From: David Salo Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Message-ID: <120720022223228466%dsalo@usa.net> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/3.1.8 Lines: 49 Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 03:19:55 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.170.95.165 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tds.net (TDS.NET Help Desk 1-888-815-5992) X-Trace: kent.svc.tds.net 1026530395 208.170.95.165 (Fri, 12 Jul 2002 22:19:55 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 22:19:55 CDT Organization: TDS.NET Internet Services www.tds.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nnxp1.twtelecom.net!newspeer2.tds.net!172.16.10.2.MISMATCH!kent.svc.tds.net!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90570 In article <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>, "TradeSurplus" wrote: > I disagree with this argument. From the Elder Days to the Third Age, > technologies did not advance as they (generally) do in the real world. > Technology is in fact more or less stable throughout that time. During all > this time the forces of evil, from Morgoth on, use what we call 'modern' > technology. Hm, I don't think so. Both sides use "technology"; but Elvish and Númenórean technology tends to be "beautiful" and well-disguised: "solid-state", without pipes, gears, and wires. Palantíri, Rings of Power (most made by Elves), Noldorin lamps (glowing jewels): all of these are forms of technology, things made by craft that act as tools for their users. With that in mind, you can see a series of technological arcs, with a general downward trend. The high point of elvish technology is doubtless among the Noldor in the time of Fëanor; but in leaving Aman for Middle-earth, much was left behind, and the Noldor in Beleriand reverted to a much simpler way of life, only a little more technologically advanced than that of the Sindar. In the Second Age, we see Númenor rise to another (lower) technological peak which is at its height just before the Downfall. Again, much is lost among the Dúnedain exiled to Middle-earth. In the Third Age, the Dúnedain begin with an advanced technology that is displayed, for instance, in the shaping of stone (at Orthanc, or in the cutting of stone at Imrath Gondraich to build (as I guess) Minas Anor), or at Argonath, and they have legacies of the past, like the Palantíri. From the time of the Kin-Strife (15th century) on, the tools of this technology, or the know-how of how to use them, is gradually lost, and while Arnor dissolves amid civil and foreign wars, Gondor sinks into decadence, and the engineering secrets of the past are lost in the "Dark Age" of the late Third Age. Presumably, the Fourth Age will see the same pattern of diminished technological rise, peak, and fall. Within these three arcs there are exceptions. The Elves apparently preserve some "magical" technologies which they do not share. The Dwarves, likewise, must have had very impressive technologies to carve Khazad-dûm, but these are lost or not shared. Sauron and Saruman as Maiar can draw on non-human sources of knowledge (in addition to their personal ability, as immortals, to indefinitely extend their knowledge of the natural world); so we see such novel things as explosives used by Saruman, which are not used even by Sauron. Sauron (and Saruman to some degree) seems to have concentrated on "biotechnology", the breeding of new species of orcs and trolls and creatures like the flying mount of the Nazgûl. David Salo ###### From: queen_yoj@hotmail.com (Joy) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 12 Jul 2002 21:36:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 22 Message-ID: <29ff3ad6.0207122036.7d9bcaa4@posting.google.com> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <9249D4DB5praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.156.2.51 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1026534988 21479 127.0.0.1 (13 Jul 2002 04:36:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Jul 2002 04:36:28 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90600 pradera@pradera.prv.pl (Pradera) wrote: > > Tolkien used many benefits of modern > technology, like typewriter, without any problem. I think he was a little > bit of what we call now 'environmentalist'...or, more likely - just a > conservatist. He despised use of modern technology where it meant > destroying something that was good. Something called 'replacing good with > better'. When nature gave way to technology, when forests were cut and > fields plowed to build a factory, he disliked it. When old, good things had > to change for new, but worse, he disliked it. When old english countryside > was disappearing, along with its inhabitants, he felt grievious. But all > the technology? Nah, I don't think so. I think if he lived 50 yrs later, > he'd learn to use computer and internet and would not see them as 'devices > of evil' (like many so-called humanists I know do), but he'd still despise > the sight of factory chimneys where a pleasant countryland once was...and > who could blame him? > (he'd probably oppose things like changing irish plains into golf courses, > etc.) I think the thing that he finds evil is misuse of modern technology, > not the technology itself, as well as making some kind of 'god' out of it > (i.e. pursuing the progress regardless of consequences) Had a séance, did we? ###### From: "TradeSurplus" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <120720022223228466%dsalo@usa.net> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 70 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.252.64.216 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr10.news.prodigy.com 1026588295 ST000 64.252.64.216 (Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:24:55 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:24:55 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: Q[R_PJSCOHWMRUHXORHD]_LAPJYZTB\MV@BNMRQIMASJETAANVW[AKWZE\]^XQWIGNE_[EBL@^_\^JOCQ^RSNVLGTFTKHTXHHP[NB\_C@\SD@EP_[KCXX__AGDDEKGFNB\ZOKLRNCY_CGG[RHT_UN@C_BSY\G__IJIX_PLSA[CCFAULEY\FL\VLGANTQQ]FN Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 19:24:55 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!teaser.fr!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!207.115.63.138!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr10.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90605 David Salo wrote ... >"TradeSurplus" wrote: > >> I disagree with this argument. From the Elder Days to the Third Age, >> technologies did not advance as they (generally) do in the real world. >> Technology is in fact more or less stable throughout that time. During all >> this time the forces of evil, from Morgoth on, use what we call 'modern' >> technology. > > Hm, I don't think so. > > Both sides use "technology"; but Elvish and Númenórean technology >tends to be "beautiful" and well-disguised: "solid-state", without >pipes, gears, and wires. I'm glad you put "technology" in quotation marks above because I think that Tolkien uses the craft of the Elves (which the Numenoreans learned from them and modified to their own needs) as counterpoint to the technology of the modern age. Modern technology (which I contend Tolkien disliked and which is used almost exclusively by the evil side in ME) is all about steam power, mass production (esp. of textiles), iron construction, petrochemicals and gunpowder. Apart from the bad guys, there is no real progress towards this kind of technology by the main civilizations of ME. >Palantíri, Rings of Power (most made by >Elves), Noldorin lamps (glowing jewels): all of these are forms of >technology, things made by craft that act as tools for their users. "Technology", used to include the Silmarils, Rings, Argonath etc. is as confusing as applying the word "Magic" equally to the enchantments of the Elves and the deceits of the enemy. While I agree with your description of the various fluctuations of skill and craft of ME civilizations, I don't think that these really count as fluctuations in technology as we in the real world see technology [1]. >Within these three arcs there are exceptions. The Elves >apparently preserve some "magical" technologies which they do not >share. The Dwarves, likewise, must have had very impressive >technologies to carve Khazad-dûm, but these are lost or not shared. >Sauron and Saruman as Maiar can draw on non-human sources of knowledge >(in addition to their personal ability, as immortals, to indefinitely >extend their knowledge of the natural world); so we see such novel >things as explosives used by Saruman, which are not used even by >Sauron. Sauron (and Saruman to some degree) seems to have concentrated >on "biotechnology", the breeding of new species of orcs and trolls and >creatures like the flying mount of the Nazgûl. Tolkien doesn't really give us much description of the levels of technology of various societies any more than he describes the agricultural or economic bases of those societies. The examples you give are more "magical" than "technological". Nonetheless I feel on relatively safe ground saying that no society other than the evil ones make extensive use of the kinds of technology that Tolkien disliked, i.e. steam power, mass production, iron construction, petrochemicals and gunpowder. Trade. [1] Of course, you could take the Sid Meier view of technology where it includes writing, philosophy, monotheism etc. but when discussing the technology that Tolkien hated, I think that it makes more sense to confine the term to the steel, steam and chemical based technologies of the 19th and 20th centuries. ###### From: JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net (JRStern) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Message-ID: <3d307e30.16584757@news.verizon.net> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <120720022223228466%dsalo@usa.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Lines: 33 Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 19:46:15 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.62.120.39 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrddc02.gnilink.net 1026589575 4.62.120.39 (Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:46:15 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:46:15 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator-sterling!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamfinder.gnilink.net!nwrddc02.gnilink.net.POSTED!490f3087!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90576 On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 03:19:55 GMT, David Salo wrote: > The Dwarves, likewise, must have had very impressive >technologies to carve Khazad-dûm, but these are lost or not shared. There's a line somewhere by/about the dwarves, ah yes, Gloin talking at the dinner before the Council of Elrond: "We have done well, he said, but in metalwork we cannot rival our fathers, many of whose secrets are lost. We make good armour and keen swords, but we cannot again make mail or blade to match those that were made before the dragon came. Only in mining and building have we surpassed the old days." >Sauron and Saruman as Maiar can draw on non-human sources of knowledge >(in addition to their personal ability, as immortals, to indefinitely >extend their knowledge of the natural world); so we see such novel >things as explosives used by Saruman, which are not used even by >Sauron. "Thrice he cried. Thrice the great ram boomed. And suddenly upon the last stroke the Gate of Gondor broke. As if stricken by some blasting spell it burst asunder: there was a flash of searing lightning, and the doors tubled in riven fragments to the ground." -- I think technology was neither here nor there for Tolkien. It's all about moral, ethical, aesthetic, and cultural trends, even a bit of political and religious. Magic was more of a factor, and it wasn't much of one even so. J. ###### From: qx1741@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 23:47:13 -0400 Organization: Oak Road Systems Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 19 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!tethys.csu.net!nntp!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90619 TradeSurplus wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien: >I disagree with this argument. From the Elder Days to the Third Age, >technologies did not advance as they (generally) do in the real world. Generally in the real world they _don't_. The past couple of hundred years are quite unusual historically. The Bronze Age lasted how many thousands of years? and even then it was only a few small areas of the globe that moved forward. -- Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA http://oakroadsystems.com Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site) Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien From: AC Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> Reply-To: spam@nospam.com Followup-To: alt.fan.tolkien Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 20 X-Complaints-To: abuse@randori.com - Please include ALL headers only, thanks. Organization: Randori News - http://www.randori.com - Try our FREE Usenet Scanner! Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 04:22:30 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!64.152.100.70!ps01-sjc1!news.webusenet.com!newsfeeder.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90617 In article , Stan Brown wrote: > TradeSurplus wrote in > rec.arts.books.tolkien: >>I disagree with this argument. From the Elder Days to the Third Age, >>technologies did not advance as they (generally) do in the real world. > > Generally in the real world they _don't_. The past couple of hundred > years are quite unusual historically. The Bronze Age lasted how many > thousands of years? and even then it was only a few small areas of > the globe that moved forward. The Bronze Age was nothing. The Neolithic lasted millions of years. It was tens of thousands of years after modern humans arrived that technologies like agriculture and writing were developed. -- AC Brought to you by Ed the Invisible Orange Iguana of Doom, Creator of the Universe. ###### From: "TradeSurplus" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 70 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: <0XjY8.2611$vm6.876749924@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.252.64.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr10.news.prodigy.com 1026673468 ST000 64.252.64.34 (Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:04:28 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 15:04:28 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: Q[OYRY[E]JVOBFD[@JJLNQMAPJYRUWPHDY^L\UQHWIWDUWYADNVOPCKZBL\NX_KHV^GY[KVMG^ZPNHSCZNS[^UXFJVWYXVXKBH[XRWWBBDTN@AX\JSBVH]_@T\EKJHBMZ\_WZJFNRY]YWKSPED_U^NC\HSZ\WS[KEAYI@DO@\K@BP\LD[\GTMPLDFVU]ASJM Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:04:28 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!207.115.63.138!newscon04.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr10.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90627 Stan Brown wrote ... >TradeSurplus wrote >>I disagree with this argument. From the Elder Days to the Third Age, >>technologies did not advance as they (generally) do in the real world. > >Generally in the real world they _don't_. The past couple of hundred >years are quite unusual historically. The Bronze Age lasted how many >thousands of years? and even then it was only a few small areas of >the globe that moved forward. The bronze age lasted for about 2,500 years, from ca. 3,500 - 1150 BCE, i.e. a bit less than the second or third ages and a whole lot less than all those Valian ages before that. In the bronze age in the real world humans went from stone weapons and heavy jerkins for armour to bronze swords, brigandine-like armour plus chariots and cavalry. Since the widespread use of chain mail in late first millenium CE Europe it was only five hundred years to plate armour, pike formations, crossbows and even cannon. For comparison, Elves went from chain mail and swords in, say, VY 2500, to -12,000 years later - chain mail and swords at the end of TA. The Calaquendi appear, in fact, to have almost completely bypassed the stone age and bronze age, except for the time spent by Cuivienan. It seems as though the Valar brought them almost immediately to the technological level of imperial Rome and then saw no need for more technological progress. Although they advanced in skill, in craft and in enchantment, they did not advance in technology. The same applies for the Moriquendi after the exile of the Noldor and for Men after they meet up with Elves. The technological level in ME seems to fluctuate between that of imperial Rome and of the early middle ages in Europe, for _17,000_ years [1]. It took real world humans only a third of that time to progress from stone age to space age. So, I agree with you that the last couple of hundred years have seen particularly fast progress in technological development but even prior to that, real world humans were advancing at a fair clip, almost blindingly fast compared to the Elves and Men of ME who never really got beyond what they were taught by the Valar. The general trend of technological knowledge in humans has been advancing. Even where societies collapse (as at various times during the bronze age), the technology survives and is built upon by the succeeding societies. Witness the fall of Rome and subsequent barbarism in Europe where the technologies mostly survived in the East and could be imported back to the West when society recovered. With a few exceptions (e.g.China) technologies in the real world do generally advance, and at a much faster pace than anything in ME. Trade. [1] Going by the Annals of Valinor in Lost Road which is as far as I've read in HoME. > >-- >Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA > http://oakroadsystems.com >Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site) >Tolkien letters FAQ: > http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html >FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm >Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm >more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm ###### From: shermanlee1@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 14 Jul 2002 21:24:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.145.156.16 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1026707090 12144 127.0.0.1 (15 Jul 2002 04:24:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Jul 2002 04:24:50 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90698 "TradeSurplus" wrote in message news:<7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>... > > Thus the fact that the technologies that Tolkien hates were used by evil > from very early days in the history of ME is not really relevant to the idea > that Tolkien hated them and thought their use was evil. I don't think Tolkien believed that any particular technology was in itself good or evil. I do think Tolkien hated modernity in many ways. I just don't think it was the technology that was at the root of his distrust. I think Tolkien loathed the psychological, social, cultural, and religious tendencies of modernity. He knew well enough that these 'soft' factors would in time be the prime determinants of how and why the machines were used, and even what _sort_ of machines were created. Recall that the Orcs of Morder were organized in hierarchical strata complete with _identifying numbers_. It was this sort of thing I think J.R.R.T. really disliked, the inherent anonymity and interchangeability of living people that modernity assumes as normal. The assumptions of modernity in the West produce a tendency for local customs, mores, dialects, folkways, etc, to be subsumed into a mass bland whole. It takes time, but the force of modern communications and economics is hard to resist. Tolkien, now, _liked_ locality, in my opinion. Note that King Elessar goes out of his way to keep his Reunited Kingdom from subsuming or interfering with local authority or traditions. I suspect that it would take a _really_ incompetent, brutal, or evil Thain to drive King Elessar to overrule him or replace him by fiat, and even then he would do so only if the Hobbits of the Shire proved quite unable to cope with the situation on their own. I don't think J.R.R.T. liked the 'smart-ass' attitude that seems to be a basic part of Western modernity, either. To the ancient protesting question: "Is anything sacred?", modernity says 'no'. J.R.R.T. would answer with a firm 'yes'. Modernity often seems to see _everything_ as fair game for satire, mockery, derision, or contempt, J.R.R.T. dissents on this. In comments in the appendices of LOTR, he comments on modernity's lack of respect for things ancient, or the tendency of modern language to degenerate into slang and trashyness: "...those to whom only the squalid sounds strong." Tolkien also noted that modernity seems to have no time for beauty. There's some truth in this. For example, in the city of Nashville a vew years ago, I and some others saw a small office building, that someone had taken the time and effort to design a bit of beauty into. The windows had a golden tint that caught the Sunlight in a lovely reflective aura. The reaction of one of my companions? "Be fun to throw a rock at it!" I've noticed that beauty often produces a kind of strange reaction in many moderns, a tendency to want to _mar_ it, as if it's out of place somehow. Western modernity also seems to have no use for anything that smacks of inefficiency, no matter how minor. For example, in my rural hometown, there was an old storebuilding that had to be demolished a few years ago, some years after it closed. I happened to notice as they were doing this that the cornerposts of the building, great bars of cast iron, had been made in Pittsburgh in 1915. I knew because it said so on the metal, the date, the foundry (IIRC), and a good deal of decorative filagree and scrollwork had been incorporated into the metal. Today, if that building were to be replaced, I feel confident in saying that it would have nice, perfectly squared bars of unmarked metal as cornerposts. The decorations and date and the rest would not really be efficient, after all. Shermanlee ###### From: ddamxxam@yahoo.com (Maxx) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 15 Jul 2002 11:38:33 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.142.21.234 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1026758314 3486 127.0.0.1 (15 Jul 2002 18:38:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Jul 2002 18:38:34 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90701 Let me just echo a thought I read on this ng about four months ago which I think applies to this discussion, by saying that part of the charm/sadness about LoTR is the sense of entropy, or 'breakdown' occurring in ME. In other words, the sadness is a sense of things will never be as great as they once were ... which is a pretty powerful assault on 'our' way of thinking. So, it's not so much that technology is evil, it's more like 'we are losing our technology.' > I don't think J.R.R.T. liked the 'smart-ass' attitude that seems to be > a basic part of Western modernity, either. To the ancient protesting > question: "Is anything sacred?", modernity says 'no'. J.R.R.T. would > answer with a firm 'yes'. Modernity often seems to see _everything_ > as fair game for satire, mockery, derision, or contempt, J.R.R.T. > dissents on this. > In comments in the appendices of LOTR, he comments on modernity's lack > of respect for things ancient, or the tendency of modern language to > degenerate into slang and trashyness: "...those to whom only the > squalid sounds strong." I think these are good comments, too. > The reaction of one of my companions? "Be fun to throw a rock at it!" > I've noticed that beauty often produces a kind of strange reaction in > many moderns, a tendency to want to _mar_ it, as if it's out of place > somehow. How very sad. I wish you had better friends. But then I know they're hard to find. > For example, in my rural hometown, there was an old storebuilding that > had to be demolished a few years ago, some years after it closed. I > happened to notice as they were doing this that the cornerposts of the > building, great bars of cast iron, had been made in Pittsburgh in > 1915. I knew because it said so on the metal, the date, the foundry > (IIRC), and a good deal of decorative filagree and scrollwork had been > incorporated into the metal. > Today, if that building were to be replaced, I feel confident in > saying that it would have nice, perfectly squared bars of unmarked > metal as cornerposts. The decorations and date and the rest would not > really be efficient, after all. Not so much that, but that a machine does not have the pride of a craftsman. ###### From: shermanlee1@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 15 Jul 2002 22:34:11 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.206.150.103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1026797652 3878 127.0.0.1 (16 Jul 2002 05:34:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Jul 2002 05:34:12 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90689 ddamxxam@yahoo.com (Maxx) wrote in message news:... > > > The reaction of one of my companions? "Be fun to throw a rock at it!" > > I've noticed that beauty often produces a kind of strange reaction in > > many moderns, a tendency to want to _mar_ it, as if it's out of place > > somehow. > > How very sad. > I wish you had better friends. > But then I know they're hard to find. > That's the peculiar thing. This man was intelligent, kindly, and usually very sensible. The weird thing is how such reactions seem to permeate our modern culture. The people you'd least expect sometimes have such reactions. Perhaps they always did, but I have the odd feeling that this is not entirely true. Shermanlee ###### From: "haleysdaddy" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <3D34601A.F5B25547@ThisIsFake.dk> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 20 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: <1qZY8.540690$352.91822@sccrnsc02> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.245.41.101 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: sccrnsc02 1026843389 12.245.41.101 (Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:16:29 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:16:29 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:16:29 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn4feed!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc02.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90721 > > So yes - Tolkien did believe that a particular technology (labour-saving > machinery) was evil. > > -- I know there are specific examples where he said such things about machinery. I think though when you read the book it is just generally true that while he may not have spelled out a hatred of modernism he certainly clarified a love of the natural things in the world and the preservation of those things. I know that when I was reading LotR I almost constantly was getting the feeling that it was just better to be out in the 'wild'. Nature was so highly regarded that I just assumed anything in contrary to nature i.e. modernity was disliked. Ross ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien From: AC Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <3D34601A.F5B25547@ThisIsFake.dk> <1qZY8.540690$352.91822@sccrnsc02> Reply-To: spam@nospam.com Followup-To: alt.fan.tolkien Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 26 X-Complaints-To: abuse@randori.com - Please include ALL headers only, thanks. Organization: Randori News - http://www.randori.com - Try our FREE Usenet Scanner! Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:39:55 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!ps01-sjc1!news.webusenet.com!newsfeeder.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90740 In article <1qZY8.540690$352.91822@sccrnsc02>, haleysdaddy wrote: > >> >> So yes - Tolkien did believe that a particular technology (labour-saving >> machinery) was evil. >> >> -- > > I know there are specific examples where he said such things about > machinery. I think though when you read the book it is just generally true > that while he may not have spelled out a hatred of modernism he certainly > clarified a love of the natural things in the world and the preservation of > those things. I know that when I was reading LotR I almost constantly was > getting the feeling that it was just better to be out in the 'wild'. Nature > was so highly regarded that I just assumed anything in contrary to nature > i.e. modernity was disliked. I don't think it was just wilderness. The Shire is a highly cultivated land and the Hobbits a settled and agrarian lot. But he very definitely had an anti-machine prejudice. -- AC Brought to you by Ed the Invisible Orange Iguana of Doom, Creator of the Universe. ###### From: ac575@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Max Behara) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Followup-To: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Date: 17 Jul 2002 15:50:50 GMT Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet Lines: 18 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.212.94.66 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-HWFN] Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!torn!newserver!news.hwcn.org!james!ac575 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90731 Maxx (ddamxxam@yahoo.com) wrote: : Let me just echo a thought I read on this ng about four months ago : which I think applies to this discussion, by saying that part of the : charm/sadness about LoTR is the sense of entropy, or 'breakdown' : occurring in ME. In other words, the sadness is a sense of things will : never be as great as they once were ... which is a pretty powerful : assault on 'our' way of thinking. Not mine. Not my way of thinking. That's why I like Tolkien. I too hate modernity. I also read a quote that says Tolkien is a comprehensive counter-myth to the story of the 20th Century (1901-2000). That rings true. -- 2001 (RM) http://www.hwcn.org/~ac575/Profile.html ###### From: 103134.3516@compuserve.com (Jim Deutch) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:46:05 GMT Organization: CompuServe Interactive Services Lines: 39 Message-ID: <3d347820.1792317@msnews.microsoft.com> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <120720022223228466%dsalo@usa.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: mid-tgn-ngo-vty156.as.wcom.net X-Trace: nntp-m01.news.aol.com 1026924535 18155 216.192.86.156 (17 Jul 2002 16:48:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@compuserve.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:48:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!proxad.net!isdnet!64.12.151.225.MISMATCH!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.compuserve.com!news-master.compuserve.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90738 On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 19:24:55 GMT, "TradeSurplus" wrote: >"Technology", used to include the Silmarils, Rings, Argonath etc. is as >confusing as applying the word "Magic" equally to the enchantments of the >Elves and the deceits of the enemy. Very nice line! >Tolkien doesn't really give us much description of the levels of technology >of various societies any more than he describes the agricultural or economic >bases of those societies. The examples you give are more "magical" than >"technological". Nonetheless I feel on relatively safe ground saying that no >society other than the evil ones make extensive use of the kinds of >technology that Tolkien disliked, i.e. steam power, mass production, iron >construction, petrochemicals and gunpowder. I want to disagree with you, but I can't come up with any really good arguments. Sandyman's new mill was dismantled after the Scouring, and all the newly (and poorly) built brick houses. But the bricks themselves were no problem: they were reused, and if there's anything that stinks of mass production it's brickmaking. So good comes out of evil (a theme, a theme!). I note also that there doesn't seem to be any use in ME of such ancient and "respectable" pre-industrial technologies as irrigation, controlled burning, or even animal breeding. I suppose that is because in ME everything is running down: the best breeds are those descended most directly from the most ancient lines, and it is not possible to improve a breed by outcrossing. ME is, in some ways, a very very different world than ours. Technology that can be used for good or evil in the RW is implicitly evil -- or just doesn't work at all -- in ME, which makes up for it with magic. But I wish I really knew what Galadriel meant. Jim Deutch ###### From: 103134.3516@compuserve.com (Jim Deutch) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:46:10 GMT Organization: CompuServe Interactive Services Lines: 49 Message-ID: <3d347c5f.2879640@msnews.microsoft.com> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <0XjY8.2611$vm6.876749924@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mid-tgn-ngo-vty156.as.wcom.net X-Trace: nntp-m01.news.aol.com 1026924540 18155 216.192.86.156 (17 Jul 2002 16:49:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@compuserve.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:49:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.compuserve.com!news-master.compuserve.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90739 On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:04:28 GMT, "TradeSurplus" wrote: >For comparison, Elves went from chain mail and swords in, say, VY 2500, >to -12,000 years later - chain mail and swords at the end of TA. The >Calaquendi appear, in fact, to have almost completely bypassed the stone age >and bronze age, except for the time spent by Cuivienan. It seems as though >the Valar brought them almost immediately to the technological level of >imperial Rome and then saw no need for more technological progress. Although >they advanced in skill, in craft and in enchantment, they did not advance in >technology. That was one Vala alone: Morgoth taught them weapons. >So, I agree with you that the last couple of hundred years have seen >particularly fast progress in technological development but even prior to >that, real world humans were advancing at a fair clip, almost blindingly >fast compared to the Elves and Men of ME who never really got beyond what >they were taught by the Valar. Not only never got beyond it, but slowly lost it. I hate to draw an allegory here (aaaggghhhh!), but time in ME is more personal than in RL. The entire history of ME is rather like a single human lifetime: childhood is a time of great growth, then after maturity, the preeminent theme is "things fade". It all grounds down to dust, especially for the elves. Elves talk of the promise of men ("..but seldom do they fail of their seed" - Legolas) but we don't really see it in action, do we? I have a deep confidence that the renaissance of Gondor under the house of Telcontar is brief, and that after fleeting glory it all comes to tears in the end. Again. Gandalf cautions the hobbits that Evil is not ended with the fall of Sauron. In the words of John Gardner's Grendel "things fade, and alternatives exclude. Those are the ultimate evils." I think LotR is an attempt to reconcile that irrefutable fact with any kind of faith or hope. That it succeeds -- and without any prescriptive or specific exhortation -- is the foundation of its appeal. This links well with the Frodo thread: Frodo _wins_. He is successful beyond hope. But still, he failed utterly as well. Off into the west with him. I'm not sure if I'm making any more sense than Constantino, but what the hey. Jim Deutch ###### From: shermanlee1@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 17 Jul 2002 21:46:27 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <3D34601A.F5B25547@ThisIsFake.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.206.150.253 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1026967587 8599 127.0.0.1 (18 Jul 2002 04:46:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jul 2002 04:46:27 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90781 Troels Forchhammer wrote in message news:<3D34601A.F5B25547@ThisIsFake.dk>... > I believe that there is ample evidence in /Letters/ that Tolkien actually > disliked 'machines' and mechanism. > E.g. from letter #96: > "Still I think there will be a new 'millenium', the prophesied thousand- > year rule of the Saints, i.e. those who have for all their imperfections > never finally bowed heart or will to the world or the evil spirit (in > modern but not universal terms: mechanism, 'scientific' materialism, > Socialism in either of its factions now at war)." The word 'mechanism' doesn't just mean machinery, though. It derives from the concept of mechanistic thinking, i.e. pure Rationalism. Machines are mechanistic, but so too can be societies, cultures, etc, or they can think they are mechanistic. In the above statement, Tolkien seems really to be revolting against modernity's ice-cold pretense of being purely Rational. > > Other examples include letters #75 ("There is the tragedy and despair > of all machinery laid bare." and calling aeroplanes "Mordor-gadgets"), > and letter #131 (comparing "the Machine" to the magic of Sauron, > Saruman etc.). Other samples can be easily found. > > Letter #75 also carries the statement: "Labour-saving machinery > only creates endless and worse labour. And in addition to this > fundamental disability of a creature is added the Fall, which makes our > devices not only fail of their desire but turn to new and horrible evil." In all these cases, he appears to be referring to the tendency of Moderns to think they can undo Original Sin by non-Christian, non-Godly means. In Modern times, the assumption (or presumption, perhaps) has been that sufficient hard work, knowledge, and skill can bring the Utopia,which is the modernized concept of the Christian Millennium. (Note that essentially ALL the visions of a future perfect society in the West are secularized versions of the Millennium). Tolkien would, by the basis of his beliefs, have rejected that entire concept as a blasphemous lie. In his view, you _can't ever_ achieve sufficient knowledge, skill, or experience to get around the really _basic_ problems of human existence. He probably did dislike modern machines, but I suspect more as an expression of the Modern mindset than in themselves. Modernity says: "Man has conquered disease, travelled to the Moon, voyaged to the bottom of the ocean, and mastered the planet." Tolkien answers: "What's your point?" Shermanlee ###### From: shermanlee1@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 17 Jul 2002 21:49:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <3D34601A.F5B25547@ThisIsFake.dk> <1qZY8.540690$352.91822@sccrnsc02> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.206.150.253 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1026967747 8723 127.0.0.1 (18 Jul 2002 04:49:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jul 2002 04:49:07 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90778 AC wrote in message news:... > In article <1qZY8.540690$352.91822@sccrnsc02>, haleysdaddy wrote: > > > >> > >> So yes - Tolkien did believe that a particular technology (labour-saving > >> machinery) was evil. > >> > >> -- > > > > I know there are specific examples where he said such things about > > machinery. I think though when you read the book it is just generally true > > that while he may not have spelled out a hatred of modernism he certainly > > clarified a love of the natural things in the world and the preservation of > > those things. I know that when I was reading LotR I almost constantly was > > getting the feeling that it was just better to be out in the 'wild'. Nature > > was so highly regarded that I just assumed anything in contrary to nature > > i.e. modernity was disliked. > > I don't think it was just wilderness. The Shire is a highly cultivated land > and the Hobbits a settled and agrarian lot. But he very definitely had an > anti-machine prejudice. True, but his stories respect craftsmanship, though distrusting the mindset that can go with it. Note that he never implies that the creations of the Dwarves are evil, and he notes that Hobbits are skillful with tools. I think Tolkien dislikes machines in the sense that they give Moderns the illusion of control over their own destinies by their own efforts. Note that Aule is fine once he remembers that God is the final Arbiter of his creations, not himself. Shermanlee ###### From: ddamxxam@yahoo.com (Maxx) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 19 Jul 2002 11:37:26 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.142.22.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1027103846 8395 127.0.0.1 (19 Jul 2002 18:37:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 2002 18:37:26 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90822 > > > The reaction of one of my companions? "Be fun to throw a rock at it!" > > > I've noticed that beauty often produces a kind of strange reaction in > > > many moderns, a tendency to want to _mar_ it, as if it's out of place > > > somehow. > > How very sad. > > I wish you had better friends. > > But then I know they're hard to find. > That's the peculiar thing. This man was intelligent, kindly, and > usually very sensible. The weird thing is how such reactions seem to > permeate our modern culture. The people you'd least expect sometimes > have such reactions. Perhaps they always did, but I have the odd > feeling that this is not entirely true. One of the two faces is a facade. ###### From: ddamxxam@yahoo.com (Maxx) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 19 Jul 2002 11:38:46 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 8 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.142.22.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1027103926 8494 127.0.0.1 (19 Jul 2002 18:38:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 2002 18:38:46 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90818 > Not mine. Not my way of thinking. That's why I like Tolkien. > I too hate modernity. > I also read a quote that says Tolkien is a comprehensive > counter-myth to the story of the 20th Century (1901-2000). > That rings true. Ooh. I like that. A counter-myth. I suppose it's a lot to ask where you read this? ###### From: "Dan M." Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 94 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:23:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.25.37.185 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.austin.rr.com 1027365817 66.25.37.185 (Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:23:37 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:23:37 CDT Organization: Road Runner - Texas Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.tampabay.rr.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!twister.austin.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90900 "Max Behara" wrote in message news:ah43oq$gj9$1@mohawk.hwcn.org... > Maxx (ddamxxam@yahoo.com) wrote: > : Let me just echo a thought I read on this ng about four months ago > : which I think applies to this discussion, by saying that part of the > : charm/sadness about LoTR is the sense of entropy, or 'breakdown' > : occurring in ME. In other words, the sadness is a sense of things will > : never be as great as they once were ... which is a pretty powerful > : assault on 'our' way of thinking. > > Not mine. Not my way of thinking. That's why I like Tolkien. I too > hate modernity. Well, in a sense, Tolkien is taking a side in a fairly old argument: one that stretches back to the late 1500s or so. One could say, that the modern world started with the development of true science. The tremendous superiority of science based technology over trial and error technology is the foundation of the world we live in. At that time, Galileo was strongly opposed by the classicists. Their view was that the time of Greeks and Romans were the high point of culture, and that it was presumptuous for anyone to differ with the greatest minds in history. Galileo's real problem was that he contradicted the thinking of Aristotle, not that he contradicted the bible. One can see that by reviewing both the theology of the church and the actions of previous popes. Thomas Aquinas, who was one of the two great Doctors of the Church, said that scripture should not be used for natural philosophy, rather reason should. Pope Gregory consulted with Copernican as well as Ptolemaic astronomers when he revised the calendar. (As an aside, the Copernican system didn't offer much advantage over the Ptolemaic system until after Galileo and Kepler. All it offered was 1 fewer epicycle. The use of the ellipse instead of multiple perfect circles was the real source of simplification.) To get back to the main point, one should able to think about how the idea of fading from the golden age was a strong theme in Europe. Tolkien captured that spirit very well. A weakness, from my perspective, is that he didn't capture an understanding of the tradeoffs. The idea of the greatness of the ancients had permeated the humanities until the '60s or so. The "Great Books" movement was part of the same intellectual argument as were the neo-Classicists of Galileo's time. The expectation that an educated person would learn Latin was another example. In a sense, its quite understandable that the ideas of modernism would find an opponent in the humanities. Indeed, I personally favor the classicists more than the PoMo folks as an opponent, but that's another aside. But, while there are some real plusses to this old guard philosophy, there are also significant minuses. One of the philosophical minuses of the Lord of the Rings, is the old idea that "blood will tell." Bloodlines determine who really should be in charge. Further, the idea of a happy prosperous preindustrial people is not just a myth, its a falsehood. At that time, population was limited by malnutrition, disease and war. All but a few people were slaves or serfs. There were some skilled craftsmen, but they were not really prosperous enough to be considered a real middle class. Money was associated with ownership of land which was associated with being of the right bloodlines. (Which were basically decedents through the eldest surviving male of the rapers and the pillagers instead of decedents of the raped and the pillaged.) If one put the best light on it, Tolkien's disdain for labor saving devices flows from not thinking about the implications of not having them. Without them, few people would have the chance to be educated. Almost everyone would still be subsistence farming. The list goes on and on. I'll give one example of this. My wife had a small folk art business about five years ago. She was networked in with folks who were in the big leagues of craftsmen and artisans. (One of her teachers is now a featured designer in Trading Spaces.) She got a good feel for how well craftsmen do now Even with very rich clients (who else can afford $1000 table lamps), and a lot of hard work, they have a very low income. $15k is close to the norm. Further, even today's middle class folks cannot afford to decorate their houses with the works of craftsmen. The clients are the rich. So, a crafted chair is indeed far superior to a mass produced one. But, they are luxury goods for the rich. The reality for most people in a pre labor saving device world is a bare bones existence, hoping to keep the wolves at bay long enough to raise the surviving children. Finally, having said all that, I still like Tolkien. I've read the Lord of the Rings numerous times, and think it is one of the better works of 20th century literate. He is indeed from the other of The Two Cultures (Snow), but I still appreciate what he wrote. I just differ with some of his philosophy. Dan M. ###### From: Brian Rauchfuss Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 22 Jul 2002 22:55:32 GMT Organization: Master's of the Universe Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp0210-15.fm.intel.com User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!news.or.intel.com!usenet Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90942 "Dan M." wrote in news:ZYY_8.85481$88.1455388@twister.austin.rr.com: > So, a crafted chair is indeed far superior to a mass produced one. > But, they are luxury goods for the rich. The reality for most people > in a pre labor saving device world is a bare bones existence, hoping > to keep the wolves at bay long enough to raise the surviving children. Of course, this is what the real world looked like - the question is, is it what Middle-Earth looked like? We get the best view of the Shire: there are poor hobbits, but it looks like it is quite common for ordinary farmers to be prosperous with good food and servicable furniture - they certainly are not serfs of the landed aristocracy. There are servants - Sam and the people who worked for Farmer Maggot, and they are presumably pretty poor. The bloodlines in the appendix do not seem to indicate much infant mortality, so perhaps the healthcare is better than the real world equivalent. We do not see many ordinary people in Rohan or Gondor, so we do not know what the situation is there, but I am sure that Tolkien would not have made them serfs. Brian > Finally, having said all that, I still like Tolkien. I've read the > Lord of the Rings numerous times, and think it is one of the better > works of 20th century literate. He is indeed from the other of The > Two Cultures (Snow), but I still appreciate what he wrote. I just > differ with some of his philosophy. > > Dan M. ###### From: "Dan M." Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 39 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: <2h1%8.89217$88.1502638@twister.austin.rr.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:18:06 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.25.37.185 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.austin.rr.com 1027383486 66.25.37.185 (Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:18:06 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:18:06 CDT Organization: Road Runner - Texas Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.tampabay.rr.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!twister.austin.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90937 "Brian Rauchfuss" wrote in message news:Xns9253A1FF6173brauchfupcocd2intelc@134.134.248.5... > > Of course, this is what the real world looked like - the question is, > is it what Middle-Earth looked like? That's fair enough. But, from what I've read both here and elsewhere, Tolkein was opposed to RW modernity. The poster I responded to also seemed to be opposed to the modern RW. I was actually discussing Tolkein's view using Middle Earth as an example, not Middle Earth, per se. >We get the best view of the Shire: > there are poor hobbits, but it looks like it is quite common for ordinary > farmers to be prosperous with good food and servicable furniture - they > certainly are not serfs of the landed aristocracy. There are servants - > Sam and the people who worked for Farmer Maggot, and they are presumably > pretty poor. The bloodlines in the appendix do not seem to indicate much > infant mortality, so perhaps the healthcare is better than the real world > equivalent. There must have been magical birth control then. :-) I've no problem with the story at all, I was just commenting on it as a reaction against the modern world. > > We do not see many ordinary people in Rohan or Gondor, so we do not know > what the situation is there, but I am sure that Tolkien would not have > made them serfs. I'll go along with that, but everyone knew their place. In a sense that part of his work is the British upper class's view of their own rule. They were the good bloodlines, and they ruled by right of birth. Dan > ###### From: kueikutzu@-remove-hotmail.com Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Organization: Cryptic Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 5 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:50:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.88.119.234 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1027385428 12.88.119.234 (Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:50:28 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:50:28 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!news.csl-gmbh.net!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator-sterling!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90916 Yes. -- Sindamor Pandaturion [remove -remove- to reply] ###### From: David Salo Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Message-ID: <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit User-Agent: YA-NewsWatcher/3.1.8 Lines: 81 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:52:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.170.95.37 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tds.net (TDS.NET Help Desk 1-888-815-5992) X-Trace: kent.svc.tds.net 1027446779 208.170.95.37 (Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:52:59 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:52:59 CDT Organization: TDS.NET Internet Services www.tds.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!newspeer2.tds.net!172.16.10.2.MISMATCH!kent.svc.tds.net!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90920 In article , "Dan M." wrote: > Well, in a sense, Tolkien is taking a side in a fairly old argument: one > that stretches back to the late 1500s or so. One could say, that the > modern world started with the development of true science. The tremendous > superiority of science based technology over trial and error technology is > the foundation of the world we live in. > > At that time, Galileo was strongly opposed by the classicists. Their view > was that the time of Greeks and Romans were the high point of culture, and > that it was presumptuous for anyone to differ with the greatest minds in > history. Galileo's real problem was that he contradicted the thinking of > Aristotle, not that he contradicted the bible. > [blah blah] > > In a sense, its quite understandable that the ideas of modernism would find > an opponent in the humanities. Indeed, I personally favor the classicists > more than the PoMo folks as an opponent, but that's another aside. But, > while there are some real plusses to this old guard philosophy, there are > also significant minuses. This is all rubbish. Tolkien wasn't "in the humanities"; he was firmly on the scientific side of linguistics, and keenly aware that the kind of linguistics he specialized in was a very new creation -- only a century old when he started -- and being constantly revised all the time. There was little "traditional" about either Tolkien's learning or his methods, and he certainly was not unscientific or anti-scientific in any way. > One of the philosophical minuses of the Lord of the Rings, is the old idea > that "blood will tell." Bloodlines determine who really should be in > charge. No: *laws* determine who should be in charge. And those laws are modelled (loosely) on those of a pre-modern period, in which inheritance was a very important factor in the passage of various kinds of rights, in land and property as well as in titles. Tolkien is simply being realistic and not (ridiculously) anachronistic. Who your parents are is *still* very important, if you haven't noticed who the President of the United State is these days. > Further, the idea of a happy prosperous preindustrial people is not > just a myth, its a falsehood. The idea of an unhappy people grubbing around in the mud and constantly dying of plagues (a la Monty Python) is also a falsehood. All ages have seen their periods of health and prosperity as well as those of sickness and misery. Economically speaking, there are certainly points in (for instance) medieval English history where crops were plentiful and prices low as well as the reverse. > Even with very rich clients (who else can afford $1000 table lamps), and a > lot of hard work, they have a very low income. $15k is close to the norm. > Further, even today's middle class folks cannot afford to decorate their > houses with the works of craftsmen. The clients are the rich. > > So, a crafted chair is indeed far superior to a mass produced one. But, > they are luxury goods for the rich. The situation of an artisan in the modern world is completely different from that of the world before c. 1700. Things are very different when you are not obliged to compete with mass-produced, machine-made goods. In a pre-industrial age, *everything* is "crafted"; and some of it is good work, and some shoddy, as you might expect. Mass-producing factories simply put the great majority of artisans, those producing mid-level goods, out of work, and only leave the artisans producing luxuries. But before the factories, a wide array of workshops were able to competently produce clothing, furnishings, and tools for most people, and over time people did become richer and more populous and prosperous, leading to the world we know today. The medieval world did not become the modern world by miracle but grew into it quite naturally. > I just differ with some of his > philosophy. Rather, with what you mistakenly believe his philosophy to be. DS ###### From: "Timbeaux" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 40 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:28:05 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.179.217.224 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1027448885 209.179.217.224 (Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:28:05 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:28:05 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!newsfeed.stueberl.de!cox.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!5465a828!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90921 "Maxx" wrote in message news:c7450a6b.0207191037.40fe5365@posting.google.com... > > > > The reaction of one of my companions? "Be fun to throw a rock at it!" > > > > I've noticed that beauty often produces a kind of strange reaction in > > > > many moderns, a tendency to want to _mar_ it, as if it's out of place > > > > somehow. > > > > How very sad. > > > I wish you had better friends. > > > But then I know they're hard to find. > > > That's the peculiar thing. This man was intelligent, kindly, and > > usually very sensible. The weird thing is how such reactions seem to > > permeate our modern culture. The people you'd least expect sometimes > > have such reactions. Perhaps they always did, but I have the odd > > feeling that this is not entirely true. > > > One of the two faces is a facade. Not necessarily. People aren't as one-dimensional as they are in movies or books. We're all in a constant state of change, in mind, spirit, and body. Don't mean to get New Age on your ass, but it's true. What I want, believe, or feel right now does not entirely dictate any of thse things for me in the future. I can be the most charming, understanding, compassionate person, or a raging a$$hole, under the exact same conditions. Why? Because I am not the same person I was five minutes ago, none of us are. Maybe the companion in question was simply "in a mood". None of this means anything of course, and I have no idea of whether I'm right or wrong. Doesn't matter, I'm just procrastinating. Feel the love, Timbeaux--- huh? ###### Lines: 8 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: wilbur07@aol.com (Mark Constantino) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 23 Jul 2002 23:28:33 GMT References: <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Message-ID: <20020723192833.25123.00000384@mb-md.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!mango.news.easynet.net!easynet.net!newspump.sol.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:90958 > Rather, with what you mistakenly believe his philosophy to be. He recognized the classist form of racism that exists, say, in Mexico and other Latin American colonies. Purebloods still rule in many places, though they let in a little elite blood here and there. Much different in the Philippines where the blood ratio is 50/50, probably because original Malay Mo is such an attractive people in all respects. Yes, I'm racist in the progressive sense, if it is progress at all. ###### From: Brian Rauchfuss Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 25 Jul 2002 15:48:18 GMT Organization: Master's of the Universe Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <2h1%8.89217$88.1502638@twister.austin.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp0082-15.fm.intel.com User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-xfer2.newshosting.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!news.or.intel.com!usenet Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91095 "Dan M." wrote in news:2h1%8.89217$88.1502638@twister.austin.rr.com: > "Brian Rauchfuss" wrote in > message news:Xns9253A1FF6173brauchfupcocd2intelc@134.134.248.5... >> >> Of course, this is what the real world looked like - the question is, >> is it what Middle-Earth looked like? > > That's fair enough. But, from what I've read both here and elsewhere, > Tolkein was opposed to RW modernity. The poster I responded to also > seemed to be opposed to the modern RW. I was actually discussing > Tolkein's view using Middle Earth as an example, not Middle Earth, per > se. Yes, that is a different question. Since Middle-Earth is a fantasy, it is easy to make it anything you want. But would Tolkien prefer the 13th century to the 20th? Since he lived through WW1 and WW2, he might actually feel that it was a wash - what is the use of better health care if you have such means of mass destruction and are willing to use them? What is the use of any number of advances if religion is no longer as central to life as it was in the past? > There must have been magical birth control then. :-) I've no problem > with the story at all, I was just commenting on it as a reaction > against the modern world. All the good guys seem to have very low population growth rates - the hobbits were left alone in the Shire for 1000 years or so and the only new settlement was Buckland? Gondor actually had a negative growth rate! And having only 1 or 2 children in thousands of years seems normal for the elves. Brian ###### From: pradera@pradera.prv.pl (Pradera) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 25 Jul 2002 16:25:02 GMT Organization: Pradera Lines: 34 Message-ID: <9256B802Epraderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <2h1%8.89217$88.1502638@twister.austin.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 42-moo-3.acn.waw.pl (62.121.78.42) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027614302 31770387 62.121.78.42 (16 [146550]) User-Agent: Xnews/03.09.22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!42-moo-3.acn.waw.PL!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91049 Nasta? dzie? 25 lip 2002, gdy Brian Rauchfuss by? ?askaw napisa?: >> There must have been magical birth control then. :-) I've no problem >> with the story at all, I was just commenting on it as a reaction >> against the modern world. > >All the good guys seem to have very low population growth rates - the >hobbits were left alone in the Shire for 1000 years or so and the only >new settlement was Buckland? Gondor actually had a negative growth rate! >And having only 1 or 2 children in thousands of years seems normal for >the elves. > > Bah. There's no need for magical birth control, if a society follows some moral principles (they're not necessarily my moral principles), as is the case with most of the Tolkien's good guys. It's an easy comparison: on one hand, you get orcs and evil men multiplying like rabbits, on the other - decent folk, who have one wife per lifetime, and few kids. Of course, the elves have an in-built birth control, but that's different matter... -- Pradera 'In XXI century, ability to compose and perform simple and pleasant tunes was all but lost. Fortunately, it survived in several remote japanese villages, as secret art of J-Pop' Modern History of Music --- ###### From: Bagronk the Happy Orc Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:48:56 +0200 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <2h1%8.89217$88.1502638@twister.austin.rr.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 145.254.133.186 X-Trace: 25 Jul 2002 20:48:16 +0200, 145.254.133.186 Lines: 40 X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!145.254.133.186 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91090 I found some words from Brian Rauchfuss in my phone cable... > > > There must have been magical birth control then. :-) I've no problem > > with the story at all, I was just commenting on it as a reaction > > against the modern world. > > All the good guys seem to have very low population growth rates - the > hobbits were left alone in the Shire for 1000 years or so and the only > new settlement was Buckland? Gondor actually had a negative growth rate! > And having only 1 or 2 children in thousands of years seems normal for > the elves. Strangely enough, there seems to be a real population growth at the beginning of the Fourth Age. Minas Tirith: "... And all was healed and made good, and the houses were filled with men and women and the laughter of children, and no window was blind nor any courtyard empty..." (RotK, The Steward And The King) Eriador: "Indeed the waste in time will be waste no longer, and there will be people and fields where once there was wilderness." (RotK, Homeward Bound) And as you mention the Shire, don't forget that Sam and Rosie alone could fill half a village with their offspring :-) Where does this come from? Oh yes, a Dark Lord is toppled, but compare the situation after Morgoth's fall in Numenor: "But their numbers increased only slowly in the land, for though daughters and sons were born to them, fairer then their fathers, yet their children were few." (Silm, Akallabeth) -- Bagronk the Happy Orc I suspect the problem is that you have too many paper clips up your nose. (Prof. Urban "Reg" Chronotis) ###### From: "Dan M." Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 203 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 18:32:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.25.37.185 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.austin.rr.com 1027794774 66.25.37.185 (Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:32:54 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:32:54 CDT Organization: Road Runner - Texas Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.tampabay.rr.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!twister.austin.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91191 "David Salo" wrote in message news:230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net... > In article , "Dan M." > wrote: > This is all rubbish. Tolkien wasn't "in the humanities"; he was > firmly on the scientific side of linguistics, Hmmm, I think you probably have a much broader definition of science than I do. May I ask you, if I may be so bold, how much familiarity do you have with the vantage point of science? Further, there are a number of examples of people using techniques developed by folks with a worldview they tend to oppose. Carter's National Security advisor, for example, used analysis techniques developed by Marxists. Perhaps my example from the late 16th century was interpreted as saying that there >and keenly aware that the kind of linguistics he specialized in was a very new creation -- >only a century old when he started -- and being constantly revised all the > time. There was little "traditional" about either Tolkien's learning > or his methods, and he certainly was not unscientific or > anti-scientific in any way. So, you are suggesting that the parallel themes in his work about the greatness of the ancient times compared to the lesser present time and the themes of the various neoclassicists is accidental? Or, perhaps, his fiction doesn't really reflect his worldview? But, the quotes of his letters that I've seen here do seem to support the thesis that he does have difficulty with technology. Technology extremely tied in with the scientific outlook. Indeed, even a philosopher like Kant saw the ability to manipulate phenomenon as a key aspect of the scientific wouldview. , So, I think discomfort with technology alone would be a strong indication of some distance from the worldview of scientists. > > One of the philosophical minuses of the Lord of the Rings, is the old idea > > that "blood will tell." Bloodlines determine who really should be in > > charge. > > No: *laws* determine who should be in charge. And those laws are > modeled (loosely) on those of a pre-modern period, in which > inheritance was a very important factor in the passage of various kinds > of rights, in land and property as well as in titles. I agree that he modeled his work on Europe, say 300-1300. The fact that the government of Gondor wasn't a constitutional democracy isn't really critical to my argument. > Tolkien is simply being realistic and not (ridiculously) anachronistic. Hmm, but it seems to be more than that. Aragorn had special abilities that others didn't because of his lineage. His hands healed, he saw further than other men, he had a stronger will than most men. It wasn't just that The rightful king was a superior man to the peasant >Who your parents are is *still* very important, if you haven't > noticed who the President of the United State is these days. Well, coming from a rich family doesn't hurt. But, look at the president before him. He pulled himself up from a household where the > > Further, the idea of a happy prosperous preindustrial people is not > > just a myth, its a falsehood. > > The idea of an unhappy people grubbing around in the mud and > constantly dying of plagues (a la Monty Python) is also a falsehood. Well, Monty Python was a bit over the top, but it was probably closer than Renaissance fairs are. I think it is very helpful to do the numbers, and compare them to present day numbers. Due to health care and better nutrition, even the highly impoverished African population is increasing at a tremendous rate: in Zambia for example, its roughly doubling every generation. Even during the relatively prosperous period from about 1000-1340, the population of Europe only increased by about 3% per generation. > All ages have seen their periods of health and prosperity as well as > those of sickness and misery. If you said relative, I'd agree with you. But, in the US, the worst of the 20th century was better than the best of the Middle ages for the median family. My folks went through the great Depression as part of poor families. I've heard many stories from people who were adults during the Depression. Every indication that I've received about life as a serf would indicate that they had it far better off during the Depression than the serfs did during good years. Now, the sources that I studied extensively were both more ancient and more modern than that time. One of my sources on Christianity talked about the marginalization of much of the population Galilee by the incorporation of that area in the economic market of the Roman empire. The quote that sticks in my mind was that, if Christian compassion and equity were truly universal, it would only postpone the inevitable starvation one generation. >Economically speaking, there are certainly points in (for instance) medieval >English history where crops were plentiful and prices low as well as the reverse. Relatively, yes. There were years or even several years in a row where crops were so good that few died of malnutrition related diseases or direct starvation. But, then there were years where serfs starved. The farming techniques were primitive (although the technological advance of the horse collar was a tremendous step forward), the land had to be fallow every third year, and the serfs had to work 3 days out of a week on their lord's land. http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/265notes.html I double checked my memory of this period with a bit of research, and it all was self-consistent. If you would like to show different economic analysis, I'd be interested. > > The situation of an artisan in the modern world is completely > different from that of the world before c. 1700. Things are very > different when you are not obliged to compete with mass-produced, > machine-made goods. In a pre-industrial age, *everything* is > "crafted"; and some of it is good work, and some shoddy, as you might > expect. Mass-producing factories simply put the great majority of > artisans, those producing mid-level goods, out of work, and only leave > the artisans producing luxuries. Hmm, lets look at the numbers, shall we? From both web sources and my memory, I obtained the figure that 90% of the people in the medieval era were serfs. Also, from sources that I've seen, 3 days a week they were required to work their lord's lands. If Sunday were truly a day of rest, this would be 50%. Lets assume working 7 days a week, and have it as 43%. One should see immediately that this will result in an overwhelming disparity in disposable income. To first order, serfs had the food they produced as trade goods. They may also have worked some in craft industries, but I think that's a good first order approximation. Thus, it would take food out of the mouths of their families to buy trade goods. In very good years, with a lack of long term storage, perhaps they did trade food for goods. Yet, they had to eat even in very good years. So, I would suggest that the purchases they made, to first order, were limited to only the absolute essentials for living. It is also quite possible that, in winter say, there wasn't much productive work that could be done in the fields and they used that time to rough hew furniture, etc. > But before the factories, a wide > array of workshops were able to competently produce clothing, > furnishings, and tools for most people, and over time people did become > richer and more populous and prosperous, leading to the world we know > today. The medieval world did not become the modern world by miracle > but grew into it quite naturally. I didn't mean to suggest that it was a miracle, but it was wondrous. Certainly there were specialized crafts 1000 years ago. Specialized crafts were known to exist 2000 years ago: potter villages in Galilee, for example. However, it also appears that those villages (part of the much more complex civilization of the Romans) were very poor. Indeed, one of the ways the development of the "Upside Down Kingdom" is the fact that Jesus probably was a economically marginalized peasant, forced off his family's land by economic changes caused by Rome's trade empire. Now you could, rightly, point out to the differences that guilds made. However, that does lead to a question: what fraction of the population of Europe in, say, 1250, were guild members. I'd guess it would be no more than a few percent. And, since the lords controlled most of the disposable income, there would be a strong tendency to focus their efforts on goods sold to the various courts. So, again, there seems to be little evidence for even a moderately prosperous While there were, indeed, technological progress made during the Middle Ages, it was still a backwater of civilization during most of the medieval times. The true foundation of the productivity of today is the introduction of science based technology. The advantages of science as a guide to technology over trial and error are overwhelming. > > I just differ with some of his > > philosophy. > > Rather, with what you mistakenly believe his philosophy to be. That is a real possibility, I'll admit that. However, let me be so blunt as to suggest that you post offered little evidence along that line. In particular, I'd be very curious to see why the quote from his letters and the viewpoints of his works don't indicate what they appear to. Dan M. ###### From: Bagronk the Happy Orc Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:18:46 +0200 Message-ID: <8lq5ku4g7ndap34jmvkepdhten3bhldi25@4ax.com> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 145.254.132.96 X-Trace: 27 Jul 2002 21:18:05 +0200, 145.254.132.96 Lines: 16 X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!145.254.132.96 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91232 I found some words from "Dan M." in my phone cable... > > Further, there are a number of examples of people using techniques developed > by folks with a worldview they tend to oppose. Carter's National Security > advisor, for example, used analysis techniques developed by Marxists. Not a surprise to me. Many do. The only thing that amazes me is how long the bourgeois scientists usually take to discover that the Marxists were surprisingly right :-) -- Bagronk the Happy Orc I suspect the problem is that you have too many paper clips up your nose. (Prof. Urban "Reg" Chronotis) ###### From: pradera@pradera.prv.pl (Pradera) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 27 Jul 2002 19:21:05 GMT Organization: Pradera Lines: 82 Message-ID: <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 42-moo-3.acn.waw.pl (62.121.78.42) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027797665 32868801 62.121.78.42 (16 [146550]) User-Agent: Xnews/03.09.22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!opentransit.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!42-moo-3.acn.waw.PL!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91173 Nastal dzien 27 lip 2002, gdy Dan M. byl laskaw napisac: >> Tolkien is simply being realistic and not (ridiculously) >> anachronistic. > >Hmm, but it seems to be more than that. Aragorn had special abilities >that others didn't because of his lineage. His hands healed, he saw >further than other men, he had a stronger will than most men. It wasn't >just that The rightful king was a superior man to the peasant > Allow me to bop in. He had these special abilities because one of his ancestors was an angelic being of immense power. Not because he was of the line of 'kings'. No other kings in M-E are known to have those powers. >> The idea of an unhappy people grubbing around in the mud and >> constantly dying of plagues (a la Monty Python) is also a falsehood. > >Well, Monty Python was a bit over the top, but it was probably closer >than Renaissance fairs are. Think about Far East at the time. It was as pre-modern as Europe was, if not more, and yet, due to more hygienic lifestyle, developed herbary medicine and healthy dietary habits, their life was not really much worse than is nowadays. Why couldn't the same thing be with Middle-Earth? You don't need to have modern medicine and inventions to live a happy life, you know. >Even during the relatively prosperous period >from about 1000-1340, the population of >Europe only increased by about 3% per generation. > Once again, Europe is not the best example here, IMO. Tolkien created something of an 'ideal Middle-Ages', but that doesn't mean we should stick to comparing M-E just with the Western Europe. There were plenty of other nice places to live. All it takes for people not to die constantly is, usually, just wash their hands from time to time, and eat fish. (okay, I'm simplyfying things, but that's just to show that there _was_ life before Machines) Plus, don't forget the Supernatural factor (it's getting more and more popular on these ng's, I'm afraid). The Earth was still relatively young, the crops probably gave more and needed less work than today, there were not so many diseases (all the Plagues that we know are described to Sauron's evil doing), people are generally more skilled in herb-lore etc. etc. All in all, I'm sure Tolkien realized, writing LotR, that Middle-Ages Europe was not a paradise, and that life of average commoner was much worse then than is now. But Middle-Earth is much more than just that, and the comparison should not be made so lightly. In fact, I would go as far as say that what we see in Middle-Earth is really showing that Tolkien fully realized the benefits of modernity. Is Shire mediaeval? No it's not. It's a rough, weird mixture of centuries, but none of them is Middle-Ages. Is Gondor mediaeval? It seems so at the first glance, but let us not forget what Gondor really is - it's a dying remnant of great kingdom of which scientific level we know actually wery little. And Rohan - the only actually mediaeval place in M-E we get to see, and it looks to me exactly like the middle ages, without any beautification. The words of Grima describing the Golden Halls, even if a little unfair, fit what I imagine as actual mediaeval court of some lower-ranked chief. We know that Rohan has little population, that it suffers from plagues and famine quite frequently, and succeeds only because most of the land is a fertile steppe. I dont't consider myself a Tolkien Scholar, and I might've made some mistakes here, but generally, that's my opinion on the subject. -- Pradera, self-proclaimed shogun of BC and surroundings www.pradera-castle.prv.pl /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 'In XXI century, ability to compose and perform simple and pleasant tunes was all but lost. Fortunately, it survived in several remote japanese villages, as secret art of J-Pop' Modern History of Music --- ###### From: "Dan M." Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <8lq5ku4g7ndap34jmvkepdhten3bhldi25@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 24 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 20:05:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.25.37.185 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.austin.rr.com 1027800345 66.25.37.185 (Sat, 27 Jul 2002 15:05:45 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 15:05:45 CDT Organization: Road Runner - Texas Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.tampabay.rr.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!twister.austin.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91190 "Bagronk the Happy Orc" wrote in message news:8lq5ku4g7ndap34jmvkepdhten3bhldi25@4ax.com... > I found some words from "Dan M." in my > phone cable... > > > > Further, there are a number of examples of people using techniques developed > > by folks with a worldview they tend to oppose. Carter's National Security > > advisor, for example, used analysis techniques developed by Marxists. > > Not a surprise to me. Many do. The only thing that amazes me is how > long the bourgeois scientists usually take to discover that the > Marxists were surprisingly right :-) Like Lysenkoism? . Seriously, while Marxism was fatally flawed, there were some decent techniques of analysis developed within the school. Dan M. ###### Lines: 11 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: wilbur07@aol.com (Mark Constantino) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 28 Jul 2002 00:00:45 GMT References: Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Message-ID: <20020727200045.28041.00001412@mb-ml.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91150 >Seriously, while Marxism was fatally flawed, there were some decent >techniques of analysis developed within the school. > Hi Dan, ladies. And where did the Marxists obtain their analysis techniques, or were they the proponents of analysis itself? Was it Sigmund Freud? This bears no relation to anything I'm actually thinking about, but your question intrigues. Mark ###### From: Donald Shepherd Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 10:52:09 +1000 Organization: Sad Fuckers of the World Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: emc-172-21-17-224.resnet.uq.edu.au X-Trace: bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au 1027817553 21515 172.21.17.224 (28 Jul 2002 00:52:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@uq.edu.au NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jul 2002 00:52:33 GMT X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50 X-Virus: I am a header virus. Please add me to your headers. X-Ignore-Godwin: Yes Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91183 In article , Dan M. (dsummersminet@houston.rr.com) says... > I double checked my memory of this period with a bit of research, and it all > was self-consistent. If you would like to show different economic > analysis, I'd be interested. You were around back then? Mortality not your strong point then? ;) -- Donald Shepherd The closest I came to perfection was when I wrote my Resume. ###### From: pradera@pradera.prv.pl (Pradera) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 28 Jul 2002 12:52:20 GMT Organization: Pradera Lines: 33 Message-ID: <925996AD1praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <3D43E835.3CA54E9B@ThisIsFake.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 42-moo-3.acn.waw.pl (62.121.78.42) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1027860740 33945162 62.121.78.42 (16 [146550]) User-Agent: Xnews/03.09.22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!nntp.infostrada.it!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!42-moo-3.acn.waw.PL!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91172 Nastal dzien 28 lip 2002, gdy Troels Forchhammer byl laskaw napisac: >> And Rohan - the only actually mediaeval place in M-E we get to see, >> and it looks to me exactly like the middle ages, without any >> beautification. The words of Grima describing the Golden Halls, even >> if a little unfair, fit what I imagine as actual mediaeval court of >> some lower-ranked chief. We know that Rohan has little population, >> that it suffers from plagues and famine quite frequently, and succeeds >> only because most of the land is a fertile steppe. > >Sorry to interrupt here, but I always saw Rohan as pre mediaeval as well >culturally as technologically. I am certainly no expert here, and I ask >not to assert a superior knowledge, but rather to be illuminated. > Well, that indeed depends on what we understand as mediaeval. I view it as anything between V and XIII-XIV century, so it's quite a large span. Yes, the Rohirrim are very early, but I see them as something between IX-XI century, and that is Middle Ages for most of Europe, I think. Are the Rohirrim feudal or pre-feudal? Discuss. -- Pradera, self-proclaimed shogun of BC and surroundings www.pradera-castle.prv.pl /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 'In XXI century, ability to compose and perform simple and pleasant tunes was all but lost. Fortunately, it survived in several remote japanese villages, as secret art of J-Pop' Modern History of Music --- ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 15:38:51 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: softrat@pobox.com References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <3D43E835.3CA54E9B@ThisIsFake.dk> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 27 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!peer1-sjc1.usenetserver.com.MISMATCH!ps01-sjc1!news.webusenet.com!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91275 On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:48:53 +0200, Troels Forchhammer wrote: > >Sorry to interrupt here, but I always saw Rohan as pre mediaeval as well >culturally as technologically. I am certainly no expert here, and I ask not to >assert a superior knowledge, but rather to be illuminated. > >The Mediaeval epoch is, IIRC, normally held to have started in Denmark >with the end of the Viking age - somewhere around 1000 - 1100 AFAIK, >and the description of Rohan has led me to place it - sociologically and >technologically - in late iron age / early viking age (as seen from a purely >Danish perspective). This is naturally enforced by the use of Anglo-Saxon >for the Rohirrim. > >Now would this - in a larger perspective - be seen as mediaeval? Am I >wrong in my assessment of the Rohirrim or ...? Your Danish perspective is showing! Rohan is closer to England, c. 600, which is definitely Mediaeval England. It's just not High Mediaeval (c. 1200). the softrat "He who rubs owls" the Zulu Princess mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacement anyway. ###### From: "Troels Forchhammer" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <3D43E835.3CA54E9B@ThisIsFake.dk> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 41 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.130.21.179 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.130.21.179 Message-ID: <3d45364a$1@news.wineasy.se> Date: 29 Jul 2002 13:34:18 +0100 X-Trace: news.wineasy.se 1027946058 212.130.21.179 (29 Jul 2002 13:34:18 +0100) X-Complaints-To: abuse@songnetworks.se Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.213.112.26!newsfeed1.ulv.nextra.no!nextra.com!newsfeed1.wineasy.se.MISMATCH!wineasy!newsfeed2.wineasy.se!news.sto.telegate.se!news.wineasy.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91283 "the softrat" wrote in message news:p9p8kuke27kl0k6f59tbivru8bmmp7600o@4ax.com... > On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:48:53 +0200, Troels Forchhammer > wrote: > > > >Sorry to interrupt here, but I always saw Rohan as pre mediaeval as well > >culturally as technologically. I am certainly no expert here, and I ask not to > >assert a superior knowledge, but rather to be illuminated. > > > >The Mediaeval epoch is, IIRC, normally held to have started in Denmark > >with the end of the Viking age - somewhere around 1000 - 1100 AFAIK, > >and the description of Rohan has led me to place it - sociologically and > >technologically - in late iron age / early viking age (as seen from a purely > >Danish perspective). This is naturally enforced by the use of Anglo-Saxon > >for the Rohirrim. > > > >Now would this - in a larger perspective - be seen as mediaeval? Am I > >wrong in my assessment of the Rohirrim or ...? > > Your Danish perspective is showing! Rohan is closer to England, c. > 600, which is definitely Mediaeval England. It's just not High > Mediaeval (c. 1200). Tak ;-) I think we lack in Danish a term corresponding to 'mediaeval' - the term I believed corresponded to this translates directly to 'middle age' and covers (in Danish) approximately the time you call High Mediaeval (from end of Viking age to renaissance). -- Troels Forchhammer Please reply to t.forch@mail.dk "I'd like to know if I could compare you to a summer's day. Because -- well, June 12th was quite nice, and..." -- (Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters) ###### From: ddamxxam@yahoo.com (Maxx) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 29 Jul 2002 08:33:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.142.21.229 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1027956829 18883 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2002 15:33:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Jul 2002 15:33:49 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91300 > : Let me just echo a thought I read on this ng about four months ago > : which I think applies to this discussion, by saying that part of the > : charm/sadness about LoTR is the sense of entropy, or 'breakdown' > : occurring in ME. In other words, the sadness is a sense of things will > : never be as great as they once were ... which is a pretty powerful > : assault on 'our' way of thinking. > Not mine. Not my way of thinking. That's why I like > Tolkien. I too hate modernity. I also read a quote > that says Tolkien is a comprehensive counter-myth to > the story of the 20th Century (1901-2000). That rings > true. You did see the quote marks around the word, 'our,' right? I'm a great advocate of advances in science, medecine and industry. But I think we've severely regressed in terms of the human spirit ... ###### Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien From: AC Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> Reply-To: spam@nospam.com.invalid Followup-To: alt.fan.tolkien Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 26 X-Complaints-To: abuse@randori.com - Please include ALL headers only, thanks. Organization: Randori News - http://www.randori.com - Try our FREE Usenet Scanner! Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:56:10 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!skynet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!nntpserver.com!news-west.rr.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeeder.randori.com!news2.randori.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91297 In article , Maxx wrote: >> : Let me just echo a thought I read on this ng about four months ago >> : which I think applies to this discussion, by saying that part of the >> : charm/sadness about LoTR is the sense of entropy, or 'breakdown' >> : occurring in ME. In other words, the sadness is a sense of things will >> : never be as great as they once were ... which is a pretty powerful >> : assault on 'our' way of thinking. > >> Not mine. Not my way of thinking. That's why I like >> Tolkien. I too hate modernity. I also read a quote >> that says Tolkien is a comprehensive counter-myth to >> the story of the 20th Century (1901-2000). That rings >> true. > > You did see the quote marks around the word, 'our,' right? I'm a great > advocate of advances in science, medecine and industry. But I think > we've severely regressed in terms of the human spirit ... From what point in time have we regressed? Seems to me we're the same xenophobic, violent, infrequently gifted race we've always been. -- AC Brought to you by Ed the Invisible Orange Iguana of Doom, Creator of the Universe. ###### From: the softrat Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:40:44 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: softrat@pobox.com References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <3D43E835.3CA54E9B@ThisIsFake.dk> <3d45364a$1@news.wineasy.se> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 23 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!newsfeed.stueberl.de!cox.net!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91341 On 29 Jul 2002 13:34:18 +0100, "Troels Forchhammer" wrote: > >I think we lack in Danish a term corresponding to 'mediaeval' - >the term I believed corresponded to this translates directly to >'middle age' and covers (in Danish) approximately the time >you call High Mediaeval (from end of Viking age to renaissance). In my lore, 'mediaeval' includes the Viking age. Mediaeval -- from 500 AD to 1500 AD (same as 'Middle Ages'). (or from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, 476, until Columbus, 1492.) One may argue about 'exact' dates forever, because there were no abrupt changes. Each age thinks of itself as 'modern'. the softrat "He who rubs owls" the Zulu Princess mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. ###### From: hayesstw@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien,alt.books.inklings Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 06:31:03 GMT Organization: The South African Internet Exchange Lines: 48 Message-ID: <3d45e903.32663714@news.saix.net> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <3D43E835.3CA54E9B@ThisIsFake.dk> <3d45364a$1@news.wineasy.se> Reply-To: hayesstw@yahoo.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ppr54-01-p217.nt.saix.net X-Trace: ctb-nnrp2.saix.net 1028010711 23621 155.239.184.217 (30 Jul 2002 06:31:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@saix.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Jul 2002 06:31:51 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!btnet-peer0!btnet!ctb-nntp1.saix.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91313 On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:40:44 -0700, the softrat wrote: >On 29 Jul 2002 13:34:18 +0100, "Troels Forchhammer" > wrote: >> >>I think we lack in Danish a term corresponding to 'mediaeval' - >>the term I believed corresponded to this translates directly to >>'middle age' and covers (in Danish) approximately the time >>you call High Mediaeval (from end of Viking age to renaissance). > >In my lore, 'mediaeval' includes the Viking age. Mediaeval -- from 500 >AD to 1500 AD (same as 'Middle Ages'). (or from the fall of the >Western Roman Empire, 476, until Columbus, 1492.) One may argue about >'exact' dates forever, because there were no abrupt changes. Each age >thinks of itself as 'modern'. Somewhere along the line someone is begging the question. One of the characteristics of modernity is the division of history into "Ancient", "Medieval" and "Modern". Modern historians like to make that kind of distinction. One of the characteristics of postmodernity is the division of history into premodern, modern and posdtmodern. One of the things Tolkien (and his fellow Inklings) did was interpret the outlook of premodernity to the modern mind, and in that one could prbaby say that they were postmodern. The main things that influenced modernity, as a worldview, were probably the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. I wouldn't say that Tolkien & Co rejected all those things, or actively opposed them, but they did try to show the value of a worldview that was not influenced by them, and tended to be despised by moderns. At the very moment when Western theologians were "demythologising" the gospel, and listing all the things that "modern man" who "uses electricity" couldn't believe, Toklien and the other Inklings were remythologising the universe, and their books come a lot higher on lists of the top books of the 20th century than those of Rudolf Bultmann & Co. -- Steve Hayes E-mail: hayesstw@yahoo.com Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/litmain.htm ###### From: "Troels Forchhammer" Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <3D43E835.3CA54E9B@ThisIsFake.dk> <3d45364a$1@news.wineasy.se> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 35 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.130.21.179 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.130.21.179 Message-ID: <3d465865@news.wineasy.se> Date: 30 Jul 2002 10:12:05 +0100 X-Trace: news.wineasy.se 1028020325 212.130.21.179 (30 Jul 2002 10:12:05 +0100) X-Complaints-To: abuse@songnetworks.se Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!amsnews01.chello.com!news01.chello.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.stupi.se!wineasy!newsfeed2.wineasy.se!news.sto.telegate.se!news.wineasy.se!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91311 the softrat enriched us with: > > "Troels Forchhammer" wrote: >> >> I think we lack in Danish a term corresponding to 'mediaeval' - >> the term I believed corresponded to this translates directly to >> 'middle age' and covers (in Danish) approximately the time >> you call High Mediaeval (from end of Viking age to renaissance). > > In my lore, 'mediaeval' includes the Viking age. Mediaeval -- > from 500 AD to 1500 AD (same as 'Middle Ages'). (or from the fall > of the Western Roman Empire, 476, until Columbus, 1492.) One may > argue about 'exact' dates forever, because there were no abrupt > changes. Each age thinks of itself as 'modern'. Thanks. This is probably one of the worst pit-falls for us, who don't speak English natively - that there exists a corresponding term in our own language (like the Danish "middelalder" - lit. 'middle age') which anyhow is understood differently in English. I recall having the same problem with 'human', where the Danish term 'menneske' is used in a broader sense. -- Troels Forchhammer Please reply to (t.forch@mail.dk) For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. -- (Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites) ###### From: Lisa Virmigle Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 13:53:35 -0700 Organization: InterWorld Communications Lines: 6 Message-ID: <3D484E4F.79E8560E@libraries.claremont.edu> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 134.173.136.16 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: nntp1.interworld.net 1028148458 50664 134.173.136.16 (31 Jul 2002 20:47:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.interworld.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:47:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.interworld.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91470 You made some great points, Shermanlee! Yours, LV ###### From: Lisa Virmigle Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:03:04 -0700 Organization: InterWorld Communications Lines: 17 Message-ID: <3D485088.C9BADC05@libraries.claremont.edu> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 134.173.136.16 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: nntp1.interworld.net 1028149026 50878 134.173.136.16 (31 Jul 2002 20:57:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.interworld.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:57:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!nycmny1-snf1.gtei.net!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.interworld.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91469 Brian Rauchfuss wrote: > The bloodlines in the appendix do not seem to indicate much > infant mortality, so perhaps the healthcare is better than the real world > equivalent. I tend to read them the opposite way -- only the offspring who survived (usually to have offsping of their own) are recorded. (I can't think of anywhere where Tolkien speaks to this issue, though as a historian he must have known that the majority of the people in the past died young, by our standards. The only evidence I have, however, is his mythical 'corrections' of the historical past -- 100+ year lifespans, kingsfoil etc.) Yours, LV ###### From: Lisa Virmigle Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 14:04:36 -0700 Organization: InterWorld Communications Lines: 13 Message-ID: <3D4850E3.94427D24@libraries.claremont.edu> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <2h1%8.89217$88.1502638@twister.austin.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 134.173.136.16 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: nntp1.interworld.net 1028149118 50878 134.173.136.16 (31 Jul 2002 20:58:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.interworld.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:58:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.interworld.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91467 "Dan M." wrote: > > The bloodlines in the appendix do not seem to indicate much > > infant mortality, so perhaps the healthcare is better than the real world > > equivalent. > > There must have been magical birth control then. :-) LOL! Yours, LV ###### From: "Dan M." Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 112 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:03:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.175.66.129 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.austin.rr.com 1028156634 24.175.66.129 (Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:03:54 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 18:03:54 CDT Organization: Road Runner - Texas Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!cox.net!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!twister.austin.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91476 "Pradera" wrote in message news:9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4... > Nastal dzien 27 lip 2002, gdy Dan M. byl laskaw napisac: > > Think about Far East at the time. It was as pre-modern as Europe was, if > not more, and yet, due to more hygienic lifestyle, developed herbary > medicine and healthy dietary habits, their life was not really much worse > than is nowadays. That is extremely hard for me to believe. Indeed, there is considerable evidence against that. First, the population was limited; what limited it? Did people just decide not to have children? I have a hard time believing that married couples just decided to abstain after two or three children. So, what killed off the vast numbers of people? Do you have sources that indicate that the welfare of the average peasant in China was anywhere close to the average wage earner in the US? If that were true, then 17th century China represented an overwhelming fall in civilization from 10th century or 0th century China. If you compare the lives of the Chinese during the 17th century to their contemporaries from Europe, it would be hard to argue that they were significantly more advanced. It is quite possible that there was a lapse of the civilization, but it doesn't appear to be greater than the fall from the Roman empire to the Europe of, say 600. Indeed, one would have to argue that the small size we associate with the Chinese is a reflection of the limits on nutrition present in the area. American of Chinese decent who have parents who are 5' tall, but are 6' tall themselves are not taller because they have a worse diet; they are taller because they have a better diet. If you have evidence for Chinese men who averaged 5' 10" back at that time, I'd be interested in seeing it. For the herbology, I'd be willing to accept that the Chinese trial and error medicine was better than the European trial and error medicine back around 1000. However, I have not seen any evidence that they had good antibiotics or very successful surgery techniques. >Why couldn't the same thing be with Middle-Earth? You don't need to have modern medicine >and inventions to live a happy life, you know. No, but you do need modern medicine to have better than a 50-50 chance of not seeing one of your children die. IIRC, the chances of a woman during each childbirth was about 10%, too. > >Even during the relatively prosperous period > >from about 1000-1340, the population of > >Europe only increased by about 3% per generation. > > > All it takes for people not to die constantly is, usually, just wash their > hands from time to time, and eat fish. (okay, I'm simplifying things, but > that's just to show that there _was_ life before Machines) There was. For most people it was short, brutal, and was a constant struggle to keep one's family alive. Women often died in childbirth. Men and women worked at backbreaking labor from dawn to dusk to grow enough food to keep their families from starving. When an area got a bit ahead in food production; the population increased...unless a massive disease outbreak kept it in check. Out of curiosity, what sort of sources did you access for your understanding of the ancient East? How did you determine the rigor of the studies you rely upon? > > Plus, don't forget the Supernatural factor (it's getting more and more > popular on these ng's, I'm afraid). The Earth was still relatively young, > the crops probably gave more and needed less work than today, I'll agree that one has the right to make a magical world with different rules. My statement addresses the fact that Tolkien seemed enamored with the ancient world and created a world that ignored some of the realities of antiquity. > All in all, I'm sure Tolkien realized, writing LotR, that Middle-Ages > Europe was not a paradise, and that life of average commoner was much worse > then than is now. But Middle-Earth is much more than just that, and the > comparison should not be made so lightly. > > In fact, I would go as far as say that what we see in Middle-Earth is > really showing that Tolkien fully realized the benefits of modernity. Is > Shire mediaeval? No it's not. It's a rough, weird mixture of centuries, >but none of them is Middle-Ages. No, but it is clearly pre-18th century to me. Is Gondor mediaeval? It seems so at the first > glance, but let us not forget what Gondor really is - it's a dying remnant > of great kingdom of which scientific level we know actually wery little. I've read many books where lost arts were really lost technology. Elves, at least, would remember the technology. They don't even seem to have a decent printing press. It is hard to believe that they would fall down that far while maintaining continuity in government. Its also hard to believe that they would fight for their lives with swords if they had the technology to win with 18th century weapons. ###### From: pradera@pradera.prv.pl (Pradera) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 1 Aug 2002 07:06:58 GMT Organization: Pradera Lines: 118 Message-ID: <925D5A629praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> NNTP-Posting-Host: 42-moo-3.acn.waw.pl (62.121.78.42) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1028185618 36067157 62.121.78.42 (16 [146550]) User-Agent: Xnews/03.09.22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeeder.edisontel.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!42-moo-3.acn.waw.PL!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91448 Nastal dzien 01 sie 2002, gdy Dan M. byl laskaw napisac: > >"Pradera" wrote in message >news:9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4... >> Nastal dzien 27 lip 2002, gdy Dan M. byl laskaw napisac: > >> Think about Far East at the time. It was as pre-modern as Europe was, >> if not more, and yet, due to more hygienic lifestyle, developed >> herbary medicine and healthy dietary habits, their life was not really >> much worse than is nowadays. > >That is extremely hard for me to believe. Indeed, there is considerable >evidence >against that. First, the population was limited; Was it? The population of China in early middle ages was ca. 100 mln. It grew to 500 mln by the end of the XIXth century with a steady rise, and it was all that the land could support, given the agricultural technology. What we see now is result of Mao's politics of 'recovering loses' of the XXth century's war. There's no real connection between advance in the tech and sudden sruge of population in the chinese countryside. > So, what killed off the vast numbers of people? Mostly barbarian invasions and civil wars. But China always was the greatest country in the world, in numbers. > >Do you have sources that indicate that the welfare of the average >peasant in China was anywhere close to the average wage earner in the >US? What's that got to do with anything? We're not talking about abilities to buy TV-sets, we're (at least I am. if the discussion went somewhere else, I'm sorry for being mistaken) talking about general level of life in terms of not dying of plagues and famine, and being happy. In those terms, life of the Chinese was indeed much better than that of their contemporaries. Of course, there were random periods of downfall, after some major wars or disasters. There was indeed a fall of all this at the end of the Middle Ages - the Mongol invasion, Black Plague (second wave. first wave was fought off), etc. That's where we should draw the line in comparisons, I think. >Indeed, one would have to argue that the small size we associate with >the Chinese is a reflection of the limits on nutrition present in the >area. Ummm...'small size we associate with the Chinese'? what are you talking aboot? Aren't you mixing them with Japanese? There were very little nutrition problems in China. Mostly because of the way the rice is grown. In fact, it seems that the problems with food in Far East started just recently _because_ of the use of modern technologies, and because of _unnaturally_ great birth rate after W.W.II >For the herbology, I'd be willing to accept that the Chinese trial and >error medicine was better than the European trial and error medicine >back around 1000. However, I have not seen any evidence that they had >good antibiotics or very successful surgery techniques. > Well, they have fought off the smallpox, and first wave of black plague, for instance. >>Why couldn't the same thing be with Middle-Earth? You don't need to >>have >modern medicine >>and inventions to live a happy life, you know. > >No, but you do need modern medicine to have better than a 50-50 chance >of not seeing one of your children die. IIRC, the chances of a woman >during each childbirth was about 10%, too. > No you don't. The biggest problem, AFAIK, is keeping the hygiene around the child (isn't it?), and that's easily solved without modern medicine. Rest can be done with herbalism. >Men and women worked at backbreaking labor from dawn to dusk to grow >enough food to keep their families from starving. When you grow rice, there's no need to work from dawn to dusk *g* (of course, this is irrelevant, as there were no rice in Shire) >Out of curiosity, what sort of sources did you access for your >understanding of the ancient East? How did you determine the rigor of >the studies you rely upon? > 1) I had a year of ancient chinese history in sinology 2) I have a friend who studied medicine in China. He never uses antibiotics, and is quite succesful. >Is Gondor mediaeval? It seems so at the first >> glance, but let us not forget what Gondor really is - it's a dying >> remnant of great kingdom of which scientific level we know actually >> wery little. > >I've read many books where lost arts were really lost technology. >Elves, at least, would remember the technology. They don't even seem to >have a decent printing press. It is hard to believe that they would >fall down that far while maintaining continuity in government. Its also >hard to believe that they would fight for their lives with swords if >they had the technology to win with 18th century weapons. > What do Elves have to do with it? I'm talking about Gondor. Elves don't need technology to survive, they're 'magical', and so they've never developed one. -- Pradera, self-proclaimed shogun of BC and surroundings www.pradera-castle.prv.pl /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 'In XXI century, ability to compose and perform simple and pleasant tunes was all but lost. Fortunately, it survived in several remote japanese villages, as secret art of J-Pop' Modern History of Music --- ###### From: "Dan M." Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <925D5A629praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 242 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: <4Gh29.161497$88.3195957@twister.austin.rr.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 21:24:16 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.175.66.129 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.austin.rr.com 1028237056 24.175.66.129 (Thu, 01 Aug 2002 16:24:16 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 16:24:16 CDT Organization: Road Runner - Texas Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!aotearoa.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!twister.austin.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91475 "Pradera" wrote in message news:925D5A629praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4... > Nastal dzien 01 sie 2002, gdy Dan M. byl laskaw napisac: > > >That is extremely hard for me to believe. Indeed, there is considerable > >evidence > >against that. First, the population was limited; > > Was it? The population of China in early middle ages was ca. 100 mln. It > grew to 500 mln by the end of the XIXth century with a steady rise, and it > was all that the land could support, given the agricultural technology. Well, I searched the net for population numbers for China and obtained the following: 1600 POPULATION = 200 MILLION 1850 POPULATION = 450 MILLION If you consider early middle ages ~600-800, then the population just doubled in 1000 years. That's an increase of about 1% per generation. Lets also look at world population to help us understand this process: The median estimates for the last 10,000 years are: -10000 5 -8000 5 -6500 8 -5000 11 -4000 7 -3000 14 -2000 27 -1000 50 -500 100 -400 162 -200 191 1 272 200 223 400 198 500 198 600 203 700 209 800 222 900 233 1000 293 1100 311 1200 404 1250 408 1300 397 1340 443 1400 362 1500 476 1600 562 1650 511 1700 634 1750 772 1800 951 1850 1247 1900 1650 1950 2496 2000 6100 One gets a feel for the uncertainty in very ancient numbers by spurious drop at -4000 years. You can see the replacement of hunting and gathering with agriculture and hearding in the change in population from -1000 to 1. You can see the population level out for about 1000 years, and the pick up and drop part way between 1000 and 4000. The big kick was, of course, in this century, with great advancements in medicine and agriculture. Putting the figures together, we see that during the period 0-1000, there is no evidence of a significant increase in the population of China. Are you suggesting that civil wars were so prevalant, that they killed off 25% of the population? Are you suggesting that Chinese men and women simply didn't have sex after the first 2-3 children? Look at the population explosion in Africa. Even with tremendous malnutrition and disease, they are doubling every generation. The reason is that, as bad as things are there now, they are much better than before. Why didn't the Chinese population double every generation? Dan M. > What we see now is result of Mao's politics of 'recovering loses' of the > XXth century's war. There's no real connection between advance in the tech > and sudden sruge of population in the chinese countryside. That is rather hard to believe, since he killed about 80 million. Are you suggesting that before Mao, married Chinese men and women were celibate after the first 2 kids, with 10% having 3? > > So, what killed off the vast numbers of people? > Mostly barbarian invasions and civil wars. But China always was the > greatest country in the world, in numbers. But, if you look at Chinese history, there were a number of relatively peaceful periods. Relatively peaceful need only mean that the emperor was strong enough to prevent wholesale slaughter, or was even deposed relatively quickly with the death of millions. With 100 million people, and a natural doubling every generation, one would need about 2 million to die, on average, every year from war for this to be the source of population control. > > > > >Do you have sources that indicate that the welfare of the average > >peasant in China was anywhere close to the average wage earner in the > >US? > > What's that got to do with anything? We're not talking about abilities to > buy TV-sets, we're (at least I am. if the discussion went somewhere else, > I'm sorry for being mistaken) talking about general level of life in terms > of not dying of plagues and famine, and being happy. In those terms, life > of the Chinese was indeed much better than that of their contemporaries. Of > course, there were random periods of downfall, after some major wars or > disasters. But, it had to be much worse than modern day Africa, right? > There was indeed a fall of all this at the end of the Middle Ages - the > Mongol invasion, Black Plague (second wave. first wave was fought off), > etc. That's where we should draw the line in comparisons, I think. > > Ummm...'small size we associate with the Chinese'? what are you talking > aboot? Aren't you mixing them with Japanese? No, my Chinese friends talk about how small the immigrants are and how large their American children are. I've known lotsa Chinese Americans, both recent immigrants and US born. The US born are much bigger. The direct sample size (in the range of scores) is high enough so that it is statistically significant, and the reports from the Chinese-American community tends to support it. > There were very little nutrition problems in China. Mostly because of the > way the rice is grown. In fact, it seems that the problems with food in Far > East started just recently _because_ of the use of modern technologies, and > because of _unnaturally_ great birth rate after W.W.II So, naturally, married people don't like sex? I know I keep on getting back to that, but I think your arguement absolutely needs an explaintion why having 5 children per family is not natural. > Well, they have fought off the smallpox, and first wave of black plague, > for instance. Smallpox can only be fought off effectively by vaccination or natural immunity. Natural immunity is conferred by having selection of the fittest work on the population. That is way the Native Americans died so quickly: they had not been exposed to smallpox before. The same is true for the black plague. Eruopeans died in such large numbers because it was their first exposure. Antibiotics work, to first order, for the black plauge. > >>Why couldn't the same thing be with Middle-Earth? You don't need to > >>have > >modern medicine > >>and inventions to live a happy life, you know. > > > >No, but you do need modern medicine to have better than a 50-50 chance > >of not seeing one of your children die. IIRC, the chances of a woman > >during each childbirth was about 10%, too. > > > No you don't. The biggest problem, AFAIK, is keeping the hygiene around the > child (isn't it?), and that's easily solved without modern medicine. Rest > can be done with herbalism. Hygiene does help. In general the Arab practice of wiping with the left hand and eating with the right was a very good idea. The flush toilet was a tremendous accomplishment. It is extremely hard to keep ground water clean with latrines all around. But, having said that, infectious diseases require antibiotics to really stop them. My mom lost young brothers; my grandmother died after childbirth from diseases that were not associated with poor hygine. Even with a pocket full of posies, they all fall down. . > > When you grow rice, there's no need to work from dawn to dusk *g* (of > course, this is irrelevant, as there were no rice in Shire) > >Out of curiosity, what sort of sources did you access for your > >understanding of the ancient East? How did you determine the rigor of > >the studies you rely upon? > > > 1) I had a year of ancient chinese history in sinology So, you have resources on the population of China from say 500 BCE to 1300 BCE? Do you have estimates of life expectancy and infant mortality? Do you have likely crop yields of rice? I'd be very interested in seeing those figures. All I could get was back to 1950. In the US and China we have (assuming 50% women and 50% men), the following life expectancies: 1950 1998 China 40.8 69.7 US 68.9 78.1 If the practice of herbology is so good, why is there such a discrepency in 1950? Are you suggesting that lifespans were longer 2000 years ago? If so, how was that understanding arrived at? > 2) I have a friend who studied medicine in China. He never uses > antibiotics, and is quite succesful. Well, let me suggest that a sample of 1 does not a rigorous study make. I know of Christian Scientists who appear sucessful too. > > > >I've read many books where lost arts were really lost technology. > >Elves, at least, would remember the technology. They don't even seem to > >have a decent printing press. It is hard to believe that they would > >fall down that far while maintaining continuity in government. Its also > >hard to believe that they would fight for their lives with swords if > >they had the technology to win with 18th century weapons. > > > What do Elves have to do with it? Men would talk to elves, at least occasionally. But even dropping that, its reasonable to assume that the technology of Gondor never went beyond 15th century. Dan M. ###### From: pradera@pradera.prv.pl (Pradera) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 1 Aug 2002 21:54:22 GMT Organization: Pradera Lines: 163 Message-ID: <925DFAC52praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <925D5A629praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <4Gh29.161497$88.3195957@twister.austin.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 42-moo-3.acn.waw.pl (62.121.78.42) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1028238862 36885713 62.121.78.42 (16 [146550]) User-Agent: Xnews/03.09.22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeeder.edisontel.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!42-moo-3.acn.waw.PL!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91453 Nastal dzien 01 sie 2002, gdy Dan M. byl laskaw napisac: Phew. First of all, I will conveniently dodge most of this discussion as it is a) mostly irrelevant to the topic b) i'm not that good in history to discuss such details... I hope you won't mind. I have posted more relevant stuff in a separate essay somewhere here. > >"Pradera" wrote in message >news:925D5A629praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4... >> Nastal dzien 01 sie 2002, gdy Dan M. byl laskaw napisac: >> > >> >That is extremely hard for me to believe. Indeed, there is >> >considerable evidence >> >against that. First, the population was limited; >> >> Was it? The population of China in early middle ages was ca. 100 mln. >> It grew to 500 mln by the end of the XIXth century with a steady rise, >> and it was all that the land could support, given the agricultural >> technology. >Putting the figures together, we see that during the period 0-1000, >there is no evidence of a significant increase in the population of >China. Are you suggesting that civil wars were so prevalant, that they >killed off 25% of the population? Are you suggesting that Chinese men >and women simply didn't have sex after the first 2-3 children? > 1) they used natural contraceptives (they did!) 2) I think the question is what did they do with the children after birth... I suppose the daughters, for example, didn't live very long regardless of their health... but I'm mostly guessing here, based on the fact that I really haven't heard of any major plagues or hunger-waves in China up to XIV century (second Black Plague) >Look at the population explosion in Africa. Even with tremendous >malnutrition and disease, they are doubling every generation. The >reason is that, as bad as things are there now, they are much better >than before. Why didn't the Chinese population double every generation? > Look what the end of smallpox did to England's birth rate. The Chinese didn't have it to begin with. >> What we see now is result of Mao's politics of 'recovering loses' of >> the XXth century's war. There's no real connection between advance in >> the tech and sudden sruge of population in the chinese countryside. > >That is rather hard to believe, since he killed about 80 million. That was also the part of the 'loses' he told them to recover... >Are >you suggesting that before Mao, married Chinese men and women were >celibate after the first 2 kids, with 10% having 3? > I don't really know the statistics, but that's the fact (at least that's what I was taught at school): the massive surge of population in Chinese countryside was not the result of advanced medicine, but Mao's 'order' to reproduce. >> >Do you have sources that indicate that the welfare of the average >> >peasant in China was anywhere close to the average wage earner in the >> >US? >> >> What's that got to do with anything? We're not talking about abilities >> to buy TV-sets, we're (at least I am. if the discussion went somewhere >> else, I'm sorry for being mistaken) talking about general level of >> life in terms of not dying of plagues and famine, and being happy. In >> those terms, life of the Chinese was indeed much better than that of >> their contemporaries. >Of >> course, there were random periods of downfall, after some major wars >> or disasters. > >But, it had to be much worse than modern day Africa, right? > What part of Africa that refers to? >> Ummm...'small size we associate with the Chinese'? what are you >> talking aboot? Aren't you mixing them with Japanese? > >No, my Chinese friends talk about how small the immigrants are and how >large their American children are. I've known lotsa Chinese Americans, >both recent immigrants and US born. The US born are much bigger. The >direct sample size (in the range of scores) is high enough so that it is >statistically significant, and the reports from the Chinese-American >community tends to support it. > Okay, I didn't know that. Interesting. >> Well, they have fought off the smallpox, and first wave of black >> plague, for instance. > >Smallpox can only be fought off effectively by vaccination or natural >immunity. And that's just what they did. That's how the Europeans got the idea of vaccine. >> No you don't. The biggest problem, AFAIK, is keeping the hygiene >> around >the >> child (isn't it?), and that's easily solved without modern medicine. >> Rest can be done with herbalism. > >Hygiene does help. In general the Arab practice of wiping with the left >hand and eating with the right was a very good idea. The flush toilet >was a tremendous accomplishment. It is extremely hard to keep ground >water clean with latrines all around. > The toiletry in china was very highly developed :) >All I could get was back to 1950. In the US and China we have (assuming >50% women and 50% men), the following life expectancies: > > 1950 1998 >China 40.8 69.7 >US 68.9 78.1 > > >If the practice of herbology is so good, why is there such a discrepency >in 1950? > Well, it's not _perfect_. I never said it was. It's just much better than what western medicine could come up with up to, say, XVIIIth century. >> 2) I have a friend who studied medicine in China. He never uses >> antibiotics, and is quite succesful. > >Well, let me suggest that a sample of 1 does not a rigorous study make. >I know of Christian Scientists who appear sucessful too. > That's what I usually hear (and what I used to say myself too), but he's just one guy who finished the medical academy. There must be hundreds, or thousands like him every year. I suppose if it didn't work, they would've change it to something different. As you see, I haven't answered many of your questions. That is mostly because of lack of knowledge. I know some facts about China, but I'm not that keen on reasons behind them, so you'll have to excuse me, I butted in here without being prepared for such detailed discussion. > What do Elves have to do with it? > >Men would talk to elves, at least occasionally. But even dropping that, >its reasonable to assume that the technology of Gondor never went beyond >15th century. And we don't really know anything about Gondor's 'real' life, outside Minas Tirith. For all we know, it may look exactly like our Middle Ages...after all, there were several waves of plagues and famines throughout its history. Seems kinda familiar, doesn't it? -- Pradera, self-proclaimed shogun of BC and surroundings www.pradera-castle.prv.pl /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 'In XXI century, ability to compose and perform simple and pleasant tunes was all but lost. Fortunately, it survived in several remote japanese villages, as secret art of J-Pop' Modern History of Music --- ###### From: celaeno@choklit.nospam.org (Celaeno) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Organization: Blueberry Pie Inc. Message-ID: <3d4957b1.12197562@news.world-online.no> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 14 Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 23:36:34 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.234.82.48 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@wol.dk X-Trace: news010.worldonline.dk 1028244966 213.234.82.48 (Fri, 02 Aug 2002 01:36:06 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 01:36:06 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!news100.image.dk!news010.worldonline.dk.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91445 You will not evade me, "Dan M." : >First, the population was limited; what limited it? Did >people just decide not to have children? I have a hard time believing that >married couples just decided to abstain after two or three children. So, >what killed off the vast numbers of people? I guess that with all the Men Of Reknown always running off to wage wars and do heroic deeds, they simply never had time to really get into the child making business. Cel If you can't get satisfaction, call the ferret. ###### Lines: 7 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: wilbur07@aol.com (Mark Constantino) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 02 Aug 2002 02:46:20 GMT References: <3d4957b1.12197562@news.world-online.no> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Message-ID: <20020801224620.09801.00001018@mb-cf.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91430 >I guess that with all the Men Of Reknown always running off to wage >wars and do heroic deeds, they simply never had time to really get >into the child making business. Yes, I would rather spend my time practicing with a real live woman for that shining moment when I get the chance to procreate. What if she's not fertile? You takes your chances babes. ###### From: celaeno@choklit.nospam.org (Celaeno) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Organization: Blueberry Pie Inc. Message-ID: <3d4a8d10.2305248@news.world-online.no> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <925D5A629praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <4Gh29.161497$88.3195957@twister.austin.rr.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Lines: 17 Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 23:36:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.234.83.57 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@wol.dk X-Trace: news010.worldonline.dk 1028331424 213.234.83.57 (Sat, 03 Aug 2002 01:37:04 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 01:37:04 MET DST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!news100.image.dk!news010.worldonline.dk.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91525 You will not evade me, "Dan M." : >Well, I searched the net for population numbers for China and obtained the >following: > > > 1600 POPULATION = 200 MILLION > 1850 POPULATION = 450 MILLION > >If you consider early middle ages ~600-800, then the population just doubled >in 1000 years. That's an increase of about 1% per generation. Actually, the population of China was around 100 million in 1100. Cel If you can't get satisfaction, call the ferret. ###### From: "Dan M." Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <925D5A629praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <4Gh29.161497$88.3195957@twister.austin.rr.com> <925DFAC52praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 145 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: <70C39.189010$88.3975289@twister.austin.rr.com> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 21:22:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.175.66.129 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.austin.rr.com 1028582531 24.175.66.129 (Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:22:11 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 16:22:11 CDT Organization: Road Runner - Texas Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news-west.rr.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!twister.austin.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91623 "Pradera" wrote in message news:925DFAC52praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4... > Nastal dzien 01 sie 2002, gdy Dan M. byl laskaw napisac: > > >Putting the figures together, we see that during the period 0-1000, > >there is no evidence of a significant increase in the population of > >China. Are you suggesting that civil wars were so prevalant, that they > >killed off 25% of the population? Are you suggesting that Chinese men > >and women simply didn't have sex after the first 2-3 children? > > > 1) they used natural contraceptives (they did!) There is a technical term for women who use alternative contraceptives: mothers. If you think about it, the idea of a "natural" contraceptive is extremely unnatural. The reproductive cycle is naturally regulated by female hormones. The natural thing to do would be to ingest the hormones to see if that would fool the body into thinking it was pregnant. It is possible, but very unnatural, that we could have found other chemicals that would trigger the hormone release. By unnatural I mean that there is no evolutionary favoring of the ingestation of such chemicals, so such ingesting would be not naturally favored. Historically, people have used trial and error methods to unnaturally find plants that help with disease, but I find it a bit amusing to label non-scientific methods natural. :-) 2) I think the question is > what did they do with the children after birth... I suppose the daughters, > for example, didn't live very long regardless of their health... but I'm > mostly guessing here, based on the fact that I really haven't heard of any > major plagues or hunger-waves in China up to XIV century (second Black > Plague) But, infanticide is definitely not natural. :-) There are instincts programmed in us against it, and we would have to use a lot of will to overcome those instincts. > Look what the end of smallpox did to England's birth rate. The Chinese > didn't have it to begin with. You have access to the fertility rates for early 19th century England? I'd be very interested in seeing them. But, we do know that the population of England doubled between 1810 and 1860. This happened despite the prevalence of many diseases. I would argue that it would be hard to expect this to happen with a decline in birth rates, given the mortality rates that still existed. If the fertility rate in England at that time was below the fertility rate in Africa now (not counting the women who died in childbirth), it wouldn't be by much. > I don't really know the statistics, but that's the fact (at least that's > what I was taught at school): the massive surge of population in Chinese > countryside was not the result of advanced medicine, but Mao's 'order' to > reproduce. Hmmm, I think this points out a difference in our mythology. I'm use to asking the source of the study, how the information was gathered, etc. But, that's with a PhD and years of experience in research. The internet, BTW, is a fantastic tool for developing the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. I know that a lot of departments have been politicized in the past 40-50 years. I'm not telling you that your prof. is wrong; but I am arguing that rigor is our best defense against false information. > > > >But, it had to be much worse than modern day Africa, right? > > > What part of Africa that refers to? Sub-Sahara. I'm > And that's just what they did. That's how the Europeans got the idea of > vaccine. The Chinese first gave people cow pox to prevent small pox? That contradicts what I've read, but that doesn't mean its false. What is your source on this? I'd be curious to see if the story of the English physician who followed the trail of milkmaids who didn't get small pox to the first vaccine. > > > > > The toiletry in china was very highly developed :) How is this documented? I'm genuinely curious. Did they have rules about wells and outhouses, did they have massive sewers for cities? How did those work? Where did the sewers flow? etc. > >All I could get was back to 1950. In the US and China we have (assuming > >50% women and 50% men), the following life expectancies: > > > > 1950 1998 > >China 40.8 69.7 > >US 68.9 78.1 > > > > > >If the practice of herbology is so good, why is there such a discrepancy > >in 1950? > > > Well, it's not _perfect_. I never said it was. It's just much better than > what western medicine could come up with up to, say, XVIIIth century. Well, I looked at morbidity in England in the 17th century. The estimates were about 39.5 years life expectancy...very close to China in 1950. I would think that China in 1950 would be a bit better than China in 1700. So, while I'll be happy to agree that China was a bit better than Europe pre-1700, its probably not a whole lot. > That's what I usually hear (and what I used to say myself too), but he's > just one guy who finished the medical academy. There must be hundreds, or > thousands like him every year. I suppose if it didn't work, they would've > change it to something different. Well, that's a lot of supposition. Western medicine is based on extensive double blind testing. There are a lot of false things that are "common knowledge." > As you see, I haven't answered many of your questions. That is mostly > because of lack of knowledge. I know some facts about China, but I'm not > that keen on reasons behind them, so you'll have to excuse me, I butted in > here without being prepared for such detailed discussion. I butted in also, so that's no big deal. I'm not just jumping on you, I'm operating from a set of working premises that have served me well professionally for 20+ year. However, the traditions of scholarship can cross boundaries. If I may be so bold to ask, has your work been mostly on an undergraduate, or perhaps master's degree level? The reason that I'm asking is that the critical analysis is often taught to PhD candidates. > > And we don't really know anything about Gondor's 'real' life, outside Minas > Tirith. For all we know, it may look exactly like our Middle Ages...after > all, there were several waves of plagues and famines throughout its > history. Seems kinda familiar, doesn't it? It does, and that makes sense given Tolkien's field of study. I'll try to get around to your more relevant post in a bit. Dan M. ###### From: "Dan M." Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <925D5A629praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <4Gh29.161497$88.3195957@twister.austin.rr.com> <925DFAC52praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <70C39.189010$88.3975289@twister.austin.rr.com> Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Lines: 53 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:58:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.175.66.129 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.austin.rr.com 1028667534 24.175.66.129 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002 15:58:54 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 15:58:54 CDT Organization: Road Runner - Texas Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone.austin.rr.com!twister.austin.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91891 "stark" wrote in message news:aios6a$160mbd$2@ID-146807.news.dfncis.de... > In article <70C39.189010$88.3975289@twister.austin.rr.com>, Dan M. wrote: > > There is a technical term for women who use alternative contraceptives: > > mothers. > > Very clever, but meaningless. There are natural > contraceptives, the question is how much they were used. Actually, the real question is how effective they were. The quote about mothers is a quote from folks associated with family planning and birth control. With modern medicine, studies are done. A good study is double blind and statistically significant. With alternative medicine, it's often proof by story. > > But, infanticide is definitely not natural. :-) There are instincts > > programmed in us against it, and we would have to use a lot of will to > > overcome those instincts. > > Um. Your morality is showing. Infanticide is most certainly natural. More > natural than we normally are. Nursing a child with a congenital heart > defect or a child unable to walk is the thing thats unnatural. We have > technology now that allows us to care for them. But in ancient times when > food was scarce, such children were occasionally killed to save the food > that would have been "spent" on a child that would never reach adulthood. No, actually, it isn't. I'd argue that conquring another tribe, raping the women and killing or castrating the males is natural. It is an action that is evolutionarily favored. Killing one's own offspring isn't...especially in humans where there are not usually 8 in a litter, resulting in letting the weak ones being evolutionarily favored. I'm not arguing that such actions didn't happen in ancient societies; I'm arguing that there is considerable evidence that it wasn't natural. Out of curiosity, are you opposed to the scientific method as a tool of understanding phenomenon? > Thats all... just had to nitpick. Nitpicks are just fine; but I would very much appreciate some substantiation of your nitpicking. Out of curiosity, how familiar are you with the ideas of game theory and evolution as a means of understanding what is natural? Dan M. ###### From: pradera@pradera.prv.pl (Pradera) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: 6 Aug 2002 22:07:28 GMT Organization: Pradera Lines: 108 Message-ID: <9263E2EDpraderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <925D5A629praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <4Gh29.161497$88.3195957@twister.austin.rr.com> <925DFAC52praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <70C39.189010$88.3975289@twister.austin.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 42-moo-3.acn.waw.pl (62.121.78.42) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1028671648 39743304 62.121.78.42 (16 [146550]) User-Agent: Xnews/03.09.22 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!42-moo-3.acn.waw.PL!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91799 Nastal dzien 06 sie 2002, gdy Dan M. byl laskaw napisac: >> > There is a technical term for women who use alternative >> > contraceptives: mothers. >> >> Very clever, but meaningless. There are natural >> contraceptives, the question is how much they were used. > >Actually, the real question is how effective they were. The quote about >mothers is a quote from folks associated with family planning and birth >control. > Ummm you're confusing things a bit here. I'm not talking about 'calendar' and other that useless european stuff. I meant pre-industrial, but effective methods, like herbs (there's more than european herbs, you know. some of the stuff is pretty powerful, and lots of european medicines right now are produced by extracting elements from those herbs, so there's no reason to disregard them. not to mention eating soy does presumably bad thing for your fertility(this one I'm not sure, but it's probable)) or antique condoms (even Romans used them), etc. (and now we hear that eating fried rice gives you cancer... if we believe it's true, than we have a solution - chinese diet consists mostly of fried rice. myself, I think that's a load of bulsh*t, that thing, but it's just MO) PS.: as for the smallpox - I won't point a direct source right now, though a quick google would do the trick, but yes, it were the Chinese who put cow's 'stuff' on sick children, and that brit doctor learned about it from travellers' diaries. It was one of many common practices in chinese countryland, and nothing new at the time. PPS.: a little exercise. in Poland (where I live), only about 8 percent of couples use other contraceptives than so-called 'natural' (this time I mean calendar etc.), abortion rates are very low (even including the illegal ones), and there are very little nutrition problems, not to mention there's no war around. And yet, the birth-rate in Poland is at an all-time low, actually, we're losing people now. How do you explain that? It seems that people are indeed able to not have kids if they don't want to. >With modern medicine, studies are done. A good study is double blind >and statistically significant. With alternative medicine, it's often >proof by story. > Yeah right. Tell me more about those wonders of modern medicine and read the headlines of _science_ magazines (I don't even want to refer to regular newspapers, they're not one bit reliable here) throughout last ten years: 'xx therapy is a hoax!' 'wonder medicine yy - proves failure!' 'new experiments say: old experiments were wrong' There's little more trial and error in chinese medicine than in european one. And at least the chinese have 2000 more years of that to beat. >> Um. Your morality is showing. Infanticide is most certainly natural. >More >> natural than we normally are. Nursing a child with a congenital heart >> defect or a child unable to walk is the thing thats unnatural. We >> have technology now that allows us to care for them. But in ancient >> times when food was scarce, such children were occasionally killed to >> save the food that would have been "spent" on a child that would never >> reach adulthood. > >No, actually, it isn't. I'd argue that conquring another tribe, raping >the women and killing or castrating the males is natural. It is an >action that is evolutionarily favored. Killing one's own offspring >isn't...especially in humans where there are not usually 8 in a litter, >resulting in letting the weak ones being evolutionarily favored. > No, actually, it is. Most animals do so, so why shouldn't humans? It is a matter of common sense, quite lacking in our european way of thinking: when you can have two children who grow up strong and healthy, or four children who grow up (if ever) hungry and weak, the 'natural' way is to get rid of the surplus two in the beginning. One could of course argue that the one of the four is more probable to survive than one of the two, but it's just a matter of approach. As there are more chinese than europeans (and always were), I suppose their approach is more succesful. I'm not sure what you mean by 'natural' here. You seem to understand this term as 'not scientific', or something. When I used it (as in 'natural contraceptives') I meant 'not industrial' or 'pre-industrial', that's all. >Out of curiosity, are you opposed to the scientific method as a tool of >understanding phenomenon? > >Out of curiosity, how familiar are you with the ideas >of game theory and evolution as a means of understanding what is natural? etc. etc. Geez, one more thing like that and I'll have you killfiled. Just because I don't care to search for all my sources from past knowledge in a quite meaningless little usenet debate like this one, having lots of other things to do with my life, doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about any less than you do. I see you're one of those 'Sarumans' Tolkien used to talk about... -- Pradera, self-proclaimed shogun of BC and surroundings www.pradera-castle.prv.pl /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 'In XXI century, ability to compose and perform simple and pleasant tunes was all but lost. Fortunately, it survived in several remote japanese villages, as secret art of J-Pop' Modern History of Music --- ###### From: cee@eatspammindspring.com (C. M. Malm) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien,alt.fan.tolkien Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 06:46:54 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 51 Message-ID: <3d5359be.18685566@news.mindspring.com> References: <7ZFX8.2389$WS3.774181954@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> <230720021256370078%dsalo@usa.net> <9258D38B7praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <925D5A629praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <4Gh29.161497$88.3195957@twister.austin.rr.com> <925DFAC52praderapraderaprvpl@130.133.1.4> <70C39.189010$88.3975289@twister.austin.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.34.8d.de X-Server-Date: 9 Aug 2002 06:45:59 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!central.cox.net!cox.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91789 On Tue, 06 Aug 2002 20:58:54 GMT, "Dan M." wrote: >"stark" wrote in message >news:aios6a$160mbd$2@ID-146807.news.dfncis.de... >> In article <70C39.189010$88.3975289@twister.austin.rr.com>, Dan M. wrote: >> > There is a technical term for women who use alternative contraceptives: >> > mothers. >> >> Very clever, but meaningless. There are natural >> contraceptives, the question is how much they were used. > >Actually, the real question is how effective they were. The quote about >mothers is a quote from folks associated with family planning and birth >control. There are actually natural methods that work relatively well. However, like all contraceptive methods, they have to be used consistantly and carefully (with the cooperation of BOTH partners) in order to actually prevent pregnancy. Natural methods are NOT as straight-forward as "modern" methods of birth control; they require a higher degree of intelligence, commitment, and energy than most people want to expend on the problem. "User error" also needs to be considered. The margin for "user error" in "natural" methods is definitely a lot narrower than many "modern" methods. And "user error" (even with "modern" methods) is a complex factor that makes it difficult to determine the real effectiveness of any given method of birth control. Is the "failure" intentional (even subconsciously) or not? And if subconscious, how can it possibly be accounted for in comparitive statistics, especially if different birth control methods have different levels of susceptibility to subconscious intentions and wishes? My husband and I used "natural" birth control to space our three kids. There are 3 years between the oldest and middle, and 4 years between the middle and youngest. (I don't have *any* trouble getting pregnant, btw, in case there was a question of other factors in the spacing.) The only time I ever got pregnant when I didn't "want" to was with the youngest...and that was because my *husband* wanted another baby (which led him to produce "user error"). I don't rely on "natural" birth control anymore, because my heath doesn't permit me to take the risk of another pregancy. But back when the answer was "not yet" as opposed to "not at all," it worked very well for us. Just wanted to add another perspective to this conversation, since the assertion that alternative methods of birth control are inherently ineffective seems ridiculous to me. Cee ---- remove spamblocker to reply ###### Lines: 15 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: wilbur07@aol.com (Mark Constantino) Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien Date: 10 Aug 2002 21:37:22 GMT References: <3d5359be.18685566@news.mindspring.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Is Modernity Evil to Tolkien? Message-ID: <20020810173722.23226.00002255@mb-mh.aol.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.mailgate.org!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch rec.arts.books.tolkien:91762 >Just wanted to add another perspective to this conversation, since the >assertion that alternative methods of birth control are inherently >ineffective seems ridiculous to me. > Hi Cee! Long time no see! Bwahahaha! A disc is a bone in your spine. A disc-world is a world with a spine. That's all I can derive from Pratchett. Look at statistics, do a case-study under controlled conditions, and then come back and tell me that rhythm and withdrawal methods work to a certain enough accuracy that lots and lots of people use it reliably for spacing and pleasure of sexual relations. Marcos