Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2017-12-09 03:59 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2017-12-09 03:59 pm
[ SECRET POST #3993 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3993 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 57 secrets from Secret Submission Post #572.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
no subject
And it's not like the books have a neat divide between evil progress and good tradition. The One Ring is incredibly old, and that doesn't stop it from being the most evil object in the series. One of the major critical heroic moments only happens because Eowyn defied her traditionally-mandated gender role. Our heroes are trying to restore power and authority to Aragorn, and, at the same time, to obliterate the traditional power and authority of Sauron.
I mean, it would be pretty cool if the worldbuilding took the next leap forward and had a democratic revolution and Aragorn got elected instead of installed, but at least there's a sense that you can't just follow any traditional authority. Some of them are worthy, some aren't.
(I'm willing to take some of this as trappings of the genre, too. It doesn't need to mean real life has semi-divine kings walking around, any more than we have actual dragons.)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-12-10 02:26 am (UTC)(link)1) You're right to point out that it's not as simple as "tradition good, progress bad". Absolutely. It's quite a bit more complicated than that. But when you get into the details, a lot of it is still pretty aligned with a conservative worldview. For instance, yes, there's all kinds of things about virtuous kingship and legitimate authority and ordination with Aragorn, but that's still coming from a fundamentally conservative point of view with regards to authority and politics. It's a fairly comfortable fit. Just being able to distinguish between good and evil is not the same as having a critical point of view towards tradition generally.
2) Tolkien wrote the things he did on purpose. The reason that Aragorn doesn't get elected is because Tolkien didn't want to write that, and wouldn't have written that. It's absolutely not the case that this was an inevitable step forward that Tolkien was just unable to see because of the times, or something like that. He wrote the thing he wanted to write based on how he saw the world. (and just to clarify one thing that I don't mean - I wouldn't go so far as to say that Lord of the Rings is a direct guide to Tolkien's political views by any means. it's certainly not the case that he's literally calling for some kind of Jacobite revolution. rather, it's more that Tolkien's worldview is more comfortable thinking in terms of kingship than in terms of democracy)
3) presumably, the reason that OP finds it embarrassing is that they fundamentally disagree with the worldview in question. And it's one that's really deeply infused into Tolkien's work. I can see what they mean.
no subject
I'm not sure I see the difference between "being able to distinguish that some traditions are not good" and "having a critical point of view toward tradition".
Unless you're saying that the only traditions the characters could distinguish from "good" were "capital-E Evil"? And I'm not sure that's true, given Eowyn.
...you make it sound like I'm faulting Tolkien for writing a fantasy story about magical royalty, and I'm not. Fantasy magical democracies are a cool idea in general, is my point, not something a person has to write in order to prove they're a modern progressive.
And I'd actually forgotten what
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-12-10 04:51 am (UTC)(link)On the one hand, believing that - while some specific traditions are evil - tradition on the whole is broadly good and important, and things that happened in the distant past can provide a legitimate authority and legitimacy and justification for things that are happening in the present day.
On the other hand, believing that traditions have to be able to justify themselves in contemporary terms - that things aren't justified simply because of tradition and the past and history.
...you make it sound like I'm faulting Tolkien for writing a fantasy story about magical royalty, and I'm not. Fantasy magical democracies are a cool idea in general, is my point, not something a person has to write in order to prove they're a modern progressive.
My point is that Tolkien wasn't a modern progressive, and that this is the fundamental underlying reason that his work does not sound like something written by a modern progressive.
And I'd actually forgotten what [personal profile] hyarrowen mentions, that the support of the people is at least included in Tolkien's vision of magical fantasy kingship.
I can see where that's coming from, but I don't think that after-the-fact acclamation of a monarch is really something that we should consider an example of "election" in the modern democratic sense. It's not as though, had the people not acclaimed him, they would have said "oh, hey, hang on, never mind, we're going to take back that crown now."
I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, I really don't mean it to be and I don't want to be critical of you at all. I don't even really want to be critical of Tolkien at all. I don't really think it's a bad thing. It's just part of the man and his work.
no subject
no subject
'Shall he be king and enter into the City and dwell there?'
And all the host and all the people cried yea with one voice.
Which is election - in the Anglo-Saxon, and the Hamlet sense. Not a step forward, but a step back to an older way of doing things.