|
|
<< Justice Dept Killing Civil Service Hiring | Main | Labor Monday (1-13) >> January 12, 2003Meaning of Tolkien: Mercy not WarSome conservatives have evoked The Two Towers and Tolkien in support of preemptive war against evil. Now, aside from Tolkien's strongly stated revulsion against simple mapping of his tale onto present conflicts, it does miss the personal and human dimensions that make the whole tale interesting. I especially like this analysis by Slacktivist which highlights the repeated mercy shown by Tolkien characters to those who commit evil, especially the pitiful case of Gollum but extending even to harder cases like the wizard Saruman. Even as characters engage in war, there is a profound skepticism of the enterprise, for as Gandalf says when Frodo early on in the story expresses surprise that Gollum has been allowed to live despite his evil misdeeds: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."I am not a pacificist but death as a solution to problems has a finality that cannot be easily undone. And the more profound moral is not just the slipperiness of execution-style judgements but the profoundly corrupting influence of exercising such power. If there is a pervasive moral to Tolkien, it is that mercy, even against evil, even when you know such mercy may allow further evil down the line, does less harm than the corruption of the soul that too-ready vengeful judgement exacts. One of the worst tragedies of the post-911 period has been that we have a President who has little of the capacity for mercy and all too much of the corrupting desire for power and venegeance. In the wake of 911, I wrote one of my favorite columns, The Horror And The Humanity Of September 11, where I expressed the hope that in the horror many Americans felt, we could touch that capacity of mercy for other victims around the world. That capacity of the American people is still there-- as shown by the skepticism they have for unilateral war-- but it still remains on the progressive agenda to build a stronger message of solidarity and mercy into our foreign policy. Note: As alerted to in the comments, I wanted to point people to a whole debate on the nature of evil in Tolkien at Avedon Carol's site. Worth checking out for an extensive debate between a number of blog and other posters. Posted by Nathan at January 12, 2003 10:46 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsI return to the same rebuttal I've always given to this sort of foolishness: "humans aren't orcs". It's fantasy, nothing more. The spectacle of desperate (and more than a little pathetic) conservatives going against Tolkien's wishes aside, there's really nothing more that needs to be said. (Conservatives actually might want to stay away from this, considering that it's probably the environmentalists that have the best argument about Tolkien as Allegory, what with the Ents and all.) Posted by: Demosthenes at January 12, 2003 03:27 PM I think that's a bit too easy. While the orcs are (dangerously) dehumanized as cannon fodder, there are humans and others enlisted on the side of evil throughout the stories, so the question is what to do and when killing is justified against those in service to evil. One of my objections to how the movies are interpreting the story is that the battles and warrior heroics are blotting out the moral quandries and emotional heroics of the original story. Posted by: Nathan Newman at January 12, 2003 03:35 PM It's just a little nitpick, but it's driving me nuts all over the blogosphere. His named is spelled Tolkien. You've got it as "Tolkein" throughout. Posted by: Patrick Nielsen Hayden at January 12, 2003 08:17 PM Thanks- corrected Posted by: Nathan Newman at January 12, 2003 08:31 PM Nathan, nice post. I certainly agree with you on mercy as a crucial value. During my recent rereading of LOTR, I've been struck by some relevant passages, including this one, where I suspect Tolkien is speaking through Faramir: "War must be, while we defend our lives...but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend...and I would have her loved for her memory,...her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise." Not only does this put me in mind of our ChickenHawks, fascinated by instruments of death and devoted to preemptive war and endless military budgets, but on the personal level, of many of our pro-gun advocates. I recognize the sad necessity in our society for many to keep arms (we do), but I will never, never understand the sheer adoration of weapons felt by so many. Some necessities should not be made into virtues. Posted by: Skip at January 12, 2003 10:30 PM Patrick Nielsen Hayden was too modest (or perhaps too irritated by the Tolkien misspelling?) to note that there's a small pile of stuff on the whole "Can we interpret LOTR as pro-war?" controversy written by him, myself, and some other folks at Avedon Carol's site at: http://www.sideshow.connectfree.co.uk/Tolkien.htm Hope you find it interesting... Posted by: Eric at January 13, 2003 01:20 AM Don't forget about security. Secureroot.org Posted by: Alveredus at July 6, 2004 08:43 AM pissing Posted by: som at August 24, 2004 05:14 AM pissing Posted by: roma at August 24, 2004 06:38 AM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|