I don't know what to think about this, but here's a ping with the pancake bunny.
Posted on 07/14/2004 2:02:19 PM PDT by Taka No Kimi
Upon reading and rereading Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings, I find comparison of the two tempting, for both of these novels display firm and compelling visions regarding personal philosophy and the rejection of Evil. One of the most unique aspects of Atlas Shrugged is its rational definition of Good and Evil based on the principles of Objectivism. Good is that which is free, independent, thinking, and productive. Evil is that which attempts to feed upon others through false premises. But fundamentally Good is strong and Evil is weak, for Evil can only perpetuate itself through the consent of the Good who allow themselves to shoulder the burden. However unnoticeable and benign that burden may seem at first, by accepting it the Good have fallen into a trap and open themselves to a situation which they cannot win. The only way to conquer Evil is to refuse to carry it.
John Galt, the protagonist and embodiment of Objectivism, is the leader of the war against Evil, a ringleader of a strike in which those shouldering the burdens of Evil shrug them off and step aside to watch the world collapse in order that they may rebuild it in a new age of freedom.
The Lord of the Rings, by contrast, takes place in a mythological age where godlike beings still exist. The last of them to maintain a presence in Middle Earth is Sauron, who is not weak at all but incredibly powerful. Sauron's Evil cannot be ignored: it can enslave you or kill you no matter where you try to run. Evil must be fought and eradicated.
Only Tom Bombadil, the perfectly self-realized being, is uninfluenced by Sauron's Evil. Perhaps he represents the Objectivist ideal in a nonhuman sense, but he teaches us no real lesson. The true leader of the war against Evil is Gandalf, who points out that armed battle against Sauron cannot succeed unless his chief weapon is destroyed.
The chief weapon of Evil in Atlas Shrugged is a collection of deceitful propaganda bearing the names of "Brotherly Love," "Public Welfare," and "Original Sin." These concepts are exploited by Evil to generate a sense of guilt in the Good and to convince them of the necessity to support the incompetent and the fraudulent. When these weapons fail, those who have ridden the unsuspecting into positions of power resort to compulsion and thuggery. As effective as these weapons are against those who are conditioned to listen to them, their effectiveness vanish upon recognition of what they are.
In The Lord of the Rings, the chief weapon of Evil is the Ring. Made by Sauron, the Ring contains much of his raw power, and to a certain extent has a sense of will. The Ring was originally lost at a time when Men and Elves were powerful enough for a decisive battle to take place. But it has since reappeared, and is attempting to return to its maker.
Because of the nature of the Ring, it is the key to the conquest of Sauron. But the Ring itself cannot be used. Weaker minds that use the Ring are drawn to Sauron as thralls, and more powerful minds that use the Ring—while they may conquer Sauron in war—eventually only become his shadow. Nor can the Ring be hidden. It must be destroyed, for that is the only way to prevent Sauron from regaining it; once he did so, there would be no stopping him. Yet such is the power of the Ring that none who holds it could possibly bring himself to destroy it.
What the Ring hadn't counted upon, in its attempt to return to its master, is its encounter with simple yet extremely tough minds: Gollum, Bilbo, and eventually Frodo and Sam. Not only do they resist the call to return to Sauron, they also resist using the Ring as a weapon. In addition, they have the strength and tenacity to hold the ring without being fully destroyed by it. Because of that, the Ring's ends are frustrated. More on that later.
The more powerful the Good, the greater the Evil they can become through the Ring. Characters such as Gandalf and Galadriel wisely refuse the Ring, for while they know they are strong enough to use it to overthrow Sauron and establish "benevolent" realms, they also know that their rule would be false and Evil.
Saruman, a great and wise wizard at one time more powerful the Gandalf, lusts after the Ring but never obtains it. He succumbs to Evil and in his bid to rival Sauron and establish his own realm merely ends up a twisted, embittered wreck. Compare him to Robert Stadler, the great scientist and mentor of John Galt who compromises himself to serve Evil and ends up perishing in a pathetic attempt to extort the world with violence.
Boromir is the human who advocates use of the Ring, and over time the hold of the Ring grows on him, until violently he attempts to force Frodo to turn it over. Frodo escapes, but Boromir regains his presence of mind, realizes what the Ring has done to him, repents the Evil, and atones for his failure. Hank Rearden believes that he can shoulder the burden of Evil and somehow win against it, but when he finally realizes the extent to which he is actually fueling that Evil, he repents and drops the burden.
The central characters of The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged, Frodo and Dagny, represent the core of incredible courage in the novels. Both bear unbearable burdens, and it is heartbreaking to see them struggle through self-imposed missions which must ultimately fail. Frodo bears his burden because he knows he must; Dagny bears hers because she cannot bring herself to release it. But at the same time, their failure is their triumph, for no others can match their accomplishments.
Although Frodo cannot himself cast the Ring into the Cracks of Doom which would destroy it, he does what no other can by actually carrying the Ring that far. Gollum intervenes through his unbreakable determination not to surrender the Ring to anyone. He himself, through accident or otherwise, falls into the Cracks of Doom with the Ring and breaks the power of Sauron. Nonetheless, in the end, all surviving characters that have dealt directly with the Ring, no matter how powerful they are, are wounded beyond measure, and must journey West for the ultimate healing and leave others to bring about the new age.
Dagny Taggart retains possession of her railroad, her work, and her integrity longer than any other. Out of love for her and the knowledge that she must eventually give up, John Galt remains near her and is captured by the enemy as a result. Dagny, with the aid of the strikers, rescues him; it is at that point that she is ready to witness the final collapse and return with him to rebuild the true civilization. Wounds occur, but however difficult their struggles, those who have dropped their burdens find a new sense of freedom, hope, and confidence, and after the destruction of Evil bring about the new age themselves.
It is perhaps no accident that, although written independently, both novels were written at about the same period of time. Evil in both novels is that which enslaves. In The Lord of the Rings to fight Evil requires bearing unbearable burdens, whereas in Atlas Shrugged the way to fight is to shrug them off. The Lord of the Rings is a timeless work, set in a timeless period, whereas Atlas Shrugged speaks to the Industrial Age using 20th century metaphors. Both novels offer an astonishing array of characters with distinct ways of dealing with Evil.
In the end, after the downfall of Sauron, there is no strong Evil left, and it remains up to Men to devise the lesser Evil described in Atlas Shrugged. For that reason, I like to consider Atlas Shrugged as a sequel to The Lord of the Rings.
Huh?
I don't know what to think about this, but here's a ping with the pancake bunny.
Awwww...That's so cute. Thank you.
The Bad Guys in Atlas Shrugged are much more evil than those in Lord of the Rings.
Er... well... let's see. I've read Lord of the Rings dozens of times. I feel asleep working my way through Atlas Shrugged. Tolkien and Rand really wouldn't have liked each other at all.
What's "Taka"? Are you an anime buff?
Jen, I agree that Tolkien and Rand wouldn't have liked each other much. But that doesn't mean that both didn't have something important to say.
"Taka" means hawk in Japanese. I was interested in anime for a while, but not right now.
Mm, perhaps. I take Rand more as a warning - that libertarianism and Objectivism aren't for me. It wasn't "Atlas Shrugged" that convinced me, but a philosophy professor who suggested I read "The Fountainhead" if I really wanted to understand Rand's philosophy...
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I knew people like Rand's characters, I'd avoid them. But people like Tolkien's heroes keep the world from going completely to bits.
I like both Rand and Tolkien. There's a lot of both that I disagree with, but to each his own.
Very interesting analysis! I might add the thought that scum bucket Clinton's administration was a sequel to Atlas Shrugged, which his evil Mistress-of-Darkness concubine is seeking to continue. I think they may have found another ring!
Rand believed that you could determine the proper rules for society by a simple rational process.
She was, to put it plainly, wrong.
Hayek makes it clear - human societies are far too complicated to manage in any kind of rational manner - they are an evolutionary construct.
 Ring Ping!! |
The Hobbit Hole :: Troop Support Projects
Anyone wishing to be added to or removed from the Ring-Ping list, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Interesting.
Thanks for posting it.
I got this far and gave up. "Unique" is an absolute. Nothing can be more unique or less unique than something else. "Most unique" is logically and grammatically incorrect. Writing is a window onto thinking; if this writer is this sloppy in his writings, his thinking must leave much to be desired.
"Tolkien and Rand really wouldn't have liked each other at all."
That was pretty much my first reaction as well. Interesting post, though--makes me reflect on the nature of good and evil in the two novels. I'll leave it to others to comment on Rand since my area is Tolkien, but IMO for Tolkien evil is portrayed as a corruption of what was once good, per the Christian theology of sin as privation--Morgoth is a fallen Valar, Sauron is a fallen Maia, Orcs are corrupted Elves, the Wraiths are corrupted Men, Gollum is a corrupted Hobbit, the Ring tempts by appealing to a desire to use it for good, etc. Also IMO for Tolkien evil is conquered through self-sacrifice--Frodo's suffering, Sam's willingness to die for Frodo, the Fellowship's willingness to protect Frodo at all costs, the sacrifices at the Battles of Helm's Deep and Gondor; and ultimately through grace, for in the end, Frodo gives into the temptation to claim the Ring, but despite his failure, Gollum inadvertently destroys the Ring, not through his own intent but through a fortuitious quirk of fate foreseen by Gandalf way back in Chapter 2 of "Fellowship": "Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was *meant* to find the Ring, and *not* by its maker. . .For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many--yours not least."
Rand would have hated LOTR. Tolkien would not have even noticed the existance of Rand.
I wouldn't make too much of the symbolism in LOTR. In the end, it is a myth. A very complete and compelling myth, to be sure. But a story as old as Time, populated by mysterious sylvan creatures and shadowy, looming demons. A ripping good yarn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.