Ross Barlow

Go and see this movie, friends! I was most pleasantly surprised and delighted by it. Do not put it off. See it while it is on the big screen. I will go see it again because I missed some dialogue (why can’t people from England speak proper English?). ;-)

The young girl, Lyra, is an exceptionally individualistic and plucky heroine (played by Dakota Blue Richards). The virtues that are celebrated in this story are rationality, independence, courage, science, skepticism and resistance to mere authority and dogma. Heresy is honored. I can see why the Catholic Church in particular is afraid of these stories entering the minds of children.

The author of the book series, Philip Pullman, is an outspoken atheist, but the movie series has reputedly toned down the controversial references to religion in order to not scare away American prude puritan audiences. The Christians are afraid that if this movie is a Xmas-time hit then parents will buy their kids the (much more explicitly atheistic and heretical) book series. I knew nothing about the book series before this movie, but it is obvious that this film is crying out for a sequel – which I look forward to. I might even get the book series (called “His Dark Materials”).

In Lyra’s parallel universe, humans have their souls/spirits – or “daemons,” in the Greek sense (think of Aristotle’s “eudaimonia,” i.e., “truest” or “best spirit,” “happiness” or “human flourishing”) – living outside their bodies as accompanying animals whose “personalities” match their own most genuine individual styles. Be forewarned that the sense of life in this movie is a tad “Byronic” and dark. Much of it takes place in the darkness of the far North. But I never was convinced that dark, Viking or Byronic fiction could not also contain elements of the benevolent and inspiring.

Modern film special effects capabilities have allowed Fantasy movies to take on such a realistic appearance that the stories have a kind of believability to them. These techniques provide a kind of seamlessness to the aesthetic experience which were never possible before.

This movie has a great cast. Daniel Craig (our new James Bond) plays Lord Asriel, whom I believe we will see more of in future films of this series. Sam Elliot (a favorite character actor of mine) may be playing his greatest role here, making the best use of his characteristic light-hearted goodness mixed with thoroughly American grit. Christopher Lee is the First High Councilor of the sinister Magisterium (which is eerily similar to the RC Church), and his brief cameo absolutely reeks of evil – this beloved actor has perfected his craft. Eva Green plays Queen of the witches (good witches), and is as enchantingly beautiful as ever. Ian McKellen provides the voice of an animated warrior ice bear. Nichole Kidman plays the bad, bad Mrs. Coulter (and she almost seduced me with her incredible charm; in fact, I think I am right now starting to defect to the Dark Side because of her smile; I cannot resist it; I am falling…).

Seriously, don’t miss this film.

-Ross Barlow.

King Bhumibol of Thailand’s 80th Birthday. A Kingly Public Servant.

Today, 5 December 2007 C.E. (Year 2550 of the Buddhist Era), is a big national holiday here in the Kingdom of Thailand, celebrating King Bhumibol’s 80th birthday. The king is easily the most loved and honored person in the entire kingdom. The king’s birthday serves as Father’s Day each year as well (just as the queen’s birthday on 12 August is Mother’s Day).

I have said before that I have never been much of a fan of monarchy. I see myself as a Jeffersonian republican (small “r”) with libertarian principles and some very strong anarchist sympathies. But even this farang has tears in his eyes when contemplating this exceptional king.

They really love him here, and I can see why. He provides a new perspective on the term “public servant.” During his long life and 60 year reign, he has shown a genuine concern for the people of his kingdom, traveling to remote rural villages, with maps in hand, to ask people personally what he can do to make their lives better. As a former teacher of geography, as well as of history and philosophy, I find the Thai people’s love for the king to be fascinating and instructive.

King Bhumibol of Thailand is the world’s longest reigning monarch and longest-serving head of state. Thailand has been a constitutional monarchy since 1932, so his position is ceremonial and his power is mostly that of cultural tradition. His living example of Buddhist ethical principles are an inspiration to his people.

He was born in 1927 in Cambridge, Massachusetts while his father, Prince Mahidol, was studying public health at Harvard. Bhumibol is grandson to the great King Chulalongkorn and great-grandson of the great King Mongkut. He never really expected to ever become king.

Bhumibol started his early primary education in Bangkok and then completed his secondary education in Switzerland, getting his high school diploma with a major in French literature, Latin and Greek. He then studied science at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland.

His older brother became king in 1935, and Bhumibol visited Thailand briefly in 1938. When his brother died in 1946, Bhumibol was made king. He wanted to continue to study in Switzerland, so his uncle acted as regent while he studied law and political science in order to prepare himself to be a good king.

While visiting Paris, he met Sirikit, the daughter of the Thai ambassador to France. It was during this time that he had an automobile accident in Switzerland in which he lost his left eye.

Bhumibol returned to Thailand in 1950 and had an official coronation along with his new bride, young Queen Sirikit. (Linked immediately below is a photo of the two of them on their coronation day.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Portrai...bol_sirikit.jpg

Queen Sirikit is an absolute doll, smiling warmly, enjoying life and counseling toleration in social and religious life. She is a living example of “mudita,” the Buddhist principle of cultivating within oneself the feeling of a genuine and sympathetic joy at witnessing the happiness and achievements of others.

King Bhumibol temporarily entered the order of Buddhist monks in 1956, as is customary for Thai males, and he named his wife regent for the brief time that he was in the monastery.

King Bhumibol is the personification of the image of the wise and compassionate king who serves his people. His many projects to improve the life of the rural poor include the establishment of medical centers, improvements in education, water projects, soil conservation, and agricultural experimentation and development. He holds patents for inventions he came up with to improve agricultural production. He has traveled frequently throughout the kingdom to meet the common people, to talk with them and stay in tune with their lives and problems. His concern for the people is very real, and there is no trace of a politician’s faked concerns.

He rarely intervenes in political affairs, but has stepped in during emergencies and carried the day with no power except for his immense prestige, popularity and moral authority. A good example is Bloody May 1992. After a military coup, followed by new but unsatisfactory and possibly fraudulent elections in which the coup leader came out as prime minister, there was blood and death in the streets as pro-democracy demonstrators clashed with police. At the height of the crisis, the king summoned the two opposing leaders – the coup leader and the pro-democracy leader, both of them generals – to an audience before him. He basically told them that they were behaving unethically and to knock it off. Significantly, he had it televised. The live image of King Bhumibol on his throne and the two antagonists, side-by-side on their knees before him (per royal protocol), diffused the entire situation. The coup leader resigned later and new elections were held. The king’s only power is moral power, but it is tremendous. He is a symbol of calmness, peace, benevolence and decency.

Widely recognized as an accomplished jazz musician and composer, he used to play on the radio earlier in his reign. He has jammed with many of the old Western jazz greats from time to time. CDs of his performances and compositions are widely available in the Kingdom. Featured in many bars is an old photo of him and Queen Sirikit talking with Elvis Presley (who is in his Army uniform) – two kings and a queen conferring. King Bhumibol is definitely cool.

Bhumibol is also known as an artist, a photographer and competent sailor of small craft. His personal self-development and his mastery of many languages and skills is a great example to the Thai people.

This is the hardest working royal family I have heard about in recent times. Following the example of King Bhumibol, the Queen and the four children are constantly in the news as diplomats to foreign nations and concerned citizens in their own native country here. You will almost daily see clips on TV news of a royal family member giving out diplomas at university graduations, cutting ribbons for some important opening event, or being welcomed in far off places around the globe at either diplomatic events or scientific expositions. Even the former wife of the crown prince is involved, as well as the prince’s present wife and little son.

The king is quite frail and is often in the hospital. Sad to say, his life and reign will probably not endure for a whole lot longer, and a comparable replacement is not on the horizon. The crown prince does not have the same kind of charisma, popularity or veneration. He will most likely be the successor, although a female heir to the throne is theoretically allowed and not out of the question.

Besides the one son there are three princesses. The oldest is into fashion, jet-setting and high society, appearing at Paris fashion shows and such events. She married an American, and her son was killed in the tsunami on 26 December 2004 while jet-skiing at Phuket.

The youngest princess travels the world often as an ambassador for the royal family. (She attended the movie “Stardust” at the Siam Paragon Theatre when we were watching it recently, and we were wondering why so many soldiers and police were suddenly there and why our exit from the theater was held up.)

But it is the middle princess that the Thai people love most. She never married, nor does she care for fashion or glamour, being unfashionably a bit over-weight, wearing a very plain hairstyle, modest dresses and sensible shoes. Always smiling and laughing genuinely, and lacking in pretensions, she appears as one of the people. She has charisma. She speaks over half a dozen languages and travels to many nations for ideas in science, business and culture that she can apply at home, and she is frequently seen taking notes in a plain spiral notebook. Recently she was in Germany attending a university event, and she addressed those present in German. I suspect that secretly many Thais wish she would inherit the throne.

Queen Sirikit is well loved as well, and she is known as the voice of toleration. She defused a potentially contentious situation here recently. After the military coup of September 2006, a new constitution was being drafted to be put up for a referendum and approval from the people in the summer of 2007. The big controversy was caused by many Thais wanting the constitution to proclaim Buddhism as the “official” religion of Thailand. (Being a big First Amendment fan as an American, this suggestion caused me some real concern, because my study of history shows that church/state entanglement usually leads to no good.)

Thailand is 95% Buddhist, so such a law is not needed. The 4% Muslim population is tolerated well and they are generally very good citizens. That is, except for the separatist insurgency in Thailand’s far South by ethnic Malay Muslim terrorists. The remaining 1% of Thais are Hindu, Sikh or Christian. If Thai Buddhists are concerned about Buddhism losing influence on the Thai people, they should set better examples, not pass laws. And that is basically what Queen Sirikit counseled on her birthday address to the nation the day before her birthday last 12 August. She quietly and patiently talked about understanding the concerns of Thai Buddhists, but she also explained why such a law was neither necessary nor prudent. Toleration of other religions goes all the way back to the Buddha in the Buddhist tradition. All of this message was spoken with her characteristically warm and benevolent smile. The question was thus settled by reasoning and moral example.

Yesterday the King gave his customary speech on the day before his birthday. It was televised, showing the pomp and splendor of Thai royal traditions. He counseled unity and toleration between all Thai people, especially military and civilian special interest groups. Today was a celebration at the Grand Palace, also televised.

It is a big holiday, and you hear crowds shouting, “Long Live the King.”

As for me, I am a huge fan of King Bhumibol. His example touches my heart.

.

-Ross Barlow.

What I know of the various Flat Earth groups that existed from the 1800s to the present have by and large been christian fundamentalists. If you read Gardner's work, he speaks of several of these groups. There may be FE groups that don't base their belief on religion, but most that I have heard of are.

The modern flat-earth movement has definitely been Bible-based. One of the “proof-texts” this minority among fundamentalists uses most is from two gospels, Matthew and Luke, where the Devil temps Jesus by taking him up to “an exceedingly high” mountain top and shows him “all the kingdoms of the earth” in “a moment of time.”

Considering that these kingdoms would include the Deccan kingdoms in India and Han dynasty China, not to mention pre-Classic Mayan kingdoms in Central America, the earth would have to be flat for one to even remotely imagine that one could see them at once.

The late great Robert J. Schadewald (whom I met in 1985 when I was investigating the topic of “scientific creationism”) wrote a lot about such odd-ball pseudo-science, and he was a friend (one might say a protégé) of Martin Gardner.

Europe’s brief descent into flat-earth theory occurred during the Dark Ages in c. 550 CE when Classical scientific writings were absent or ignored. Cosmas Indicopleustes (or Cosmas of Alexandria) wrote the flat-earth text “Christian Topography” which was the accepted theory until Classical writings were re-discovered. Cosmas had traveled to India once, so he was considered an authority in that age of little travel or trade.

-Ross Barlow.

I think that *Stardust* is a fantastic movie, and I highly recommend it.

Greybird, I have always loved your movie reviews, so please post your thoughts about this fine film. You wrote over a week ago (on another movie thread) that you had written a bit of a review about the movie, which you have seen a number of times and which is due out on DVD before the end of the year. I saw it twice, it is still in Bangkok theaters, and I just may see it again. On one of the nights I saw it in the Siam Paragon Royal Theatre, the youngest princess in the Thai royal family was there to see it. (We had wondered why a score of military and police came into the theater just before the movie began.)

.

-Ross Barlow.

Jesus H. Christ, Ellen, don’t you ever sleep?? You posted at (my) Indo-China Time of 3:21PM, which must be about your 4:21AM in the USA. All decent folks in America are asleep now. And I thought I was a night-hawk. What kind of person are you? Damn!

Anyway, Ellen [at a hideously indecent hour] writes, in her postscript:

<snip> ... Btw, ... "For the New Intellectual" is one of the two items I most wish Rand had never published. ... FNI, although it's a tour-de-force of writing which sweeps along like a tornado, is so incredibly simplistic as to amount to a sheer caricature of intellectual history.

I agree in the most part with you here, Ellen. It has taken me a long time to come to the same realization that Rand was presenting such a “simplistic” view of philosophy’s history. However, that being said, FNI really ignited my curiosity about intellectual history, basically converting me from a former student of comparative religious history to a student of the evolution of the secular Western philosophical tradition. My method has always been historical, so FNI was a great discovery for me. I still have a copy of FNI that I carried in the bush in Vietnam in my pants cargo pocket. It is filthy with sweat and mud – barely readable – but it meant a lot to me.

Although I appreciate Rand’s original point, only later did I see that Hume had great value in his attacks on religion and his part in the Scottish Enlightenment, where he traced the evolution of language and common law from what Hayek would later call a “spontaneous order.” Hume’s skepticism is often a refreshing antidote to religious faith. Hume probably helped contributed to his friend Adam Smith’s views on evolved order, aka, the “invisible hand.” Perhaps Hume was a difficult prick personally, but he really could write.

On Kant, I must confess that I have not studied him much, most likely because of Rand’s demonization of him early in my own intellectual development. He also, as has been pointed out in this thread, wrote very difficult and convoluted stuff. Rand planted such negative impressions of him – before I even tried to read him – that I could not muster up the strength and integrity of mind to look at him *objectively*.

(As a side-note, I tried reading commentary about Kant once before having any good philosophical training besides Rand’s basic outlines. It was my 20th birthday in Vietnam, and my dear mother had mailed a box of books to me, including Wilhelm Windelband’s *A History of Philosophy* in two volumes. This is a difficult and very abstract work by a Hegelian historian of ideas, and a student really should have some background in philosophy before diving into this masterful work. But I tried to wade right in and start in Volume Two about Kant. As we had celebrated my birthday earlier, I was quite stoned, and I preceded to get a horrible headache from straining my brain in this way. Eventually, it later took three attempts and five years before I was able to read Windelband’s *History* all the way through, but I will say that it is worth the trouble because of the wild intellectual ride he gives you through philosophy’s long career. A damn good book.)

Rand’s views on other aspects of the history of philosophy in FNI have retarded my understanding of many thinkers. I see her extreme and shrill moralizing about “evil” thinkers as pushing me into a non-objective attitude toward them. Because she was my first philosophy teacher when I was so young, and because she gave me so many very good and valuable foundational intellectual teachings and aesthetic joys, I accepted her authority. On faith, you could say. Shame on me. I should have asserted my intellectual independence and commitment to objectivity by questioning my Teacher earlier.

Don’t get me wrong: I have the greatest of respect and gratitude to Ayn Rand for her immeasurable contributions to my education and to the great and necessary shaking-up she applied to 20th century thought. But the fuller history of, and the evaluation of, world philosophical thinking will have to be worked out by going beyond the Master’s work while at the same time using her principles of commitment to reasoning.

.

-Ross Barlow.

I learned many, many things from reading the excellent LFB reviews through the years, as well as building up a decent personal library by ordering their books as I could afford them. They made me aware of what had been written through the ages past as well as in the present. For years, their catalog was one of the happiest things to be received in my mailbox. They will be missed.

-Ross Barlow.

Michael, et al, I can understand your contempt for *Easy Rider*, as it is not the most rational, uplifting or inspirational film ever made. Your points are all very well taken. But the movie has a lasting place in my memory.

I saw *Easy Rider* -- definitely a *decadent* classic -- when it first appeared in my area, long after first release. It was the first film I saw after returning from my tour in Vietnam, and it had quite an impact on me, as a 20-year-old who had been out of the States for a while. Let me give you some background on my own context in those days.

Upon getting out of high school in 1968, I was the first guy in my hick hometown to grow long hair and a beard, and I was treated as an outcast by most. I resented being mistakenly called a “hippie,” as I was actually just more of a fellow-traveler who liked the same music and freedom of lifestyle. I had left home before graduation because of conflicts with my parents – mainly over my atheism – and I lived in the woods. I hitchhiked throughout the eastern US during the summer and fall and joined the Marines in November 1968.

When I returned home in 1970, definitely aged and brutalized, and also “experienced” by Jimi Hendricks’ standards, my old friends had all turned on to good music and rather libertine lifestyles. We bonded and partied like hell. When *Easy Rider* showed in a theater in a nearby city, about a week after I returned from military service, we packed everyone into a van and went to it. I had never seen so long a queue at a theater; it went around the block, and it was packed with “freaks,” the name we often affectionately called our peer group in those days.

The big impact of *Easy Rider* on us in 1970 was mainly the very realistic way it portrayed the extreme hate and violent reaction against our generation – mainly against those of us who looked different because of our hairstyles and clothing choices. There were conservative assholes in those days who had murder in their eyes. Pre-military, I personally out-ran a good many of these idiots who vowed to cut my hair and beat the shit out of me. Post-military, no one fucked with me.

Yes, definitely, another realistic aspect of the film was in showing how irrational many in my generation were. Dennis Hopper, “Billy” in the film (and also the director), is a case in point, as a stoned and brain-dead hippie. There were a lot of mindless “freaks” in those days. Terry Southern, a writer for *Dr. Strangelove*, helped Hopper and Fonda write it, which probably gives it some of it’s shock and humorous punch. Wyatt (Peter Fonda) tells Billy: “We blew it.” I think he has realized how empty their whole quest has been.

The shocking ending of the film left me numb. What kind of sick country did I just return to? I thought I had left violent insanity behind me at the port of Da Nang, but this whole country was split wide open with hate and mistrust. At about the exact same time, the Kent State massacre happened, which reinforced my dismay. I was not shocked at the fact that students were shot (I was callused to violence and just thought they should have known better and kept low), but the conservative reaction astounded me: “They should have shot more of those commie hippie creeps.” The US was torn asunder by the war and cultural division. We dropped out and kept to ourselves. I did a lot of solo sojourns in the wilderness.

A footnote to the whole *Easy Rider* mindset: In about 1971 or 1972, four of us loaded into a VW bug and headed for Mardi Gras. Pretty crazy scene. (We found the same type of cemeteries as depicted in the film.) After four days in New Orleans, on our way back, we were in Alabama and stumbled into a truck stop for breakfast. We were feeling quite beat and looked very ratty, with long hair, beards, etc. One buddy, who had traveled a lot more than the rest of us, told us in a low voice: “Don’t look around now, but this place is Red.” He meant “redneck,” which in our lingo of the day meant conservative, dimwitted, prejudiced, violent monsters.

As each of us took our turns going back to the men’s room, we got a chance to see what he was talking about. Five BIG rednecks were sitting at the back table glaring at us. I didn’t know they made clothes big enough to fit these apes. The waitress was a gorgeous teenage Southern lass, and when we each went to the register to pay, there was one of these apes standing behind her, watching every glance and expression we made. There were two at the inside of the door and two outside. They were waiting for the slightest excuse to thrash us. I never knew that my buddies could ever be that polite before this. We were the epitome of modest courtesy. “Thank you, Ma’am. It was a very good meal, Ma’am.” Eyes never glancing lower than her chin.

We got into the VW and hit the highway, looking in the rear-view mirror anxiously. After 5 miles of freedom on the highway, we all let out a relieved breath. We all actually thought we were going to die back there. This was the reality of social relations in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.

By the way, I agree that Jack Nicholson is great in this early role.

All in all, *Easy Rider* had a great soundtrack. I especially love The Byrds “Wasn’t Born to Follow,” which captured my sense of the Age. Also on the soundtrack were: Jimi Hendricks, Steppenwolf (“Born to Be Wild,” and “The Pusher,” this last song being the unofficial theme-song of our battalion of Marines as we came home on ship), and The Byrds’ great Roger McGuinn.

It was a decadent flick, but those were decadent times, and it will always be a part of my own life’s soundtrack.

-Ross Barlow.

As one who was shocked into rationality by Rand 40 years ago and who thus has witnessed a bit of Objectivism’s history, I have to say that Barbara’s biography, *The Passion of Ayn Rand*, is one of the more significant achievements in this ongoing history.

Even my younger sister, who is and has always been a evangelical Christian, seemed to have suddenly gained a large measure of respect and sympathy for her big brother’s heretical Objectivist views by finally reading Barbara’s biography. She saw Rand for the first time as a person, a woman, a struggling individual. Formerly she had seen her as only an anti-Christian ideologue.

Barbara has shown us the credible human behind the public image.

-Ross Barlow.

Check out the up-to-date entry for Samhain (aka, Halloween) on Wikipedia. It has been improved considerably in the last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhain

As a former farm boy myself, I relate strongly to the yearly calendar of the pasturing seasons. At Samhain/Halloween, the vegetative world dies in the northern temperate zones. (Make sure all fodder is in the barn; no more lawn-mowing.) Six months later, on Beltane/Eve of May Day/Walpurgis Night, the green world is reborn. (Herds can be turned out to pasture; have the lawnmower ready.)

Remember that the midway point between Samhain and Beltane is Imbolc/February 2, or, as we celebrate it, Rand Day.

Midway between Beltane and Samhain is Lughnasadh/August 1 or 2. (This is a personal holiday for Steve Reed, his “August the Twoth.” Sorry, Steve, I was preoccupied and forgot to wish you well.)

These are not solar calendar holidays, but rather they hinge upon the vegetative/pasturing cycles. This is one day I miss the temperate zone.

Enjoy.

.

-Ross Barlow.

Check out this article by George Will in the October 22, 2007 issue of Newsweek:

An Inconvenient Price by George F. Will

...

Thanks for posting that link, Roger. I also am not a big fan of George Will, but this is a great essay. Being in Newsweek, it be read quite widely.

.

-Ross Barlow.

Deborah Kerr also played Lygia in one of my mother's favorite movies, *Quo Vadis* (1951), with Robert Taylor as Marcus and Peter Ustinov as Nero. It was a classic, but it was also another case of the novel (by Henryk Sienkiewicz) being much better than the film. In this case it was a disappointment that Petronius was not cast better, as he was to my mind the major character in the book. The film was too Christian and did not have the balance the book had between that and classical paganism or Stoicism.

Ironically, Kerr’s famous film of *The King and I* (1956), about Anna Leonowens and the King of Thailand (aka, Siam), has never been allowed to play in Thailand. Neither has the fine Jody Foster film *Anna and the King* (1999) nor any other version of the story. The reason for this is that the real-life Anna Leonowens fictionalized a big portion of her story, as she had fictionalized many other parts of her life in her memoirs. She did indeed tutor the children of the great King Mongkut, but she was never as close to him as she claimed, and Thais think that her stories and the films made from them are insulting to the monarchy. Hence the films are banned here. So much for freedom of expression. But many Thais have managed to see the films anyway on video, despite the censorship. The wonders of the black market.

Deborah Kerr was also a Bond Girl. Sort of. She was in the 1967 spoof of *Casino Royal* with Peter Sellers, David Niven, Woody Allen, et al.

.

-Ross Barlow.

Several of these pinko stinko Commie Liberals appears as characters in the animated puppet motion picture -Team America-. Dennis and Ron do not, but some of the Hollywood types appear, including Michael Moore and Alex Baldwin. ...

That *Team America: World Police* (2004) puppet animation movie that Bob mentions was absolutely hilarious. I believe that the writers/directors are the same as for TV’s *South Park* series, so be forewarned that it may be offensive to many folks. (First time I ever saw puppets giving head.)

*Team America* is worth watching simply for the unrelenting mockery thrown at Alec Baldwin and his celebrity friends and fellow-travelers, e.g., Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Matt Damon, etc. The plot entangles them with North Korea’s dictator Kim. Funny movie.

(Speaking of Alec Baldwin, I thought of him constantly while reading Michael Crichton’s excellent book, *State of Fear*. In that book, the creepy movie star fit Baldwin so closely I could actually hear Alec speaking the lines.)

.

-Ross Barlow.

Sixty years ago today, on 14 October 1947, the great USAF test pilot Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in his Bell X-1 rocket plane. A West Virginia farm boy and WWII ace shatters the skies and makes the ground tremble.

Today I will watch my beloved DVD of *The Right Stuff* (1983), in which the role of Yeager is played so well by Sam Shepard. If you have never seen this movie, you definitely must check it out. That long-gone world of test pilots and early Mercury astronauts was truly the Heroic Age.

.

-Ross Barlow.

This board has been jumping of late (compared to the other O'ist boards of the Web). I am not complaining at all. I am just slightly amazed. Is it something in the water, or what?

What makes you think it's water we've been drinking?

Barbara

I'll drink to that!

-Ross Barlow.

Rich,

Good to see you back. I hope you are having a fine autumn on the shores of Lake Erie.

-Ross Barlow.

I agree with parts of most of the varied viewpoints expressed so far on this thread. Ahmadinejad is a fanatic and a gangster, and the entire Iranian leadership is very dangerous.

But, like it or not, geopolitical realities are forcing the US to cut some kind of a deal sometime very soon and actually talk with these bastards in Tehran over the Iraq debacle and the immediate regional conflict. The US political and military position in Iraq is untenable, and damage control is urgently needed, trying to pull American troops out without leaving a power vacuum for Iran to fill. The US will try to use Iran’s distrust and fear of American “allies” on Iraq’s borders, i.e., Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to limit Iran’s future role in Iraq. But Iran will have some role there.

Part of the talks will be secret and part public. The two nations will have to talk, bluff, bargain, threaten and haggle toward some kind of settlement. This is how conflicts of this sort are historically dealt with. Ugly but true.

The public part of this loathsome dialectic has just reached a higher pitch. Stay tuned and hope that there can be found a few reality-based diplomats on each side to talk sanely together.

.

-Ross Barlow.

John, I liked *Pathfinder*, although perhaps not everyone will. It was quite popular here. Seeing cold, snowy, steep mountainsides made me a bit homesick.

.

-Ross Barlow.

Then you have just GOT to read -Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar- by Cathcart and Klein. It is the funniest goddamned book printed in the U.S. in the last twenty years and it deals with philosophical questions and issues in a humorous way. Verily, I guarantee you will pee in your pants if you read it, you will laugh so hard.

I command you to read this book. Yea, in the Name of Jesus Christ and General Jackson, I command you to read this book.

Aye, Aye, Sir!

I will look for it. My Asia Books store can get me most titles. Thanks for the recommendation.

-Ross Barlow.

Thank you, Bob. It is good to run into another hardcore Tolkien fan. Yes, Tolkien is a very different aesthetic experience. You are right about Tolkien coming to his positions “thoughtfully” and with “integrity.” One need not agree with him on all points in order to love and respect his works.

Like you, I also have always had trouble with Tolkien’s anti-industrialism, although that was my own heritage growing up as a farm-boy in a beautiful and peaceful rural community. Rand pointed out to me the beauty and greatness of industrial works, which I learned to love. Yet, when I get a chance, I like to retreat to the peace of mountainous wilderness solitude. I am still searching for Rivendell – haven’t found it yet. I will let you know if I do.

-Ross Barlow.

Review of *The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All*. 2003. edited by Gregory Bassham and Eric Bronson. Open Court Publishing.

Reviewed by Ross Barlow.

This is Volume #5 in a very interesting series from Open Court called “Popular Culture and Philosophy.” Series editor is William Irwin. (I posted earlier about this overall series under a different topic title. If you are curious about the nature of this Open Court series then this will be a good in-depth example.)

The book is dedicated: “To the entwives, wherever they may roam.” If this resonates with you, you may well love this book.

If you are familiar with and enjoy J.R.R. Tolkien’s *The Lord of the Rings* and if you either have some small experience in reading philosophy or want to plunge into a widely diverse selection of philosophical writings for the first time, this book is a delight. There are 17 contributing authors, all of whom are professional philosophers and/or theologians who love Tolkien’s works and know them intimately. Each essay is about 10 pages.

Because of the variety of philosophical viewpoints here, you will not agree with every essay. Indeed, I do not agree with even Tolkien on many points. You will find existentialists, theologians, greens, Aristotelians, and representatives from many other viewpoints. But every essay is interesting and thoughtful. I have always considered it to be fruitful to read philosophers and philosophies that I am in disagreement with. I consider this in many cases to be an exercise in “mind-stretching,” although in some cases it does seem more like being stretched upon the torture rack. Good for the mind, at any rate. (“That which does not kill me makes me stronger.” Nietzsche.)

I am very much a fan of Tolkien. Before reading this book for the first time, I had read Tolkien’s *The Hobbit* and *The Lord of the Rings* (TLOTR) a number of times. I watched the excellent Peter Jackson films of TLOTR more times than I can count, along with the extra “Appendices” special feature interviews and commentaries in the Special Extended DVD Editions. Also, I have had the benefit throughout the years of many conversations with family members who are longtime diehard Tolkien fans.

This volume of *TLOTR and Philosophy* was very understandable with my basic background of Tolkien reading (along with my undergraduate major studies in philosophy). But the authors also mention some of Tolkien’s other writings, *The Silmarillion* in particular, as well as material from his letters and essays. So, after I read this volume of *TLOTR and Philosophy*, I went on to read *The Silmarillion*, which is a much different reading experience, as it is rather unfinished and more like an epic than the adult fairy tale that TLOTR is. But it did give me a richer background on Tolkien’s fictional history of the elves and early Middle Earth, and I enjoyed it tremendously. After reading this, I then re-read the volume of essays reviewed here. The second reading was substantially more interesting and enlightening.

My review follows.

Part I: The Ring.

Chapter 1: The Rings of Tolkien and Plato: Lessons in Power, Choice, and Morality. By Eric Katz.

(I will state from the start that I think it is inexcusable that there is no mention in this entire volume about Lord Acton’s maxim on power: “Power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In a story about the One Ring to Rule Them All with all of its seductive and corrosive power, I was very disappointed not to come across what I thought was an important and obvious point. Perhaps my life-long libertarian background made me assume that everyone knew this maxim. Perhaps also the editors did not want contention over politics to darken the mood of the book.)

In this first essay, Eric Katz reminds us of Plato’s tale of Gyges’ Ring (in *The Republic*), which makes its wearer invisible. Gyges finds the ring and uses its cloak of invisibility to seduce the queen and kill the king. Katz writes: “Plato’s question to us is whether or not one should be a moral person even if one has the power to be immoral with impunity. Does immense power destroy the need to be a moral person?” (p.6) He gives a brief outline of Plato’s story and the arguments surrounding it.

Then Katz discusses how various characters in TLOTR deal with the seductive power of The One Ring, the Ring of Power. Tom Bombadil is not affected at all by the Ring, and he alone can still see Frodo when Frodo is wearing the Ring and is invisible to everyone else. Galadriel refuses to take the Ring. Gandalf will not take it. (But these characters are not mortals.) Among mortals, Gollum is destroyed by it and obsessed with it. Sam will not keep it. Boromir is seduced by it, thinking that he is strong enough to wield it for good purposes. Aragorn will not take it. (One might also note that, in the book version, Faramir will not take it either; also, Bilbo gives it up, although reluctantly.) And poor Frodo…. The personal choices of all these characters are examined very well.

Chapter 2: The Cracks of Doom: The Threat of Emerging Technologies and Tolkien’s Rings of Power. By Theodore Schick.

The title gives you a good idea of the subject matter, and I will not say much more about it.

Chapter 3: “My Precious”: Tolkien’s Fetishized Ring. By Alison Milbank.

Milbank provides a very interesting discussion of TLOTR in light of Freud’s theories on fetishism, in light of feminist theories, and even in light of Marxist alienation theory. She has interesting thoughts on “rings” and “things” in Norse and Anglo-Saxon mythologies, with a great analysis of Northern language (which was Professor Tolkien’s domain). She explores the “wonder” of natural things and our connections to them.

Part II: The Quest for Happiness. [i liked all of this Part very much.]

Chapter 4: Tolkien’s Six Keys to Happiness. By Gregory Bassham.

This is a great chapter. Bassham reminds us that Hobbiton, Rivendell, and Lothlorien (a.k.a. Lorien) are happy places, so he asks us to consider what their inhabitants might teach us about “the secrets of true happiness and fulfillment.” (p.49) He finds six important lessons.

1. Delight in Simple Things. He notes that hobbits “have no real government.” (I remember reading or hearing somewhere that Tolkien considered himself to be a “Christian anarchist,” if I am not mistaken.) Elves love to sing and to gaze at the stars. Bassham brings in insights from psychological theories and studies. He talks of the simple pleasures recommended by Epicurus. We are also reminded of Thoreau – “the great American apostle of simplicity” – who told his readers to “simplify, simplify.” (p.51)

2. Make Light of your Troubles. Bassham tells us that this is one of “The Quaker Dozen” rules to live by, and that hobbits have this virtue, as did Marcus Aurelius, the great Stoic philosopher.

3. Get Personal. High praise is given to Aristotle’s *Nicomachean Ethics* in relation to his discussion of friendship and its role in the fulfilled life. Recent psychological studies are cited to reinforce the point. Bassham writes: “No doubt if some hobbit-Aristotle had written his or her *Nicomachean Ethics*, the goods of friendship and connectedness would have featured at least as prominently s they do in Aristotle’s version.” (p.55)

4. Cultivate Good Character. In a letter, Tolkien wrote that one aim of writing TLOTR was “the encouragement of good morals.” (p.55; from Tolkien’s *Letters*) (One might add here that this kind of cultivation of good character is also an important theme in Aristotle’s ethics.)

5. Cherish and Create Beauty. The elves in Tolkien’s books are tall, graceful, wise, and beings of incredible beauty. (For equivalents in Ayn Rand’s works, I think of Ragnar and Kay.) In Tolkien, creativity is also essential to the happy life. (Again, I am reminded of similarities in Rand, who considered productivity to be among the greatest of virtues.)

6. Rediscover Wonder. Tom Bombadil is in a continual state of rapturous wonder, and it is inexhaustible for him since he is ancient beyond all the memory of others. Bassham says that the elves have “an almost endless appetite for poetry, song, gazing at the stars, and walking in sunlit forests.” (p.58) They see things with “ever-fresh wonder and delight.” (In this description of the elves, I get a sense of zen.) Bassham quotes Tolkien, from an important separate essay of his entitled “On Fairy-Stories,” where Tolkien talks of “recovery,” a regaining of a sense of freshness, of a “clear view,” “so that things seen clearly may be freed from the drab blur of triteness and familiarity.” It is a “return and renewal of health.” (p.59) For Tolkien, fairy tales like TLOTR can be healing.

Chapter 5: The Quests of Sam and Gollum for a Happy Life. By Jorge J.E. Gracia.

I like this essay even though I only agree partially with the author on a few things. What I do like is his frequent references to Aristotle, e.g., the point that true happiness depends on one’s nature, on the kind of being one is. Gollum has “no resources, no friends.” He has no friends because “he has no love for himself,” and Aristotle is quoted to support this idea. Gracia says, “Gollum lacks this self-love.” (p.70)

Chapter 6: Farewell to Lorien: The Bounded Joy of Existentialists and Elves. By Eric Bronson.

I love this essay. (Note: The two philosophers of whom I have read most of their works – and have also read those works with the most care and intensity -- are Rand and Nietzsche; my picture of Nietzsche is close to that given by Bronson here.)

Grace, beauty, serenity and wisdom are the striking attributes of elves. Elvin songs are joyful, and all the creations of their artistry are of incredible beauty. Galadriel is the Lady of Lorien (a.k.a. Lothlorien). She is more powerful, wiser, older and more experienced than all the other elves of Middle Earth.

The elves are virtually immortal. They live on for thousands of years. They can die in battle or by a similar mortal injury, but there is some kind of reincarnation involved where they still keep all their memories. Elves can also die of a “world-weariness” that makes life unbearable.

Galadriel has a hint of sadness, for she remembers the rebellion long, long ago in the paradise across the sea to the far West of Middle Earth. She remembers a great Golden Age when elves lived in the West among the god-like Valar, a time when there were no blemishes at all on their happiness and innocence. There was a Fall involved in this earlier elf history, and Galadriel remembers it. It was an act of hubris, disobedience and rebellion that took place when her elf-clan decided to leave the Western paradise and travel to Middle Earth in order to fight evil. (This story you will find in *The Silmarillion*.) Galadriel did not take the treasonous oath that her kinsmen took, but she came with them in exile to Middle Earth, thus she shares somewhat in their rebellion. The memory of this episode taints the joy of elves in Middle Earth with just a hint of sadness. They have an echo of yearning for the West. (p.75)

Bronson describes how “Galadriel presides over Lorien with songs of joy…. But it is a happiness born of sorrow and dispossession, and that is why Tolkien can be placed in a wider tradition of European philosophers who still affirm life, while bearing witness to the passing shadows.” (p.76)

Bronson continues: “Philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Jaspers, and Hannah Arendt agree that life carries with it a certain despair, but alongside the suffering stands a spontaneous affirmation of life as it is, though danger lurks behind every tree.” (p.77)

Nietzsche has hope in dark times; he sees a powerful artist as being the one to give hope. This artist, in Nietzsche’s words, “should see nothing as it is, but fuller, simpler, stronger: to that end, their lives must contain a kind of youth and spring, a kind of habitual intoxication.” (p.77) (Cf. Rand’s neo-Aristotelian conception of art depicting “life as it might be and ought to be.”)

Nietzsche also says that world-weariness will set in if we do not learn how to forget certain things. Galadriel, as the elf in Middle Earth who carries the heaviest burden of memory, finds some measure of forgetfulness in that moment when she refuses to possess the One Ring. She remembers who she is, she will “remain Galadriel,” but since she passed this incredible test of will she is unburdened of a heavy weight.

(When I think of Galadriel, of her grace, dignity, benevolence, and wisdom born of struggle, I think of Barbara Branden.)

Part III: Good and Evil in Middle Earth.

Chapter 7: Uber-hobbits: Tolkien, Nietzsche, and the Will to Power. By Douglas K. Blount.

This was a painful chapter for me to read and to re-read because Blount and I have very different interpretations of Nietzsche. Blount is a theologian, so he cannot be expected to sympathize with Nietzsche to the extent that I do. Blount seems to be of that school that sees Nietzsche responsible for spawning Hitler, Sauron, and all other manner of evil. I think that Eric Bronson’s interpretation in Chapter 6 is a better one. Blount seems to me to be missing the point of the Will to Power, e.g., Nietzsche would see scholars and artists (possibly including Tolkien) as exemplars of a Will to Power.

One of my problems here is that my studies of Nietzsche were 30 years ago, so it is hard to put my finger on exactly where I think Blount is off-base here. Also, Nietzsche was not so much a systematic thinker as he was a poet. He expressed himself in aphorisms and short enthusiastic exclamations, and thus contradictions abound in his writings. (It just occurred to me that both Nietzsche and Tolkien were philologists, immersed in their linguistic specialties and in the wide traditions of wisdom in their respective fields of focus: Tolkien in that of Northern cultures and Nietzsche in those of the Classical world. Contradictions can be found in both.)

Blount sees in Tolkien’s works a religious conflict, citing supporting evidence from his letters. Nietzsche can always be used to fill in as a great villain, and he often has been so used.

Chapter 8: Tolkien and the Nature of Evil. By Scott A. Davison.

Davison asks if Evil is an independent force. Is the world Manichean, where Good and Evil are two equally powerful opposing forces locked in eternal war? Some Tolkien scholars think so according to Davison, but he disagrees.

He says that evil depends on goodness, taking the “Augustinian” view and citing Tolkien to show convincingly that Tolkien, a Roman Catholic, agreed. Augustine, Davison, and Tolkien see evil as a negation or a destruction of the good. In a letter, Tolkien wrote: “In my story I do not deal with Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero.” (p.102) (Ayn Rand also wrote of evil as being ultimately impotent, a negation, and as evil often showing itself as a “hatred of the good for being the good.” Strange bedfellows here, indeed.)

One of the interesting things about the evil character Sauron in TLOTR is that he thinks everyone will want to possess the Ring and thus its power. He cannot conceive of the possibility that anyone would have the motive of instead renouncing great power and completely *destroying* the Ring. In this aspect, he shows a tremendous *absence*, a great lack of understanding, wisdom and vision.

Chapter 9: Virtue and Vice in The Lord Of The Rings. By Aeon J. Skoble.

(Apparently Skoble is a libertarian, but this is the first I have heard of him. His bio paragraph says that he is editor of *Reason Papers*.)

This is my favorite essay and in itself worth the price of the book. Skoble gives us a robust presentation and defense of Aristotelian “virtue ethics,” arguing for its superiority to either Kantian duty ethics or utilitarian ethics by using TLOTR characters as examples.

I think that this would be a very good intro to Aristotelian ethics for one who was totally new to it. It is a great 10-page intro to important aspects of it. (Many Randians do not seem to realize how close Aristotle’s ethics are to Ayn Rand’s in many ways.)

Skoble writes that Aristotle has a *developmental* focus on ethics: “what we need to do is *become* virtuous.” Certain “habits of thought and action tend to move our characters … towards states Aristotle calls virtues….” Of course, other habits of thought or action tend to move us towards vices. In his section titled “Developing Good Character,” Skoble writes: “For Aristotle, moral virtues are states of character one develops which, as they become more integral to one’s being, help one to lead a happier, more fulfilled life.” (p.111)

How do we decide, in a particular situation, how we should act? Part of a virtue-ethics is the idea that a person who has “cultivated good character” will have developed a kind of “moral wisdom” – what Aristotle called “practical reason.” (p.111) Practical reason must make judgments in “reference to a predominant goal.” … “On the Aristotelian view, there is such an overall predominant value: life, or more specifically, a flourishing or good life.” (p.112) (Those familiar with Rand’s ethics will see a distinct resemblance here.)

Aristotle stresses that one must learn to acquire a virtuous character by performing virtuous acts. (p.112) It must be developed and be made habitual. A helpful part of this process of self-development is finding and emulating the right role models. (p.113) (This is very close to The Buddha’s advice to choose to hang around “Noble Companions” and to avoid ignoble ones.) Skoble then looks at several characters in TLOTR to illustrate both virtuous and vicious character traits in light of virtue ethics. Aragorn and Boromir are compared; Skoble points out that Boromir, although basically decent, has a flaw of intellectual stubbornness that Aristotle had criticized by quoting Hesiod: “He who grasps everything himself is best of all; he is noble also who listens to one who has spoken well; but he who neither grasps it himself nor takes to heart what he hears from another is a useless man” (Hesiod, *Works and Days*, quoted in Aristotle, *Nicomachean Ethics*, 1095b10). Skoble’s whole discussion of Boromir as a tragic figure is very interesting. (p.116)

In the section “Virtue Ethics in Perspective,” Skoble makes some final comparisons between virtue ethics and both Kantian and utilitarian ethics. (pp.117-119)

(If you have not read it yet, I highly recommend Aristotle’s *Nicomachean Ethics*. Buy a small paperback copy and carry it around for those times when you can browse it. Browsing is easy because most versions have a Topical Table of Contents, allowing you to look up subjects according to what interests you might have at the moment. After some time of familiarization, read it straight through. Absolutely a Classic.)

Part IV: Time and Mortality.

Chapter 10: Choosing to Die: The Gift of Mortality in Middle Earth. By Bill Davis.

I found this to be a very interesting essay, even though I do not agree completely with Davis in the end. He may be much closer to Tolkien’s view than I am.

Davis describes many of the most common ideas about death in TLOTR very well. Elves are immortal, for as long as the world endures. In the viewpoint of the elves, the death of a human means that human’s complete annihilation, and the elves actually call this “the gift” given to men. If an elf dies in battle, he is reincarnated into a similar body with memory intact. Elves never really die, and men consider this to be a “gift” given to the elves. Each envy the other.

Davis Discusses “Death in Middle Earth” (pp.124-7) and then gives us a good treatment of “Death on Planet Earth.” In this last section, he discusses Socrates’ view of death as well as those of the Epicurean philosopher Lucretius in his *On the Nature of Things*. Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus are also mentioned. (pp.127-9)

In the section “Immortality in Middle Earth,” Davis covers Tolkien’s references to elvin reincarnation, and he also suggests that elves find immortality to be *boring*. (pp.129-130) In connection with this last thought, the section “Immortality on Planet Earth” brings up ideas about immortality from Eastern and Western religions and philosophies. The eternal punishment-task outlined in Camus’ *Myth of Sisyphus* is mentioned, along with Wowbanger the Infinitely Prolonged in *Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy*. Wowbanger is immortal and is so horribly bored by this condition that he institutes the personal project of insulting every singe person in the universe, one at a time, in alphabetical order; when he shows up, he ascertains that you are the right person on his list, then he rudely insults you, checks off your name on his vast list, and then sets off to find the next name. (pp.130-133)

The most relevant case in the actual TLOTR story is Arwen’s love for Aragorn, who is a mortal man. Arwen is a rare case of being half-elvin, from one elf parent and one human parent, and she must ultimately choose either to be immortal as an elf and forever leave Middle Earth, going over the sea to the ancestral elvin realm in the West, or she can give up her immortality so she can live one mortal life in Middle Earth with Aragorn. This is high romance. In *The Silmarillion* there is the similar story of the love between Beren and Luthien.

Chapter 11: Tolkien, Modernism, and the Importance of Tradition. By Joe Kraus.

Kraus writes that “the heroes of TLOTR often rescue themselves because they remember something important that their enemies have forgotten.” … “They have studied history, lore, tactics, languages, and geography, and they know as much as they can about whatever it is that they are attempting. They have their trusty swords and their quick wits with them all of the time, but they have also done their homework. Thus, Tolkien seems to tell us, knowledge is a crucial part of what it takes to be a hero.” (p.137-8)

Kraus argues that one part of Tolkien’s vision in writing TLOTR was “to imagine a world where scholarship and respect for tradition provide real and tangible power.” Tolkien, as a professor, studied and taught ancient Northern European languages and “was committed to the values of the humanities.” (p.138) To Tolkien, “being heroic ties into being scholarly.”

Kraus writes that Tolkien saw immense despair in a modern world that has rejected tradition. This despair is shown in TLOTR by Denethor and Saruman, who both were great scholars but have now disregarded their learned wisdom, followed false new hopes or visions, and have succumbed to despair. (pp.141-3)

(Is Kraus arguing for conservativism? Or is he arguing for perennialism? A perennialist is one who values certain particular traditions chiefly because he sees true perennial value in them rather than just valuing them because they are old and traditional. I prefer “perennialist,” because I see value being timeless as value, whether it be old or brand new.)

Chapter 12: Tolkien’s Green Time: Environmental Themes in TLOTR. By Andrew Light.

By “green time,” Light means a perspective on the natural world that involves a tremendously long view of time, an evolutionary time-scale or longer. The ents and Tom Bombadil represent this perspective in the story. Light talks about the niches that the various free peoples of Middle Earth love the most: elves love the forests, dwarves love the mountains and the underground places, and hobbits love The Shire.

Elves are immortal, thus they have the long view. Even such an ancient one as Treebeard says that “The Elves cured us [the ents] of dumbness.” Davis suggests that this may mean the elves nurtured “a capacity of reason and eventually of speech” in the ents. (p.154) In a letter, Tolkien wrote: “The elves represent … the artistic, aesthetic, and purely scientific aspects of the Humane Nature raised to a higher level than is actually seen in Men.” (p.155)

Part V: Ends and Endings.

Chapter 13: Providence and the Dramatic Unity of TLOTR. By Thomas Hibbs.

Hibbs argues, with good textual evidence, that in his stories “Tolkien manages to suggest the working of a higher, benevolent power, a providential orchestration of events.” (p.167) Hibbs launches into a discussion of the traditional philosophical problems with the idea of providence. Then he proceeds to argue that “Tolkien offers a dramatic demonstration of the reality of human freedom and action and of the way patience and compassion is used to overcome evil.” (p.168) The role of Gollum is considered as an instrument of providence. Also, the case of Boromir and his changes at his end are examined.

Hibbs writes that “Gandalf explains that while we can’t always control life’s storms, we can control how we react to the inclement weather.” (p.172) (Said like an ancient Greek Stoic.)

Kant’s (Enlightenment) view of nature being “disenchanted” is contrasted with Tolkien’s fictional view, where “the entirety of nature is not just enchanted but is permeated with reason and moral sense.” (pp.172-3) Hibbs then dismisses any reading of a Manichean vision in Tolkien, instead going with Augustine: evil has no real existence because it is merely an absence, a privation of the good. (p.174)

Chapter 14: Talking Trees and Walking Mountains: Buddhist and Taoist Themes in TLOTR. By Jennifer L. McMahon and B. Steve Csaki.

I had higher hopes for this essay, but it is still okay. The authors seek to “address the themes of sentience in non-human entities, man’s relationship with nature, the importance of the master and student relationship, and the balance between good and evil.” (p.179) (None of these themes have had much relevance to me in my four decades of interest and study of Eastern philosophies and religions.)

The ents obviously cover the sentience part. As for sentience in non-human things in Eastern thought, the authors remind us: “This is particularly true of Japanese Buddhist sects which have incorporated some of the animistic elements of Shinto.” (p.181) (The Shinto belief that certain beautiful locales in nature – e.g., a rocky place, a streambed, a hilltop, a tree or a shoreline – may have their own spirit, or “kami,” has always had an aesthetic resonance with me in my enjoyment of nature, but I never interpret this as a possession of “sentience” on the part of the place or things.)

As for master and student, and the mentoring process, they point out that sometimes the right master may seem to be unlikely. E.g., Zen master Dogen left Japan to find instruction in China, and he learned profound lessons from a Ch’an monastery’s cook whom he ran into on the docks. In TLOTR, Sam is sometimes the wise master that Frodo needs. Also, Gandalf, Elrond and Aragorn share their vast wisdom with the hobbits. (pp.185-188)

As for a balance between good and evil, the Taoist yin/yang balance is discussed.

Chapter 15: Sam and Frodo’s Excellent Adventure: Tolkien’s Journey Motif. By J. Lenore Wright.

“Not all those who wander are lost.” (p.195) A quote from Bilbo Baggins, one of my favorite characters in Tolkien.

Wright talks about journey motifs: the journey out of the Cave into the light in Plato’s *Republic*; Augustine’s *Confessions*, depicting his spiritual journey from pagan Rome to Manichaeism to Academic Skepticism and finally to St. Ambrose. (pp.194-5)

Descartes’ scientific journeys of discovery led him to turn inward, in his words, “to undertake studies within my self too and to use all the powers of my mind in choosing the paths I should follow.” Frodo and his fellow hobbits transform themselves throughout their journey, and they realize Nietzsche’s advice to “become who you are.” (pp.196-7)

In their personal transformations, Gandalf, Aragorn and Sam all have some kind of name changes, which is an important journey motif, as in the great Chinese tale, *Journey to the West*, where “Monkey” eventually becomes known as a “Buddha Victorious in Strife.” (p.198)

Sam and Frodo are Nietzschean “Yea-sayers,” who welcome life despite its burdens. But Smeagol and Saruman are “Nay-sayers,” becoming “inauthentic” in Heidegger’s terms. (p.199) Sam and Frodo are also pilgrims on a “Quest,” and they need guides such as Gandalf and Aragorn. Frodo, much like Dante moving with the guidance of Virgil through Hell, stumbles, faints and struggles against the spiritual weight of the Ring. (p.201)

Chapter 16: Happy Endings and Religious Hope: TLOTR as an Epic Fairy Tale. By John J. Davenport. [Final essay in this collection, and one of my favorites.]

This is a great essay, the kind that opens new avenues of thought. The title sums it up pretty well. It took me about three readings of this essay before I could really integrate it. Although I have a lot of major religious/philosophical differences with Tolkien (and Davenport), I think Davenport’s essay is a very important one when thinking about Tolkien’s works.

Davenport starts by saying that some readers see TLOTR as an entertaining adventure, while others see it as a Christian allegory. He says: “I will argue instead that Tolkien conceived his masterpiece as an epic fairy tale with a kind of religious significance.” … “I will look at Tolkien’s theory of the fairy tale and his Arthurian romance model for the happy ending in TLOTR.” (p.204) I found what follows to be very interesting.

Noting the long-standing critical debate about whether or not TLOTR is a fundamentally religious work, Davenport points out that Tolkien’s work is closer to Northern European mythology in many ways.

In a footnote, Davenport writes: “…I would argue that Tolkien’s work is also deeply inspired by the Arthurian legends and the larger cycle of British national mythology. The very first story Tolkien wrote about his fictional world, ‘The Fall of Gondolin’, has clear links to the Fall of King Arthur.” (p.205)

Davenport draws heavily upon Tolkien’s essay “On Fairy Stories” (which was also cited earlier in this volume in Ch. 3 by Milbank and in Ch. 4 by Bassham) and claims it is an essential essay for understanding Tolkien. Rather than being stories for children, in Davenport’s words, genuine fairy-stories for Tolkien are a form of “serious literary art in which nature appears as a ‘Perilous Realm’, the world of ‘Faerie’.” (p.207-8)

Tolkien always insisted in his letters on the importance of his theory of fairy stories to his work. Davenport mentions other good examples of this type of fairy story: the original *Perseus and the Gorgon* and *Sir Gawain and the Green Knight*. (p.208)

Tolkien coins a term, “eucatastrophe,” for the kind of happy ending in a fairy story that appears right in the middle of apparent catastrophe, a kind of joyous “turn” in the story. Davenport writes: “[Tolkien] conceives tragedy as the true form and highest function of drama, and eucatastrophe as the true form and highest function of fairy-tale.” (p.210)

Talking about the New Testament stories of the Resurrection, Tolkien says, “The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories.” (p.211) Davenport says that the Gospels have a eucatastrophe – i.e., the Resurrection -- that holds out more direct hope than the more indirect ones of most fairy-stories.

Davenport very convincingly argues that the medieval tale of *Sir Gawain and the Green Knight* is one that “…Tolkien studied closely and used in creating Frodo.” (p.211) Later Davenport writes that “…Gawain is Tolkien’s primary model for Frodo.” (p.212)

The Green Knight is a variant of the “green man” nature spirit in ancient Celtic myth. (p.211) He is immensely powerful, and it looks certain that Gawain will die by his blade. But a eucatastrophe occurs, a “turn” in the story that saves Gawain from death, although Gawain receives a scar from the contest that he will carry for the rest of his life. (p.212)

Frodo, too, will receive a scar, the loss of a finger, during the eucatastrophe that occurs at a climactic moment in his story, saving him from near certain doom. (p.212) In Tolkien’s *The Silmarillion*, Beren’s quest for a Silmaril results in a similar scarring, the loss of a hand. (p.214) [Robert Bly’s book, *Iron John*, investigates fairy tales and emphasizes both the fictional and existential importance of wounds and scars in the journey to true manhood. –R.B.]

Davenport writes: “Tolkien’s primary goal in TLOTR was to create a fantasy for our time with the same eucatastrophic power that Gawain’s fantastic tale had for fifteenth-century Britons, and this is what gives his trilogy its encompassing religious mood.” (p.213)

Davenport writes that, while the unfinished *The Silmarillion* was designed to be an epic, “…TLOTR is meant to *combine* the epic quest narrative with the eucatastrophic (or indirectly eschatological) significance of the true faerie tale.” (p.215) This combination had never been done before in British or Germanic mythology.

Davenport then catalogs many of the eucatastrophes within TLOTR, ending with Aragorn’s act of “turning”: turning around to find the sapling of Nimloth, the White Tree of Numenor, that itself has a pedigree going all the way back to the earliest of days. (p.218)

[End of my reviews of this volume’s essays.]

After-notes by reviewer:

I had been wondering for many decades and never really understood why it was that Tolkien could be so beloved by many I knew who are Christians. It seemed exceedingly odd and inappropriate to me, because in my experience Tolkien was a terrific hit mainly among neo-pagans I knew or knew of, many of whom are certain that Tolkien was one of the major influences in the 20th century revival of Paganism in the West. But I think many of the essays in this volume help explain the situation to me in some degree. TLOTR is a pre-Christian tale modeled on the very ancient pagan North, but some of Tolkien’s Roman Catholicism still does come through (including the Aristotelianism that Aquinas had synthesized into the Catholic tradition).

One of my main disappointments with TLOTR has always been the episode where I felt that Frodo “dropped the ball” at a critical moment, thus he fell a notch or two in his heroic stature in my mind. The tiny hobbit, who heroically declared “I will take the Ring” on the Quest, later fell somewhat short of my expectations of a true hero. But Davenport’s discussion of Tolkien’s eucatastrophic vision of the fairy tale explains this all very well regarding the aesthetic purpose of the entire story. Tolkien – although being a 20th century writer -- is not really in the Romantic traditions of heroism that I so love and prefer, as were developed in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Yet I love *The Hobbit*, *TLOTR* and *The Silmarillion.* I think I like them so much because of their sense of a history, as well as the poetry in them, and the nature-aesthetic that Tolkien makes so real. There are also heroes aplenty, in the roles of Sam, Strider, and many, many more. It really is an epic fairy tale.

-Ross Barlow.

*Popular Culture and Philosophy* is a book series from Open Court publishers. Series Editor: William Irwin. This is a very interesting project and a lot of fun. If you have any interest in or background in philosophy, you might enjoy some of their titles.

I only became aware of this book series when browsing through an Asia Books store in Bangkok and finding *The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All*, (2003), edited by Gregory Bassham and Eric Bronson. On the basis of this one book – which is Number 5 in a series of a few dozen titles -- I would predict that certain volumes in the rest of the series (the titles of which I list below) may very well be of interest to many who read this.

In my case, I know J.R.R. Tolkien’s *The Lord of the Rings* (TLOTR) fairly well, being a huge fan of both the books and the movies, and I must say that *TLOTR and Philosophy* is an extremely well done book. It is funny as well as thoughtful, interesting and informative. There are 17 contributors all of whom are professional philosophers and/or theologians who love Tolkien. There are many “inside” jokes that only Tolkien fans will fully understand and appreciate. The book is a delight because of the obvious shared love of the material by editors and contributing authors. The authors come from all over the philosophical map, providing views from quite diverse philosophical vantage points. I do not agree with all of them, but the essays are always instructive and mind-stretching. My favorite is Aeon Skoble’s application of Aristotelian virtue ethics to TLOTR. (Aeon Skoble is editor of *Reason Papers*.)

I played a little game with myself while reading the book. I purposely did not look at the back of the book for the author’s profile paragraph until I had finished reading his or her essay. I did not want to start reading with a preconception, and I wanted to see how much I could guess about the author just from the text alone.

Extrapolating from my own great appreciation of this one volume, I would urge you to seek out any of the titles below that might examine a particular topic for which you have a strong fondness and understanding.

The following titles are in this Open Court series:

Seinfeld and Philosophy: A Book About Everything and Nothing. (2000).

The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh! of Homer. (2001). (Aeon Skoble, ed.)

The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real. (2002).

Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale.

The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All. (2003).

Baseball and Philosophy. (2004).

The Sopranos and Philosophy: I Kill, Therefore I Am. (2004).

Woody Allen and Philosophy. (2004). ed., Mark T. Conard and Aeon J. Skoble.

Philosophy and Neo-Noir.

Our Spiritual Crisis.

Poker and Philosophy: Pocket Rockets and Philosopher Kings.

Hip-Hop and Philosophy: Rhyme 2 Reason.

The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film.

The Beatles and Philosophy.

U2 and Philosophy: How to Decipher an Atomic Band.

James Bond and Philosophy.

Bob Dylan and Philosophy.

Star Wars and Philosophy.

Hitchcock and Philosophy.

The Undead and Philosophy: Chicken Soup for the Soulless.

Monty Python and Philosophy: Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think!

The Chronicles of Narnia and Philosophy: The Lion, the Witch, & the Worldview.

South Park and Philosophy: Bigger, Longer, and More Penetrating.

Quentin Tarantino and Philosophy.

Bullshit and Philosophy.

Pink Floyd and Philosophy.

Harley-Davidson and Philosophy.

More Matrix and Philosophy: Revolutions and Reloaded Decoded.

The Grateful Dead and Philosophy.

Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way.

The Philosophy of Film Noir.

The Atkins Diet and Philosophy.

With such a variety of titles, there is probably something to offend or to elate near anyone. I hope that the series will keep expanding.

I will send a follow-up post which is my review of *The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All*. Even if you do not like TLOTR, my review of it may give you an idea about the nature of the Open Court series by this one example from it.

-Ross Barlow.

Jim,

Sorry to hear about your grandmother. Grandmothers are irreplaceable. No more stories, no more of that wisdom from a life well-lived. I understand the empty place that it must now create in your own life.

My own maternal grandma was 98 when she died, having seen a world of no automobiles or airplanes in her youth and then living to see men walking on the moon. Your mention of raspberries reminds me of my own paternal grandma. In her last year of life, I visited her with a bowl of red raspberries – her very favorite kind – that I had picked on that July afternoon. Watching her eyes light up like a little kid when she saw them is still, for me, one of the most priceless memories I have of her.

.

-Ross Barlow.

I also like much of the work of Maxfield Parrish. I especially like the Classical landscapes with joyous, passionate and intelligent young women in the foreground. He seemed to capture sunlit mountains well, giving me a feeling of Greece.

I do not know how much of Parrish’s work that Rand was familiar with. He did a tremendous number of works over many decades, so it would have been hard to miss. But he did do quite a big variety of themes, much of it in children’s stories, calendars, advertising and magazines. Much of it was cartoonish and silly, and if this was what Rand called “trash,” then I see where she was coming from (although I still find most of that variety to often be charming). Parrish himself said that he was sick of doing many of the types of art that were always demanded of him.

.

-Ross Barlow.

Barbara,

I think I am going to avoid traveling via this particular airline. Thanks for the warning.

.

-Ross Barlow.

Thank you, Steve, for this startling new information. It has cleared up a number of mysteries that have been bugging me for decades.

.

-Ross Barlow.