Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

As far as the first point goes, he was working on The Silmarillion until his death. It was published posthumously.

Regarding his view on the "helpers" turning into "despicable masters": he still insisted that "good" people in power is, overall, a good thing.

Tolkien's world is one of normative English values, with benign kings who rule entirely happy kingdoms. His vision is one of ideological valorization of some kind of romanticized feudal hierarchy. His fiction makes his purported anarchy problematic. Basically, I'm of the opinion that he promotes anarchy only for those who share the same values that he does. People can be anarchists as long as they're proponents of good English values.

 

[Dak]

I don't know specifically about "good English values", but any society needs a level of homogeneity. And you certainly can't have anarchy amongst people who don't want it.

Just because Tolkien's only anarchic example is the Shire doesn't dimish it's importance. Looking at some parallels with actual history, there's simply not much to work with outside of kings, especially at his time. Also, you can be anti-monarchial and still acknowledge that you could have a "good" king. But the tone of LoTR is pretty anti-power and pro-anarchy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Just because Tolkien's only anarchic example is the Shire doesn't dimish it's importance.

The same could be said of every other society in the books.

Looking at some parallels with actual history, there's simply not much to work with outside of kings, especially at his time. Also, you can be anti-monarchial and still acknowledge that you could have a "good" king.

Appealing to historical realism doesn't diminish accusations of imperialism. As far as the second sentence goes, the success of Tolkien's imagined culture hinges on "good" kings, probably precluding any kind of anti-monarchism.

But the tone of LoTR is pretty anti-power and pro-anarchy.

This is just grossly, massively incorrect.

The closest thing to true anarchy is Aragorn in the figure of Strider; and it's clear that this is an undesirable position in Tolkien's narrative (i.e. that of resisting one's "true" position).

 

[Dak]

The same could be said of every other society in the books.

Appealing to historical realism doesn't diminish accusations of imperialism. As far as the second sentence goes, the success of Tolkien's imagined culture hinges on "good" kings, probably precluding any kind of anti-monarchism.

So what king rules the Shire?

The Shire, hobbits in hobbitland, is juxtaposed against a backdrop of power corrupting. That is the very essence of the Rings and the swirl of events around them.

This is just grossly, massively incorrect.

The closest thing to true anarchy is Aragorn in the figure of Strider; and it's clear that this is an undesirable position in Tolkien's narrative (i.e. that of resisting one's "true" position).

Aragorn isn't even remotely allegorical or analogous to any human, so referring to it as anarchy is like trying to pin the CI on a Divine Will. He's a Christ/Messiah archetype, and only expected in the same way Christians or Jews or Muslims expect the Return of the King.

 

[Einherjar86]

Dak, you're mostly wrong; and most of this misinterpretation simply has to do with historical precedent and context. The very form of Tolkien's novel betrays its imperialistic tendencies. It is a modern epic, and its point is to disclose the inevitability of English nationhood. It's a nationalistic call for English valor.

The king-less-ness of the Shire is inconsequential, and I'm not sure why you're hung up on it. Frodo would not have succeeded without the valor and righteousness of other "kings." There is an institutional feudalism implicit in Tolkien's work. There's no other way around it. You're trying too hard to invoke anarchism in a text that is haplessly hierarchical.

 

[Dak]

Dak, you're mostly wrong; and most of this misinterpretation simply has to do with historical precedent and context. The very form of Tolkien's novel betrays its imperialistic tendencies. It is a modern epic, and its point is to disclose the inevitability of English nationhood.

That makes no sense. England had been a nation for quite some time.

It's a nationalistic call for English valor.

Valor in what way though? Through the seizing of power against power? Assaulting the Black Gate? No.

The king-less-ness of the Shire is inconsequential, and I'm not sure why you're hung up on it. Frodo would not have succeeded without the valor and righteousness of other "kings." There is an institutional feudalism implicit in Tolkien's work. There's no other way around it. You're trying too hard to invoke anarchism in a text that is haplessly hierarchical.

I'm not invoking anarchism in the text. It's plainly there. That the context is hierarchical does not lessen this. If tomorrow, the Seasteading Institute opens an anarchic floating village, it is not less so just because of the hierarchy that surrounds it globally.

Power not only has a uniform corrupting presence on the regular inhabitants of ME, but even the higher forms are not immune (a tip of the hat to the traditional Satan/his angels narrative).

I'm surprised you're not attacking the angle of the anti-industrialist bent of Tolkien's version of anarchy, rather just dismissing the whole thing altogether.

 

[Einherjar86]

That makes no sense. England had been a nation for quite some time.

Tolkien's purpose was to compose an epic for modern England; the purpose of epics is to reinforce the values of a specific culture. "Disclose" implies that there was no epic for England as it existed in modernity.

Valor in what way though? Through the seizing of power against power? Assaulting the Black Gate? No.

I'm not invoking anarchism in the text. It's plainly there. That the context is hierarchical does not lessen this. If tomorrow, the Seasteading Institute opens an anarchic floating village, it is not less so just because of the hierarchy that surrounds it globally.

Power not only has a uniform corrupting presence on the regular inhabitants of ME, but even the higher forms are not immune (a tip of the hat to the traditional Satan/his angels narrative).

I'm surprised you're not attacking the angle of the anti-industrialist bent of Tolkien's version of anarchy, rather just dismissing the whole thing altogether.

Anarchy is not "plainly there." Don't be surprised about anything, since this whole argument is flawed. There is no anarchy in Tolkien; if there is, it's compartmentalized and is by no means the total point or interpretation of the narrative.

The novels are feudalistic. They sympathize with traditional hierarchy as some form of valuable social organization that can be beneficial. They also portray racial stereotypes and use them to their hierarchical advantage (clearly savage peoples would side with the dark lord). They also valorize altruism, sacrifice, and justice; in no anarchic sense, but as they are embodied by rulers.

The anti-industrialism of the books is not part of its anarchy, but part of its Legitimism. That is, its sympathy for classical feudal hierarchy.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The psychology of hate: How we deny human beings their humanity
Excerpted from “Mindwise: How We Understand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want”

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/02/the_psychology_of_hate_how_we_deny_human_beings_their_humanity/

 

[Dak]

.
Anarchy is not "plainly there." Don't be surprised about anything, since this whole argument is flawed. There is no anarchy in Tolkien; if there is, it's compartmentalized and is by no means the total point or interpretation of the narrative......... They also valorize altruism, sacrifice, and justice; in no anarchic sense, but as they are embodied by rulers.

The anti-industrialism of the books is not part of its anarchy, but part of its Legitimism. That is, its sympathy for classical feudal hierarchy.

The political structure, or lack thereof, in the Shire, is plainly there. The corrupting nature of power is THE central problem of and embodied by the One Ring as well as the 9. The chain or whirl of events within LoTR is created by the discovery and chase for the Ring - Power.

The fuedalistic nature of the realms of men were not valorized as they set about to decay, while in contrast the pleasant folk of the Shire went about their business as usual.

What nobility distinguished itself as noble? Certainly not so many as hobbits or non-humans/non-nobility.

@Jimmy: I saw that Salon article earlier. Of course, that many of the homeless do in fact have mental problems isn't mentioned in that section.

 

[Einherjar86]

Dak, I don't have the time or interest to go into specifics of this series; but it's purely contingent that some of the kingdoms begin to fall before the Shire. Sauron targets them purely because they're more powerful, and ignores the Shire because it's inconsequential.

In the grand scheme of Tolkien's history, the kingdoms of Men endure and prosper under the reign of kings. It's simply not even a question.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

Russia basically just invaded Ukraine. Some people may not be using that word but holy hell 16,000 troops? What the fuck is up with that shit?

 

[Dak]

Dak, I don't have the time or interest to go into specifics of this series; but it's purely contingent that some of the kingdoms begin to fall before the Shire. Sauron targets them purely because they're more powerful, and ignores the Shire because it's inconsequential.

In the grand scheme of Tolkien's history, the kingdoms of Men endure and prosper under the reign of kings. It's simply not even a question.

It's a historical fact that kingdoms under good kings have a relatively solid track record of prosperity - relative to other not-as-good-kings. That Tolkien reflected this in fantasy isn't a reach or some sort of obvious anti-anarchistic bent.

Power is presented as a target for corruption, and highly susceptible. Conversely, the Shirefolk are neither powerful nor susceptible but nevertheless live as, if not more comfortably than the inhabitants of the Kingdoms of Men (of course, until Saruman brings in the Industrial Revolution).

Russia basically just invaded Ukraine. Some people may not be using that word but holy hell 16,000 troops? What the fuck is up with that shit?

Russia has moved forces to protect its international military assets while the host country is in turmoil. Standard protocol for superpowers. #yawn

 

[Dak]

 

[Einherjar86]

It's a historical fact that kingdoms under good kings have a relatively solid track record of prosperity - relative to other not-as-good-kings. That Tolkien reflected this in fantasy isn't a reach or some sort of obvious anti-anarchistic bent.

Yes, because The Lord of the Rings is concerned with realism.

Nothing you're saying is in any way reinforcing your argument. As far as literary studies are concerned, and as far as those texts are understood, it's clear that they reflect strong hierarchical tendencies. The state of representation in literature is not the same as the accidental success of kingship in medieval Europe. If kingship succeeds in literature, particularly in Tolkien's work, it is meaningful.

This is a pointless discussion. Projecting anarchism into those texts is a personal inclination that has almost no basis in the structure or historical context of the novels.

Power is presented as a target for corruption, and highly susceptible. Conversely, the Shirefolk are neither powerful nor susceptible but nevertheless live as, if not more comfortably than the inhabitants of the Kingdoms of Men (of course, until Saruman brings in the Industrial Revolution).

The hobbits are just as susceptible! No one escapes the influence of the ring. There is nothing to support your argument. Your points are flawed and simply unconvincing.

 

[Dak]

Yes, because The Lord of the Rings is concerned with realism.

Nothing you're saying is in any way reinforcing your argument. As far as literary studies are concerned, and as far as those texts are understood, it's clear that they reflect strong hierarchical tendencies. The state of representation in literature is not the same as the accidental success of kingship in medieval Europe. If kingship succeeds in literature, particularly in Tolkien's work, it is meaningful.

This is a pointless discussion. Projecting anarchism into those texts is a personal inclination that has almost no basis in the structure or historical context of the novels.

So the Shire was not anarchic?

As an aside, historical success of kingships was accidental?

The hobbits are just as susceptible! No one escapes the influence of the ring. There is nothing to support your argument. Your points are flawed and simply unconvincing.

This is partially why I don't think it is pointless, as this statement is quite false. The hobbits, and especially Frodo, are not "just as susceptible". That is the reason Gandalf specifically works with them, rather than taking it himself or taking it to these "altruistic nobles" or "powerful kings" and so on. Not susceptible is relative. They of course were to some degree, but not nearly so as everyone else. It was a "weight" to Frodo and he hated it, while practically everyone else on ME wanted it quite badly. I wish I did have the time to pull out all the direct quotes to these effects.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

Russia has moved forces to protect its international military assets while the host country is in turmoil. Standard protocol for superpowers. #yawn

Yeah right because military superpowers just walk into any old country any old day with thousands of armed soldiers all the time it's no big deal. Forgive me for interrupting your rousing lord of the rings discussion professor.

 

[Einherjar86]

So the Shire was not anarchic?

As an aside, historical success of kingships was accidental?

The Shire can be viewed as anarchic; but I don't care, because I'm talking about how the novels must be viewed as a whole.

The historical success of a kingship isn't accidental?

This is partially why I don't think it is pointless, as this statement is quite false. The hobbits, and especially Frodo, are not "just as susceptible". That is the reason Gandalf specifically works with them, rather than taking it himself or taking it to these "altruistic nobles" or "powerful kings" and so on. Not susceptible is relative. They of course were to some degree, but not nearly so as everyone else. It was a "weight" to Frodo and he hated it, while practically everyone else on ME wanted it quite badly. I wish I did have the time to pull out all the direct quotes to these effects.

The hobbits, and the Shire, are just as susceptible. There's a reason the hobbits are chosen, and it has nothing to do with anarchy and everything to do with the values they embody and the fact that the ring just happened to be discovered in Bilbo's house. The entire simplistic tale of "power corrupts" doesn't signify an anarchist politics at work in the books. If anything, it promotes a specific hierarchical belief system that embodies specific values in order to overcome the lure of "bad power."

The Shire was going to be invaded, and would have been successfully invaded had it not been for the battles fought by the kingdoms of Men. The hobbits would have been entirely unsuccessful had they not been educated in the arts of war and leadership. Their entire breakthrough and overcoming of Saruman depends upon their interaction with Men, and the "gifts" bestowed on them by kings.

 

[Dak]

Yeah right because military superpowers just walk into any old country any old day with thousands of armed soldiers all the time it's no big deal. Forgive me for interrupting your rousing lord of the rings discussion professor.

Of course only the US has been doing so with any regularity in the last twenty years or so. No one really bats an eye about that though.

The historical success of a kingship isn't accidental?

Maybe you mean contingent?

The hobbits, and the Shire, are just as susceptible. There's a reason the hobbits are chosen, and it has nothing to do with anarchy and everything to do with the values they embody and the fact that the ring just happened to be discovered in Bilbo's house. The entire simplistic tale of "power corrupts" doesn't signify an anarchist politics at work in the books. If anything, it promotes a specific hierarchical belief system that embodies specific values in order to overcome the lure of "bad power."

The Shire was going to be invaded, and would have been successfully invaded had it not been for the battles fought by the kingdoms of Men. The hobbits would have been entirely unsuccessful had they not been educated in the arts of war and leadership. Their entire breakthrough and overcoming of Saruman depends upon their interaction with Men, and the "gifts" bestowed on them by kings.

Well yeah, Gandalf doesn't sit there and say "The hobbits don't have a king, so they are perfect for the ring." Rather, the same reason hobbits do not have a king is the same reason why Frodo and Sam could do what no one else could. Gandalf most certainly would have found someone else to carry the ring rather than Frodo had Frodo been likely to use it as Boromir.

None of the hierarchical kingdoms of men had any values protecting them from the lure of the ring. How many were upset that this "great instrument of power that could be used against Sauron" was being "taken right to him"?

Now of course, the Shire would have certainly been invaded had Sauron run through the kingdoms of men, but military power has not typically been a strong point of anarchy. If militant powers couldn't hold up, non-militant powers should not be expected to. However, note that it is the non-militant approach that destroys Sauron, not the slaughter in between Minis Tirith and the Black Gate. Asymmetric Warfare.

How did gifts of men help the hobbits against Sharkey?

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I don't mean contingent, I mean accidental; they were contingent within a given context and set of circumstances, but accidental in realm of purely historical chance. It was for effect.

I'm not going to keep arguing about this, it's too silly in my opinion.

 

[Dak]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/03/the-myth-of-cokes-power/

Jeff Tucker is usually too hyperbolic for my taste, but I think this article is spot on. I argued with my Business Ethics prof about this a few class periods ago - that companies work for customers, and that customers can "fire" them.