Tolkien’s Spy Past Inspires Hunt For Hobbit, Rings Spooks

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Tolkien’s Spy Past Inspires Hunt For Hobbit, Rings Spooks

* By Scott Thill
* September 18, 2009, 3:31 pm

J.R.R. Tolkien 1916J.R.R. Tolkien was a leading scholar of the English language’s Anglo-Saxon roots, and he invented entire languages for his legendary Middle Earth narratives.

According to a new restricted exhibit at Britain’s intelligence-agency Government Communications Headquarters, the acclaimed author and philologist also trained to crack a few languages at the top-secret Government Code and Cypher School before World War II.

But while Tolkien spent three days in March 1939 at GCCS’ code-breaking compound in Bletchley Park, six months before the war broke, he decided against joining the cadre of brainiacs, including Alan Turing, that eventually deciphered the Enigma machines.

“We simply don’t know why he didn’t join,” a GCHQ historian who refused identification explained to Britain’s Telegraph. “Perhaps it was because we declared war on Germany and not Mordor.”

After Tolkien served in World War I (at right in 1916), most notably at the gruesome Battle of the Somme, he evidently decided his time would be better spent spinning mega-yarns about furry half-pints and fairy elves. By the time he arrived at GCCS, The Hobbit was already a hit and its sequel war epic The Lord of the Rings was already germinating in his vast brain.

The revelation is inspiring for Tolkien loyalists looking for further subtexts in his nearly bottomless myths. Can you spot all the spies in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings?

Bilbo, Frodo and Sam are obvious choices, but there are others deeper in the narrative. Gollum was a spy for the evil spider Shelob, and Grima Wormtongue was a sinister agent of Saruman.

As for decryption, without having Gandalf decipher runes at the Mines of Moria, Lord of the Rings‘ fellowship may never have met success.

Link (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/09/tolkiens-spy-past-inspires-hunt-for-hobbit-rings-spooks/)

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3113/tolkien1916.jpg

Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons

[Chulo]

“Perhaps it was because we declared war on Germany and not Mordor.”
There is starting to be a trend of funny witty remarks from Brits now adays

[goat89]

There is starting to be a trend of funny witty remarks from Brits now adays
You simply do not rock into Mordor!

[lightfire]

You simply do not crack the code of Mordor! Not even with 10 thousand crackers could you do this, it is a folly

fixed for ya.

[goat89]

fixed for ya.
Thx mate. p-)

[SBL]

Tolkien was a fascist.

[DPM_Sheep]

Tolkien was a fascist.


Er, What? rofl

[Skutatos]

Tolkien was a fascist.

You apparently don't know much about the man beyond his books. Tolkien was actually a bit of an outspoken critic of fascism and racism despite what many(bleeding heart liberals) believe these days.

"The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity." He said this in a letter to his son.

[Britishhawk]

Thats funny, Lord of the Rings is on TV atm.

[Paddy51]

Thats funny, Lord of the Rings is on TV atm.

I know, we are watching it, again.... :)

[Paddy51]

As always, thank your Col.

This I did not know but I have an interest in Enigma and Bletchley Park. Turing was a fascinating character and did so much to establish Computer Science as we know it today.

I do seem to remember that some literature people have claimed that Tolkien was in fact writing about the Nazis and their evil. There was an animated film that was supposed to be a prototype for a Hobbit film in the late 70s. In this all the bad guys were portrayed in outline with Nazi style helmets along the line of our old pal Darth Vader.

[Skutatos]

I have heard the Nazi theory as well. He also draws from his experiences in WWI for much of his writing. As far as his portrayal of Orcs being "Racist" as is sometimes claimed...

"We were all orcs in the great war." based on his own words, I would venture to guess that they were actually meant to portray the worst of man's nature.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

As always, thank your Col.

This I did not know but I have an interest in Enigma and Bletchley Park. Turing was a fascinating character and did so much to establish Computer Science as we know it today.

I do seem to remember that some literature people have claimed that Tolkien was in fact writing about the Nazis and their evil. There was an animated film that was supposed to be a prototype for a Hobbit film in the late 70s. In this all the bad guys were portrayed in outline with Nazi style helmets along the line of our old pal Darth Vader.

You're quite welcome, sir.

I read something similar, that the ring possibly represented the atom bomb. My memory may be betraying me, but I also think I remember reading that Tolkien himself dismissed the idea.

[Paddy51]

You're quite welcome, sir.

I read something similar, that the ring possibly represented the atom bomb. My memory may be betraying me, but I also think I remember reading that Tolkien himself dismissed the idea.

You are right Col.

This from Carroll at

http://jlcarroll.net/hobbies/tolkien.html
"Tolkien and Symbolism:

Tolkien rejected the allegorical view of the Lord of the Rings and the Sylmarillion as too narrow. "I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory', but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." (J.R.R. Tolkien) Thus the Orcs are not Nazis or Communists, nor is the One Ring the nuclear bomb as many have supposed, instead they represent broader concepts of greed and power which are applicable in any age or time."

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Thank you, sir. Glad to see it wasn't a figment of my imagination. :)

[Mu-Meson]

I have heard the Nazi theory as well. He also draws from his experiences in WWI for much of his writing. As far as his portrayal of Orcs being "Racist" as is sometimes claimed...

"We were all orcs in the great war." based on his own words, I would venture to guess that they were actually meant to portray the worst of man's nature.

IIRC, Tolkien said that LOTR was not an allegory or metaphor or whatever for WWII. Paraphrasing his response, he said that if it was, then the bad guys would have won, the Shire would have been destroyed, and ended up with Saruman, and Sauron duking it out, with Saruman making his own rings of power.

[JDBL14]

Tolkien had said that his experiences in The Great War made him see how evil war is. I figure he didn't want any part of WWII because of this. Sauron & Saruman represented greed, as did the actions of Isildur. There are many references to greed in the books, the dwarves of moria, the stewards of Gondor, the coursairs. If I remember right, orcs were originally like elves but they let their soul be corrupted. That is the theme of the book, the internal struggle of good vs evil.

[Mastermind]

Thanks again Col, for a fascinating subject.

Tolkien is a person of such intense depth as to rival any other persons in history. I found his writings to be an unsolvable riddle, wrapped in an enigma. I have to wonder about men like him. What if he had come to power during his time? We are probably fortunate he did not. But, then, what if cows could fly and we milked pigeons?

In my opinion, he was a rather high thinker, with his trilogy a rather complex test of human nature. Every reader's deepest moral values are severely tested through his writings. My biggest challenge has always been over possession of the ultimate power...does it really totally corrupt? I have thought (as probably everyone who read the Trilogy) it would not have corrupted me. Yet, as I go through life expressing my flittering angst on this or that daily happening, I know I would be as bad as anyone and hardly a hero. Life is just a matter of perspective...as is goodness and evil.

Tolkien painted a marvelous fantasy that is displayed on a vast canvass of human frailty and imperfection.

[goat89]

Thanks again Col, for a fascinating subject.

Tolkien is a person of such intense depth as to rival any other persons in history. I found his writings to be an unsolvable riddle, wrapped in an enigma. I have to wonder about men like him. What if he had come to power during his time? We are probably fortunate he did not. But, then, what if cows could fly and we milked pigeons?

In my opinion, he was a rather high thinker, with his trilogy a rather complex test of human nature. Every reader's deepest moral values are severely tested through his writings. My biggest challenge has always been over possession of the ultimate power...does it really totally corrupt? I have thought (as probably everyone who read the Trilogy) it would not have corrupted me. Yet, as I go through life expressing my flittering angst on this or that daily happening, I know I would be as bad as anyone and hardly a hero. Life is just a matter of perspective...as is goodness and evil.

Tolkien painted a marvelous fantasy that is displayed on a vast canvass of human frailty and imperfection.

Good post Mastermind!
X2 on that!

[GB_FXST]

Thanks again Col, for a fascinating subject.

Tolkien is a person of such intense depth as to rival any other persons in history. I found his writings to be an unsolvable riddle, wrapped in an enigma. I have to wonder about men like him. What if he had come to power during his time? We are probably fortunate he did not. But, then, what if cows could fly and we milked pigeons?

In my opinion, he was a rather high thinker, with his trilogy a rather complex test of human nature. Every reader's deepest moral values are severely tested through his writings. My biggest challenge has always been over possession of the ultimate power...does it really totally corrupt? I have thought (as probably everyone who read the Trilogy) it would not have corrupted me. Yet, as I go through life expressing my flittering angst on this or that daily happening, I know I would be as bad as anyone and hardly a hero. Life is just a matter of perspective...as is goodness and evil.

Tolkien painted a marvelous fantasy that is displayed on a vast canvass of human frailty and imperfection.

This is a good post. A however, a point of disagreement: I think Tolkein clearly delineates between good and evil. These are not relative concepts; a definite line separates the two. However, he is keenly aware that the frailty of the human condition can cause man to easily stray into evil actions if not evil ideologies.

I like your observation about corruptibility. It is probably a sign of age and wisdom to realize any individual would succumb to the corruption of unchecked power.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Thanks again Col, for a fascinating subject.
You're quite welcome, sir.

Interesting background information on a celebrated literary figure at any rate.

[goat89]

You're quite welcome, sir.

Interesting background information on a celebrated literary figure at any rate.
Lies. More like you posted it because of its uber sci-fi code cracking abilities of a renowned fantasy writer you tech-fetish bugger.
;P

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I resemble that remark :)

[Podman]

Great post.

For a hilarious parody of leftist thinking check out this "discussion" between Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky on Tolkien's "racism" in the LOTR:

http://mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html

[Kitsune]

In his foreword to "Lord of the Rings" Tolkien clearly states that the epic is not meant as an allegory on WWII at all:
"The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied."

[Mastermind]

This is a good post. A however, a point of disagreement: I think Tolkein clearly delineates between good and evil. These are not relative concepts; a definite line separates the two. However, he is keenly aware that the frailty of the human condition can cause man to easily stray into evil actions if not evil ideologies.

I like your observation about corruptibility. It is probably a sign of age and wisdom to realize any individual would succumb to the corruption of unchecked power.
Oooo...debate!!!

Here is why I think it is not so clear cut.

First, think about the potential in the hands of Frodo. Now, this guy had the power to settle the issue once and for all. If Frodo had used the power of the ring, the lives that could have been saved...the destruction of the abject evil that lusted after the ring would have been easily accomplished. Yet, he did not.

Okay...now, I fully understand the "Whys" of entrusting the ring to little Frodo...and why the others risked everything to protect him and to help him accomplish his mission of permanently destroying the thing. In fact, no one of any consequence even thought of urging him to use it for their own salvation….think of that!

But, we are talking basically about absolute power corrupting anyone absolutely…in human terms. We are talking about it from an individual person view and also about “We” as a species…as a civilization, as a tribe of Man!

I said, I know I could not have held that power...and truly I agree with the precept; if Frodo had used the ring, the cycle would have gone on eternally...in the mindset of the "Good" people of power, the ring had to be destroyed...and even Frodo, personally was tempted by it's lure….in fact, he struggled with that temptation several times….Ah, thank the Gods for Sam…good Sam.

But, the issue is not so clearly cut when we consider the "Good" that would have come from someone so good in heart using the power to save his friends, his country and his civilization...In fact, considering the issue was in such dread doubt throughout the bulk of the trilogy, I believe (personally, now…don’t get too upset…read on) it was a measure of evil to not have used it....to have the power in my hands to save “my everything precious”...all things known to be good. And, yet…to do nothing… to let evil forces do so much damage and ply so much misery on the people who stood so strongly and willingly made so much sacrifice, and who had so much to offer all future generations ... I absolutely would not have allowed it!

That is why I saw such a paradox.

So…In my weak nature, I would have certainly used the ring's power. And, I would have failed my trust....and probably would have condemned all mankind to suffer the curse of the ring, even though; I may have controlled it for the rest of my life dedicating myself and the Ring to the realm of "goodness". But!...What after me (or Frodo)? Would I have had the strength to destroy it after I had used it to restore peace? Would I have always seen some rising “Evil” and thus would have preserved the ring to deal with it? Would my perceptions have been so keen or in my aging feebleness, and “Self Importance” would I have merely imagined such evils as an excuse to perpetuate the power?

For truth’s sake, this is the question surrounding the use of the nuclear weapons on Japan. Should the world have followed the advice of many of the creators of the bomb and never used it...And, as a result, let a million or more, good, strong, brave, sacrificing people, with so much to offer the future generations, die in a bloody struggle on the Japanese homeland? Would their sacrifices be proper in order to make the world safe from some unknown possibility of future nuclear annihilation?

It is a supreme question regarding human morality. Not, individual morality…But, our total collective morality.

As for me...Yes! I know I would have used it. And that would have left all the future generations of Man struggle with the question. Today, we future generations of the bomb makers seem to have managed well in that control...Yet, we continue to face the remote possibility that some rogue nation will find the power for itself and use it yet to destroy billions....look at our fear of Iran and North Korea...pissant nations that are rising to threaten the entire world...and we, meek people of "civility and largess" toward our fellows and the planet and the creatures in it....are now faced again with the possibility we will have to use "The Ring" and thus plunge humanity back into that era of barbarity and (let's face it) evil again.

To me, Tolkien was forcing his readers (basically all of us on this planet, even those who have never read a single word) to face that ultimate question. And, in my estimation, it has no correct answer. We are what we are! Frail human "mice" just doing the best we can. And we have to face up to what we are ...if we come to that question again...What will WE do since we still have the power in our hands?

Supposing a nation like North Korea actually did use the bomb against, as example, Los Angeles...and murdered 5 million human beings. Would we have the strength to not murder ten million back? What about fifty million? What if we manage a controlled “response” and condemn five hundred thousand of our soldiers to death and maiming and bankrupt our nation in the act of subduing and punishing North Korea without using nuclear weapons? Are there any politicians who would be so strong as to force that option on our people? I do not think so.

So, that “Nuclear hell”, magnifying the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a thousand fold…avoiding that alone would make the decision in 1945, to let a million die rather than use the bombs, justified. But, in 1945, where was that level of morality going to come from? It would have been justified only in retrospect. Although, men of wisdom (the Bomb Builders themselves) fully understood it, and even vociferously expressed it…few men of power were listening.

So, that is why I say the differences between good and evil in the trilogy were nebulous and certainly a topic for debate.
:| MM

[GB_FXST]

Oooo...debate!!!

Here is why I think it is not so clear cut.

First, think about the potential in the hands of Frodo. Now, this guy had the power to settle the issue once and for all. If Frodo had used the power of the ring, the lives that could have been saved...the destruction of the abject evil that lusted after the ring would have been easily accomplished. Yet, he did not.

Okay...now, I fully understand the "Whys" of entrusting the ring to little Frodo...and why the others risked everything to protect him and to help him accomplish his mission of permanently destroying the thing. In fact, no one of any consequence even thought of urging him to use it for their own salvation….think of that!

But, we are talking basically about absolute power corrupting anyone absolutely…in human terms. We are talking about it from an individual person view and also about “We” as a species…as a civilization, as a tribe of Man!

I said, I know I could not have held that power...and truly I agree with the precept; if Frodo had used the ring, the cycle would have gone on eternally...in the mindset of the "Good" people of power, the ring had to be destroyed...and even Frodo, personally was tempted by it's lure….in fact, he struggled with that temptation several times….Ah, thank the Gods for Sam…good Sam.

But, the issue is not so clearly cut when we consider the "Good" that would have come from someone so good in heart using the power to save his friends, his country and his civilization...In fact, considering the issue was in such dread doubt throughout the bulk of the trilogy, I believe (personally, now…don’t get too upset…read on) it was a measure of evil to not have used it....to have the power in my hands to save “my everything precious”...all things known to be good. And, yet…to do nothing… to let evil forces do so much damage and ply so much misery on the people who stood so strongly and willingly made so much sacrifice, and who had so much to offer all future generations ... I absolutely would not have allowed it!

That is why I saw such a paradox.

So…In my weak nature, I would have certainly used the ring's power. And, I would have failed my trust....and probably would have condemned all mankind to suffer the curse of the ring, even though; I may have controlled it for the rest of my life dedicating myself and the Ring to the realm of "goodness". But!...What after me (or Frodo)? Would I have had the strength to destroy it after I had used it to restore peace? Would I have always seen some rising “Evil” and thus would have preserved the ring to deal with it? Would my perceptions have been so keen or in my aging feebleness, and “Self Importance” would I have merely imagined such evils as an excuse to perpetuate the power?

For truth’s sake, this is the question surrounding the use of the nuclear weapons on Japan. Should the world have followed the advice of many of the creators of the bomb and never used it...And, as a result, let a million or more, good, strong, brave, sacrificing people, with so much to offer the future generations, die in a bloody struggle on the Japanese homeland? Would their sacrifices be proper in order to make the world safe from some unknown possibility of future nuclear annihilation?

It is a supreme question regarding human morality. Not, individual morality…But, our total collective morality.

As for me...Yes! I know I would have used it. And that would have left all the future generations of Man struggle with the question. Today, we future generations of the bomb makers seem to have managed well in that control...Yet, we continue to face the remote possibility that some rogue nation will find the power for itself and use it yet to destroy billions....look at our fear of Iran and North Korea...pissant nations that are rising to threaten the entire world...and we, meek people of "civility and largess" toward our fellows and the planet and the creatures in it....are now faced again with the possibility we will have to use "The Ring" and thus plunge humanity back into that era of barbarity and (let's face it) evil again.

To me, Tolkien was forcing his readers (basically all of us on this planet, even those who have never read a single word) to face that ultimate question. And, in my estimation, it has no correct answer. We are what we are! Frail human "mice" just doing the best we can. And we have to face up to what we are ...if we come to that question again...What will WE do since we still have the power in our hands?

Supposing a nation like North Korea actually did use the bomb against, as example, Los Angeles...and murdered 5 million human beings. Would we have the strength to not murder ten million back? What about fifty million? What if we manage a controlled “response” and condemn five hundred thousand of our soldiers to death and maiming and bankrupt our nation in the act of subduing and punishing North Korea without using nuclear weapons? Are there any politicians who would be so strong as to force that option on our people? I do not think so.

So, that “Nuclear hell”, magnifying the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a thousand fold…avoiding that alone would make the decision in 1945, to let a million die rather than use the bombs, justified. But, in 1945, where was that level of morality going to come from? It would have been justified only in retrospect. Although, men of wisdom (the Bomb Builders themselves) fully understood it, and even vociferously expressed it…few men of power were listening.

So, that is why I say the differences between good and evil in the trilogy were nebulous and certainly a topic for debate.
:| MM

Wow. You have given this a lot of thought. I fear my response will not do it justice.

I agree amongst the kind folk of the light, men, hobbits, elves (for the most part) and (dare I say) dwarves, there is a sort of continuum of good and evil. Different individuals rank differently at different times, some being good, some being not so good and some being evil depending on circumstance and mood. For these categories of creatures, there is definitely ambiguity. Moreover, this is an allegory for the human condition.

But, there is a corruption – manifest and symbolized by both the ring and power/greed – from which there is no return. The pull of this corruption is hard to resist and leads to evil or darkness. The point where one departs the light and enters the dark may be difficult to foresee; but, it becomes obvious and apparent once past that threshold.

I think that Frodo knows this; he knows that the he cannot wield the ring without succumbing to its corruption. All of the major characters (with maybe the exception of Tom Bombadil) reinforce that message. Boromir repeatedly implores usage of the ring. But he with all his worldly acumen probably symbolizes the folly of the ring more than anyone else. Both Gandalf and Galadriel are tempted by it, and both, by force of will, abstain.

So, I do not think that any good whatsoever can come from wielding the ring.

I do not agree that the ring is analogous to nuclear weapons. Now that the genie of the atom has been released and is essentially available to all, the bomb is neither good nor evil. It is a tool. And as such, presents options that may be more or less evil.

Truman chose wisely in 1945. Prolonging the war with untold US and Japan casualties (civilian and military) was a greater evil than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Similarly, a world governed by the principle of MAD was (is) a lesser evil than a world governed by despotic totalitarianism (or Communism).

[Mastermind]

I was using the Bomb as an analogy of a very powerful weapon...an ultimate weapon, like the power of the Ring.

Symbolically, I see no difference. We could use any device that is beyond the capacity of overcoming by any other relative force...think of a man armed with a M-1911 .45 going back in time to the days of the Vikings (there was a short story written on this theme long time ago...pretty good one too).

Again, the idea goes to the corruption potential of absolute power and the question, "Can mortal Man find within himself the power to resist such ultimate corruption?"

What are we really tempted by? It has been said (I forget by whom) "Every man has his price." Meaning, no man is perfect and all men are corrupt.

The Trilogy simply places that question before us in a very colorful and distinct way. Each of us answers it uniquely...as though it were our own personal introspect.

Which I personally believe it is.

Let me add:

The "Hell" of the Ring is a collective Hell...that is, there can be no doubt the Ring could have been made to serve some narrowly defined area and level of "Good". It could have, for example, rid the world of the contemporary evil forces. But, at what cost in overall misery? Even the evil forces suffered...and it is apparently "understood" that evil itself would still not have been eradicated...humanity was not going to be mystically transposed into a an ethereal state of perfection because of the Ring...it's power was not that capable. At some future time, the curse of man would eventually rise again, and force the use of the Ring...and with the prospect of even more ascending levels of misery and horror.

But, then we are left with the prospect of dealing with that horror without the Ring...as the heroes of the Trilogy did...with, ultimately, the same expectation for the future...that evli would again have to be dealt with, no matter what.

So, that message is the one of most importance; that we must... all good men must...stay vigilant, do what we can to raise our children as honorable, courageous, good people, and to always resist evil...no matter what.

[GB_FXST]

I was using the Bomb as an analogy of a very powerful weapon...an ultimate weapon, like the power of the Ring.

Symbolically, I see no difference. We could use any device that is beyond the capacity of overcoming by any other relative force...think of a man armed with a M-1911 .45 going back in time to the days of the Vikings (there was a short story written on this theme long time ago...pretty good one too).

Again, the idea goes to the corruption potential of absolute power and the question, "Can mortal Man find within himself the power to resist such ultimate corruption?"

What are we really tempted by? It has been said (I forget by whom) "Every man has his price." Meaning, no man is perfect and all men are corrupt.

The Trilogy simply places that question before us in a very colorful and distinct way. Each of us answers it uniquely...as though it were our own personal introspect.

Which I personally believe it is.

Well said; I agree. All men are susceptible of corruption. And Tolkien story forces the reader to ponder that frailty.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not Tolkien is a moral relativist. :)

[Podman]

Tolkien was most certainly not a moral relativist. This passage between Aragorn and Eomer in The Two Towers is his clearest statement on his views, but there are others:

"It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels," said Eomer. "The world is all grown strange. Elf and Dwarf in company walk in our daily fields; and folk speak with the Lady of the Wood and yet live; and the Sword comes back to war that was broken in the long ages ere the fathers of our fathers rode into the Mark! How shall a man judge what to do in such times?"

"As he ever has judged," said Aragorn. "Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."

[Mastermind]

We all live in a highly complex world of moral relativism, to some degree. Life just does not work that way. We can say, "This is our moral code" and carve the words in stone (sound familiar). But, there will always be exceptions as we experience our lives. In reality, we live "along" the tracks of our accepted (defined) morality, but we can not live on them. However, we should not abandon them, straying so far we lose sight of them.

If there were no men...no intelligent beings ...could there be good or evil?

A male lion that defeats the head of a pride will immediately seek out all the predecessor's cubs and kill them in order that the females will go into estrous and he can then fertilize them with his seed. The deaths of the innocent cubs is of no consequence to him or, for their mothers. Is that evil? The gene pool is strengthened by this act. Does that make the murder of the innocents "Good"?

If we say there is a strict code of good and evil...all things on this side of the line are good and all things on that side are evil..., with or without man, then we can interpret that the Ring was absolute evil, without one single possible use of it as good.

We could also say, the act of destroying it, was an act of pure goodness, with no possible interpretation of that act as anything but goodness.

Now, if we can not say that, as thinking, logical creatures, then we have moral relativism.

So...which applies to the Trilogy?

This is probably why philosophers have so much trouble interpreting Nietzsche...was he a moral realist or a moral anti-realist? It is not possible to call it either way....and that is because morality is entirely interpretive in itself because it exists only in the mind of man. Nature, or God, or the universe does not give a single opinion on the matter.

[GB_FXST]

Goodness. Tolkien and Nietzsche … next it will be Led Zeppelin and Tolkien … btw, Ramble On is one of my all time favorite songs .. :)

I do not think that there is any argument that morality is a construct of man, religion and civilization. But, that does not mean that it is relative or relativistic.

BTW, I do not think that Nietzsche was a moral relativist either; his moral calculus is simply different. The ability of an individual to better himself and mankind is his moral standard.

[Podman]

Mastermind - I think Tolkien well understood the complexities of morality and I think he created Middle Earth as a simplistic Good vs. Evil place in order to have an environment in which he could examine the successes and failings of the Good side without the shades of grey that creep into real life. It is easier to examine the betrayal of Saruman or the failure of Boromir without any justifications that might make their actions understandable. Through his lust for the Ring Saruman became a pitiful copy of Sauron and Boromir gave in to the overwhelming desire to use the evil of the Ring for what he perceived as good. Compare this with Gandalf who never wished to use the Ring and became Gandalf the White in the end or Faramir who through his forbearance to take the Ring when Frodo was in his grasp allowed Frodo to succeed in his quest and save Middle Earth.

That said, in terms of real life Tolkien certainly believed that there was a dividing line between good and evil, and it was man's duty to discern that line and stay on the good side of it.

Why else would he make the moral failures and successes of his characters such an important theme in his tale?

GB FXST - I always wondered how LZ would meet a girl so fair in the darkest depths of Mordor. From what I understand it was primarily populated with orcs and very bad men...

[GB_FXST]

Mastermind - I think Tolkien well understood the complexities of morality and I think he created Middle Earth as a simplistic Good vs. Evil place in order to have an environment in which he could examine the successes and failings of the Good side without the shades of grey that creep into real life. It is easier to examine the betrayal of Saruman or the failure of Boromir without any justifications that might make their actions understandable. Through his lust for the Ring Saruman became a pitiful copy of Sauron and Boromir gave in to the overwhelming desire to use the evil of the Ring for what he perceived as good. Compare this with Gandalf who never wished to use the Ring and became Gandalf the White in the end or Faramir who through his forbearance to take the Ring when Frodo was in his grasp allowed Frodo to succeed in his quest and save Middle Earth.

That said, in terms of real life Tolkien certainly believed that there was a dividing line between good and evil, and it was man's duty to discern that line and stay on the good side of it.

Why else would he make the moral failures and successes of his characters such an important theme in his tale?

GB FXST - I always wondered how LZ would meet a girl so fair in the darkest depths of Mordor. From what I understand it was primarily populated with orcs and very bad men...

Good post and good question.

Being a long time Zep fan, I can only speculate that “blued-eyed girls oh so fair” will travel to ends of the earth, middle or otherwise, to make acquaintance with Plant and Page.

*My poor attempt to reference yet another LOTR Zeppelin Song: Bron-Yr-Aur Stomp on Disc 1 of How the West Was Won.

[RWR]

That Battle of Pelennor Fields reminds me of Battle_of_Vienna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna).
Cavalry from the North rides in the last moment and saves the day (and last bastion of civilisation of the West) destroying the evil from the East and barbarians from the South.

[Mastermind]

That said, in terms of real life Tolkien certainly believed that there was a dividing line between good and evil, and it was man's duty to discern that line and stay on the good side of it.

Why else would he make the moral failures and successes of his characters such an important theme in his tale?



That sums it up to my satisfaction. There is a dividing line between good and evil...no doubt. And I also think that has been our eternal struggle to tell just where it is...it's rather invisible at times...and those are usually the times we need to see it with the most clarity.

[timetraveller]

Tolkien was a fascist.


And what does that make you


Brighter than a thousand suns

[wigon]

Tolkien had said that his experiences in The Great War made him see how evil war is. I figure he didn't want any part of WWII because of this. Sauron & Saruman represented greed, as did the actions of Isildur. There are many references to greed in the books, the dwarves of moria, the stewards of Gondor, the coursairs. If I remember right, orcs were originally like elves but they let their soul be corrupted. That is the theme of the book, the internal struggle of good vs evil.


Close...., the orcs were elves that were tortured, twisted, and corrupted my Morgoth (who Sauron was only a Captain of) in the beginnings of the world as told in the Silmarillion. He basically is very similar to the Bibilical depiction of the fallen angel (satan or shaitan in Islam). If I remember correctly there were actually some dark elves in Tokien's world.

[wigon]

Great post.

For a hilarious parody of leftist thinking check out this "discussion" between Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky on Tolkien's "racism" in the LOTR:

http://mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html


Wow...another reason why I HATE Chomsky so much even though I'm a liberal.
That review of the fellowship of the ring has to be one of the most idiotic examples of intellectual masturbation. They are discussing Tolkien as if Tolkien was a political theorist with racist objectives totally out of the context of Tolkien's intense religious beliefs and spiritual experiences. Worse yet it sounds like they hadn't even read any of the biographies on Tolkien's life.

Wigon

[wigon]

We all live in a highly complex world of moral relativism, to some degree. Life just does not work that way. We can say, "This is our moral code" and carve the words in stone (sound familiar). But, there will always be exceptions as we experience our lives. In reality, we live "along" the tracks of our accepted (defined) morality, but we can not live on them. However, we should not abandon them, straying so far we lose sight of them.

If there were no men...no intelligent beings ...could there be good or evil?

A male lion that defeats the head of a pride will immediately seek out all the predecessor's cubs and kill them in order that the females will go into estrous and he can then fertilize them with his seed. The deaths of the innocent cubs is of no consequence to him or, for their mothers. Is that evil? The gene pool is strengthened by this act. Does that make the murder of the innocents "Good"?

If we say there is a strict code of good and evil...all things on this side of the line are good and all things on that side are evil..., with or without man, then we can interpret that the Ring was absolute evil, without one single possible use of it as good.

We could also say, the act of destroying it, was an act of pure goodness, with no possible interpretation of that act as anything but goodness.

Now, if we can not say that, as thinking, logical creatures, then we have moral relativism.

So...which applies to the Trilogy?

This is probably why philosophers have so much trouble interpreting Nietzsche...was he a moral realist or a moral anti-realist? It is not possible to call it either way....and that is because morality is entirely interpretive in itself because it exists only in the mind of man. Nature, or God, or the universe does not give a single opinion on the matter.



Very good points. It should be noted that the ring also serves as a VERY important social critique in that many "Good" leaders of elves and men (and even Frodo) were tempted to use the One Ring to do great good in the world. However the wiser ones like Galadriel, the Elven Queen of Lothlorien, chose to remail humble as they knew that (as in real life) the road to hell is paved with good intentions and that ultimately the power would corrupt them. They knew they would become harsh terrible dictators. It was too much power for any one person to have without becoming corrupt. Such is the nature of many revolutionary leaders who began with a good idea. But after becoming cults of personalities, they began to become dillusional with power hunger and ultimately tyrants upon taking power to lesser or greater degrees.
Kinda reminds me of when I was in the Army, when a friend of mine became an NCO, the privates and E-4's would tell him, "You weren't so much of an a**hole before you became a Sergeant." lol! That individual had let "power" get to his head and indeed he abused it quite a bit simply because he could. Such is human nature.

Wigon

[GB_FXST]

Wow...another reason why I HATE Chomsky so much even though I'm a liberal.
That review of the fellowship of the ring has to be one of the most idiotic examples of intellectual masturbation. They are discussing Tolkien as if Tolkien was a political theorist with racist objectives totally out of the context of Tolkien's intense religious beliefs and spiritual experiences. Worse yet it sounds like they hadn't even read any of the biographies on Tolkien's life.

Wigon

Umm… as much as I hate Chomsky, I believe that is a parody … Still, it does lead me to believe that the author of the parody partook of a wee bit too much of that pipe weed himself. :)

[wigon]

Umm… as much as I hate Chomsky, I believe that is a parody … Still, it does lead me to believe that the author of the parody partook of a wee bit too much of that pipe weed himself. :)


Yeah I was going to say that what Howard Zinn is shown saying sounds nothing at all like Zinn who I've had the pleasure of listening to in several lectures. Much of what he says is often in opposition to what Chomsky says although he is a die-hard anti-war activist. Still, what Chomsky is shown saying actually sounds like Chomsky who often makes elaborate assumptions about people and their motives. However I should have paused and thought a bit and realized that Chomsky likely would have been much more biased TOWARDS Tolkien given that Tolkien was a fellow linguist, a brillian writer, and overall, highly accomplished in the field of linguistics.

Wigon