Does Lord of the Rings lack moral ambiguity?

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Frodo doesn't fail at all. It is clear from the start, from the second chapter of the book, that he cannot and could not possibly destroy the Ruling Ring. If he cannot throw it into the fire in his own home there isn't any indication that he could do the same thing at another place, especially not a place where the power of the Ring would be much stronger.

The entire quest is done on the premise that things will resolve themselves at Mount Doom. Without a miracle/divine intervention there is no chance for victory.

Frodo knows he shouldn't use the Ring, but he does anyway. Ergo, he fails. Tolkien himself says as much.

No-one holds it against him because in that situation Doing Good is Impossible. Frodo (as per Augustine) fails because he's living in a Fallen World. Stoically relying on the mere force of an individual will is futile.

(At which point, Boethius comes in, and trumps Augustine, because Providence exists. All quite complex. Especially because no-one could have rationally predicted Providence to take a hand).

This is also what I mean when I emphasise that Doing Good in Tolkien is hard. It's all very well to smugly sit at one's computer, and insist that it is simplistic to present a "right answer" to a moral quandary, but for someone who is actually in the quandary, the situation is genuinely difficult.

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Neither Saruman nor Sauron ever do anything that could be viewed as 'good'. They might see themselves as 'not evil' - although we never actually get their own honest opinions on their actions - but what they do clearly is wrong. They usurp power, lie, steal, murder, start wars without any cause but their own desire for dominance, etc.

That they weren't 'born evil' or evil when they were toddlers or preteens doesn't change the fact that the characters we meet and hear about in the novel are very much evil. And we don't really understand how and why they turned evil because nothing in the book even tries to explain how it might make sense to become a Dark Lord when you actually want to do good.

We most certainly do get Saruman's honest opinion. Specifically, that Middle-earth needs Knowledge, Rule, and Order, and that "flexibility" in achieving those objectives is justified. Ergo, he's a classic consequentialist... fine if you're in ASOIAF (a fundamentally consequentialist work), but less so in a work where intentionalist morality rules.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

That is in of itself an objective morality. 

How is authenticity anymore vague than piety? 

I have no idea what you are asking.

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Denethor isn't a good person. He is not as bad as others, of course, and he is *good* in the sense that he never joined Sauron directly, but he still abandoned his people and gave in to despair, trying to murder his son and killing himself. Which is marked quite clearly as a sin.

And of course Aragorn being the rightful king is something that is very much good in the novel. The restoration of the House of Elendil and two Dúnedain nations to glory is good without question. Insofar as Denethor deposes this divinely sanctioned agenda he is very much bad. Not as bad as Sauron but, in degree, comparable to him, I'd say, since the defining feature of a Dark Lord in the political sphere is the clinging to usurped power.

Denethor is just a steward. He rules for the king in his absence. He has no right to desire or execute royal authority as such.

Tolkien's works pretty much are all about the divine right of kings and such. Royal authority is only somewhat undermined if the king in question is a heretic or otherwise not in accord with the divine powers ruling the world - which is why Melkor's alleged kingship of Arda is false.

But even when you look at the Númenóreans even Ar-Pharazôn is never called a false king, or a king losing his right to the kingship because of his evil deeds. Also, in the end all the Númenórean people have to pay the price for Pharazôn's hubris because god decides to destroy their land and kill them all just for the deeds of the man they are obliged to obey.

The idea that a monarchy/restoration of the ancient dynasty is good in and of itself is never really questioned in Tolkien's works.

In ASoIaF you have various noble characters who are scions of this or that ancient bloodline thinking within the framework of the values and morals of such a society ... but overall, the narrator never tells us that the Starks or Targaryens are 'right' for wanting back their 'birthright', etc.

In LotR you cannot even make the case that Aragorn might not be the rightful king because signs and portents and prophecies and angelic beings tell us again and again that he is the rightful king.

Denethor's rejection of the Heir of Isildur is entirely within precedent, of course, and his later actions are simply full-blown insanity brought on by an impossible situation. And as I have previously noted, a 20-year old Aragorn simply turning up and demanding the throne would have gone badly (why do you think none of Aragorn's ancestors since Arvedui had claimed Gondor?).

For an illustration of a Rightful King in Tolkien who is a bona fide villain, see Farmer Giles of Ham. Blood-line alone isn't enough.

[The Marquis de Leech]

6 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

I don't believe I said that. Being as I don't argue LOTR should be morally ambiguous.  

Objective Morality can be deep or interesting. I find Stoicism to be interesting, and Existentialism. Both have some objective morality of what is good and what is evil. 'The Stranger' by Albert Camus (until the very end) had something of an objective morality that I found interesting. 

LOTR (my interpretation though I could be wrong) doesn't seem to focus on why its morality is right. The characters' triumph does not signify the morality of their good, the morality of good is already taken for granted. 

Evil is also taken for granted. Greed, vanity, bloodlust, are all assumed evil from the outset.  

LOTR is a critical examination of Stoicism through an Augustinian lens. Specifically, we have a Quest where Frodo must use his will to resist the lure of the Ring (because it is the right thing to do). Except that, as per Augustine, he fails because it is a Fallen World. No mere mortal will can entirely resist Evil.

Existentialism is Subjective Morality.

As for why the morality of LOTR is right... we're getting into the distinction between Deontology and Virtue Ethics here. I lean towards Tolkien's text being more the latter than the former, and it basically boils down to Virtue being Good because it makes us (genuinely) happy.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, JEORDHl said:

I read this, and thought about it, and all I can think is how horrifyingly thoughtless this statement is.

There is absolutely no one within a thousand leagues more able to expound upon quintessential Sauron than Tolkien.

Grain of salt? Like fuck out of here lol

Well, I don't care about that much about treating an author's private 'interpretation' or 'elaboration' on a published work as accurate reflection of the contents of said work, especially if they do not really fit all that well with said contents.

Bottom line is that Tolkien's private or posthumously published musings of the character of Sauron don't really matter all that much if you talk about the LotR as published.

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Boromir knew the Ring was evil, but genuinely thought that the Ends Justify the Means, specifically that using the Ring would perform the Good of saving his homeland from Sauron. It's the same reasoning that people use to justify the use of the Atomic Bomb against Japan. Boromir is only wrong because we're reading a text written by a devout Catholic.

Boromir had information from experts on the matter that the Ring is evil. His own private opinions/delusions don't matter.

That said, him thinking the Ring could be used for good isn't that much of an issue. He never used the Ring so he never did any wrong with it. The point is that his desire for the Ring caused him to do bad things ... and the only redemption for those things the author could think of was death in battle.

1 hour ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Denethor knew he wasn't King. He just (arguably correctly) thought that the Heir of Isildur had no claim to Gondor, based off precedent. He also (not without reason) thought that Gondor was doomed... again, his fault being that he does not Believe. Denethor is arguably what happens if you put an intelligent, modern politician into that sort of setting... it's wrong in the context of Tolkien's Objective Morality, but entirely understandable, especially if you don't subscribe to that form of morality.

You are making things far too complicated. Denethor is told how things are by an angel of the lord. His own political opinions do not matter in any of those questions. Who the rightful king is and what the duties of a steward are aren't questions answered by political deliberations. If that were the case Aragorn would have been only the King of the people, and not the king with the magical hands, the king with the magical blood, the king with the magical will, the king with the magical ownership of the palantíri, and the king who is proclaimed by the magical eagle of the Elder King (who also proclaims how long King Aragorn will rule).

Denethor is no good person because he denies that his is a world ruled by objective morality ... and a god who actually exists. He doesn't really have the luxury of faith or to come up with his own theories about how things should work. It is his presumption that his opinion on those things matter that causes his downfall.

I don't think it makes sense to enter faith into Tolkien's works at all ... or at least not faith about whether demons and angels and god actually do exist. Because there is proof that they do, proof that, especially, educated people like Denethor have access to. You can have doubts whether the Valar are truly good, whether Eru Ilúvatar truly has your own well-being at heart, but not that they exist and influence the world. The very idea that Eru could be a phantom should have been disproved by the destruction of Númenor and the changing of the world - if that happened - because there is consensus in this world that the Valar couldn't have done that.

 

[JGP]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I don't care about that much about treating an author's private 'interpretation' or 'elaboration' on a published work as accurate reflection of the contents of said work, especially if they do not really fit all that well with said contents.

Nah, bottom line is, re: their own intentions, and the intentions of their creations: all subjects, total content, and every. single. [written or unwritten] motivation of all within a creative work, there is no more authoritative voice than the author  -unless it's a work of nonfiction-  period. The end. Like, honestly man, even if Tolkien got less certain and dithery and/or more nuanced in his dotage, his speculations are entire magnitudes more authentic than your ridiculous conceit. 

I've enjoyed the Tolkien threads on this board for years and years, as well as your contributions herein, but on this point you couldn't be more wrong, It's as wrong as it gets.

Objectively wrong. Even morally. ;p

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Frodo knows he shouldn't use the Ring, but he does anyway. Ergo, he fails. Tolkien himself says as much.

Frodo doesn't make a choice in the Sammath Naur. It is right there in the text. He explicitly doesn't make a choice, presumably because he no longer can ... which isn't his fault.

Quote

No-one holds it against him because in that situation Doing Good is Impossible. Frodo (as per Augustine) fails because he's living in a Fallen World. Stoically relying on the mere force of an individual will is futile.

(At which point, Boethius comes in, and trumps Augustine, because Providence exists. All quite complex. Especially because no-one could have rationally predicted Providence to take a hand).

This is also what I mean when I emphasise that Doing Good in Tolkien is hard. It's all very well to smugly sit at one's computer, and insist that it is simplistic to present a "right answer" to a moral quandary, but for someone who is actually in the quandary, the situation is genuinely difficult.

Of course you can rationally predict that god will save the day in a world where a good god exists. That's not that hard. It is rather irrational in a world like Tolkien's to not expect god to save the day because he exists and he cares and he interacts with the physical world.

This is part of the reason why Saruman is very much an unbelievable character who makes very little sense. There cannot be any rational arguments as to why a person with his knowledge would do what he does ... especially since he falls only very late in his immortal life.

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

We most certainly do get Saruman's honest opinion. Specifically, that Middle-earth needs Knowledge, Rule, and Order, and that "flexibility" in achieving those objectives is justified. Ergo, he's a classic consequentialist... fine if you're in ASOIAF (a fundamentally consequentialist work), but less so in a work where intentionalist morality rules.

I don't recall any argument of Saruman's ever explaining why the hell he joined with Sauron or wanted to be another little Dark Lord. He never explains this. What he gives are weirdo platitudes, excuses, and insults, basically. For Saruman, the very idea that Sauron could win is utter horse-shit. He knows who he himself is, he knows on whose authority he himself came to Middle-earth, and he knows what his masters and Eru Ilúvatar can do when their hand is forced. And a total victory of Sauron would force their hand yet again.

Not to mention that whatever 'good' he might want to accomplish with his weirdo evil means clearly stinks. He works with and uses abominable creatures like Orcs and half-men who show their corruption by their very looks and the way they do things.

We could also have a philosophical discussion with Sauron about his endgame and what kind of paradise he wants to build under his supreme and absolute rule ... but when we get his ass off his throne and out for a little walk along the balconies of Barad-dûr it would be rather hard for the guy to explain the discrepancies between his 'enlightened vision' and the bleak realities of Mordor, don't you think?

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Denethor's rejection of the Heir of Isildur is entirely within precedent, of course, and his later actions are simply full-blown insanity brought on by an impossible situation. And as I have previously noted, a 20-year old Aragorn simply turning up and demanding the throne would have gone badly (why do you think none of Aragorn's ancestors since Arvedui had claimed Gondor?).

For an illustration of a Rightful King in Tolkien who is a bona fide villain, see Farmer Giles of Ham. Blood-line alone isn't enough.

It is quite clear that the rejection of Arvedui as king of Gondor was wrong, too. Perhaps even as wrong as what Denethor did/tried to do considering the results of this wrong decision. It led directly to destruction of Arthedain, the loss of Minas Ithil, and the end of the line of Anárion.

If you reject the rightful king you have to suffer the consequences.

The same goes for Aragorn and all his ancestors from Arvedui onwards - they were the rightful kings of the Dúnedain and their people/nobles hypothetically rejecting them would have been wrong. It is not their place to make kings, the divine authorities do that for them.

And that is escpecially true for Aragorn who is literally proclaimed king by the eagle of Manwe.

Nobody ever said bloodline alone was enough, by the way. The point is that magical blood plus divine will/authority make Aragorn king. And, of course, his entire dynasty is blessed with super-long life - even by Númenórean standards whose long life is also a sign of divine favor - which is also a sign of divine favor which reinforces and sanctifies their kingship.

15 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Nah, bottom line is, re: their own intentions, and the intentions of their creations: all subjects, total content, and every. single. [written or unwritten] motivation of all within a creative work, there is no more authoritative voice than the author  -unless it's a work of nonfiction-  period. The end. Like, honestly man, even if Tolkien got less certain and dithery and/or more nuanced in his dotage, his speculations are entire magnitudes more authentic than your ridiculous conceit. 

I've enjoyed the Tolkien threads on this board for years and years, as well as your contributions herein, but on this point you couldn't be more wrong, It's as wrong as it gets.

Objectively wrong. Even morally. ;p

Oh, I didn't say that my own views trump those of Tolkien. I just pointed out that Tolkien saying there are significant differences between the two Dark Lords doesn't make this evident or even recognizable in LotR. In fact, I'd argue that outside the theoretical texts and speculations about Sauron and Morgoth there is actually no real difference in how the two Dark Lords are presented in the actual narrative texts - and that would include the non-theoretical Silmarillion texts.

For comparison, J. K. Rowling privately stating Dumbledore is gay doesn't magically make Dumbledore appear to be gay in the published seven volumes of Harry Potter. You still can believe he is - just as a you can believe that there are philosophical differences between Morgoth and Sauron. But you cannot really point to LotR and the Silmarillion and say 'Well, it is quite evident how Morgoth and Sauron differ philosophically.' And if you interpret or reflect on the books as published without taking into accounts unpublished, unfinished, or private thoughts on certain matters then your conclusion would be that the author failed to include said philosophical differences in his published novels.

That said - I'd concede that Morgoth is more a cave/underground kind of guy whereas Sauron most definitely likes his towers ;-).

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Boromir had information from experts on the matter that the Ring is evil. His own private opinions/delusions don't matter.

That said, him thinking the Ring could be used for good isn't that much of an issue. He never used the Ring so he never did any wrong with it. The point is that his desire for the Ring caused him to do bad things ... and the only redemption for those things the author could think of was death in battle.

You are making things far too complicated. Denethor is told how things are by an angel of the lord. His own political opinions do not matter in any of those questions. Who the rightful king is and what the duties of a steward are aren't questions answered by political deliberations. If that were the case Aragorn would have been only the King of the people, and not the king with the magical hands, the king with the magical blood, the king with the magical will, the king with the magical ownership of the palantíri, and the king who is proclaimed by the magical eagle of the Elder King (who also proclaims how long King Aragorn will rule).

Denethor is no good person because he denies that his is a world ruled by objective morality ... and a god who actually exists. He doesn't really have the luxury of faith or to come up with his own theories about how things should work. It is his presumption that his opinion on those things matter that causes his downfall.

I don't think it makes sense to enter faith into Tolkien's works at all ... or at least not faith about whether demons and angels and god actually do exist. Because there is proof that they do, proof that, especially, educated people like Denethor have access to. You can have doubts whether the Valar are truly good, whether Eru Ilúvatar truly has your own well-being at heart, but not that they exist and influence the world. The very idea that Eru could be a phantom should have been disproved by the destruction of Númenor and the changing of the world - if that happened - because there is consensus in this world that the Valar couldn't have done that.

So if Pope Pius XII had written to Harry Truman, telling him not to use the Bomb against Japan, Truman would have been obliged to care? Boromir was the next-in-line to being the most powerful man in the world, and he knew that this was a powerful weapon... why wouldn't he think that the correct course of action is to bring that item home to his father, regardless of what these Elves and Wizards think?

On Denethor: Yes, Gandalf is a metaphysical angel, and Denethor might even have known that. Except that Saruman and Sauron are metaphysical angels too... why should he listen to Gandalf, and not them? Gandalf was even around for Arvedui... if Gondor had rejected Isildur's line then, why not reject it now? Denethor has only his own experience and knowledge to work with, and so far as he knows, the gods (or God) have not interfered in human affairs since Numenor sank.

Third Age Sauron genuinely thought the Valar had abandoned interest in Middle-earth, and in a physical world where Aman has been removed to another plane of existence, why should men (even educated men like Denethor) think any differently? The existence of the Valar, much less Eru, was not something scientifically demonstrable to an inhabitant of Third Age Middle-earth, with even the circumstances of Numenor's Downfall being a matter of Received Tradition, older to them than Christianity is to us, and passed down by potentially biased sources.

Or to put it another way: if there's doubt in 2021 about the Resurrection of Jesus, why should Denethor, or Boromir, or anyone else simply accept that Numenor's Downfall over 3000 years earlier was Divine Wrath, or that the gods (or God) take any continued interest in human affairs? Or that they aren't simply malevolent bastards, as Sauron's example would seem to suggest? Three thousand years after the defeat of Morgoth, the (much longer-lived) Numenoreans are cheerfully worshipping Melkor.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Frodo doesn't make a choice in the Sammath Naur. It is right there in the text. He explicitly doesn't make a choice, presumably because he no longer can ... which isn't his fault.

Of course you can rationally predict that god will save the day in a world where a good god exists. That's not that hard. It is rather irrational in a world like Tolkien's to not expect god to save the day because he exists and he cares and he interacts with the physical world.

This is part of the reason why Saruman is very much an unbelievable character who makes very little sense. There cannot be any rational arguments as to why a person with his knowledge would do what he does ... especially since he falls only very late in his immortal life.

I don't recall any argument of Saruman's ever explaining why the hell he joined with Sauron or wanted to be another little Dark Lord. He never explains this. What he gives are weirdo platitudes, excuses, and insults, basically. For Saruman, the very idea that Sauron could win is utter horse-shit. He knows who he himself is, he knows on whose authority he himself came to Middle-earth, and he knows what his masters and Eru Ilúvatar can do when their hand is forced. And a total victory of Sauron would force their hand yet again.

Not to mention that whatever 'good' he might want to accomplish with his weirdo evil means clearly stinks. He works with and uses abominable creatures like Orcs and half-men who show their corruption by their very looks and the way they do things.

The culpability of Frodo's choice is voided by circumstances. It is impossible to Do Good in those situations, even with all the will in the world (again, Fallen World). But, as Tolkien himself says, Frodo failed. His will failed. He could not do what he set out to do, instead he claimed the Ring, and was only saved by Gollum's intervention.

Even if you happen to believe in a Higher Power, you can't very well predict what it will do in any given situation. That's the point of eucatastrophe - you can't rely on them, and Gandalf himself had no idea he would be sent back.

A total victory for Sauron wouldn't force the Valar (let alone Eru) to do anything. They didn't intervene during the Second Age to stop Mordor, and only took action when Aman itself was under attack. The Divine Intervention to save Frodo was only because Frodo (and Sam, and Bilbo) had put the pieces in place first. Gandalf himself thinks that a Sauron victory would be final - he doesn't say "Don't worry, guys. Even if Sauron gets the Ring back, Valinor will bail us out.". And if Gandalf thinks this, why is it unreasonable to think for Saruman to think it too? 

[TheLastWolf]

Title. 

Yes. Unfortunately 

As to a perfect morally unjudgemental (sublime nihilism) non opinionated ambiguous grey piece of art, cinema or literature only (paintings and music can't be evil), I'm still waiting 

Paul Thomas Anderson 

Lars Von Trier 

Coen bros 

Blah blah blah Cormac Mccarthy blah blah blah 

Bergman and Kubrick at times 

Still not satisfied 

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Frodo doesn't make a choice in the Sammath Naur. It is right there in the text. He explicitly doesn't make a choice, presumably because he no longer can ... which isn't his fault.

Of course you can rationally predict that god will save the day in a world where a good god exists. That's not that hard. It is rather irrational in a world like Tolkien's to not expect god to save the day because he exists and he cares and he interacts with the physical world.

This is part of the reason why Saruman is very much an unbelievable character who makes very little sense. There cannot be any rational arguments as to why a person with his knowledge would do what he does ... especially since he falls only very late in his immortal life.

I don't recall any argument of Saruman's ever explaining why the hell he joined with Sauron or wanted to be another little Dark Lord. He never explains this. What he gives are weirdo platitudes, excuses, and insults, basically. For Saruman, the very idea that Sauron could win is utter horse-shit. He knows who he himself is, he knows on whose authority he himself came to Middle-earth, and he knows what his masters and Eru Ilúvatar can do when their hand is forced. And a total victory of Sauron would force their hand yet again.

Not to mention that whatever 'good' he might want to accomplish with his weirdo evil means clearly stinks. He works with and uses abominable creatures like Orcs and half-men who show their corruption by their very looks and the way they do things.

We could also have a philosophical discussion with Sauron about his endgame and what kind of paradise he wants to build under his supreme and absolute rule ... but when we get his ass off his throne and out for a little walk along the balconies of Barad-dûr it would be rather hard for the guy to explain the discrepancies between his 'enlightened vision' and the bleak realities of Mordor, don't you think?

It is quite clear that the rejection of Arvedui as king of Gondor was wrong, too. Perhaps even as wrong as what Denethor did/tried to do considering the results of this wrong decision. It led directly to destruction of Arthedain, the loss of Minas Ithil, and the end of the line of Anárion.

If you reject the rightful king you have to suffer the consequences.

The same goes for Aragorn and all his ancestors from Arvedui onwards - they were the rightful kings of the Dúnedain and their people/nobles hypothetically rejecting them would have been wrong. It is not their place to make kings, the divine authorities do that for them.

And that is escpecially true for Aragorn who is literally proclaimed king by the eagle of Manwe.

Nobody ever said bloodline alone was enough, by the way. The point is that magical blood plus divine will/authority make Aragorn king. And, of course, his entire dynasty is blessed with super-long life - even by Númenórean standards whose long life is also a sign of divine favor - which is also a sign of divine favor which reinforces and sanctifies their kingship.

Oh, I didn't say that my own views trump those of Tolkien. I just pointed out that Tolkien saying there are significant differences between the two Dark Lords doesn't make this evident or even recognizable in LotR. In fact, I'd argue that outside the theoretical texts and speculations about Sauron and Morgoth there is actually no real difference in how the two Dark Lords are presented in the actual narrative texts - and that would include the non-theoretical Silmarillion texts.

For comparison, J. K. Rowling privately stating Dumbledore is gay doesn't magically make Dumbledore appear to be gay in the published seven volumes of Harry Potter. You still can believe he is - just as a you can believe that there are philosophical differences between Morgoth and Sauron. But you cannot really point to LotR and the Silmarillion and say 'Well, it is quite evident how Morgoth and Sauron differ philosophically.' And if you interpret or reflect on the books as published without taking into accounts unpublished, unfinished, or private thoughts on certain matters then your conclusion would be that the author failed to include said philosophical differences in his published novels.

That said - I'd concede that Morgoth is more a cave/underground kind of guy whereas Sauron most definitely likes his towers ;-).

1.  You can predict He will ultimately save the world, but you can't know His will.  Perhaps it is God's will that Sauron should win, at this point in time.

2. Would things have turned out any better had Arvedui been accepted?  That's not at all clear.  Arthedain was on its last legs, regardless.

3.  Denethor's arguments againt Aragorn are entirely reasonable ones.  If you were President of France, would you step down because someone rolled up claiming to be the heir of Clovis?   Why should he accept the truth of what Gandalf is saying even if he knows Gandalf is an angel, and not just a powerful mage?

4. In this case, I think it's more a case of the reader knowing more than the characters.  Denethor knows that he is a steward, not a king, but he actually doesn't have any knowledge that would lead him to reasonably conclude he should step down for Aragorn. Isildur's heirs never reigned in Gondor.  Objectively speaking (within this universe) it is the will of God that Aragorn should be king, but why should Denethor believe this?

[The Marquis de Leech]

It's actually even possible to argue that the Red Book of Westmarch is a biased historical source, trying to claim divine mandate for Aragorn.

[C.T. Phipps]

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

We most certainly do get Saruman's honest opinion. Specifically, that Middle-earth needs Knowledge, Rule, and Order, and that "flexibility" in achieving those objectives is justified. Ergo, he's a classic consequentialist... fine if you're in ASOIAF (a fundamentally consequentialist work), but less so in a work where intentionalist morality rules.

Tolkien notably was skeptical of imperialism, which gets hinted at him very aware of the similarities between Gondor and the British Empire as well as other historical Empires to people like the Hobbits (who Aragorn doesn't conquer) or the other peoples of Middle Earth that he does.

I believe he knows that a lot of Saruman's motivations and claims are self-serving and derived from his contempt of what he considers to be lesser beings. Which I feel is a more honest interpretation of the morality of both empires as well as Westeros than ASOI&F. With the exception of people like Ned Stark, the feudal system is mostly made of people who either don't question it or assume (correctly) its privileges are the point. Not because it benefits the many.

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/tolkien-and-empire/

However it's always been going on in different terms, and you and I belong to the ever-defeated never altogether subdued side. I should have hated the Roman Empire in its day (as I do), and remained a patriotic Roman citizen, while preferring a free Gaul and seeing good in Carthaginians.

Delenda est Carthago. We hear rather a lot of that nowadays. I was actually taught at school that that was a fine saying; and I 'reacted' (as they say, in this case with less than the usual misapplication) at once. There lies still some hope that, at least in our beloved land of England, propaganda defeats itself, and even produces the opposite effect. It is said that it is even so in Russia; and I bet it is so in Germany.

Though in this case, as I know nothing about British or American imperialism in the Far East that does not fill me with regret and disgust, I am afraid I am not even supported by a glimmer of patriotism in this remaining war. (May 1945, anticipating a US-Soviet war.)

[C.T. Phipps]

8 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Denethor's rejection of the Heir of Isildur is entirely within precedent, of course, and his later actions are simply full-blown insanity brought on by an impossible situation. And as I have previously noted, a 20-year old Aragorn simply turning up and demanding the throne would have gone badly (why do you think none of Aragorn's ancestors since Arvedui had claimed Gondor?).

For an illustration of a Rightful King in Tolkien who is a bona fide villain, see Farmer Giles of Ham. Blood-line alone isn't enough.

I'm inclined to argue that Tolkien would argue neither Denethor or Gandalf are arguing from a position of morality but from practicality, which is kind of hilarious given the nature of this discussion. Gandalf is not attempting to place Aragorn on the throne of Gondor as a matter of divine mandate and never actually forwards that argument (when he most certainly could). Certainly, he leaves the matter of Gondor's reign unaffected for centuries.

He's forwarding Aragorn as King of Gondor for the reasons that Aragorn is an individual that Sauron is wary of (fears might be too great a statement), Aragorn is a military genius, and doesn't have the same crippling pride that Denethor has. Aragorn also brings in alliances be they ghosts, Men of the North, elves, and other things. Gandalf is choosing to forward him as King because he's the best man for the job and his bloodline is just the justification he's using.

Even then, Gandalf isn't 100% behind the coup plot that Denethor accuses him of because of the same practical reasons that you'd find in A Song of Ice and Fire. Denethor is not a fool. Far from it. Indeed, if you were to scour the realms of men for people who are as close to the superhumanly capable Numenorans of legend then Denethor is probably right behind Aragorn. Arguably even he's TOO much of one because he has the whole "Greatness in Ability comes with Great Flaws" thing they had going. He's far better as an ally than an enemy and they reluctantly do work together as much as they can until events render it impossible.

Aragorn is plan A but just barely because Denethor has done about as good a job as humanly possible before it becomes necessary to replace him. Which is that his isolationist tendencies and the fact the situation IS hopeless in terms of logistics are what drive him to suicide.

I rather like this interpretation because it is such an antithesis to what people normally accuse Tolkien of but I think is fairly true to his writings. However, the fact is that Tolkien's view of what is objectively true about his world is embodied by the HOBBITS not the Gondorians. Which is something that a lot of fans and arguably the Peter Jackson movies fail to deal with. You lose a lot of you don't think the ways of Men (large M) are ridiculous.

[SeanF]

17 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

This points to a certain moral subjectivity rather than objectivity in Tolkien’s works, one that generally favors romantic, nostalgic conservatism.  Why should Gondor leap to acclaim a stranger after centuries?  Why should Laketown burn for the ambition of a stranger?  Dispossessed kings do not have an objective moral superiority but Tolkien’s narrative bestows one upon them — whether noble or tragic.  ASOIAF was more nuanced about this through Varys, although still couldn’t resist the romance of dispossessed lineages reclaiming their “birthright”.

The whole idea of reclaiming one's "birthright" is hugely potent to most of us, not just to dispossessed royalty.  Martin said he identified with Daenerys because of his own family circumstances, of their having lost a  fortune.  Ethnic conflict is driven to a huge extent by a desire to regain the Lost Lands.  People spend fortunes litigating over inheritances.  After the fall of the Berlin Wall, lots of people regained lost property and citizenship in Eastern Europe.

There's nothing strange about the Dunedain chieftains or Thorin dreaming of their return to power and glory.  Most of us would.

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I'm inclined to argue that Tolkien would argue neither Denethor or Gandalf are arguing from a position of morality but from practicality, which is kind of hilarious given the nature of this discussion. Gandalf is not attempting to place Aragorn on the throne of Gondor as a matter of divine mandate and never actually forwards that argument (when he most certainly could).

He's forwarding Aragorn as King of Gondor for the reasons that Aragorn is an individual that Sauron is wary of (fears might be too great a statement), Aragorn is a military genius, and doesn't have the same crippling pride that Denethor has. Aragorn also brings in alliances be they ghosts, Men of the North, elves, and other things. Gandalf is choosing to forward him as King because he's the best man for the job and his bloodline is just the justification he's using.

I rather like this interpretation because it is such an antithesis to what people normally accuse Tolkien of but I think is fairly true to his writings. However, the fact is that Tolkien's view of what is objectively true about his world is embodied by the HOBBITS not the Gondorians. Which is something that a lot of fans and arguably the Peter Jackson movies fail to deal with. You lose a lot of you don't think the ways of Men (large M) are ridiculous.

Aragorn had to earn his place, even if it is God's will that he rule. If he were a person like Viserys, he'd just be laughed at.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Aragorn had to earn his place, even if it is God's will that he rule. If he were a person like Viserys, he'd just be laughed at.

In that argument, I'd argue the distinction between divine right and more mundane reasons for kingship become indistinguishable. Oddly, Joe Abercrombie had a fairly decent take on the idea that Gandalf is manipulating symbolism and tradition for practical purposes of saving Gondor.

Gandalf's purposes are practical and as anyone who knows them would attest, especially Faramir, the only way to get the Gondorians to move is to invoke tradition. They are deeply conservative and unchanging to a level that they probably wish they had the rings of the elves.

[SeanF]

I don't view Denethor as evil at all, even if he gave way to despair at the end.  I think he's pretty much what I would be like as Steward of Gondor (albeit, I might lack his competence). I would certainly want to use the Ring. even knowing its dangers, because I'd be weighing up a present, imminent, very grave danger, against the risks of corruption hundreds of years into the future.  

Just as if I faced the same predicament as Galadriel, and was freely offered the Ring, I'd have taken it.

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

In that argument, I'd argue the distinction between divine right and more mundane reasons for kingship become indistinguishable. Oddly, Joe Abercrombie had a fairly decent take on the idea that Gandalf is manipulating symbolism and tradition for practical purposes of saving Gondor.

Gandalf's purposes are practical and as anyone who knows them would attest, especially Faramir, the only way to get the Gondorians to move is to invoke tradition. They are deeply conservative and unchanging to a level that they probably wish they had the rings of the elves.

So conservative in fact, that there are more Gondoreans than elves who speak Quenya by the time of the story.