam, as if he's discussing refrigerators.) Maybe if the kings of Gondor had tried to deal with these peoples not as inferiors but as equals, they could have prevented them allying with Mordor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know...it seems to me that Sauron had to be using more than just the threat of retaliation; after all, if the Haradrim or Easterlings had simply abandoned Sauron, he would have been crushed by his many enemies and would have been in no position to feed anyone to Shelob.

As I recall, somewhere in the RotK appendices it's stated that Sauron inflamed the resentment of these peoples against Gondor, and I expect there was a good deal of resentment to inflame. 

Correct - I explore that in my "Why serve the Dark Lord" essay. Sauron harnessed human support with a combination of anti-imperialist appeals and millennia of propaganda and cults.

If Shelob kept the Orcs in line, the faux-word of God (and blind hate) kept the others in line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's entirely possible the Blue Wizards were formulating rebellion against Sauron in the East while Sauron was marching their armies to the West. I also generally think Sauron's capacity to bring out the worst in people doesn't require him to really need to do too much to get people moving East. After all, Empire building is something which has worked the vast majority of human history. Numenor is rich and powerful, so why NOT conquer and enslave it if you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

After all, Empire building is something which has worked the vast majority of human history. Numenor is rich and powerful, so why NOT conquer and enslave it if you can.

Particularly when the Numenoreans openly express to all and sundry their belief that you and your kind are lesser men. Ouch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Correct - I explore that in my "Why serve the Dark Lord" essay. Sauron harnessed human support with a combination of anti-imperialist appeals and millennia of propaganda and cults.

If Shelob kept the Orcs in line, the faux-word of God (and blind hate) kept the others in line.

After finishing the series, do you consider to republish it as a single piece of essay? It really is a great read with an academic quality on it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...