Recent Posts
Here is what I think Tolkien thought: Human beings do not succeed in any decisive, ultimate way against corruption, all of their victories are local and temporary, only to give way to later corruption. In the human realm, the light in this darkness is friendship. If it hadn't been for friendship and a loyal friend, Middle Earth would have fallen into utter darkness, because alone, or without a friend like Sam, Frodo and the ring would never have made it to Mount Doom. But Tolkien is still profoundly pessimistic: it takes more than the friendship to destroy the ring, because at the end, Frodo is seduced and utterly defeated. Only due to the evil of Gollum is the ring destroyed: utter corruption destroys itself, if the good can simply outlast it. And yet...and yet, it is the mercy that Gollum received at the hands of Bilbo, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo, and Sam that made that possible. Otherwise, Gollum would have been destroyed long ago and would not have been there at the end. There's some interesting stuff going on there. Maybe the question that belongs at the end of this parable is, "Now, who was a friend to Gollum?"
"Norman!"
Actually, loon is probably too strong a word in the case of Howard. But his (alleged) suppressed homosexuality almost certainly fed into the character of Conan and similar rough, tough combative heroes with big muscles and so on - pure beefcake.
Actually, loon maybe isn't to strong a word. He did try to kill himself after his dog died, after all. Now, there is nothing wrong in being fond of a pet, but......
...but there *is* something wrong with reporting something as fact that isn't, like everything you said about Howard in your last two posts. If you don't believe me then feel free to go find something to back any of those claims.
Was the guy a bigot? Certainly, and demonstrably so in his personal letters to Lovecraft, so you don't really have to dig around in his stories for it, though it's there, too. I myself try to judge people in the context of their time and place to a degree, but don't fault those who don't, so go right ahead. He was also an oddball who didn't fit in, and a fairly young suicide.
So I make no argument for his 'normalcy', or even functionality in day-to-day life, but the rest of that material you wrote isn't demonstrably factual, and the whole 'suppressed homosexuality' thing was a product of the 1970s, when anything perceived as 'macho' was 'secretly gay'. If you read the actual Howard stories you'll find that the descriptions given of the main character weren't what was depicted in either the comics or the films. He generally described someone with an athletic build. If that makes him gay, then what's the verdict on classical Greek and Roman sculpture, all comic artists, most fantasy writers....hell, ALL wrestling fans?
I can understand making a story better with a dose of fiction or stretching the truth, but doing so for the purpose of criticism? Not really.
OK, the new post made me go back and reread half of this thread, trying to figure out if it was mistakenly posted in the wrong thread. Damn, there's some meat in this thread, and some of it get's kinda heated. :)
(Suppressed/latent homo-eroticism? Parochial Texan exaltation of Bar-Be-Queing?)
It's too bad when you crack on somebody's avatar, then they change it later, and your old cracks don't make obvious sense anymore. Oh well.
Of course, it's worth remembering that I'm not sure exactly why Erik said Tolkein was too hopeful and not grim enough.
I am a HUGE fan of Tolkien. But to be fair to Erik, despair is one the BIG theme of evil in the Lord of the Rings, more than grimness at any case. So in a sense, hope does triumph over despair, to a certain extent. More than anything, Gandalf's contribution to the story was bringing hope (I mean for an epic spellcaster, his spellcasting isn't that impressive). Middle Earth isn't quite a happy-happy-joy-joy place, but there are "grimmer" worlds described in fantasy.
'findel
EDIT; Crap, there are 5 pages of this thread! 'Jumped to reply-mode after reading the 1st page only and missed Erik's answer on page 2...
As for the racism - Tolkien was a man of his time. He was born at the end of the 19th century and will have held views typical of his generation. I can't really condemn him for that, frankly, and it is hardly alond the lines of the militaristic fascism in something like Starship Troopers by Heinlein. You can find it if you want to look for it - but it isn't a pervasive theme. The pervasive theme to me is actually a sort of post-Romantic regret at the passing of the natural beauty of Middle Earth (personified by elven influence) as it becomes more of our world now, not some sort of tract on racial superiority.
On this we are in total agreement, at least.
Trying to ignore the hubbub over whether or not Howard was a homosexual...:)
I think Tolkien was inherently a cynic. He believed friendship was one of the ultimate expressions of love. That said, he lost all of his close friends during WWI. I can't imagine, no matter how much time passed, that he was ever completely over that. Such feelings surely leaked into Lord of the Rings.
Once he truly realized he was writing an adult tale, the gloves were off. And I think he was able to show the poignancy of existence through the various journeys throughout the story. You can see even more of that in the Silmarillion. He had an understanding of loss that many of us can't understand.
It also helps he had an understanding northern myth cycles, which helped support that sense of loss. I sometimes wonder if he thought of his life in the same way he saw the myths he loved. Obviously, he was a romantic at heart, even going so far as to think of his wife as Luthien.
In some ways, The Lord of the Rings is about the transition into the modern era, whether Tolkien meant to include that theme or not. While he wasn't a big fan of metaphor, I think some of his sadness about the 20th century leaked onto the page.
Ultimately, being a Christian, the idea of corruption being consumed by itself is an important theme for him. One that he must of thought of as he finished the book. In his mind, this world would soon pass away in much the same way. The cycle of Middle Earth would be complete and mankind would return to a more perfect state. So, despite his cynicism, I think Tolkien had a lot of hope on his mind as well.
Right - he was a "cynic" concerning humanity and it potential in this world, but at the heart of his entire vision of fantasy literature is a theological concept that he coined a word for: eucatastrophe. So for some people, he will paradoxically be both too hopeful (cf. Lovecraft) and too grim (cf. progressive traditions of liberal humanism).
