In the Shadow of the Status Quo--Fantasy literature and conservativism

[Jo498]

The problem with interpreting SoIaF is of course that we do not know how it will end. Not with the status quo ante Death of King Robert and probably also not with the status quo ante Robert's Rebellion. Compared to Tolkienian timescales the Targaryens are (in Westeros) not an old dynasty but return to separate kingdoms (Ite domum, valyriani!) would not regarded as restitution of some status quo ante by anyone living in Westeros at the time of the books (although probably the preferred state by the North, the Ironborn andDorne). There is no real alternative to feudalism on the table in Westeros. The probably oligarchic local councils of the "Free cities" could not work for a huge continent (and we don't really know how they work in those city states) and it's better than the slaveholders in Slaver's bay. If the alternatives on the table are only just feudal lord (like Ned Stark) or brutal feudal lord, it's obvious what is better. There is also at least one subversion? missed: Varys who is first portrayed according to the creepy scheming eunuch seems one of the "good guys" later on.

As for Tolkien, some good points have already been mentioned. I'd add that there is no return to the status quo here either, except in the Shire. But the Elves are leaving middle Earth, a new age begins. Which is in many respects lesser than the ones before, precisely NOT a restitution of an ideal status. Tolkien's stance in the background of all this is that Creation has been marred/fallen even before there were men, namely when the Trees where destroyed and everything is basically downhill since then. The cataclysms of the earlier ages are far worse, so not only were the heroes brighter then but their fall was also deeper.

In such a fallen world it seems that it's not the worst thing to lead unambitious hobbit-style lives. The ideal is not the warrior, but the gardener (this is also reflected in Eowyn's words quoted in the article). So the pessimist christian Tolkien meets the enlightened skepticist Voltaire: "il faut cultiver notre jardin". Our task is to tend the garden.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

Go get em ser!  Tolkien explicitly recognized the futility of the conservatism of the Elves.  He describes them as "fighting the long defeat".  They could never "win" with their tactics.

[C.T. Phipps]

6 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Oh and considering how much Tolkuen disliked allegory I do find a lot of these conversations unintentionally hilarious.

edit: acker. I'm reminded why I don't like mieville that much. 

Eh, Tolkien approved of applicability. So what we're saying is something he'd actually talk about.

He was saying. "When I talk about the Shire, I'm talking about a land of little fur-footed people not rural England but if you want to use the Shire to talk about rural England, go ahead."

[C.T. Phipps]

4 hours ago, Jo498 said:

The problem with interpreting SoIaF is of course that we do not know how it will end. Not with the status quo ante Death of King Robert and probably also not with the status quo ante Robert's Rebellion. Compared to Tolkienian timescales the Targaryens are (in Westeros) not an old dynasty but return to separate kingdoms (Ite domum, valyriani!) would not regarded as restitution of some status quo ante by anyone living in Westeros at the time of the books (although probably the preferred state by the North, the Ironborn andDorne). There is no real alternative to feudalism on the table in Westeros. The probably oligarchic local councils of the "Free cities" could not work for a huge continent (and we don't really know how they work in those city states) and it's better than the slaveholders in Slaver's bay. If the alternatives on the table are only just feudal lord (like Ned Stark) or brutal feudal lord, it's obvious what is better. There is also at least one subversion? missed: Varys who is first portrayed according to the creepy scheming eunuch seems one of the "good guys" later on.

As for Tolkien, some good points have already been mentioned. I'd add that there is no return to the status quo here either, except in the Shire. But the Elves are leaving middle Earth, a new age begins. Which is in many respects lesser than the ones before, precisely NOT a restitution of an ideal status. Tolkien's stance in the background of all this is that Creation has been marred/fallen even before there were men, namely when the Trees where destroyed and everything is basically downhill since then. The cataclysms of the earlier ages are far worse, so not only were the heroes brighter then but their fall was also deeper.

In such a fallen world it seems that it's not the worst thing to lead unambitious hobbit-style lives. The ideal is not the warrior, but the gardener (this is also reflected in Eowyn's words quoted in the article). So the pessimist christian Tolkien meets the enlightened skepticist Voltaire: "il faut cultiver notre jardin". Our task is to tend the garden.

The Shire itself doesn't actually get untouched either as it has its short-lived civil war. You could also make a note that Samwise becoming the landowner of Bagend/Mayor of Hobbiton is also really the start of the end of the Hobbiton gentry. For all Tolkien's supposed talk of blood purity, they're really just talking about Aragorn (who has an interracial marriage) since the primary characters end up with a gardener ruling the rural Brits.

Regarding Martin, it's interesting to note that autocratic monarchy was also considered an improvement over feudalism on the road to democracy. Not by the people of the present mind you but the people of the time believed "all eggs in one basket" was better than them hidden all over the farm--and while it led to the worst excesses of the Renaissance, it did result in the creation of strong nation states.

[sologdin]

Quote

 how much Tolkuen disliked allegory

ZOMG authorial intention can't save you now!

[TrackerNeil]

Thanks everyone for reading, and dissecting! Dan and I are having fun reading the back-and-forth.

We would be delighted to see a series of rebuttals to our work!

[C.T. Phipps]

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Thanks everyone for reading, and dissecting! Dan and I are having fun reading the back-and-forth.

I will respond briefly to what I just quoted. After the Fall of Numenor, Sauron did possess a body of a sort, but it was a giant eye. In the paper, we point this out in support of our contention that Sauron, by the Third Age, is only nominally male. Yes, Sauron has physical substance, but his body is no longer masculine in any way human beings would understand. So while we probably shouldn't have said, "Sauron no longer has a body", that's a miniscule error that does not in any way undermine our larger point that Third-Age Sauron is not male. (Unless one thinks giant, floating, fiery eyeballs are gendered.) However, we would be delighted to see a series of rebuttals to our work!

Ehhhhh....

The problem with that assertion is Tolkien's Maia are explicitly gendered. Sauron may be able to shapeshift but he's a male "spirit" or consciousness.

[C.T. Phipps]

To move away from Tolkien and Moorcock, I'd like to know if we're discussing American conservativsm or British conservatism or conservatism in general.

Robert E. Howard was a believer that civilization was something inherently weak and that eventually had a corrupting effect on the spirit but that progression in cycles was inevitable. Big Hungry Warriors would found Empires which would slide into decadence which would get overthrown by Big Hungry Warriors. You could very much track him with American anarcho-libertarianism but that's not a movement which he'd identify with and doesn't really fit neatly into any political category like conservative or liberal.

H.P. Lovecraft's well-discussed racial bias is less important than the fact he was interested in the ideas of (putting down) religion and cosmic ideas. He's also symbolic of the fact there's not a neat divide between fantasy and science fiction. His Great Old Ones have the trappings of gods and magic but they're also aliens the way "Q" in Star Trek is.

Frank Herbert was most definitely talking about politics, religion, and doom but he's not making a social statement about the superiority of monarchy when he discusses the fact his protagonist becomes the figurehead for a massive genocidal purge of the galaxy only to commit suicide versus continue it for millennium thereafter.

In short, fantasy is often about BIG IDEAS but not ones which neatly track to current political trends.

[sologdin]

no need to reference the author's purported intentions when examining the rhetorical effects of the text?  I.e., the author may be a libertarian, but the text might read as commie?

[C.T. Phipps]

2 minutes ago, sologdin said:

no need to reference the author's purported intentions when examining the rhetorical effects of the text?  I.e., the author may be a libertarian, but the text might read as commie?

Death of the Author is always relevant, I believe.

[The Grey Wolf]

48 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

 After the Fall of Numenor, Sauron did possess a body of a sort, but it was a giant eye.

Sorry but this is wrong. After the Fall of Numenor Sauron merely lost the ability to shapeshift and so became locked in his "dark lord" form. After all, he wouldn't have been able to kill Elendil and Gil-galad or have the ring cut off his finger in the War of the Last Alliance if he had been a giant eye at that time. (That's a misconception the movies caused). Furthermore, Gollum describes Sauron, having seen him, as possessing "nine fingers", which clearly implies he has a corporeal human-esque body even at that point.

[sologdin]

irrespective of the timing of the radical corporeal disaggregation, it is nevertheless 100% true that the principal villain of LOTR does not adhere to male/masculine norms as elsewise described in the article? grammatically references thereto are gendered male, but that's not dispositive of anything.

[Andorion]

Firstly I would like to address the point about Sauron and the Others being presented as not-male and therefore emasculated. 

I don't think that was the point at all. Sauron and the Others were presented as not-human as in inhuman. This is a great degree of otherization and is intended to arouse feelings of dread and fear for the unknown, the alien and the different.

Also I found a few points about ASOIAF to be deaf to context. 

"Essossi culture" What is Essossi culture? Its a gigantic continent with huge regions and variations! Slavers Bay is not Pentos is not Braavos is not Dothraki steppes is not whatever lies East of that. Slaver's Bay has an extreme slave centric economy and culture. Pentos does not have this. Braavos as a matter of policy and principle is entirely opposed to slavery. 

How do Daenerys' reforms count as 'conservative'? She is removing long-existing customs. That the opposite of conservatism. Is it nostalgic? She is trying to implement certain facets of Westerosi culture. Certainly not whole of it. Her knowledge of it comes not only from her childhood but through contemporary Westerosi advisers like Jorah and Barristan. Westerosi culture is not a fabled past heritage of Slaver's Bay she is trying to revive. She is importing foreign ideas from a contemporary existing culture.

The point about Cersei and female company - this is mostly from her AFFC ADWD arc where the point of the text is to show her flawed ways of thinking. 

Also the point about physical appearance and Brienne says:

Quote

Brienne of Tarth’s greatest barrier is not any internal vice, but her putative physical unattractiveness, which is remarked upon by everyone she encounters. Martin’s male characters sport all manner of physical deformities— dwarfs with malformed heads, knights with faces scarred by fire, and even an executioner with no tongue—yet none of them draw the same level of scrutiny.

Tyrion's entire life, character and worldview has been shaped by people's derision of his physical form. Ignoring this disrespects his problems totally. 

[sologdin]

31 minutes ago, Andorion said:

Firstly I would like to address the point about Sauron and the Others being presented as not-male and therefore emasculated. 

I don't think that was the point at all. Sauron and the Others were presented as not-human as in inhuman. This is a great degree of otherization and is intended to arouse feelings of dread and fear for the unknown, the alien and the different.

the "point"? this manner of presentation arrogates the interpretive field, indexing the plausibility of a reading to an otherwise unstated standard--the rhetoric suggestive here of the intentional fallacy; that sort of monologism made sense in 1900, but not so much now.

if the heroic is presented as stereotypical male/masculine, does not that accordingly encourage a concordance of binary otherization ('alterity,' maybe?) wherein the inhuman villains are also therein gendered?

[Liver and Onions]

That was a really interesting article- in fact, the whole book looks like an intriguing read. 

I'll bring up the point about women and non-hetero characters in ASOIAF. (kind of a ramble, ahead)  For the women, the POV structure allows us to see exactly what bugs them. Cersei's heavily internalized misogyny, Arya comparing herself to Sansa's superior lady-skills... Yes, Brienne's looks are often discussed, but I'd argue that's less of a (subconscious) sexist writing choice than an acknowledge that she's painfully aware that she's "ugly" by Westeros standards and has had that thrown in her face all her life. Just as Tyrion is always aware that he's short, unattractive, and now partially noseless. Even with Asha's "big" nose, isn't that a feature that Theon observes when he first sees her in the story? (I'll have to reread- I don't recall Asha obsessing over her nose.) And as for Renly, Loras, and JonCon, it makes sense that they'd keep their personal preferences hidden. Kem is hardly going to wax poetic to Tyrion about his possible ex-boyfriend in King's Landing. Westeros is not militantly anti-gay, but the culture clearly equates it with pedophilia and otherness. You are correct that we don't get to see their feelings or activities in depth, primarily because the first two aren't POVs. JonCon is a great addition to the cast, but I suspect we won't get to see him relax and able to indulge in personal pleasures. Which is a shame, poor guy. It's probable that this is author bias- no hot guys doing it while there are hot ladies getting adventurous, no surprise there. 

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts/rambles later.

[Andorion]

38 minutes ago, sologdin said:

the "point"? this manner of presentation arrogates the interpretive field, indexing the plausibility of a reading to an otherwise unstated standard--the rhetoric suggestive here of the intentional fallacy; that sort of monologism made sense in 1900, but not so much now.

if the heroic is presented as stereotypical male/masculine, does not that accordingly encourage a concordance of binary otherization ('alterity,' maybe?) wherein the inhuman villains are also therein gendered?

I don't really find this to be applicable, as the villains in the given examples are in opposition and present a mortal threat not only to the heroic but to civilisational existence as understood till that point. This totality necessarily encompasses all genders. The villains in question present features that are alien and different enough to render gender - whether in presence or absence - irrelevant. 

[Jo498]

Villains can be "over-masculine", e.g. the "Mountain" or feminine (seductive sorceresses, maybe Melisandre) they can be ungendered, like most Dragons or other monsters. Or they might be "twisted" wrt gender. (One example here is Klingsor in Wagner's Parsifal who castrated himself because he could not keep the vote of chastity he had sworn as Knight of the Grail.) I'd name Varys here, only it turns out he probably is not a villain.

The Maiar are gendered but I do not remember any episode where Saurons gender (or lack thereof) is relevant. As far as I recall Morgoth lusted for Luthien but nothing like that is said about Sauron. In Numenor he wore the mask of a fair and wise (deceiving) counselor. For all we know he remains masculine even after his destruction by Elendil and Isildur.

[Darth Richard II]

4 hours ago, sologdin said:

ZOMG authorial intention can't save you now!

Had it ever?

[Werthead]

Tolkien's conservatism is always oversold a bit. He regarded corrupt rulers, even "rightful" ones, as needing to be removed and he had democratic institutions and councils in Middle-earth. The Silmarillion has several major female characters kicking the shit out of the bad guys (Luthien bewitches and defeats both Morgoth and Sauron before rescuing her useless boyfriend who got captured due to ineptness). He epicly trolled the Nazis when a German publisher tried to buy the rights to The Hobbit in 1938 (saying how much he regretted not being Jewish). He even bought a motorcar with royalties from Lord of the Rings and roared along the back roads of Oxfordshire screaming like a motherfucker (probably) despite his much-vaunted dislike of the internal combustion engine. He absolutely despised racism and wrote an article condemning apartheid in South Africa when people asked him about it (having been born there), and even became quite guilty over what he perceived as a racist bias in his characterisation of the orcs, and wrote an article explaining the corrupting magic of Morgoth to explain why they were all evil (but still seemed a bit peturbed by it).

Yeah, Tolkien was conservative in some senses, but he wasn't in others, and the same with his fiction. Moorcock's Epic Pooh essay is bullshit due to the fact that Moorcock clearly has not read Tolkien (certainly not beyond The Hobbit). Mieville's is a bit more nuanced, and he also has a separate essay on Why Tolkien is Awesome (which everyone forgets about) which shows his viewpoint is that Tolkien has many great qualities as well as some negative ones.

[Darth Richard II]

What wert said x1000

keepibg in mind I haven't read the actual article in the OP so  not accusing you guys of this, but I wonder sometimes if people have actually READ Tolkien, as opposed to just watching the films. I remember I guy talking ok here once about why he hated Gandalf a d we caught him using events that only happen in The films.