Middle-earth Journeys

I am part of several movements, and I wish I could find a few more that I agreed with! Maybe, marbretherese, we are quibbling over the meaning of the word 'movement'. Your statements seem to suggest that it is necessarily something that people are forced into against their will. I suppose some movements have been like that. But wouldn't you call Chesterton's Distributism and some of the other ideas mentioned in Pearson's quote 'movements'? In some ways, isn't Christianity a movement? (although I don't think it is just a movement). Isn't a movement just some people gathering together to accomplish some goal and inviting others to join them? Is that necessarily bad? Or shouldn't it be judged good or bad as the goal and the means toward it are good or bad?

I suppose I should lay my cards on the table, too: I think rampant individualism, practically a religion here in the US, is responsible for a lot of the evil in the world today, and so a red flag goes up in my mind when I see it emphasized. That's why I have been looking for a middle ground.

I think that many "movements," including religious ones, start out with the best of intentions. But all movements eventually experience schisms dividing them into four basic groups -- conservatives (reactionaries, fundamentalists, etc.) who want to maintain traditions regardless of whether those traditions make sense anymore, or who want to follow what they regard as the literal truth of the movement; progressives (liberals, free-thinkers, etc.) who want to interpret the movement in terms of modern or future ways of life or who wish to modify the movement to encompass more and different kinds of people; and moderates, who see value in both tradition and forward-thinking and try to find a more balanced, middle-of-the-road approach. Then, there are the fanatics, i.e., the nutters -- those who push for either the extreme conservative or extreme progressive view to the point that they begin advocating violent reactions agains those who disagree with them. Unfortunately, the fanatics are also usually very charismatic people who attract followers among the disenchanted and unenlightened.

The problem isn't so much the movement itself -- or the laudable idea or Truth behind the movement -- as it is the inevitable schism and the rise of fanatics. It is the human beings involved and their unavoidable foibles -- especially the nutcases -- that cause the problems.

I guess my point is that all movements are going to be fraught with problems. That doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile or that there is no point in trying. What else are we to do -- throw up our hands and give up without even attempting to make things better? We are human beings, born to strife and struggle. The point of living, I think, is to discover where we belong in the constant struggle to move forward, and then to make the most of our time here to make some kind of difference in a way that is most meaningful to us -- be that educating the illiterate, helping to save the environment, sharing the comfort of our religious beliefs with others, uplifting the downtrodden, creating art that inspires and challenges perceptions, raising the next generation of enlightened individuals, etc.

I think the Professor's work falls in the category of creating art that inspires and challenges. Art can certainly contribute to a movement, but I don't know that art in and of itself can become a movement.

This is an interesting discussion!

Merry, I agree with you wholeheartedly about rampant individualism - or rampant anything, come to that. I suppose I am at heart a moderate of the kind Lindariel has described. She has expressed my reservations far better than I could. The internal politicking within some organisations which started out with the best of intentions does make me uncomfortable, so even where I do belong to them I tend to stay away from the extremes.

This is an interesting discussion, as you've said, Lindariel .

Going back to the Lord of the Rings, individuals - their unique skills and backgrounds - are hugely important but rather than the dangerous kind of 'individualism' the focus of the Fellowship is not on themselves. Far from it - they are sacrificing themselves for the greater good of their communities. I suppose the worst examples of individualism gone wrong are Sauron, Saruman and Denethor.

Each member of the Fellowship is vital the the success of the quest and does something only they could do - Gandalf's wisdom, Frodo's selflessness, Sam's dogged love, Aragorn's skills as a fighter and leader, Gimli's courage, Legolas's far sighteness and skill with the bow. Even Boromir's weakness plays it's part.

They are as good members of a community should be - valuing their people and their way of life - but also strong individuals who learn (especially in the case of the Hobbits) to trust their own strengths to save those communities. I guess it comes down to valuing themselves enough in the right way so they are able to give themselves up if needed.

I think that if done the right way, a group of people becomes more than the sum of their parts. That's why I do not want to give up on movements! That's what happened in a huge way with the Fellowship. They certainly had their extreme members! But that didn't invalidate their working together to achieve something great.

I agree! Though I think I just interpret 'movement' differently. I don't see the Fellowship as a movement and I think it's because of all the associations I have with the word (which I think I've hashed out above) and the difference between following a Truth and an idea, but, yes, 'a group of people becomes more than the sum of their parts' and great things can be achieved (and bad things).

Now was the TCBS a Fellowship or a Movement? Mmmmm. I wonder, if all four of them had lived, if they would have just striven for their ideals individually in their creative lives (with mutual support and encouragement), or if the force of the four combined would have become a movement that would have attracted others like the Pre-Raphaelites? I'm thinking the former, but you never know....

Weren't the Inklings a kind of movement? They had common ideas about what literature and education and even society were supposed to be and they supported each other to bring them about.

That idea has also occured to me, Merry. They were, however, quite selective about who became accepted into their circle - some never made it although they tried. Can a movement be selective?

Another question that requires some thought . We can bash this out happily for days (except I won't be here ).

I'm reading Michael White's biography of Tolkien, published in 2001. Before I tell you what I think of it, I thought you all might like to ponder this theory:

A constant, powerful force throughout Tolkien's life was his love for his mother, and an overwhelming belief in the fact that she had died young because she had been rejected for her Catholicism. This conviction reinforced Tolkien's own faith and led to religion becoming perhaps the most important aspect of his own life.

But it is surely more than a coincidence that Tolkien became interested in language and ancient mythology at almost exactly the same time he lost his mother. Could it be then that a part of Tolkien's subconscious mind felt reseltful of Catholicism, resentful of the fact that the Church had taken his mother from him? Could not this aspect of his inner self have sought out a non-Christian realm, a radical, heathen alternative, a place where there was no Orthodox faith?

I think he's talking bunkum!

But it is surely more than a coincidence that Tolkien became interested in language and ancient mythology at almost exactly the same time he lost his mother

Wasn't it his mother that made him interested in language in the first place, teaching him Latin and (less to his liking) French? She discovered his aptitude and encouraged it. She also gave him books of legends (like the Arthurian romances), Lang's Fairy Books and the fantasy books of George Macdonald. He started being obsessed with the lands of Faerie, myth and dragons long before Mable Tolkien died.

There is that whole tale he told about his mother correcting the line in his own childhood story which contained a 'green, great dragon' to a 'great, green dragon' and wanting to know why.

His delight in Welsh also started before his mother died.

I think White is trying to twist facts to fit a fancy theory. I don't think Tolkien's interest had anything to do with a retreat from the orthodox reality of his mother's faith and her loss.

Yes! I wanted to see if anyone thought this to be as much rubbish as I do. Amateur psychology is a dangerous field!

This is not a very careful book: I do not recommend it. But I'll be posting a few other paragraphs from it in the next few days for your perusal. Here's one:

During a brief period in the 1930s when the family owned a car, Tolkien proved to be at best an erratic driver. . . Tolkien had a series of minor accidents in the car, but they were enough to convince Edith she would be safer using public transport and most of the time, she refused to get into the car when Tolkien was driving. Most frightening was his habit of ignoring traffic signals and when crossing a main road simply heading for a side street without looking and yelling, 'Charge 'em and they scatter!'

Good Lord! He sounds like Mr Bliss. Lucky there were hardly any cars in Oxford when Tolkien was 'charging' about .

That's a gem....

Maybe he thought he was still in the cavalry!

Our friend, Beren, has had an interview with the author of a new book about Tolkien's Aunt Jane:

http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/press/830 ... edling.php

Interesting speculation, don't you think? I have always been intrigued by this relationship (being a somewhat well-educated maiden aunt myself), and I love what Tolkien said about her in his letters.