There are few better examples of post-Ground Zero clutural illiteracy than popular commentators’ and literary critics’ hamfisted interpretations of the One Ring.
Luckily for me, I always take creative works at face value. People in my life, the ones who like to 'project' as the author notes, sometimes look down on me for that. They want to see messaging everywhere. They think it makes them sound intelligent or they simply want to, as described above, hijack popular material to further their own ideologies.
I keep it simple because I think it's arrogant to assume one knows the mind of an author from an intellectual point of view and it's also rude to them from a creative point of view. It's their work, not yours. If the author speaks out about 'the message' in their work then fair enough but otherwise, leave it be.
I remember a similar thing happening to American Sniper, iirc. Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper said it was a simply story about a man based on his thought provoking autobiography - nothing more, nothing less. Of course, activists ignored that and went ahead and excused them of promoting U.S.A exceptionalism, glorifying the military and being racist by reducing middle-eastern people to savages. Definite projection.
As for the One Ring, I always felt it was exactly as described - a corrupting artifact of supreme evil power; the devil in ring form I suppose. Even in the movies, Gandalf explicitly states something like, 'It is a thing of pure evil and cannot be used' and 'It will corrupt all who attempt to use it'.
Seeing it as an allegory of nukes or the estate is actually quite distasteful to me and goes against the magical fantasy of it all...it takes me out of the incredible world Tolkien went to such great efforts to create. What's the point of that? I read these works to escape the real world for awhile, not drag it back into my thoughts.
Very good essay! Since the time when I would read the trilogy in a continuous cycle (most of my high-school years, half a century ago), I've been by turns annoyed and disappointed by people using Sauron's Ring as an oversimplified metaphor. Brought to my mind is the sin of Pride, that triggered Satan's fall; arguably the cause of the desire for domination, as in "I know better how to make the world," even in the light of those who have lived and studied, even in the light of the One who created the whole thing in the first place.
The ring is like any other tool of Evil. It warps, it twists, it devours the soul, until eventually, the wearer of the ring becomes a nazgul (Demon, Devil, fallen.) The only way to prevent it from destroying any others is to destroy it.
Refreshing to hear similar thoughts to my own. I've lately been thinking about the "stories men tell each other." The hero archetype that coincidentally ;) achieves the deepest male desires: glory above all others, physical or intellectual prowess, physical or intellectual victory in combat, and a beautiful lover. The proliferation of stories where a man of great prowess kills "the gods" or men in power, who are conveniently ;) portrayed as more sinful than himself to render the hero as moral-relatively good. Men do not want to hear or say that anything is beyond their own natural power (not even if they have to djinn up fantastical "natural" powers for themselves).
Ask anyone who thinks they are "a good person" why they think they are good and they will invariably compare themselves to other people in a favorable way, forgetting that even the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer can say he's good because Adolf Hitler was worse. Does the spectrum of human morality draw the line between good and evil just to the side of yourself? How convenient...
the rings reference capital sins.
Very interesting and enjoyable read, thank you.
Luckily for me, I always take creative works at face value. People in my life, the ones who like to 'project' as the author notes, sometimes look down on me for that. They want to see messaging everywhere. They think it makes them sound intelligent or they simply want to, as described above, hijack popular material to further their own ideologies.
I keep it simple because I think it's arrogant to assume one knows the mind of an author from an intellectual point of view and it's also rude to them from a creative point of view. It's their work, not yours. If the author speaks out about 'the message' in their work then fair enough but otherwise, leave it be.
I remember a similar thing happening to American Sniper, iirc. Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper said it was a simply story about a man based on his thought provoking autobiography - nothing more, nothing less. Of course, activists ignored that and went ahead and excused them of promoting U.S.A exceptionalism, glorifying the military and being racist by reducing middle-eastern people to savages. Definite projection.
As for the One Ring, I always felt it was exactly as described - a corrupting artifact of supreme evil power; the devil in ring form I suppose. Even in the movies, Gandalf explicitly states something like, 'It is a thing of pure evil and cannot be used' and 'It will corrupt all who attempt to use it'.
Seeing it as an allegory of nukes or the estate is actually quite distasteful to me and goes against the magical fantasy of it all...it takes me out of the incredible world Tolkien went to such great efforts to create. What's the point of that? I read these works to escape the real world for awhile, not drag it back into my thoughts.
Just so.
In summery everyone is phoning it in but Tolkien.
Very good essay! Since the time when I would read the trilogy in a continuous cycle (most of my high-school years, half a century ago), I've been by turns annoyed and disappointed by people using Sauron's Ring as an oversimplified metaphor. Brought to my mind is the sin of Pride, that triggered Satan's fall; arguably the cause of the desire for domination, as in "I know better how to make the world," even in the light of those who have lived and studied, even in the light of the One who created the whole thing in the first place.
The ring is like any other tool of Evil. It warps, it twists, it devours the soul, until eventually, the wearer of the ring becomes a nazgul (Demon, Devil, fallen.) The only way to prevent it from destroying any others is to destroy it.
Refreshing to hear similar thoughts to my own. I've lately been thinking about the "stories men tell each other." The hero archetype that coincidentally ;) achieves the deepest male desires: glory above all others, physical or intellectual prowess, physical or intellectual victory in combat, and a beautiful lover. The proliferation of stories where a man of great prowess kills "the gods" or men in power, who are conveniently ;) portrayed as more sinful than himself to render the hero as moral-relatively good. Men do not want to hear or say that anything is beyond their own natural power (not even if they have to djinn up fantastical "natural" powers for themselves).
Ask anyone who thinks they are "a good person" why they think they are good and they will invariably compare themselves to other people in a favorable way, forgetting that even the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer can say he's good because Adolf Hitler was worse. Does the spectrum of human morality draw the line between good and evil just to the side of yourself? How convenient...