Pixel Scroll 5/11/17 I Got Two Pixels When I Scrolled The Bones

(1) THE ROARING 20. James Davis Nicoll continues his series of “core” lists with “Twenty Core Trader Speculative Fiction Works Every True SF Fan Should Have On Their Shelves”.

(2) PRIME TIME LE GUIN. Rare video of Ursula K. LeGuin’s Guest of Honor Speech at Aussiecon (1975) has been uploaded to YouTube by Fanac.org.

AussieCon, the 33rd Worldcon, was held in Melbourne, Australia in 1975. Guest of Honor Ursula K. Le Guin gave an insightful and entertaining speech about the state of science fiction, and her part in it. There’s a real sense of community evident here, as well as a delightful sense of humor (look for the propeller beanie). Le Guin’s comments on the place of women in the field are particularly interesting. The bearded gentleman who introduces her is Robin Johnson, chairman of Aussiecon. Thanks to S.C.I.F.I. for digitizing, and to Elayne Pelz for providing us the footage.

 

(3) I FOUGHT THE LAW. Litigation begins: “Bookseller Suing California Over ‘Autograph Law'”. {Publishers Weekly has the story.

Last year, the California legislature broadened a set of civil code regulations focused on autographed collectibles to include “all autographed items” with a value over $5. Assembly Bill 1570 requires anyone selling autographed books to provide an extremely detailed “certificate of authenticity” with each book, describing the book, identifying the signer, noting witnesses of the book signing, insurance information, and other details. Per the new law, booksellers must keep the certificates for seven years or risk substantial damages, court fees, and a civil penalty if the autographed book gets questioned in court.

These new regulations took effect in January, prompting protests from around the state—including a Change.org petition with over 1,700 signatures urging the state legislature to repeal the bill. Petrocelli’s suit marks the first time a California bookseller has challenged the law in court.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, a non-profit law firm defending “private property rights, individual liberty, free enterprise, [and] limited government,” mounted Petrocelli’s lawsuit free of charge, as it does for all its clients. “We spoke to booksellers up and down the coast,” said Anastasia Boden, one of the PLF attorneys representing Book Passage in the suit. “But Bill was the only one so far brave enough to join a constitutional lawsuit and act as a civil rights plaintiff.”

The lawsuit argues that common bookstore practices like guest author lectures and book signings “are fundamental to First Amendment freedoms.” By that argument, the regulations Assembly Bil 1570 places on booksellers violates a basic freedom accorded to all Americans by the Constitution.

According to the lawsuit, the new paperwork and penalties “significantly burdened and seriously threatened” Petrocelli’s efforts to sell books autographed by their authors. Book Passage hosts around 700 author events every year, as well as a “Signed First Editions Club” for dedicated members. These programs, under the new law, would generate thousands of pages of paperwork, as well as the potential for massive liabilities.

(4) POPCORN V. PROTEIN BARS. Yahoo! Beauty finds “Wonder Woman Fans Angry Over ‘ThinkThin’ Movie Promotion Deal”.

Wonder Woman is viewed as a strong and fearless female character in popular culture — and one would think that the production company about to debut a major feature film based on the character would align its marketing tools with the same profile.

Instead, Warner Bros. has partnered with the protein-focused nutrition company ThinkThin to promote the upcoming flick, and it’s causing quite a stir, as many users believe it sends the wrong message.

“We wanted to celebrate a hero film featuring a woman in the leading role,” Michele Kessler, the president of ThinkThin, said in a press release on the partnership. “We love that Wonder Woman has super strength, and we’re proud to offer delicious products that give women the everyday strength they need to power through their day.”

But despite ThinkThin’s belief that its variety of protein smoothie mixes and bars are fit for powerful women — the primary target the upcoming film is celebrating — fans still have a lot to say about the partnership. Many believe teaming up with the company sends the wrong message from the film.

There have proven to be two sides to the controversy — as this pair of tweets shows:

(5) OPEN DOORS. Bryan Thao Worra, President of the Science Fiction Poetry Association, told Specpo readers — “’Science Fiction is for Everyone’ Panel at LA Harbor College a success”.

On April 25th, the Cultural Equity Workgroup invited five science fiction authors and fans to LA Harbor College to discuss the subject “Science Fiction Is For Everyone,” for a room that was at times standing room only.

Held in Tech 110, I was presenting with Stephanie Brown, Michael Paul Gonzalez, Jaymee Goh, Gregg Castro and Steven Barnes. It was a great line-up with some touching comments that drew on diverse fields of knowledge and experience, from the work and influence of Nnedi Okorafor and Octavia Butler, to the way readers and writers have been brought into the world of science fiction not only in the US but around the world. There was a strong highlight on the appeal of steampunk and afrofuturism.

During my portion of the panel, I focused on a discussion of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Poetry Association, and had the honor of previous SFPA president Deborah Kolodji in attendance as well as fellow SFPA member and community builder Denise Dumars facilitating the conversation. Overall, our audience was very engaged with our varied approaches to the speculative arts. I demonstrated that speculative poetry draws on a very extensive tradition back to the very roots of poetry itself. The work of Edgar Allan Poe was cited as one of the key efforts to develop a distinctive American voice in poetry that was distinct from what was found in Europe at the time.

(6) PROMETHEUS ONLINE. The Libertarian Futurist Society has launched a new blog devoted to science fiction, Prometheus Blog which replaces the society newsletter.

The new blog complements our main mission of awarding annual literary awards, the Prometheus Award and the Prometheus Hall of Fame Award, along with periodic special awards and Hall of Fame awards for notable authors.

..We will be offering news about our organization’s awards and actions, and we’ll be publishing reviews of science fiction books and other artistic works of genre interest, and essays on science fiction.

The blog’s introductory post is “Freedom in the Future Tense: A Political History of SF” by Eric S. Raymond, author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar and a longtime SF fan.

One: people whose basic political philosophy is flatly incompatible with libertarianism will continue to find the SF mainstream an uncomfortable place to be. Therefore, sporadic ideological revolts against the Campbellian model of SF will continue, probably about the established rate of one per decade. The Futurians, the New Wave, the cyberpunks, and “Radical Hard SF” were not the end of that story, because the larger political questions that motivated those insurrections are not yet resolved.

Two: all these revolts will fail in pretty much the same way. The genre will absorb or routinize their literary features and discard their political agendas. And SF will continue to puzzle observers who mistake its anti-political DNA for conservatism while missing its underlying radicalism.

And the blog’s coming attractions:

In the next few weeks, we will publish book reviews of all of the current nominees for the 2017 Prometheus Award. A survey of the works of Jack Vance will soon by published. Many other articles are in the pipeline.

(9) STATION INFESTATION. Here’s a rare opportunity to watch a monster movie within a stone’s throw of the locale they terrorized — “Off-Ramp Recommendation: Scientists needed! Giant ants invade Union Station Friday night!”

Let’s face it. Ants are nobody’s favorite. They ruin summer picnics, sneak under the door to steal your crumbs, and are… HUGE?! In 1954 sci-fi film “Them!” ants are gigantic, radioactive, flesh-eating, and coming directly for you!

Friday night, as part of the Metro Art series, Union Station is screening the second film in its “Sci-Fi at Union Station” series. It’s the 1954 sci-fi classic “Them!” LA Times entertainment reporter and classic Hollywood expert Susan King will provide a background on the film and its historical significance to both the sci-fi genre and LA.

Director Gordon Douglas helped created the nuclear monster genre with “Them!” and due to its campy horror, the movie has become a cult-classic. “Them!” follows the creation and subsequent terror of carnivorous insects and their pursuit of film stars James Whitmore, Edmund Gwenn, and Joan Weldon. The film culminates in a battle scene set in our very own city, featuring shots of beautiful Union Station, LA’s neighborhoods, and storm drains.

And if that’s not enough – young Leonard Nimoy appears in the film (in a very minor role)!

(10) MORE FROM WJW. Flyover Fandom has Part 2 of its interview with Walter Jon Williams.

DAF: The Praxis is a very stratified society. What did you look at for inspiration, because at times you will have Peers engaged in almost comedy of manners escapades. At other times they engage in white collar crime. What did you pull from?

WJW: There are almost too many to mention. But certainly the books reflect class and class resentment in the 19th century British empire. Which became more class-based as the century went on, but in addition to the diehard imperialists out to conquer the world, they also produced Bertie Wooster and Oscar Wilde.

The social setting is based on Republican Rome, as that experience came down through Spain and the colonial experience in New Mexico where I live. There are certain practices common in Rome that are still common in New Mexico, such as the patron-client relationship exercised by the leading Spanish families and their descendants.

The underground movements of World War II are another great inspiration. At one point Sula is leading the an underground movement against an occupying army, and I gave her an alias taken from a real-life French resistance heroine, Lucie Aubrac.

(11) TODAY’S DAY

Twilight Zone Day

The Twilight Zone was created by acclaimed television producer Rod Serling in 1959, with the first episode premiering on October 2nd. At the time of its release, it was vastly different from anything else on TV, and it struggled a bit to carve out a niche for itself at the very beginning. In fact, Serling himself, though respected and adored by many, was famous for being one of Hollywood’s most controversial characters and was often call the “angry young man” of Hollywood for his numerous clashes with television executives and sponsors over issues such as censorship, racism, and war. However, his show soon gained a large, devoted audience. Terry Turner of the Chicago Daily News gave it a rave review, saying, “Twilight Zone is about the only show on the air that I actually look forward to seeing. It’s the one series that I will let interfere with other plans.” The Twilight Zone ran for five seasons on CBS from 1959 to 1964.

(12) EXOPLANET STUDY. James Davis Nicoll calls this “more evidence we live in a Hal Clement universe” — “Primitive atmosphere discovered around ‘Warm Neptune'”.

A pioneering new study uncovering the ‘primitive atmosphere’ surrounding a distant world could provide a pivotal breakthrough in the search to how planets form and develop in far-flung galaxies.

A team of international researchers, co-lead by Hannah Wakeford from NASA and Professor David Sing from the University of Exeter, has carried out one of the most detailed studies to date of a ‘Warm Neptune’ – a planet that is similar in size to our own Neptune, but which orbits its sun more closely.

The study revealed that the exoplanet – found around 430 light years from Earth – has an atmosphere that composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, with a relatively cloudless sky.

This primitive atmosphere suggests the planet most likely formed closer to its host star or later in its solar system development, or both, compared to the Ice Giants Neptune or Uranus.

Crucially, the discovery could also have wide implications for how scientists think about the birth and development of planetary systems in distant galaxies.

(13) CRY ME A RIVER. Break out your tissues – ScreenRant is ready to show you “Doctor Who: 15 Most Heartbreaking Moments”. (Boo Who!)

  1. River is saved in The Library

Entire books could be written on The Doctor and River Song and how their relationship is a mess of mixed up timelines. The Doctor’s first moment with her is River’s last with him and wrapping your head around that is a sadder thing than most. As the audience, our relationship with their story begins from The Doctor’s perspective and it’s not until later seasons do we realize just how lovely it really is.

River’s first appearance coincides with her death and it’s tough for us to watch, let alone for The Doctor to experience. She knows his true name, has his screwdriver, and is aware of every moment of their future together but–for the sake of spoilers–knows she can’t divulge too much.

In her dying moments, she talks about her last night with him and how beautiful it was before saying goodbye to the man she’s loved for years, knowing that he’s only just met her.

In a final and also first act of love–The Doctor realizes his future self had a plan and is able to restore River’s mind (saved in the sonic screwdriver) to a computer where she can, in a way, live on for eternity.

(14) MY VOTE. Is it too late to pick Hayley Atwell as the next Doctor Who? ScreenRant sells the idea.

If the series does decide to go for a female Doctor in season eleven, we’re looking pointedly in the direction of Marvel star Hayley Atwell. The British actress shot to fame as Peggy Carter in Captain America: The First Avenger, a role that eventually led to her own spin-off series, Marvel’s Agent Carter. Agent Carter was cancelled after two seasons, to the disappointment of its huge fan base, and Atwell went on to work on Conviction, which was cancelled after only a single season. Although we would have loved to see Atwell find success with the show, this leaves her in need of a new project – and what better than Doctor Who?

Atwell has everything that we are looking for in a new Doctor. She’s British, which is something of a requirement (it’s easier to envision a female Doctor than an American one, for most fans!), and she’s very used to dealing with a major role in a huge franchise, thanks to Marvel. Her role as Agent Carter also proved her ability to work with a sci-fi/fantasy role, and to get physical with a part. Peggy Carter is not afraid to do things her own way, or to get her hands dirty; and while the doctor isn’t as violent as Peggy has been, he certainly does his fair share of physical adventuring. She’s got a genius for comedy, which is a vital part of the show, and she’s mature enough and experienced enough to handle a character as complicated as the Doctor. She’s also much younger than Capaldi – and we’ve seen from past Doctors that the current fandom seems to connect more with younger regenerations. Although longtime fans loved Capaldi’s take on the character, there is no denying that some viewers did find him less appealing than the more boyishly charming Smith and David Tennant.

In addition to all of this, Atwell herself has said that she would like to take on the role. In a Twitter Q&A, the actress said “I’d like to BE Doctor Who”, setting the fandom alight when it happened in 2015. At the time, she was busy with Agent Carter, but now that she’s looking for a new project, we would be surprised if she doesn’t throw her hat in the ring with the BBC. Having a longtime fan join the franchise is always a good thing, as it means that the new star is approaching the role with an in-depth understanding of who, exactly, the Doctor really is.

(15) SCI-FI ORIGINS. This is as exciting as paleontologists finding a record-setting homonid fossil. Yesterday in comments, Bill pointed to a 2014 post by Fred Shapiro claiming an earlier origin for the term “sci-fi” than previously known:

There has been a fair amount of attention given to the question of what is the earliest use of the term “sci-fi.”  The OED’s first use is dated 1955.  The OED web site of science fiction citations has a December 1954 usage by Forrest J. Ackerman, who is often said to be the coiner.  A supposed usage by Robert A. Heinlein in 1949 has been shown to be erroneous.  The term looks very much like a Varietyism, and in fact I have now found an earlier occurrence in Variety:

1954 _Variety_ 17 Feb. 38 (ProQuest)  New Telepix Shows … The commercial possibilities are there as well since “Junior Science,” aside from its positive qualities, is a rewarding change of pace from the more thunderous sci-fi and spaceship packages.

(16) GRAPHIC STORY. Deadline: Hollywood displays the new SyFy logo.

For the first time since the NBCUniversal cable network changed its name from Sci Fi to Syfy in 2009, it is changing its logo, introducing a new identity brand refresh ahead of the channel’s 25th anniversary in September.

(17) SYFY REBOOT. io9 says the logo is a minor change in comparison to what will be happening to Syfy programming: “Syfy’s Plan to Save Itself: Harry Potter, Comic Books, and George R.R. Martin”.

Of course, all of that is window dressing compared what Syfy will actually put up on screens. McCumber said the goal was to go back to high-end, scripted television, with four focuses: space and scifi, fantasy, paranormal and supernatural, and superheroes and comics.

The Expanse and The Magicians are clearly the network’s flagship returning shows, mentioned many times and with pictures all over the presentations. For new projects, it was announced Tuesday night that Happy!, the adaptation of a Grant Morrison comic starring Christopher Meloni that was announced last year, will get a full season. Similarly, the Superman prequel Krypton has a full series order.

The only new project announced was the development of George R.R. Martin’s Nightflyers, a scifi-horror novella he wrote in 1980, which was actually adapted into a movie in 1987.

(18) NEW GRRM TV PROJECT. The Hollywood Reporter says “George R.R. Martin Novella ‘Nightflyers’ Headed for TV on Syfy”.

The ‘Game of Thrones’ creator is teaming with writer Jeff Buhler to develop the drama for the small screen.

Game of Thrones creator George R.R. Martin is expanding his TV footprint.

The author and exec producer of HBO’s fantasy drama is teaming with Syfy to adapt his 1980 novella Nightflyers for the small screen, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.

Set in the future on the eve of Earth’s destruction, a crew of explorers journey on the most advanced ship in the galaxy, The Nightflyer, to intercept a mysterious alien spacecraft that might hold the key to their survival. As the crew nears their destination, they discover that the ship’s artificial intelligence and never-seen captain may be steering them into deadly and unspeakable horrors deep in the dark reaches of space.

(19) DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THIS. The editor of Rabid Puppy Hugo nominee Cirsova apparently is getting it from both sides.

Here’s an example from “his side.”

And I guess this is what provoked Cirsova’s comment. (Waves hello!)

(20) NODDING OFF. Did any SF writers think getting a good night’s sleep in space would be this difficult? “The quest to help astronauts sleep better”.

But getting a good night’s sleep in space is not easy. There are no beds or pillows – astronauts sleep strapped to the wall in sleeping bags. And that’s not all. “There’re probably several reasons they don’t sleep properly,” says Elmenhorst. “Isolation, a sunrise every 90 minutes and [with the ventilation system] it’s quite noisy in the ISS.” Often, astronauts have to work shifts to monitor experiments or capture visiting supply ships.

To investigate how this lack of sleep affects astronauts’ performance, Elmenhorst’s team has been subjecting groups of paid volunteers to sleep deprivation experiments. “We want to show how sleep loss affects cognitive function,” she says, “and how some people cope better than others.”

(21) SEE-THRU. “Scientists 3D-print transparent glass” – a video report. Chip Hitchcock sent the link with a comment, “It will be interesting to see whether they ever make their goal of printing photographic lenses, which would require very fine control.”

(22) BUDDHISM AND SCIENCE. How did the religion gain its reputation for being less incompatible with science than many others? At NPR: “Buddhism, Science And The Western World”.

Of course, by its very nature religion, all religions, are changed by their encounters with new cultures. This is particularly true of Buddhism and its steady march eastward from its birth in India 2,500 years ago. Religions always have a way of outgrowing their own scriptural and ritual basis, while simultaneously holding on to them. As author Karen Armstrong has shown, practitioners in any age are always selecting out those parts of their religions that are meaningful to them while ignoring the parts that seem dated. She called the process “creative misreading.”

[Robert] Sharf has no problem with the creative misreading that allows Buddhist Modernism to share space with scientific worldviews. “My concern,” he told Tricycle, “is not with the selectivity of those who read Buddhism as a rationalist and scientific religion — it is perfectly understandable given the world in which we live. It is really not a question of misreading. It is a question of what gets lost in the process.”

(23) SITH REALITY. Cédric Delsaux has put an interesting spin on Star Wars by incorporating its imagery into real photos.

“Over the years, many artists have interpreted Star Wars in ways that extend well beyond anything we saw in the films. One of the most unique and intriguing interpretations that I have seen is in the work of Cedric Delsaux, who has cleverly integrated Star Wars characters and vehicles into stark urban, industrial – but unmistakably earthbound – environments. As novel and disruptive as his images are, they are also completely plausible.”

George Lucas

(24) WRITE A BIG CHECK. An early visualization of the idea for Disneyland will be auctioned soon, and it won’t go cheap — “Original Disneyland concept art shows park origins, growth”.

Tomorrowland was originally going to be called World of Tomorrow. Frontierland was Frontier Country. Lilliputian Land never became a reality at Disneyland. And no one could have foreseen a “Star Wars” land opening in 2019.

Walt Disney spent a marathon weekend in 1953 brainstorming ideas for the new family amusement park he envisioned called Disneyland. There would be a train station and an old-fashioned Main Street square. The park would have a princess castle and a pirate ship, maybe even a rocket. Disney wanted to get investors on board, so he described the various elements he imagined to artist Herb Ryman, who translated them into a hand-drawn map — Disneyland’s first.

That original concept art could fetch as much as $1 million when it goes up for auction next month, auctioneer Mike Van Eaton said.

(25) ANIMATION ROUNDUP. Financial Times writer James Mottram, in “Are animation movies growing up?”, gives an overview of current arthouse animation projects, including Tehran Taboo, Your Name, and the Oscar-nominated film which is My Life As A Zucchini in the US and My Life As A Courgette in the Uk.  He includes an interview with Michael Dudok de Wit, director of the Oscar-nomnated, Studio Ghibli-backedThe Red Turtle. (The link is to the Google cache file, which worked for me – I hope it will work for you!)

[Thanks to JJ, Chip Hitchcock, Martin Morse Wooster, James Davis Nicoll, rcade, Eli, Bill, Cat Eldridge, and John King Tarpinian for some of these stories. Title credit goes to File 770 contributing editor of the day Robert Whitaker Sirignano.]

238 thoughts on “Pixel Scroll 5/11/17 I Got Two Pixels When I Scrolled The Bones

  1. Also, the word feudalism is thrown around far to much. I dont se feudalism in Middle-Earth, except in a limited economic sense among the hobbits.

    The dwarven and elven kingdoms may be feodal, but it would be feudalism without peasants, which I think would stretch the content of the concept. (How feudalism with hunter/gatherers or craftsmen and miners in the bottom would work is an interesting question).

    Gondor seems much closer to Rome, Egypt or imperial China than to any feudal society, and Rohan and Dale reminds you of pre-feudal germanic societies.

  2. @P J Evans: I’ve read that Campbell didn’t just run “Weyr Search”; he specifically asked for a science fiction story with dragons — and then kept poking McCaffrey for stories carrying forward the world-extending consequences of previous stories. (I hate that sentence, but I don’t remember the precise text of her remarks 42 years ago. I do remember her telling of the shock of an audience member on working out the consequences of green dragons, several decades before Sarah Monette’s wolves.)

    A forceful personality is not automatically wrong — but they’re apt to make a mess when untempered by judgment (including about themselves), which Campbell shows up very short on. I’ve seen this locally, in someone who didn’t share Campbell’s enthusiasm for fake science but who was similarly non-introspective.

  3. @Micael: Well, we don’t really know entirely what the elvish and dwarvish societies were like on the bottom, because Tolkien generally only shows us the doings of those at the top of the heap. The same goes for Gondor and Rohan as well. Pretty much every character of note in the book is either royalty or nobility, or holds some other relatively privileged position, and a surprisingly large number of them are related to one another.

  4. @Aaron: we know the bottom level for the elves of Mirkwood cannot be peasants. Unless they live by sunshine and magic alone, they have to live on game, nuts, mushrooms and berries. Lothlorien may have some limited agriculture (at least enough to make lembas). On the other hand, the economic system might be some kind of “socialism” with collective ownership and production organised in small produktive units as far as we know. Except for the leadership of Galadriel and Celeborn there is nothing that looks like an aristocracy; the other elves of Lorien (like the elf who gave Sam the elven rope) seems to be ordinary silvan elves. And the relative “egalitarianism” of the rulers are implied when they, unlike human rulers who would have remained seated, rise to greet their guests. And the policy towards the outside world definitively have an albanian or north korean flavour?.

    My point about feudalism among humans stands even we dont know about the bottom levelof Rohan and Gondor, since there doesnt seem to be a feudal organisation of society on the top level either; it is as I said rather pre-feudal scandinavia and Rome/Egypt/China respectively.

  5. I hold the elves are an anarcho-syndicalist commune. They take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week… but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting… by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs… but by a two thirds majority in the case of…

    Well, never mind…

  6. the other elves of Lorien (like the elf who gave Sam the elven rope) seems to be ordinary silvan elves.

    If I remember correctly, that would be Haldir, the Marchwarden of Lorien. He’s at least someone of note, if not a member of the elven nobility.

    My point about feudalism among humans stands even we dont know about the bottom levelof Rohan and Gondor, since there doesnt seem to be a feudal organisation of society on the top level either.

    You don’t think the sequence where the various lords of Gondor lead their troops into Minas Tirith in order to defend the city doesn’t at least suggest a feudal relationship? Other than Beregond, there isn’t a person in Rohan or Gondor who has any speaking role who isn’t either a member of the royal family, or, like Erkenbrand and Forlong, a prominent noble landholder.

  7. @Aaron:You may be right; the way regional leaders bring armiies into Minas Tirith may imply feudalism. Gondor, however, does not become feudal through being unequal; pharaonic Egypt was hardly an egalitarian paradise. Regarding Rohan; are you sure Erkenbrand is a feudal landholder rather than a kind of chieftain? I did not think Halldir was the one who gave Sam the rope, but I may misremember.

  8. Eorl the Young was granted an area of Northern Gondor as a reward for military action. After that, the House of Eorl holds Rohan as a fief from Gondor, and in return is supposed to support Gondor militarily when needed. That’s fairly classic feudalism. What little information we get about the muster of forces from Southern Gondor also fits with feudalism. Going back in time, the Dead Men of Dunharrow had pledged allegiance to Isildur but failed to show when Isildur marched to battle. (And note they’re led by a king, not a province governor or general or other non-hereditary leader.)

    There’s not much information in the text about the internal political organization in Rohan. There doesn’t seem to be much in terms of “lords”, and high military positions seems to be granted by Theoden and not hereditary, which speaks against feudalism. On the other hand, the hereditary nature of the kingship and the lack of anything resembling a thing in the text fits very poorly with pre-feudal Scandinavian/Germanic kingdoms.

    The nature of agriculture in Mirkwood and Lorien, and whether or not Elvish “peasants” exists, is a question for itself. I think the best is to not think too closely on the details of where elves and dwarves get their food from – because I don’t think Tolkien himself thought too much about it either.

  9. @ Stoic Cynic:

    Posts like yours are why I don’t eat or drink sitting at the computer (I would be replacing keyboards daily)!

    Take this, the Holy Internet of Antioch, so you may battle against repression and the violence inherent in the system.

    (I sorely needed that laugh today)!

  10. Actually, we do know how dwarves get food if we accept the texts that Christoffer Tolkien have published after his fathers death. The Peoples of Middle Earth contains early versions of the appendixes of LOTHR., where we learn that the dwarves from the second age and on usually lives in a symbiotic relationship with humans sociaties (for example Erebor and Dale) where dwarves exchange tools and weapons for food.

    Regarding Rohan; it may be a feudal relationship to Gondor, or Gondor may have ceded the territory in exchange for an alliance. Gondor and Rohan may of course have different views of what their relationship really are.

    The internal situation in Rohan does not seem feudal to me, but I agree that the lack of a Ting is a point against asociating to closely to early scandinavian social organisation.

  11. where dwarves exchange tools and weapons for food.

    Well, sure. Just don’t think too closely on the economics of human farmers vs dwarvish smiths. 😉

  12. Just don’t think too closely on the economics of human farmers vs dwarvish smiths.

    “It was a fair exchange. I stuck my sword in him, and in return he gave up his food.”

  13. “Please, Mister, can you spare a few bucks? I’m hungry, and I ain’t got nothin’ in the world except this here loaded gun!”

  14. Regarding Rohan; are you sure Erkenbrand is a feudal landholder rather than a kind of chieftain?

    Erkenbrand was the Lord of Westfold at the start of the War of the Ring, and afterwards Eomer elevated him to Marshal of the West-Mark. These seem like the titles of the feudal landholder rather than a chief of a people.

  15. Aaron: Just to throw out a thought — some of these titles and arrangements remind me of the organization of Charlemagne’s kingdom.

  16. I totally get that I was never the biggest Lord of the Rings fan — read the books once, saw the movies, feel no need to ever read the books again — but I am utterly boggled to see so many Filers able to hold such incredibly detailed discussions on the specifics of the books’ events and worldbuilding.

  17. Something to think about — libertarianism is a philosophy of government more than a method or implementation. A dictatorship, if benevolent, could be more libertarian than a democracy.

  18. @JJ: I’m in a similar boat, because although I like them (the books at least – the films, not so much) I read them when I was 8 or 9 and didn’t pick up much on the finer details of worldbuilding; I just enjoyed them in a very Nutty Nuggets kind of way.

  19. Just to throw out a thought — some of these titles and arrangements remind me of the organization of Charlemagne’s kingdom.

    There may be something to that. I read somewhere (I can’t remember where) that Tolkien believed that the Saxons would have won at the Battle of Hastings if only they had some effective cavalry, and if that happened, then we would have gotten a “proper” English literature unpolluted by all that French stuff that Tolkien despised. The creation of the Rohirrim seems to have been his attempt to envision a Saxon (and therefore Germanic) culture that was centered around horsemanship.

  20. I am utterly boggled to see so many Filers able to hold such incredibly detailed discussions on the specifics of the books’ events and worldbuilding.

    I’ve read the books several times each, and a bunch a works of commentary on them as well. I haven’t reread them in several years, but there was a time period where I would reread them once every two or three years. I probably would have been better off had I used that time to read new books, but I didn’t, so I have all this mostly useless Tolkien knowledge in my head now.

  21. @JJ,
    The Hobbit & LotR were my gateway drug, so it’s no surprise I’ve read them a few times & retained much of the detail. It’s probably no surprise to Filers that I’ve also read The Silmarillion & Unfinished Tales a few times too, which provided more of the world-building detail. I didn’t quite make it through all the volumes of The History of Middle Earth though…

  22. They were basically required reading in the house I grew up in.

    (And by “required reading”, I mean, the things our parents encouraged us to read by…frequently re-reading themselves.) 🙂

    As a teen, I enjoyed them fairly uncritically, and soaked myself in the lore repeatedly. As I got older, I did develop a few criticisms, but the lore’s still there.

  23. As always, I apologize for the delay.

    Re: LotR and libertarianism

    I agree with a lot of the thoughts about the book having a largely feudal system of government. But that misses the larger point about what government does and does not do.

    Throughout the book, we really have no idea what Sauron wants to do once he wins. The return of the Hobbits to the Shire provides the answer to that question.

    In each group (Shire, elves, Rohan, etc.), the government exists, but it is restrained. That restraint is apparently a matter of constitution rather than one of Constitution. The net result is taxation that is not onerous, free trade, and lives generally unburdened by the caprices of the nobility.

    This entire discussion reminds me of discussions surrounding the government in Starship Troopers. Both books present a sort of minimally described “government that works” condition. People then paint their own biases on a largely blank canvas.

    The point was not to dissect a government/social structure that largely functions acceptably. The point was to look at/oppose something that clearly was a much worse option.

    @Chip Hitchcock

    A random person attempting to “encourage a healthy weight” is being, at least, excessively personal; anyone doing so without being the object’s personal physician is insufficiently knowledgeable – and even personal physicians can be blinkered (e.g., my practice still reports my BMI despite its inadequacy as a measurement).

    I agree. Which is why I’ve not made any statement about any one person being overweight.

    At the same time, the US has an obesity problem. And that is causing a problem with increasing diabetes, heart problems, and other health issues. Ignoring those inconvenient facts won’t make them go away.

    I agree on the BMI to an extent. Its usefulness is on par with that of a small compass. You’ll know north from south, but you won’t know if you are accurately aimed towards 10° or 12° or 15°.

    @Hampus

    I disagree to an extent. It is OK, in my book, to look towards an ideal condition/objective as long as 1) the objective is positive/productive and 2) a person maintains a sense of perspective on achieving that objective. I’ll never be a better writer than Stephen King. That doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t learn from his success.

    @Dr. Abernethy

    I’m not suggesting that cheap food is a problem in need of government regulation/solution. I am pointing out that cheap food coupled with eating habits that are driven by culture and evolution make it easier for people to become obese.

    @Mark

    The message in TLTL was “you may be seated, class”

    Yes! That encapsulates a number of my criticisms nicely.

    Regard,
    Dann

  24. The return of the Hobbits to the Shire provides the answer to that question.

    Maybe. The power in the Shire that the Hobbits overthrow is Saurman, not Sauron.

    The net result is taxation that is not onerous, free trade, and lives generally unburdened by the caprices of the nobility.

    We actually don’t know that, since we don’t really have a viewpoint offered that is not that of the nobility.

  25. The books were required reading in my house, too; my older brother gave me his set when I was 8 or 9. Also I saw the movies. I never made it through the Silmarillion. Also Wikipedia has ridiculously-detailed articles much like we’re talking here.

    I don’t see much free trade going on — all the various kingdoms and earldoms and such seem to be very insular. Not a lot of travel/contact between peoples. Nobody seems to get around widely except for Strider, and we know why that is. The other Rangers too, I guess.

    And no insult to the Professor, but a proper British literature would be written in something like Welsh. Those Saxons were invaders just as much as the Frenchified Vikings!

  26. “I disagree to an extent. It is OK, in my book, to look towards an ideal condition/objective as long as 1) the objective is positive/productive and 2) a person maintains a sense of perspective on achieving that objective. I’ll never be a better writer than Stephen King. That doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t learn from his success.”

    But with regards to weight, having a bit of overweight is the healthiest decision. So if you want the ideal condition for health, being thin is not the direction to go.

  27. Dr. Abernathy:

    “@Hampus – Part of your body shape is how big your frame is. You can assess this by the thickness of your wrist (unless morbidly obese). Some people have thick bone structures, other thin. That partly determines your normal healthy weight.”

    Thank you for saying this to me. It is of course wrong, I have very small wrists while I have a much thicker chest and body structure, but thank you anyhow.

  28. @Lurkertype

    People appear to be left to trade freely among themselves without excessive levels of regulation/oversight. Intra-group trade seems to be largely unhampered.

    I agree that the amount of inter-group trading is pretty low. Dale used to trade with the dwarves under the mountain. Bree appears to be a bit of a waypoint between the humans and the hobbits, but again, we don’t see a ton of trade.

    @Aaron

    While it is technically true that they overthrew Saruman’s forces, Saruman was working for/with Sauron. He had many orcs from Mordor in his retinue.

    In any case, we are both arguing from a position bereft of evidence. You seem to be imprinting the facts of how many feudal societies actually functioned on the book despite the book not providing any confirmation that this is how things worked. I’m arguing that the lack of complaints about over taxation, intrusive regulations, and capricious government means that those things didn’t exist. There isn’t enough in the book to really make a persuasive case either way, IMHO.

    FWIW, this discussion has prompted me to (finally) re-post something I wrote about LotR back in 2002.

    Regards,
    Dann

  29. You seem to be imprinting the facts of how many feudal societies actually functioned on the book despite the book not providing any confirmation that this is how things worked.

    This can also be described as assuming Tolkien intended words to mean what they mean. He doesn’t actually describe all the details, but he was a medievalist and a historian and he based his fictional world on what he knew.

    So, sure, when he says that the Shire belongs to the hobbits because the king decreed that Men weren’t to pass its borders, maybe that doesn’t mean that they were subject to the king, as long as we pretend he means something else.

    But Tolkien used the words he wanted to use and he didn’t like to use them inaccurately, so it seems reasonable to interpret his words as if they’re accurate to what he understood them to mean, based on his knowledge and interests.

    I’m arguing that the lack of complaints about over taxation, intrusive regulations, and capricious government means that those things didn’t exist.

    There’s at least one complaint about tax in LOTR — the Beornings levied a toll to keep the High Pass open, and Gloin thought it was too high.

    We know the Númenóreans collected taxes, and we know various kings had treasure-troves. While Tolkien didn’t say they got them in the usual way, it seems unlikely that armies were equipped, roads were maintained for public use, ferries were repaired, et cetera, all by disorganized communal behavior.

    At least in the Shire, pre-Sharky, the taxes don’t seem to have been onerous and government didn’t seem to be capricious. But there was a government, it was charged to maintain the roads by the King, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to figure that Tolkien didn’t make up an unusual form of government for that kind of set-up and then never mention it — Tolkien liked to use what he made up.

    It seems most logical to figure that Tolkien assumed usual practices, but since he wanted the Shire to seem like a bucolic and pleasant place, he set it up so that the hobbits just liked it the way it was and didn’t complain. Thus the government wasn’t capricious and the taxes weren’t onerous, but the citizens benefited from the Post and the Shirrifs and the Bounders, and supported them in some way.

    We don’t know the details, but just because Tolkien didn’t define everything doesn’t mean that it’s all a mysterious unknown. He wasn’t making up his world out of whole cloth, but out of history and legend and cultures he knew.

  30. You seem to be imprinting the facts of how many feudal societies actually functioned on the book despite the book not providing any confirmation that this is how things worked.

    I’m using titles given to individuals and actions they take that are consistent with a feudal society to infer that there is, in fact, a feudal society. I suppose Tolkien might have meant for the societies he described that had noble titles and various people bound to service by oaths of loyalty and the like to not be like the real world historical examples that had those features, but that seems unlikely. I’m using textual material to figure out an outline of the whole from the parts Tolkien gave us.

    I’m arguing that the lack of complaints about over taxation, intrusive regulations, and capricious government means that those things didn’t exist.

    You’re basically using material that isn’t in the text to construct what you would like there to be in the book. You’re basically saying that because Tolkien never said anything on a particular subject, that what he intended was the result that you favor. That’s not using the text to infer anything. That’s using the absence of text to make something up from whole cloth.

  31. It might be that the hobbits were socialists and liked to live in a welfare state. That is why most of them didn’t complain about taxes. At least that seems as logical as seeing their society as libertarian.

    There just is no good argument for finding anything libertarian in LOTR. Only the classic award argument – you have to select the most famous candidates for your award, because that is what gives you good press.

  32. Only the classic award argument – you have to select the most famous candidates for your award, because that is what gives you good press.

    There’s also the observable fact that people who nominate things for awards often don’t pay a lick of attention to the parameters.

    I’m on the judging committee for the Bill Finger Award, an annual award given to comic book writers, specifically “to recognize writers for a body of work that has not received its rightful reward and/or recognition.”

    Every year, one of the top nominees: Stan Lee.

    It’s hard to name many comic book writers who’ve gotten more reward and recognition than Stan. But people see a comics writing award, and figure Stan should win it, even though it’s specifically for people who didn’t get the kind of recognition and reward he did.

    But hey. People is people.

  33. @Aaron: I dont think there are many feudal titles in Middle Earh. At least no dukes, earls, counts, barons, baronets etc. And no knights. And no castles.The lack of knights and chivalry is propably what gave me the strongest impression of no feudalism, which I agree is irrational, since it concerns the superstructure, and not the political and economic system. Your argument about how the regions supplies troops to Minas Tirith is a good argument for some kind of feudalism. Maybe both Gondor and Rohan are approaching feudalism from opposite directions; Rohan from a more tribal society, Gondor from a centralised empire.

  34. Regarding trade in Middle Earth:the elves of Mirkwood import fine wines from Dorwinion near Rhun, with Laketown as middlemen.

    The hobbits imports metal tools from dwarves, which is necesary due to the lack of metal ore in the Shire.

    The reason there generally seems to be so little trade is the severe depopulation of northwestern Middle Earh during the last part of the third age. Empty houses in the city of Minas Tirith and empty farmsteads outside is mentioned as examples of population decline in Gondor. And IT is worse outside Gondor. Boromir loses his horse at the flooded ruins of Tharbad, when he is on his way to Rivendell. Tharbad was a large city, built at both side of the Grey river (Gwathlo), at a site where oceangoing ships could reach through the very deep and large river. And Aragorn and the hobbits passes ruins from the kingdom of Rhudaur when they are on their way to Rivendell. Neither of this is superancient first or second age ruins, but places that thrived during more than half of the third age. The same goes for the vale of andningen between the mista mountains and Mirkwood.

  35. The reason we dont see hobbits grumble about taxes, is that the story isnt told from the point of the Sackville-Baggins. I bet they grumbled a lot.

  36. And no knights. And no castles.

    There are the Knights of Dol Amroth. Pippen was knighted by Aragorn as a “Knight of Gondor” at the end of the books. I’d have to go back and double check, but I believe that Theoden is described as riding with his knights at one point.

    And what is Helm’s Deep if not a castle?

  37. @Aaron: Helms Deep is a fortification. Whether you fall that a castle or not may depend on definitions. Is Minas Tirith a castle?

    I must admit I didnt remember the knights of Dol Amroth or that i was the title “knight” that Aragorn gave Pippin. So there might be something I missed. But at least there are no tournaments with jousting, and no courtly love (unless you think of Gimli regarding Galadriel-damn, all my arguments fall to pieces).

  38. Helms Deep is a fortification.

    I’m not sure the distinction you’re making here. Castles are fortifications. Minas Tirith is more of a fortified city, but Helm’s Deep seems to me to be a royal castle. There’s also the various castle-like structures built around Mordor that were originally constructed by Gondor – Carchost and Narchost for example.

    But at least there are no tournaments with jousting, and no courtly love

    I would consider courtly love in a book to be an element of Medieval romances, not of feudalism. Feudalism doesn’t require chivalry.

  39. Let me try this again.

    I agree. The non-Sauron government is based in feudalism.

    I agree. The government contains titles and a sort of nobility structure that reinforces that perspective. Within the Shire, the difference from nobility to commoner seems less pronounced than exists elsewhere.

    I agree. Taxes are collected. The Post is operated. Roads are maintained. There are police/Sherriffs. And there is a national defense of a sort.

    The Shire does feature some form of private property rights as even the lowly Sackville-Baggins have the ability to purchase/own a home. Farmers appear to own their farms and sell their produce at markets. Other goods/services are also exchanged freely.

    IMO, Tolkien’s objective was never to have a full blooded investigation into what constituted good governance. His objective (one of many, ’cause “books”!) was to suggest that there was such a thing as an excessive amount of government. Other objectives were to serve as a cautionary tale about the corrupting influence of power as well pointing out that people seeking power were likely to use it in unproductive ways.

    Why is this a libertarian favorite? Or favourite? Is it because it lays out a utopian libertarian model of governance?

    Nope. It doesn’t even try.

    What it does is suggest that an excessive level of government is regressive and that people seeking lots of power generally end up harming society. It suggests that limiting government to basic infrastructure, law enforcement, and national defense is prudent.

    At least, it suggests those things unless one envisions activities that do not occur within the pages of the book. Is it possible that a commoner based perspective would suggest usurious taxation, overbearing regulations, and a capricious and abusive nobility? Sure. But those elements are not in evidence in the book as written by Tolkien.

    Regards,
    Dann

  40. “IMO, Tolkien’s objective was never to have a full blooded investigation into what constituted good governance. His objective (one of many, ’cause “books”!) was to suggest that there was such a thing as an excessive amount of government. “

    Strange. I thought his object was to write a really good tale, not to make political points regarding governments. If libertarians want to put their own ice cream into an empty cone, they should not say that the cone maker was responsible for the filling.

  41. Maybe both Gondor and Rohan are approaching feudalism from opposite directions; Rohan from a more tribal society, Gondor from a centralised empire.

    I think the best interpretation of the text is that Tolkien simply didn’t spend a lot of time considering how these countries are organized beneath the very top. For all his detailed world building, political science and the history of political systems was not his interest. Which means that sure, what hints we get doesn’t quite fit with feudalism, but at the same time it’s nothing else that’s likely to work either.

    Rohan, for example, should have been approaching feudalism – if the country functioned like the societies it’s supposed to mimic. The warrior nobility should have been able to wrest some power away from the throne, and establish themselves as rulers of hereditary fiefs during the 500 years the kingdom have existed. However, the society seems to have been strangely static, and there are few if any signs that the nobility have established a power base in opposition to the king. But we get no explanation of why this didn’t happen, or of how the warrior nobles keep themselves with food, horses, and weapons in the absence of feudal land holdings.

    And, to pull the discussion back to the origin, I think in this regard Lord of the Rings have many things in common with, say, Ayn Rand’s novels: It only regards itself with the people at the very top, and takes it for granted that only their liberties matter. It fails in giving a convincing description of how it’s ideal society would actually function, how it would remain stable, and how it affects anyone else than the “doers” at the top of society. It is, at the core, a fairy tale and not a convincing political treatise.

    (Which reminds me of this quote from someone: (I’ve seen it attributed to several different people)

    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”

  42. Nope, sorry, nowhere does it suggest anything about “excessive government”. Tolkien, like his friend C. S. Lewis, was a devout Christian writing a Christian parable. The “message” (such as it was) was to abjure Sauron Satan.

    The trilogy ends with…the return of the king! The rightful ruler through whom power rightfully flows. The world is saved by installing a sufficiently strong ruler.

    It is correct to say that he never suggests usurious taxation, etc. But it’s equally correct to say he never suggests the opposite. The only hint of his perspective on government we really get to see is a suggestion that the divine right of kings is justified. Kings should rule because that’s how God wants things.

    How anyone can get a libertarian or small-government message out of “the rightful king is returned, and now man and nature are back in harmony” is really beyond me. I guess you have to really really want to see it! 🙂

    Does anyone honestly think having a king again would make the government smaller!? And if so, please pass over whatever you’re smoking! 😀

  43. Winnie-the-Pooh is clearly a libertarian fantasy. Milne never mentions any oppressive taxation of the animals of the Hundred Acre Wood, so obviously it was a message about how smaller government makes people (and animals) happier.

    Where the Wild Things Are is clearly a libertarian fantasy. While the Wild Things did make Max their king, the fact that they were happy about it proves that he was replacing the complex, bureaucratic, and expensive government-by-committee they must have had previously.

    Fox in Socks is clearly a libertarian fantasy, because the fact that the poor fox is able to afford socks proves that he must be living under a regime with minimal taxation.

    Sheesh, why can’t you people clearly see the libertarian messages embedded in just about everything? 😀

  44. What it does is suggest that an excessive level of government is regressive and that people seeking lots of power generally end up harming society. It suggests that limiting government to basic infrastructure, law enforcement, and national defense is prudent.

    Ummm, has this libertarian ‘interpretation’ ever been examined by a genuine Tolkien scholar? Because I’m pretty sure I can see the holes from a mile off, but I’m willing to hear otherwise from someone with genuinely deep Tolkien knowledge.

  45. From Amon Hen 132 – Good Government in Middle-earth By: Gwydion Madawc Williams

    https://gwydionmadawc.com/57-about-tolkien/power-and-politics-in-tolkiens-work/

    In the Hobbits’ Shire, one must assume that there was no class struggle because nothing very much changed. Most Hobbits had some property. The propertyless minority could come and go as they pleased, work for whom they pleased. Existing differences were traditional and were seen as fair and just, a phenomenon that is common in similar traditional societies in our own world. The ease with which the excessively rich Lotho Sackville-Baggins was able to take over suggests that Hobbits were used to their upper class being reasonable and moderate and not trying to upset other people’s way of life.

    Since it had never made much difference which particular individuals held high office, one would not expect most Hobbits to care very much. One could see ruling as a specialised trade, like baking cakes or shoeing horses. As long as it is done well, why bother about the exact methods? And if the militia had no function except to defend the entire population against raiders, why not leave it in the hands of families who had a track record of handling such matters competently?

    and

    The limited democracy of the Shire was a very enlightened and mild system, compared to anything that actually existed before the 20th century, and also compared to what was happening in Europe at the time Tolkien was writing Lord of the Rings.

    and

    Most wars before the 19th century can be seen as ‘a series of disagreements between kings’. But if one king feels morally bound to respect your existing rights while the other is planning either to enslave you or feed you to his Orcs, you’d have little trouble knowing which side you ought to be on!

    The essay was a response to Democratic Government in Middle-earth by Jason Finch in Amon Hen 129. My Google-fu failed to find that work. Perhaps someone with an active Tolkien society membership can access their online version of #129 and offer some thoughts.

    Gwydion’s thoughts seem to parallel my own. The Shire generally has a reasonably non-intrusive government run by people that seem to be morally committed to respecting some set of individual rights. Even the full-on monarchies seem to have a sense that there are certain actions that the rulers should not undertake out of respect for individual citizens.

    Regards,
    Dann

  46. @Mark: Tolkien Studies is one of my secondary scholarly/teaching interests (and my primary fandom)–and I do bibliographic work as well. I can say that Tolkien scholarship is as diverse as the fandom. There is a sub-set of scholars who focus on the Christian elements, others who focus on the pre-Christian/pagan elements (since Tolkien’s specialization was the Anglo-Germanic and related languages of 400 CE , during a period of conversion of northern Europe. There are others including the medieval historian of religion I live and work with who note the syncretic nature of Christianity at that time (which confuses the heck out of our 21st century students in rural Texas).

    There are a lot of medievalists (mostly but not entirely in literary studies as opposed to history) who focus on connections to medieval texts (keeping in mind “medieval” means pretty much from 500-1500 ish, depending on the geographic location) in various languages, from BEOWULF to Mallory; as well as the Victorian and Edwardian scholars who point out similarities to the novels Tolkien read as a child, plus of course the fantastic/faery tales ditto. There are even a few postmodern (chronological not theory definition) scholars sneaking into the field in recent years (coffcoff).

    But the current state of Tolkien scholarship is such that few people can be aware of everything that’s being published (there’s been a boom in the scholarship since Jackson’s films). If you like, I can query a few friends on the Tolkien FB groups I run. David Bratman, who I know reads here, and runs the “Year in Tolkien Studies” for Tolkien Studies might be a good source as well.

    A subject search for “Tolkien” in the MLA International Bibliography results in 2,867 hits (some of those will be book chapters, some journal articles, dissertation abstracts, etc.). The database includes scholarship in languages other than English: it’s the “start with” database for literary studies academics.

    A search for Tolkien and libertarian gets no hits (which just means there’s no descriptor in the database entry–and of course the MLA does not cover every possible publication where people have have written about Tolkien).

    A search for Tolkien and politics gets 20 results: here’s the citation list I pulled together.

    Blackburn, William. “‘Dangerous as a Guide to Deeds’: Politics in the Fiction of J. R. R. Tolkien.” Mythlore: A Journal of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and the Genres of Myth and Fantasy Stu, vol. 15, no. 1 [55], 1988, pp. 62-66.

    Gelder, Ken. “Epic Fantasy and Global Terrorism.” From Hobbits to Hollywood: Essays on Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, Ernest (ed. and introd.) Mathijs and Murray (ed. and introd.) Pomerance, Rodopi, 2006, pp. 101-118. Contemporary Cinema (CCinema): 3.

    Gelder, Ken. “Epic Fantasy and Global Terrorism.” Overland, vol. 173, 2003, pp. 21-27.

    Hooker, Mark T. “Frodo’s Batman.” Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholarly Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 2004, pp. 125-136.

    Finch, Jason. “Gondor-Political Fiction.” Amon Hen, vol. 123, Sept. 1993, pp. 6-7.

    Romney, Paul. “‘Great Chords’: Politics and Romance in Tolstoy’s War and Peace.” University of Toronto Quarterly: A Canadian Journal of the Humanities, vol. 80, no. 1, 2011, pp. 49-77.

    Keys, Mary M. “J. R. R. Tolkien’s the Hobbit, Or, There and Back Again: Recovering a Platonic-Aristotelian Politics of Friendship in Liberal Democracy.” Homer Simpson Ponders Politics: Popular Culture as Political Theory, Joseph J. (ed. and introd.) Foy, et al., UP of Kentucky, 2013, pp. 203-231.

    Barker, Martin. “Making Middle Earth Sound Real: The Lord of the Rings and the Cultural Politics of the BBC Radio Edition.” The Lord of the Rings: Popular Culture in Global Context, Ernest (ed.) Mathijs, Wallflower, 2006, pp. 61-70.

    Nardi, Dominic J., Jr. “Political Institutions in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-Earth: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying about the Lack of Democracy.” Mythlore: A Journal of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature, vol. 33, no. 1 [125], 2014, pp. 101-123.

    Kehr, Eike. “Politik Und Gesellschaft in Tolkiens the Lord of the Rings.” Von Mittelerde Bis in Die Weiten Des Alls: Fantasy Und Science-Fiction in Literatur Und Film, Maren (ed. and introd.) Bonacker and Stefanie (ed. and introd.) Kreuzer, Phantastische Bibliothek, 2006, pp. 48-66. Schriftenreihe und Materialien der Phantastischen Bibliothek Wetzlar (Schriftenreihe und Materialien der Phantastischen Bibliothek Wetzlar): 94.

    Shippey, Tom. “Reconstructing the Politics of the Dark Age.” Mallorn: The Journal of the Tolkien Society, vol. 55, 2014, pp. 18-20.

    Griffin, Roger. “Revolts against the Modern World: The Blend of Literary and Historical Fantasy in the Italian New Right.” Literature and History, vol. 11, no. 1, 1985, pp. 101-123.

    Rossi, Lee D. The Politics of Fantasy: C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien. University Microflims Internat. Research P, 1984.

    Rossi, Lee D. “The Politics of Fantasy: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.” Dissertation Abstracts: Section A. Humanities and Social Science, vol. 33, 1973, p. 5195A.

    Firchow, Peter E. “The Politics of Fantasy: The Hobbit and Fascism.” Midwest Quarterly: A Journal of Contemporary Thought, vol. 50, no. 1, 2008, pp. 15-31.

    Reeder, Ike. “The Silence of Trees: Environmental Agency and the Politics of Power in J. R. R. Tolkien’s the Lord of the Rings and Thesilmarillion.” A Wilderness of Signs: Ethics, Beauty, and Environment After Postmodernism, Joe (ed. and foreword) Jordan, Cambridge Scholars, 2006, pp. 107-115.

    Yates, Jessica. “Tolkien the Anti-Totalitarian.” Mythlore: A Journal of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and the Genres of Myth and Fantasy Stu, vol. 21; 33, no. 2 [80], 1996, pp. 233-245.

    Wiemann, Dirk. “Tolkien’s Baits: Agonism, Essentialism and the Visible in the Lord of the Rings.” Politics in Fantasy Media: Essays on Ideology and Gender in Fiction, Film, Television and Games, Gerold (ed.) Sedlmayr and Nicole (ed. and introd.) Waller, McFarland, 2014, pp. 191-204.

    Papajewski, Helmut. “Tolkiens Briefe.” Inklings-Jahrbuch Für Literatur & Ästhetik, vol. 3, 1985, pp. 109-127.

    Petzold, Dieter. “Zwischen Weltkatastrophe Und Eukatastrophe: Politik in Fantasy-Romanen.” Inklings: Jahrbuch Fur Literatur Und Asthetik, vol. 4, 1986, pp. 63-86.

    I will say that some of current debate in Tolkien studies is over the extent to which his work appeals to a number of right-wing and white supremacist groups (as shown by their favorable commentary on their websites) as well as to the liberal/hippie/radical/leftists who are often “blamed” for Tolkien’s popularity (seriously, I read an unintentionally hilarious article in the first British academic anthology of on Tolkien that claimed that the paperback popularity was due only to the fact that American college students were all stoned on LSD at the time it was published—yes, I may be overstating but only a tiny bit) and to everybody in between the two extremes.

    There is also a small body of essays on reception in other countries—often focusing around the political background including one excellent essay on the popularity of film and books in Germany. My Dean who is Italian has said that when he was in college, LOTR was associated with the fascist movement in Italy (because of the first translator who was a major figure in the the movement), so it was shunned by a lot of the college students at the time of that first translation.
    He was shocked to learn that the dept. radical queer feminist type was a huge Tolkien fan, and he and I have talked about it since.

    I’ve run workshops and taught Tolkien in a variety of classes and can say that it’s amazing how varied a range of political and religious positions can be found in the groups I’ve worked with. The same range exists in the fandom.

  47. “In the Hobbits’ Shire, one must assume that there was no class struggle because nothing very much changed.”

    Why must one assume that? Another interpretation is that Tolkien was not interested in politics and did not write down any changes because of that?

    “The propertyless minority could come and go as they pleased, work for whom they pleased.”

    I can’t find any of that in the book.

    “The ease with which the excessively rich Lotho Sackville-Baggins was able to take over suggests that Hobbits were used to their upper class being reasonable and moderate and not trying to upset other people’s way of life.”

    The Sackville-Baggins are described as greedy assholes in the whole book and in no way as reasonable and moderate.

    I’ll stop there. That essay seems like total fantasy. More fantasy than LOTR.

  48. Xtifr:

    How anyone can get a libertarian or small-government message out of “the rightful king is returned, and now man and nature are back in harmony” is really beyond me. I guess you have to really really want to see it! ?

    I think the idea is that all that harmony is something that just is – making regulations superfluous. This is in contrast to (real world) societies who try to achieve harmony through detailed regulations.

    Saruman introduces industry and pollution to The Shire. The leftist, “tyrannical”, solution to pollution is to put in environmental regulations. Instead, once rule by the rightful king have been restored, Sam uses his gift from Galadriel to return the land to its harmonious natural beauty – and everyone else simply respects that and there’s no need for oppressive laws and environmental regulations.

    It’s a poor fit to what Libertarianism claim to be – but fits well with my experience of debating with Libertarians.

  49. @Mark

    It was a quick look in response to a quick question. I wouldn’t lean too heavily on it, but I wouldn’t casually discard it either.

    Again, I’m not looking to LotR for a full blown political treatise on the exact form and function of government. I’ve been critical of it in other areas.

    And after all, we are talking about a piece of fiction/fantasy. It’s possible to go a little too far with interpreting those kinds of details.

    Regards,
    Dann

Comments are closed.