4 ms·

> ...the all-seeing eye of Sauron and the panopticon gaze of Big Brother... There's actually a depth in the comparison and contrast there. The man of faith saw

> ...the all-seeing eye of Sauron and the panopticon gaze of Big Brother... There's actually a depth in the comparison and contrast there. The man of faith saw hope in the limits of evil people. In particular, lack of perspective and hubris can bring down even tyrants. And there is a Creator to give confidence that coincidence and divine plans can be the same thing. There are different flavors of atheism, but many atheists see governments as being the most powerful agents in existence, so an evil, competent, and observant government is quite terrifying indeed. There's no particular reason to hope that a person can ever escape or defeat that kind of monster.

notahacker 5y ago
That feels like even more of a stretch. If anything, you could argue that Sauron, who ruled for entire "ages" and whose immortal power was destroyed by the happy accident of another eternally corrupted individual stumbling into a chasm was considerably less limited than the dictatorships composed of mortal individuals Orwell wrote about (and actually personally involved himself in fighting against). Orwell was optimistic enough to counterpoint the end of 1984 with an appendix which obliquely referred to the dictatorship and Newspeak as in the past, strongly implying it failed within a generation or so and was regarded as a historical curiosity; Tolkien's appendices and followup work suggested its near-immortal evil had enjoyed absolute power over generations of humans and orcs
- humanrebar 5y ago
  In Tolkien mythology, Sauron was powerful and long lived but even his power isn't all that impressive to someone who believes in the Abrahamic God. He could not suffer a defeat like Sauron, does not miss details, and has no need for armies or siege weapons. It's common to question a Creator who waits generations to remove evil persons from the picture, though at some point we're having an argument about deism by proxy and straying from critical analysis as such. It's enough for me that the different ideas and perspectives infused different works. I like your point about Orwellian optimism. At an historical scale, possibly Orwell was an optimist. I think he was still a pessimist on the scale of individuals, however, in a way that Tolkien didn't seem to be.

notahacker 5y ago

That feels like even more of a stretch. If anything, you could argue that Sauron, who ruled for entire "ages" and whose immortal power was destroyed by the happy accident of another eternally corrupted individual stumbling into a chasm was considerably less limited than the dictatorships composed of mortal individuals Orwell wrote about (and actually personally involved himself in fighting against). Orwell was optimistic enough to counterpoint the end of 1984 with an appendix which obliquely referred to the dictatorship and Newspeak as in the past, strongly implying it failed within a generation or so and was regarded as a historical curiosity; Tolkien's appendices and followup work suggested its near-immortal evil had enjoyed absolute power over generations of humans and orcs

humanrebar 5y ago
In Tolkien mythology, Sauron was powerful and long lived but even his power isn't all that impressive to someone who believes in the Abrahamic God. He could not suffer a defeat like Sauron, does not miss details, and has no need for armies or siege weapons. It's common to question a Creator who waits generations to remove evil persons from the picture, though at some point we're having an argument about deism by proxy and straying from critical analysis as such. It's enough for me that the different ideas and perspectives infused different works. I like your point about Orwellian optimism. At an historical scale, possibly Orwell was an optimist. I think he was still a pessimist on the scale of individuals, however, in a way that Tolkien didn't seem to be.