Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
When Imaginary Worlds Collide
Juliusz Jablecki contrasts the libertarian fiction of Ayn Rand and J.R.R. Tolkien. I can't completely endorse any essay that looks to Hans-Hermann Hoppe for its model of a free society; and I've never read Atlas Shrugged, so I don't know if there are passages in the book that undermine Jablecki's thesis. But this rings true for me:
Tolkien's novel also ends with a theme of rebuilding the world, a promise of setting things straight, bringing back the right order of things. It begins, however, in an entirely different way: not on the platform of a huge railway station, nor in a big factory, nor in a beautiful palace. The Lord of the Rings begins in the Shire -- more precisely in Hobbiton, a small village peopled by hobbits, unobtrusive, somewhat clumsy, little creatures, whose straightforward and rather friendly nature makes them very similar to humans....
In Atlas Shrugged [the protagonists] are exceptional and it is precisely because of that quality that they became characters of the novel. Each of the Atlases is unblemished, pure, proud. Every detail of their physiognomy speaks of genius and magnificence. The Übermenschen do not simply move: they make motions full of charm and elegance. They do not simply work: they craft, always with passion and enthusiasm. They never get tired, weary or bored with what they do; they have no families, no children, no obligations; they are frightfully rational; they live only for themselves and for their occupational passions. If they happen to be businessmen, they never own little family businesses; they run huge corporations, ironworks, mines, or railway companies. In Rand's novel there is no place for moderation and inconspicuousness. Only that which is huge and effective deserves praise and attention.
Completely different, more human-like, are Tolkien's characters....There are men in The Lord of the Rings, to be sure, but it is the hobbits who resemble real humans the most -- they are rather clumsy, neither exceptionally smart, stout, nor courageous, but good, sociable, faithful and generally cheerful. The most important characters in Tolkien's novel are actually anti-heroes -- they try to stay away from the world of big politics; however, when fate throws them in its very middle, they act bravely and ultimately bring salvation.
A few years ago, writing about "Leaf by Niggle" -- my favorite Tolkien story, both shorter and deeper than Lord of the Rings -- I made a similar point: "Niggle is, in his ground-down way, an individualist hero -- smaller, realer, and altogether more interesting than the boring supermen favored by another sort of libertarian."
Bonus question: Whose sex scenes are creepier, Rand's or Tolkien's? Before you object that Tolkien didn't write any sex scenes, pick up The Two Towers and turn to book four, chapter 10.
Randolph Carter|7.10.07 @ 9:58AM|#
It's really a question of which type of individualist hero you
prefer, the one that is lauded by everyone for his incredible feats
or the one who simply lives his own life and destroys a magic ring
without much payoff.
Rand would have made Frodo claim the ring because its power was
sooooo awesome.
Also, she has a mind of wheels and metal.
|7.10.07 @ 10:02AM|#
Edward,
Whittaker Chambers wrote that Atlas Shrugged had "the
whiff of the gas chamber about it."
Randolph Carter|7.10.07 @ 10:03AM|#
Actually Sauron's military tactics are quite Randian. The whole
cut off your enemy's heads and burn your insignia on them then
fling them back into the city thing especially.
And damn Rand would have hated those hippie Ents and Elves who were
so damned concerned with forests. They should have been making
themselves busy building diggers and submarines to find those lost
Silmarils!
|7.10.07 @ 10:12AM|#
That pretty much sums up why I never liked Rand and do like Tolkien. There is something really creepy in the way Rand's protagonists are so perfect. More than a bit of aryan superman going on there. I agree with the Chambers quote Joe gives. I have never heard that before, but Chambers was exactly right.
|7.10.07 @ 10:14AM|#
Tolkien is pretty anti-industrial and pastoral. The whole Sauroman breading the race of super orcs and destroying the forest and killing the ents is pretty analogous to heavy industry. Also, the shire is kind of a long ago English country life. That part of Tolkien I don't particularly agree with, but it makes for a great story.
|7.10.07 @ 10:17AM|#
If I remember it correctly, Chambers quote was "it screams from
every page 'To the gas chambers, go'"
and Chambers is persona non grata in these here internets.
|7.10.07 @ 10:18AM|#
Tolkien was anti-industrial. The language he uses to describe
machinery and engines is invariably hostile.
Ayn Rand, on the other hand, struck me as anti-pastoral. She really
hated anything that wasn't the product of purposeful human action
toward goals she approved of. One of the prerequisites for tyranny
is a leader who knows what's best for you and has the will to force
you to obey. And, as her behavior towards members of her circle
demonstrated, Ayn Rand had these tyrannical tendencies in
spades.
Both had an aversion toward thieves, murderers, looters, pillagers
and people who lusted after unearned power. This is of course a
very libertarian attitude.
In the end, Tolkien is preferable since he wanted people to be left
alone to do whatever the hell they wanted to do, whereas Ayn
Rand... well she hated anyone who didn't agree with her goals.
|7.10.07 @ 10:23AM|#
Rand and Tolkien obsessives--who are the more
obnoxious?
Randroids by a country mile.
|7.10.07 @ 10:24AM|#
Jesse,
Somehow, I'm not surprised.
Rand wasn't so bad as to back Saruman. No. She'd have backed
Denethor and his strike against the looters on the White
Council.
Randolph Carter|7.10.07 @ 10:25AM|#
Rand didn't like anything that wasn't paved or encased in
metal.
And it's Saruman, not Saroman, dammit!
*smokes a big bowl of pipe-weed to calm down*
|7.10.07 @ 10:28AM|#
Randolph Carter
Tolkien pedants unite...
Is that long-bottom leaf?
Hipsters only smoke long-bottom.
wow|7.10.07 @ 10:28AM|#
I believe Ayn Rand's point was that when humans are free they
will accomplish great feats. There is, of course, a gradient. She
concentrated on those near perfection to illustrate the point that
they can (and will) improve the world in the highest degree only
through the free market because of the inevitable human nature
concerning greed.
And Ayn Rand tyrannical? As far as I know her entire philosophy
revolved around the inherent right of humans to be free to do as
they please. Sure, she was arrogant towards those she disagreed
with, but I don't think she ever wanted the STATE to do anything
about it. Maybe you people should start making distinctions between
violence and non-violence.
Randolph Carter|7.10.07 @ 10:29AM|#
Bored of the Rings was fairly amusing
And Neu Mejican, it's from the Southfarthing.
|7.10.07 @ 10:29AM|#
Rand and Tolkien obsessives--who are the more
obnoxious?
AFAIC, they both spewed more than their fair share of utopian
fantasy, making them both equally obnoxious in my book.
|7.10.07 @ 10:31AM|#
I haven't read LOTR, but I did read the Silmarillion. Mythical
struggles can be read for their messages, but the messages never
overwhelm the story. Proof: there's disagreement about what the
"message" of Tolien's work and world is.
Then there's Rand. Why, I wonder, did Alyssa Rosenbaum leave Russia
at all? She had a great future ahead of her writing grandiose
boy-meets-tractor epics for Stalin.
It was Proust who said a novel with a message is like a present
with the price tag left on.
|7.10.07 @ 10:32AM|#
The distinction is simple. Rand would not have had a heroic
character actually try to wield the power of the Ring. That would
be wrong, even in her philosophy. However, if Rand actually was
handed the One Ring, she'd definitely use it.
Hope that clears everything up.
D.A. Ridgely|7.10.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Sure, Rand's protagonists are all Olympic gods indifferent to
the plight of mere mortals, while Tolkien's characters are Everyman
or perhaps more aptly, Old Testament figures ("Who, me? Um, God,
couldn't You find someone else?") I'm not sure there's all that
strong a libertarian theme in Tolkien, though, unless it's the
Hobbits' natural inclination to be left the hell alone. We may be
more fascinated by the former, but it is much easier to identify or
empathize with the latter.
As a matter of principle, I refuse to find or re-read any of the
Lord of the Rings books, but few things could be creepier
than Gary Cooper raping Patricia Neal, so I give the nod to Rand on
that one.
Never read Atlas Shrugged, eh? Can't say I blame you. If I
hadn't deliberately taken it as the only novel with me on a
vacation once where no bookstores were to be found, I'd probably
say the same. Still, if you ever suffer from insomnia, you might
consider keeping a copy on your nightstand.
Randolph Carter|7.10.07 @ 10:34AM|#
And as a Tolkien obsessive, I would say that we're not
particularly annoying just because we're chock-full of trivia about
a created world.
At least we don't run around trying to proselytize an atheistic
pseudo-religion and get furiously angry whenever someone criticizes
the word of objectivism who became flesh.
VM|7.10.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Awesome pic, Jesse! The URKOBOLD shall reward you at an arbitrary time and place (and with an appropriate URKOBOLDIAN method) for your bravery!
ed|7.10.07 @ 10:39AM|#
I'm guessing Jablecki hasn't actually read either author. His
remarks are so far off the mark I suspect he is reviewing a review
of a review. I've read both novels, and for him to say the hobbits
are more like men than the men are is simply preposterous. "The
most important characters in Tolkien's novel are actually
anti-heroes..." Really? The definition of anti-hero must
have changed while I was asleep.
Rand's Atlases are "unblemished, pure, proud....They never get
tired, weary or bored with what they do; they have no families, no
children, no obligations....they live only for themselves and for
their occupational passions." (?) Incorrect on all counts. Of all
the major characters, only Galt is "ready made." The others do
indeed have conflicts and contradictory ideas and make errors in
judgement along the way. Those conflicts are ultimately resolved,
as they are in LOR. Resolution of conflict is, after all, a
cardinal element in good storytelling. It's what separates romantic
fiction from the naturalist school. Among other things.
Rand's detractors fixate again and again on her "creepy love
scenes." Please feel free to cite an excerpt and explain yourself,
if you can. And I know it will be difficult, but try doing it
without resorting to ad hominem.
Randolph Carter|7.10.07 @ 10:45AM|#
But then there is the deeply disturbing sex scene. Roark,
temporarily banned from architecture, spends his days working in a
quarry ("to feel the drill and his body gathered into the single
will of pressure, that a shaft of steel might sink slowly into the
granite"). It's there he first meets Dominique, who believes him to
be not a genius but the hired help. Nevertheless, she is drawn to
the man with hair the color of a ripe orange rind and invents tasks
designed to lure him into to her domain. But when Roark takes
Dominique, it's in an act she later describes as rape. "The act of
a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the
kind of rapture she had wanted."
"I think I willfully misread the rape," says Daphne Gottlieb, the
poet. "But then again, I misread my own rape. The idea of the poem,
however, was violence begets violence."
It's certainly the reason, at the end of "Sweet Sixteen," that
Gottlieb has Atlas cleaning her floor.
Mr Nous|7.10.07 @ 10:45AM|#
With Tolkien, people usually know what they are talking about, or as least try to. With Rand, not so. As demonstrated in these comments.
|7.10.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Tolkein presented a monarchist, divine-right-of-kings vision of
the ideal society in the Lord of the Rings, except for the Shire.
Even then, the loosely organized Shire was only the result of the
end of the line of Kings in Arnor.
Actually, I find the more interesting parallel between LOTR and AS
in their portrayals of worlds where the past was more advanced,
civilized and populated than the present. They both portray the
ruins of civilization and their respective current ages of
reduction vividly at certain points of each novel.
Jesse Walker|7.10.07 @ 10:48AM|#
The definition of anti-hero must have changed while I was
asleep.
Yeah, that was a rather eccentric use of the term. You know what he
means, though.
|7.10.07 @ 10:50AM|#
"Sure, Rand's protagonists are all Olympic gods indifferent to
the plight of mere mortals, while Tolkien's characters are Everyman
or perhaps more aptly, Old Testament figures ("Who, me? Um, God,
couldn't You find someone else?")"
To me that is why Rand is a lousy author. Gods are boring as hell.
They never change or evolve. They just are. Gods are essentially
forces of nature. Human's in contrast change and evolve and learn
making them much more interesting. The Greek tragedies and epic
poems bear this out. The God's are just uninteresting filler. It is
the humans who are interesting. Rand writes about Gods and her
books are corrispondingly boring. Like reading the Illiad if
Agememnon were a great general and Achilleus a selfless serving
soldier.
Grotius|7.10.07 @ 10:54AM|#
John,
This is why the Gods in the Iliad envy folks like Achilles
and Hector.
cls|7.10.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Certianly I agree that anyone who takes Hoppe serious has a
problem.
My copy of Atlas had 1056 pages. Rand was rather merciless in her
cutting of material (anyone who has seen original manuscript pages
will attest to that) that was not considered central to the plot.
What role would children have had in that?
I just finished a novel which also lacks any children as
characters. But then many novels written for adult readers do
precisely that. Many do depict children but as evil, but no one
assumes that means those authors hate children. The absence or
presence of specific elements in a story are driven by the
plot.
In the world of Atlas Rand was making a point about role of
specific kinds of entrepreneurs. You will see that in the opening
description of New York the small shops are mostly empty. In the
highly regulated world of state capitalism it is the small
businesses who suffer the most not the big guys. To have depicted
her heroes as small businessmen would have undermined the point she
was making and been less believable. In fact the whole plot would
have fallen apart. That criticism is just silly.
But then go forward to the capitalist utopia that is created. Here
every business is a small one and the entrepreneurs are still happy
and productive. And the setting was in a rural valley in the
mountains of Colorado. To say that is anti-pastoral is a bit
strange.
I confess that the obnoxious Objectivists, especially the pro-war
nuts, really turn me off. And I yearn for a post-Objectivist
libertarianism. But at the same time the absurd accusations flung
at Rand by various Rothbardians (who originated many of the false
stories about Rand) are equally a turn off. Both sides exaggerate
and distort the facts. Why do people either have to worship her or
demonize her? How about a simple dose of the truth?
Grotius|7.10.07 @ 10:59AM|#
cls,
I guess if I had my druthers I would just ignore her and her
writings altogether.
|7.10.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Chris Anderson,
With Tolkien, he was consciously trying to write a mythological
tale. It's fairly common in mythology for the present to be
something less than the past, when we all walked and talked with
the gods, etc. Not that he may not have been making a larger
point--I'm sure he was lamenting the loss of the pastoral
lifestyle.
|7.10.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Yeah, Gandolf is no hero!! None of the fellowship was, no
heroism in the trip to destroy the ring. Of course that's
sarcasm.
I think the difference is that in LOR, they do not aspire to be
great, they are called upon and they rise to the call. With Rand,
greatness is part of what it is to be a quality human. It's not a
calling, it's intrinsic.
In Tolkien, the everyday dumbass can become a hero. In Rand, the
everyday dumbass, is just a dumbass. In Atlas Shrugged, I think
Rand is commenting on our ability to escape the dumbasses, it would
require crash landing a plane in the middle of fantasy land.
mith|7.10.07 @ 11:08AM|#
"pick up The Two Towers and turn to book four, chapter 10"
Seriously man, I think you're reading too much into it.
Yeah, if I read it and really think about it, I see it, but I've
got to squint.
|7.10.07 @ 11:20AM|#
I will say this: I was able to get through Atlas in about two weeks. I was not able to complete the LOTR trilogy over a period of four weeks. I got bogged down in Return of the King, and just couldn't bear to continue.
Fluffy|7.10.07 @ 11:21AM|#
"Tolkien's novel also ends with a theme of rebuilding the world,
a promise of setting things straight, bringing back the right order
of things."
This is, simply, false, and the manner in which it is false
demonstrates why this guy doesn't understand Tolkien. [Since he
doesn't understand Tolkien, his comparisons to Rand are immediately
inapt by definition.]
LOTR does NOT end with rebuilding the world and setting things
straight. It ends with the explicit knowledge that the world can't
be rebuilt and can't be set right. Tolkien's entire universe [as
should be clear when you include the Silmarillion] starts out
perfect and gradually decays from there, in a recurring cycle where
the forces of good struggle to maintain a stasis, while evil
strives to undo it. Evil is periodically dealt a huge defeat, but
only at the price of the very stasis good hoped to protect.
And as for apparent libertarianism in Tolkien, look at it this way:
Tolkien's creation myth essentially makes existence the result of
choral music among divine beings. One of those divine
beings decides he doesn't want to be part of a chorus, but wants to
sing his own individual music. That act damages existence and
creates evil. To Tolkien evil and discord are synonyms. That
doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Later acts of mythological
individualism are equally destructive. Feanor and Al-Kharazon the
Golden are individualists who refuse to passively accept the role
assigned to them by the divine order, and fuck things up
specifically by seeking knowledge or by refusing to allow
themselves to be victimized.
Sorry for all that, but I'm both a Tolkien nerd and a Rand nerd,
which means that essentially I'm the world's biggest possible nerd,
unless someone out there beats me by combining Rand, Tolkien,
vampires, and open source software.
Grotius|7.10.07 @ 11:25AM|#
One of those divine beings decides he doesn't want to be
part of a chorus, but wants to sing his own individual music. That
act damages existence and creates evil. To Tolkien evil and discord
are synonyms.
So Sauron is Tolkein's version of Ikhnaton (Akhenaten)?
|7.10.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Fluffy,
For Tolkien the world at the end of the LOTR ends more fucked up in
some ways than it was when the books began in that the Elves leave
middle earth and the last vestiges of perfection leave with them.
Yeah, we get some half elves who pass their blood along to give us
people like Mozart but pretty much the elves are the most divine
things left in the world and they leave. The age of man arrives and
I don't think Tolkien viewed that as a good thing.
I think you read too much into his view of individualism. Tolkien
is not talking about individualism he is talking about sin, as in
discord from the divine. His point is that when man steps away from
the divine and goes his own way, you get evil. Moreover, when man
tries to build his own utopia, you get really evil. I think that is
different than saying that everyone should go along and get along
and know their place. Knowing your place before God is different
than saying that you should do what other men tell you to do.
Further, Tolkien is absolutely against the idea that man can
without God accomplish much of lasting value. In that way, he is as
different from Rand as you can get.
|7.10.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Anyone who says that the characters in Atlas Shrugged (with the exception of John Galt who, let's face it, cannot be flawed as he is the sum of all of Rand's philosophy) are flawless gods has not read the book. Now, Atlas Shrugged is not a shining example of literary merit, but I do think the Fountainhead is an excellent book. The character of Gail Wynand in particular I find to be an excellent example of Rand's success in writing.
Tom Accuosti|7.10.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Whose sex scenes are creepier, Rand's or
Tolkien's?
Why don't Rand's characters ever have enjoyable, vanilla sex?
Rather, they always seem to be on the verge of non-con or rape or
something that would get you into trouble if you tried it
now.
And did I miss something in The Two Towers?
|7.10.07 @ 11:36AM|#
It is not that they are flawless Trevor, except for the one God, gods never are. It is that the characters are unchanging. They never evolve or learn. They just are.
|7.10.07 @ 11:38AM|#
That's true. Rand was so rooted in philosophy that her
characters embody very specific concepts or failures in execution
(Wynand, Stadler) that it would defeat her intention to make them
evolve. I enjoy her books but I believe on philosophical, rather
than literary grounds.
Tolkien on the other hand I detest on purely literary grounds.
Grotius|7.10.07 @ 11:40AM|#
From a philosophical perspective Rand engages in a lot of question begging.
|7.10.07 @ 11:42AM|#
"Tolkien on the other hand I detest on purely literary
grounds"
What is wrong with him on literary grounds? Seriously? I like the
books. I read them as an adult and found the story to be
interesting and the world he created to be very interesting. They
are not my favorite books, but that is because I like other books
better not because I think they are bad books. I would be curious
to hear what your objection to them is.
|7.10.07 @ 11:45AM|#
My knowledge is limited basically because I was so fed up with the Fellowship of the Ring I did not want to continue the series, so my objections are basically all on that book. I just found it to be insufferably boring and overly wordy. I suppose in theory that could be an abberration but I wasn't really interested in pursuing it.
David Ross|7.10.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Grotius & Fluffy: The Pharaonic reference in Tolkien is Ar-Pharazôn the Golden, the last king of Númenor. It's one consonant away from a transliteration of Hebrew / Arabic PhR`WN, with a variant of the Arabic definite article to introduce it and of course with vowels stolen from King James.
bubba|7.10.07 @ 11:49AM|#
How is it possible to write for Reason without having even read Atlas Shrugged?
|7.10.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Trevor,
I had the exact same opinion as you did for years. I tried to read
the fellowship and found is awful. Then a few years ago, I gave it
another try and for some reason got through it and liked it. I
can't honestly say what changed. Although I will admit Return of
the King drags in places, especially the parts about Frodo. My God,
how long does it take to get up that mountain?
Grotius|7.10.07 @ 11:52AM|#
David Ross,
Is it your impression that Tolkein is an anti-Herodotus (who has
often been deemed a lover of "barbarians")?
|7.10.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Trevor - I also enjoyed The Fountainhead more than
Atlas Shrugged, but... Fellowship too wordy? How
about John Galt's 50+ page rant? Talk about wordy!
Atlas Shrugged left me feeling very uncomfortable, upset
and angry, which was probably Rand's goal - so score one for her I
guess.
How many of you who read Atlas read John Galt's speech in
its entirety? In one sitting? I admit that after the first 15 pages
I gave up and skipped to the last 5 or so.
Fluffy|7.10.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Bronwyn -
I would estimate that I read the first 500 pages of
Shrugged scattered over a handful of days, but the last
500 pages in what amounted to one sitting. The speech is in the 2nd
half so that would be included.
If you're enjoying it, Shrugged is one of those books
where you can really build momentum and stay immersed.
I would say that I enjoyed Shrugged more than
Fountainhead, but would acknowledge the superior literary
merit of the latter.
|7.10.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Heh, Galt's speech I did not read the first time, I admit. I always stop for the night when I get to it and read it as basically a seperate work of nonfiction.
David Ross|7.10.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Grotius: My thought is that Númenor stands in for the 20th
century United States, in the British Tory view.
Founded upon a new continent in the west, and through the gumption
of immigrants from Eriador (Nordic Europe, mostly), Númenor becomes
fabulously wealthy with power enough to save the old country from
the invasions of Sauron's easterly despotism. But over time Númenor
becomes proud, loses its faith in the Valar and Eru, and
unconsciously mimics that most iconic of despotisms: Bronze Age
Egypt.
As for Herodotus, it is fair to say that Tolkien did not try nearly
as hard as did Herodotus to give his foreign races the benefit of
the doubt. For Tolkien, you were with the good guys, or you were
too selfish to join the good guys, or else you were with Sauron and
his orcs. I did not find very many travels and memoirs of the
wondrous cities of the Far Harad in Tolkien's oeuvre.
|7.10.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Perhaps I should give it another try, then... when I'm not
already overtired.
Now when that'll happen, I don't know. I've got a 4-month
old baby which I think goes hand-in-hand with overtired. Maybe I'll
read it to him at bedtime :)
|7.10.07 @ 12:22PM|#
"Do you know what your baby is saying when he reaches for that bottle? He is saying I am a leech!"
John Rhoads|7.10.07 @ 12:25PM|#
My copy of Atlas had 1056 pages. Rand was rather merciless
in her cutting of material (anyone who has seen original manuscript
pages will attest to that) that was not considered central to the
plot.
I don't think anyone who writes a 1000 page book with 200 pages of
content can be considered "merciless in her cutting of material."
Rand had a lot of interesting ideas, but she was a terrible
writer.
highnumber|7.10.07 @ 12:35PM|#
[Walks in, late to the party]
Hey, what's happening?
AAAAAHHHHHH!!!
NERDS!!!
[Runs away, starts getting ready to watch the All Star game]
Grotius|7.10.07 @ 12:38PM|#
David Ross,
Yeah, depending on my mood, Herodotus is often more of my sort of
writer.
Fluffy|7.10.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Rhoads -
I actually would disagree. The literary flaws in Shrugged
are primarily the thin characterizations and the spare and
repetitive descriptions. But in story terms, there is very little
there that doesn't function to advance the plot. Even the speeches
advance the plot in a certain sense, given that they're necessary
to understand the character motivations and the central plot
mechanism. The most accurate criticisms I've seen point out that
the book sacrifices character [and virtually everything else] to
the service of mechanically advancing the plot. If true, that
criticism implies pretty heavily that a "well-written"
Shrugged that included more introspection, reflection,
examination of the environment, detail on minor characters, etc.
[all the necessaries of modern literature] would be even longer
than the book we've got. By a considerable margin, probably.
John Rhoads|7.10.07 @ 1:04PM|#
Fluffy,
Well, I guess we just disagree fundamentally on that point. I
remember when I read the John Galt speech thinking that there was
not a single idea contained within it that had not been expressed
earlier in the novel. Because she is so determined to unfold her
philosophy gradually, it results in literally repeating the same
idea over and over again. Most of the words in the novel deal
explicitly with the overarching philosophy as expressed in John
Galt's final speech...why does the same philosophical idea need to
be expressed in the same novel multiple times?
|7.10.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Some thoughts:
1) Sauron was not the first discordant note; it was the greater
Maia Morgoth. Sauron lived past the destruction of Morgoth in the
first age by pretending to repent to the Valar.
2) Numenor was not the US settled by immigrants from Eriador. The
combined three houses of the elf friends were moved from Beleriand
before its destruction the end oft he first age. You can think of
them as a chosen people more than an amalgamation of immigrants.
It's stated multiple times in the books that all mingling with
lesser men decreases the potency of the Numenorean dna. The only
being mentioned who comes to Numenor is Sauron, who encompasses its
downfall.
3) I'm not sure about Tolkien's libertarian views, but he was a
staunch catholic, along with CS Lewis. Morgoth's original sin of
discord against the manifold mind of god is equivalent to Lucifer
stating he would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.
4) I don't have the book handy, but book 4 is Frodo and Sam's
journey from the Dead Marshes to Minas Morgul. Yes, that dialogue
seems gay to us, but we are father in time and distance from the
English concepts of servant and master than Tolkien. A perfect
servant was supposed to know his place and love and serve a fair
and honest master.
Jesse Walker|7.10.07 @ 1:15PM|#
I don't have the book handy, but book 4 is Frodo and Sam's
journey from the Dead Marshes to Minas Morgul. Yes, that dialogue
seems gay to us, but we are father in time and distance from the
English concepts of servant and master than Tolkien. A perfect
servant was supposed to know his place and love and serve a fair
and honest master.
You're on the wrong track. The intercourse in question involves a
man and a woman. Sort of.
|7.10.07 @ 1:17PM|#
The mysterious attack on Hans Hoppe -- Walker gives no reason for his vicious swipe -- coupled with the admission that he hasn't even READ one of the books he purports to be discussing has got to make this one of the lamest posts on this blog ever, and that is saying a lot. (A Reason writer who hasn't read the major novel of the author that inspired the founding of his magazine -- perhaps this partly explains why much of what appears in Reason seems so utterly disconnected from libertarianism properly understood).
|7.10.07 @ 1:19PM|#
Jesse,
Surely you're not implying Shelob and Sam had some sort of sexual
encounter!
I'm just making it up as I go along here, not having any portion of
The Lord of the Rings on hand at the office.
|7.10.07 @ 1:39PM|#
No, it wouldn't count. But I have to say that your attitude toward these things betrays a certain contempt for your readers. You can't be bothered to read a book you're writing about, and you also can't be bothered to explain why you seem to hate HHH -- and all this is a magazine that calls itself "Reason." Why not just call it "Sloth magazine," and be done with it?
|7.10.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Excerpt from: http://www.bookrags.com/notes/two/PART22.htm
Book 4, Chapter 10
Sam sees Frodo's sword on the ground and he charges at Shelob with
it. She is surprised as he blinds one eye and then a second. Sam
slashes her body and her venomous blood seeps out. Sam clutches the
blade as she jumps at him, and lets the weight of her body impale
herself upon the sword. She shudders and Sam reels in the stench of
her filth. She stares at the hobbit with her many eyes and fears
that her death has begun. He chants elvish words that he does not
know and struggles to his feet. He breaks into a new rage and
begins to attack her eyes some more. She hobbles to a crack in the
earth and slips in ide leaving a trail of blood behind. Sam
collapses next to Frodo and begins to cut the web from his body. He
searches for breath or heartbeat and hears nothing. "'Did I come
all this way for nothing?'" Book 4, Chapter 10, pg. 427
Sam is silent for a moment and thinks that he must carry on the
quest, even though he fears it. He does not want to leave his
friend's body and wonders if he is even right to take the Ring. He
stoops and kisses Frodo's forehead, wiping away his own tears. He
slips the necklace of the Ring around his neck and takes the phial
of Galadriel. Stepping into the dark tunnel, he soon finds himself
near its end. He sees that orcs are coming and slips the ring on
his finger to avoid being caught. Sam realizes that Frodo is the
true Ring-bearer and feels that a terrible fate has befallen him.
The orcs lift the body and go running through the passage, afraid
of Shelob. Sam tries to follow them but has trouble keeping up with
the pace.
Near the top, Sam hears the captains arguing over Frodo's
body.
Some think that it is elvish. One of the orcs talks about fearing
the Nazgul. He wants to be rid of the leadership of Sauron and
wishes he had never come back. They talk about the impending war
and wish that they had no part in it. The Nazgul told them that
something was going to try to get into the gates near Minas Ithil.
Two of the orcs argue about whose job it was to watch the stairs.
They have seen Gollum before and decide that they should no longer
interfere with Shelob's hunt. One orc says that something hurt the
creature and is still lurking in the tunnels.
Sam listens carefully as the orcs realize that there must be
another enemy near them because someone had to cut Frodo's cords.
One of the orcs doesn't agree with this. They look at the body and
make sure that all of his possessions are recorded. One orc thinks
that the dead body is no good but another reminds him that Shelob's
venom merely makes a body seem dead. She likes to feast on live
meat. Sam comes to the grim realization that he has let Frodo
become captured and almost abandoned him. The orcs want to have fun
with the prisoner and Sam gets more frustrated as he tries to
figure out how he is going to get into the fortress. He catches up
with the orcs and listens to their singing. He cannot follow them
through the doors.
"The great doors slammed to. Boom. The bars of iron fell into place
inside. Clang. The gate was shut. Sam hurried himself against the
bolted brazen plates and fell senseless to the ground. He was out
in the darkness. Frodo was alive but taken by the Enemy." Book 4,
Chapter 10, pg. 446
So his steel rob fleshed itself in the dark recesses of Shelob? I
guess it's sexual, but did Sam therefore bring home an STD for poor
Rosie Cotton? Although I do admit that sometimes during the height
of passion I too recite words whos meaning I do not know...
|7.10.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Well, in Bored of the Rings, the Sauron and Shelob
analogues were actually a divorced couple.
Hobbit and giant spider porn--already on the Internet?
Probably.
Jesse Walker|7.10.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Justin: I'm not "writing about" Atlas Shrugged. I'm
linking to an interesting article about it & admitting I'm not
in the best position to judge the author's argument.
As for Hoppe, I threw that in because I didn't want this thread to
get bogged down with comments assuming that because I'm
recommending an explicitly Hoppean piece I must be a fan of
Hoppe's. If you want the short version, I think his "ultimate
justification" for libertarian ethics is sophomoric, that his
defense of border controls falls apart with any substantial
scrutiny, and that he's far too fond of medieval hierarchies. I'll
admit that his defense of monarchy is clever, but I don't find it
convincing either.
|7.10.07 @ 2:03PM|#
If I were still a 13-year-old girl, this thread would be like a
bizarre conglomeration of everything I was into. Of course, then
some of you would be speaking Sindarin.
If we're going to be making comparisons between Tolkien and
influential libertarian novelists, though, I think you're more
likely to hit similarities between Tolkien's idea of "sub-creation"
as demonstrated in "Leaf by Niggle" with the zany intergalactic
joyride into literary theory that is Heinlein's Number of the
Beast.
Juan Fernando C|7.10.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Mr. Walker:
I would like you to explain how and why do you find Hoppe's
justification for libertarian ethics "sophomoric". Since it's
epistemological basis is the same as Praxeology's, I would like to
know -in depth- if you dismiss Ludwig von Mises's work too. Please
point to specific Hoppe and Mises texts on epistemological
justification for ethics and for economic laws respectively while
you discuss it. Thanks, I'm sure it will be interesting as a topic
for all your readers, since we all have to deal with the basis for
our stances very frequently.
Greetings from Ecuador.
|7.10.07 @ 3:59PM|#
I wouldn't call LOTR libertarian in any grand sense, but the ultimate distinction between the good characters on the one hand and the villains or at least not-good characters on the other is how they react when offered absolute power... you might even say that the destruction of the one ring is an affirmation of the principles of limited government.
TP|7.10.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Which is creepier: Rape or bestial arachnid snuff scenes? Hmm, I'm going to have to go with the latter, but, like many others, I think you're reading way too much into this passage.
Mark|7.11.07 @ 5:40AM|#
One of Rand's heroes in Atlas did change during the course of the novel: Henry Rearden, who went from supporting the cause of the statists to opposing it. Along the way he actually becomes a more three-dimensional character.
|7.11.07 @ 6:56AM|#
If you don't think the characters in Atlas Shrugged change, you
haven't read the book. Pages upon pages are devoted to how much
Dagny and Hank (wasn't it Hank?) waste time metaphorically beating
their heads against the wall trying to remake the world on their
own--only to finally realize that you really do need other people
to do anything really worth doing in this life, but you can't force
them to change.
The whole point of John Galt's action, then, is not to either force
people to change (re: Hank's incessant fight with the law and his
family, neither of which will listen to reason) or continue picking
up the slack for everyone else (re: Dagny's major fault--she runs
herself into the ground when no one else is willing to lift a
finger), but to give people an honest look at the consequences of
their actions.
John Galt is not the protagonist of Atlas Shrugged. John Galt is a
plot device. Dagny and Hank are the protagonists, and they both
damn near destroy themselves over the course of the book, but grow
and change for the better in the end.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245