"The primary actor is a wise old man…" And that is why it is hard to call that a myth for our time. Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights. Moreover, though Gandalf rarely displayed his power, everyone outside the Shire suspected that he did possess power and belonged to an elite, and today there is great distrust of elites.

I think a lot of idealistic people today concerned with justice, would prefer a myth by which organizing in pursuit of said justice is bottom-up, starting from the most disadvantaged and intersectional, instead of the Maiars’ top-down.

> I think a lot of idealistic people today concerned with justice, would prefer a myth by which organizing in pursuit of said justice is bottom-up, starting from the most disadvantaged and intersectional, instead of the Maiars’ top-down.

Hence the standard trope plot of all JRPGs: “Using the power of friendship to kill God”.

On the other hand, while the great old powers were waging fruitless war, it was the little people who struck the decisive blow, so perhaps it’s a lesson for our time of how both bottom-up and top-down can collaborate.

Yes, but in Tolkien it was little white men. As can be seen from the recent television adaptation, a myth for our time requires the involvement of, if not the leading role for, women and BIPOC in that struggle.

I don't see the little hobbit as a 'man' or as 'white', but as a small creature of good nature that is innocent enough to carry the greatest of burdens.

This is a profound misreading; royal birthright, aristocracy, and the ruling class are not taken to task or shown to be "fruitless" at all in Tolkien, and while today we may read Frodo as "the common man" his contemporary presentation is firmly (pastoralist and conservative English) upper middle class. The Baggins are landed gentry, not "the little people".

Reasonable Marxists may disagree on the class status of the Bagginses:

https://users.pfw.edu/wootdm01/bilbo.html

Personally I think that as well as their local status, their class can also be analyzed from a global perspective, where the hierarchy of the wider world still goes Eru > Ainur > Maiar > Eldar/Edain / Other Men/Elves > maybe Dwarves > everything else including Hobbits. In global Arda it matters not that Frodo was amongst the wealthiest and highest-status Hobbits - they are viewed as marginal by the other races, and it was this very marginal status that caused the “higher” races to overlook their potential, which is a large part of how they succeeded.

I’ll also defend the idea that the military strategizing of Great Men was for nought. We are told quite clearly that the ring is the only hope for free peoples; that even if it is kept from Sauron, his forces will inevitably win. Aside from Aragorn and possibly Faramir, the ruling Men are depicted as weak and flawed. No, they’re not taken to task for this, and royal birthright prevails, but then Tolkien as a Catholic wasn’t aiming to demonstrate anything about class liberation - hence my reading of the story as being one of cross-class collaboration, and the wider point being that achieving meaningful change is likely to involve “big people” and “little people” finding ways of working together.

> Aside from Aragorn and possibly Faramir, the ruling Men are depicted as weak and flawed.

Prince Imrahil is also a great noble of Gondor. And in Rohan, we see Éomer and the late Theodred without notable flaws. Flawed but nonetheless worthy nobles include King Théóden, Lady Éowyn, and Boromir. Steward Denethor is a complex case. King Brand of Dale is largely outside of the story proper, but is also seen as a great leader.

The Marxist analysis seemed to me flawed, particularly in presenting dwarves as below men in the social hierarchy. The men of Laketown had an elected leader; the dwarves had a kingdom, and though driven out of it they had regained some measure of wealth in their lands of exile. They were indigent at Laketown, but that's because they'd lost much on their travels. Nonetheless, they were fêted. Once re-established, the kingdoms of Erebor and Dale were close allies, and dwarves and men lived in harmony.

Sam is presented as British working class, and is arguably the hero of that part of the story. He is the least corrupted by the ring, despite carrying it and using it. And the Mordor chapters in Return of the King are all written from Sam’s perspective.

I agree that ruling classes are not taken to task; in fact they are celebrated throughout the books. On the other hand, the wise and powerful rulers cannot win on their own. Only the secret mission of Sam and Frodo could achieve victory.

In LoTR, the ruling class knowingly sacrifices, and loses, its powers by helping to destroy the Ring.

On a side note, I enjoyed Joe Abercrombie's "The First Law" cycle. It subverts the "wise old man enlists young hero's services for a lofty endeavor" trope to great effect.

Thanks for the recommendation, sounds interesting

I enjoyed the writing and some of the world, but the lore was really confusing and I didn't really understand the beef at the end.

Spoilers

I guess the main wizard is to gandalf what homelander is to Superman? Like, what if he were more self-interested?

I also didn't like how they didn't resolve Logan's story. I guess I'm supposed to read another trilogy to figure it out.

There are no essential stories for "everyone". Cause everyone is different. What the cactus needs and what the redwood needs are not the same thing. The stories they need will always be different.

There are no common needs and desires, and no common stories? That doesn't seem to match the data, at all. LOTR, as one example, is among the best-selling fiction of the 20th century.

> "The primary actor is a wise old man…" And that is why it is hard to call that a myth for our time. Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights.

At the risk of making this political, our present era also has an old man who has earned the respect of younger generations by being well-informed, consistent in his views, with a strong moral compass and deeply concerned about the welfare of all people. I would argue that Bernie Sanders is the Gandalf of our times.

We also have a lot of Denethors and Sarumans and Wormtounges. Our Dark Lord isn't a person, but maybe it's an ideology -- that if we can just maximize shareholder value everything will work out fine. Tolkien didn't like allegories and insisted that the ring wasn't symbolic of anything, but if it was our ring we can't bring ourselves to cast aside is fossil fuels.

What's changed is we've as a culture realized that age doesn't automatically bestow wisdom. A wise old man is a valuable part of culture and society. But not all old men are wise and it doesn't seem to be a function of being old. Bernie has held his beliefs for decades. He was wise when he was younger and that's persisted (or developed further with the guidance of time and experience) into his current age. Wisdom is something that has to be cultivated for a lifetime and we simply don't do that as a society or a culture. Did we ever? I'm not sure.

I think there are a lot of people who still care about wisdom and try to work on it. Our popular culture and economic and political systems don't always do a good job of encouraging or valuing wisdom.

I think there are probably a lot of old men and women like Bernie out there, they just aren't very visible. What's unusual about Bernie is that he's managed to become famous and is in a position of power.

> What's changed is we've as a culture realized that age doesn't automatically bestow wisdom.

That's no new realization, but a continuing pattern, generation after generation. The youth of the 1960s took that idea much further than today's kids.

'Every generation thinks they invented sex.'

I'm not really talking about the current generation (especially since I'm not a part of it). I'm talking along longer timespans as a longer process. Hundreds to thousands of years. The old being wise goes back a long time, and we didn't just realize it's bullshit yesterday.

Fair enough, but the mistake of (some of) the young is to call it bullshit - first they think it's scripture (which it is to younger children, and which they need to believe to feel safe) and then, when they discover that older people are flawed humans, they think it's all bullshit.

It's neither. Older people often do know many things that younger people don't yet, but older people are very human too.

To address one point,

> Tolkien didn't like allegories and insisted that the ring wasn't symbolic of anything

The former is true, the latter is not:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37205904

> Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights.

Citations needed, really. While young people do not look at old with awe or submissively, claim that they somehow uniquely or unusually look down at us seems wrong to me. And also, the little that exists seems to me more of reactive to hostility some in older generation seems to have quite openly.

> Citations needed, really.

Here you go.[0][1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK_boomer

[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/baby-boome...

I do not think this proves that "Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights." Like at all. Especially since it popularity was an actual response to members of older generation bashing younger one. As in, it was literal response to that and relatively rarely used outside of context of the older people complaining about younger ones.

I do not see younger generation rejecting everything that comes from older people, definitely not much more then what our generations or the one before seemed to do.

Your English and your post history suggests that you are not from the Anglophone world. The generational tension I was talking about is a feature of it, I do not claim that it exists in the same way elsewhere.

And I am still aware of "do not trust anyone under 30" slogan from 60ties and aware and intergenerational issues of the past in the anglophone world.

I don't like the deus ex machina trick of turning Gandalf the Grey into Gandalf the White.

That's like Spock's inner eye lid.

BTW the primary actors are Sam and Frodo and their friendship where one carries the burden of the ring and the other carries his friend.

I don't think you can criticize "deus ex machina" as a plot device when it's, from go, literally "ex deus" - Gandalf is on a mission (/ missions) from god, and Eru's not gonna let him get off so easily.

It's arguable whether you want to describe the wizards as 'Mortal' in the first place.

The return of Gandalf never much bothered me, it fit well enough.

Just because it's literally ex deus doesn't make it less ex deus.

Ex deus is cheap

The more critical part is "from go" - deus ex machina is considered bad because it's a narrative rupture. In a story of wars openly involving divine beings, there's no such discontinuity. It is also usually associated with stories that wrap up a bit too tidily, and that's also not the case in LotR.

Gandalf dies 2/6 of the way through the story and comes back 3/6 of the way through. His death may be the climax of the first two books, but his return is merely a plot beat and many of the remaining problems have yet to even be revealed, let alone solved.

You don't think the plot was put out in advance for Gandalf to not die in Moria? Or what do you mean?

I guess he had to disappear for the fellowship to break up.

If I remember correctly, you don't get to know that he technically did die in Moria. That is background lore.

Tricking the reader to think he died to let him return more powerful when he is needed.

That's comic book logic.

Boromir's death was far better plotwise.

He doesn't return more powerful, he returns with a different mandate. He is no more or less powerful as he was before, rather he is "licensed" by Eru to reveal more of it as Saruman has abdicated that role, and Gandalf had been the only faithful Istari of the five - dying being a critical part of that.

According to Tolkien he is more powerful

>What Gandalf did was what the Authority wished. The "wizards" were failures as they had been and needed enhancement to match the gravity of the crisis. Gandalf's sacrifice was accepted so he was returned in an enhanced state (more power and wisdom). The old Gandalf could not have dealt with Théoden or Saruman as he was able after his enhancement

https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letter_156

It was based on the Bible and the Resurrection. Tolkien was an observant Catholic and openly talked about the religious elements in LOTR. For example, the description of Gandalf's white rainments are similar to Jesus's in the Gospels.

Well...I've read some intellectual biographies of Tolkien, and a common complaint is that it's hard to pin down his views on much of anything outside of literature. He wasn't a systematic thinker, but tended to write what sounded good at the moment without much regard for consistency with what had been written before. He had to do a lot of later editing to remove logical conflicts in his stories. Remember that the impetus for his fiction was to create a world in which his created languages could live. So, positing a coherent ideological message in his story is a bit of a stretch. Also, Tolkien's wasn't one to focus much on real world social and political issues. I think the most notable example of him writing about politics is in a wartime letter to his son, when Nazi antics forced politics into his normally narrow interests.

All that said, no good postmodernist would object to modern readers finding meanings in literature that weren't consciously in the author's mind.

> positing a coherent ideological message in his story is a bit of a stretch. Also, Tolkien's wasn't one to focus much on real world social and political issues.

Maybe this is why I love LoTR so much. It’s just a story!

he famously got quite annoyed by people asking him about metaphors or whatever.

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence."

He very much did not want to talk about it and presumably intentionally avoided writing it.

Not writing allegory (a very specific kind of comparison) doesn't mean nothing in the book is a metaphor. It's willful ignorance to pretend LotR has no ideology or non-narrative (moral, epistemic, metaphysical, etc.) content. Tolkien just doesn't want people to say "... and so the orcs are the Germans."

He very definitely did write at least one very clear allegory in his short story "Leaf by Niggle".

His objection wasn't to "metaphors or whatever", but specifically to the technique of allegory. He was a professional expert in literature; it meant something very clear and specific to him (as did the word 'metaphor'). The full quote is,

"Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. 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.

Elsewhere:

"... the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human 'literature', that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily it can be read 'just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it ..."

> He wasn't a systematic thinker, but tended to write what sounded good at the moment without much regard for consistency with what had been written before. He had to do a lot of later editing to remove logical conflicts in his stories. Remember that the impetus for his fiction was to create a world in which his created languages could live.

What is the basis of that? It doesn't match what I've read Tolkien saying. Tolkien knew exactly what he was doing, was a leading scholar in the field of myth, and thought very deeply about it. If you want to understand, read his essay On Fairy-stories.

> no good postmodernist would object to modern readers finding meanings in literature that weren't consciously in the author's mind.

What does that means specifically? Who are you referring to? What is the basis of that? What does it have to do with this discussion?

Evil against good framework is not all that much special, actually.

>An evil force that heavily used propaganda to spread their horrible ideas, and masses of people not only in Germany or Italy, but the rest of Europe and the US, refusing to acknowledge or oppose the reality of the evil, the grim future; and many even supporting it.

Yeah, not much has changed in that regard. Though we likely have very different ideas of what that evil is nowadays.

> we likely have very different ideas of what that evil is nowadays

Because you don't know that, I see a comment that attempts to disrupt good people from doing anything, promoting despair. Quoting my GP comment:

>> An evil force works not by open destruction, but through lies to cause despair and corruption. The good people of the world allow themselves to be influenced by it; they embrace despair and abandon goodness and all resistance; or they are corrupted and even help the enemy.