XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:10:15 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Koenig   
    wrote:   
      
   >["Followup-To:" nach rec.arts.books.tolkien gesetzt.]   
   >Steve Hayes  schrieb:   
   >   
   >> I have already explained (several times) why I am unwilling to be   
   >> specific: because being specific tends to turn myth into concepts or   
   >> allegory and thus destroys its nature as myth.   
   >   
   >You may argue that about Tolkien. I would still think you wrong,   
   >but it would be a legitimate argument.   
   >   
   >However, you were trying to make a point about current US politics   
   >using Tolkien as an argument specifically about Sanders and Clinton.   
   >This takes it out of the realm of myths. (Unless you want to   
   >create your own myth about politics, but this I would not consider   
   >valid).   
   >   
   >To put it more strongly:  I think you are abusing Tolkien to make   
   >a political point. Your argument to defend this point is so weak   
   >that you chose not to make it, hiding behind the "myths cannot   
   >be explained".   
   >   
   >However, I am also now willing to let you get you in the last word.   
   >I will not be bothered to read your posts in the future.   
      
   I have no desire to have the "last word". I don't think there can ever   
   be a "last word" on the works of Toklien. They remain popular because   
   people see in them things that speak to their lives and current   
   situation. This is one corrent instance of that.   
      
   I have no direct interest in the outcome of the US election, since I   
   live 10000 miles away.   
      
   In this case it's all about perception -- how do Bernie Sanders   
   supporters perceive the difference in attitudes between Bernie Sanders   
   and Hillary Clinton? The graphic shows that at least some of them see   
   it as in some way analogous to the difference between Aragorn and   
   Boromir.   
      
   What exactly does the ring represent in this context?   
      
   I suggest that the moment you try to pin it down, you lose it. Because   
   that's an invitation to discuss the intricacies of American politics   
   and lose sight of Tolkien altogether. Could the ring represent the   
   military-industrial complex, the mainstream media, neo-liberalism, or   
   does it have something to do with the endorsement of Hilary Clinton by   
   Madeleine "We think the price is worth it" Albright? Or is it a   
   combination of all these things? You'd have to ask them.   
      
   But the fact is that they do see it in that way. Would Tolkien have   
   seen it in that way if he had been alive? I don't know, and in a way   
   that is beside the point. The point is that people living today see   
   "The Lord of the Rings" as somehow illuminating their lives and   
   helping them to interpret the world around them.   
      
   There can only be a "last word" when people stop doing that, and that   
   will be when they stop reading Tolkien.   
      
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm   
        http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw   
        http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)