Hacker News Reader

> ...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.

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

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.

I am no Tolkien scholar, but my layman's take is that Sauron failed to see the ring because he was so blinded by the lust for power that could only conceive of actions taken by his powerful enemies to claim more power. He (nor Gollum) could not imagine someone willingly giving that power away.

That said, neither author imagined surveillance on the level that we have today with AI "watchers."

This is pretty much correct. Sauron kept most of his gaze upon Aragorn and Gandalf and their movements, as he would have suspected one of the two of them would most likely be carrying the ring.

As you said, Sauron expected his enemies to act as he acts, and he would never have thought to give the ring to a creature as lowly as a Hobbit.

> he would never have thought to give the ring to a creature as lowly as a Hobbit.

Actually, it is explicitly said (by Gandalf, in Book III, Chapter 5) that Sauron knows the Ring was borne by a hobbit. What Sauron is not clear about is why a hobbit has it or what the Fellowship's destination is. According to Gandalf, he assumes they are going to Minas Tirith, and that once there some more powerful person will take the Ring and use it. In other words, he doesn't expect a hobbit to keep the Ring, much less to be taking it to Mount Doom to be destroyed.

Interesting, I didn't remember that part!

In AI terms, you could think of Frodo as an adversarial example, specifically chosen to exploit a known bias in the watcher’s model.

I agree: it’s more reasonable to consider them as two poles of an English literary tradition, both espousing the cause of the “doughty Englishman” (also expressed by Shakespeare’s references to the commoners accompanying Henry V), but with Orwell despairing of their state. and Tolkien celebrating it.

Another contemporary whom I associate with that Weltanschauung is T. H. White, though his perspective, IMHO, is more High Tory.

> extreme personal poverty

Always by choice. He did live in poverty but his family was always there if he decided to call on them and his education and class position meant that there were crappy jobs available for the asking, like being a tutor.

"> extreme personal poverty

Always by choice. "

Allmost no one chooses extreme personal poverty. But some like Orwell, choose their own (idealistic) way, over giving in to the other way, even if it means poverty.

I would argue, he would/could not have written 1984 or animal farm, if he would have choosen the shallow, but comfortable life, that his class would have allowed for.

You’re mistaken. Orwells choice to live as a homeless person was entirely about collecting material. He eventually wrote the book Down and Out in Paris and London based on his experiences.

I respect the man, I respect his work, I even respect that he did the research first hand instead of relying on second hand accounts. But at any point he wanted he could go to his home or to his friends and family, get a hot meal and a bath. That was not an option for actual homeless people.

When he was down and out in Paris, he could rely on his aunt for financial support. When he was down and out in London he could write to his parents for money. Which he actually did. And they sent him money.

> Allmost no one chooses extreme personal poverty.

So let’s be clear - he experienced poverty only so he could write a book, not because he was truly destitute. Almost no one chooses that, but he did.

Allright, if so I am misstaken. I guess I have to read a bit further on his personal life.

From chapter 25 of Down and Out in Paris London:

As soon as we were inside the spike [homeless shelter] and had been lined up for the search, the Tramp Major called my name. He was a stiff, soldierly man of forty, not looking the bully he had been represented, but with an old soldier's gruffness. He said sharply:

'Which of you is Blank?' (I forget what name I had given.)

'Me, sir.'

'So you are a journalist?'

'Yes, sir,' I said, quaking. A few questions would betray the fact that I had been lying, which might mean prison. But the Tramp Major only looked me up and down and said:

'Then you are a gentleman?'

'I suppose so.'

He gave me another long look. 'Well, that's bloody bad luck, guv'nor,' he said; 'bloody bad luck that is.' And thereafter he treated me with unfair favouritism, and even with a kind of deference. He did not search me, and in the bathroom he actually gave me a clean towel to myself -- an unheard-of luxury. So powerful is the word 'gentleman' in an old soldier's ear.

There wasn't really a "panopticon gaze of Big Brother" - only the Outer Party were heavily monitored as these were the only people who could be a threat to the Inner Party.

Edit: About ~13% of the population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oli...

> There wasn't really a "panopticon gaze of Big Brother" - only the Outer Party were heavily monitored as these were the only people who could be a threat to the Inner Party.

Okay, it might not have been a total panopticon (my poor wording), but Big Brother seems not to have had the massive blind-spots that Sauron did.

In fiction, perhaps. But I think Tolkien was closer to the mark. In practice, it is very difficult to know everything, even if the information is available, because of the limitations on our attention and imagination. Tolkien clearly describes that as a limitation of Sauron, and I think it remains a limitation, even today, even when all the facts are available.

Perhaps Orwell couldn't envision the technological capability that would allow monitoring of the entire population. Plus he hadn't seen the soft revolutions that occurred in the former Soviet Block, driven by masses of common people. In the 40's, with the exception of Germany and Italy, authoritarian regimes were seemingly invincible.

> He was a prolific writer on social and political issues, while Tolkien, bless him, was deep down the rabbit hole of Middle Earth (as demonstrated by his writings and letters).

Tolkien was a social/political writer and lord of the rings was a social/politic text. One of the central themes of LoTR revolved around the central social/political question of the fate of the british empire in the first half of the 20th century. Namely that as transportation improved, it wouldn't be just the colonizers striving outward, but the colonized striving in and overruning the idyllic and white shire. The ring stood for the british empire - something that was attained that conferred immense power to its holder but also corrupted the holder and drew "monsters" to the holder. It is no secret that tolkien based his "dark and swarthy" monsters on the colonized blacks, indians, chinese, etc. It could be read as a call to relinquish the "ring" ( aka british empire ) in order to save "the shire" lest it be overrun by blacks, indians, chinese, etc. It also touched upon nature, environment, religion, etc, but the central theme was the uncomfortable socio-political racial issues of the british empire. To say tolkien was only about Middle Earth is like saying Melville was only about whales. You are missing a lot if you think Tolkien and LoTR didn't delve into social and political issues. It was primarily about social and political issues of that day.

> I like and admire both authors.

Both are great writers though Tolkien is a bit overrated. If you want to read a genuinely great book, read Moby Dick. When I was a teenager, I hated moby dick and loved LoTR. After all, who cares about baleen and whale anatomy? But as you grow older and wiser it flips. Moby Dick gains in esteem and LoTR reads like childish fantasy in comparison. It's like Star Wars and Dune. In 200 years, nobody is going to care about LoTR or Star Wars. People will still read Moby Dick and Dune.

> If you want to read a genuinely great book, read Moby Dick.

I am curious as to what are the universally agreed-upon criteria that denote a "genuinely great book". Please, do share them so I might eschew such lowly trash as The Lord of the Rings and never again waste my time on frivolous pursuits purely for the desire to — dare I say? — enjoy my free time.