Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostrademons | Hacker News Reader

Right, the industrialists are literally right there in the form of Saruman and the Orcs of Isengard:

"Together, my lord Sauron, we shall rule this Middle-earth. The old world will burn in the fires of industry. Forests will fall. A new order will rise. We will drive the machine of war with the sword and the spear and the iron fist of the orc."

The orcs could be looked at as an allegory of the faceless, dehumanized, industrialized proletariat, people who had sold their soul to the machine. They can be seen crafting huge weapons of war, siege engines and such, in giant factories fueled by those coal deposits.

The reason the industrial revolution never happened in Middle Earth is because the Fellowship of the Ring prevented it.

View on HN

It is also clear that the author hasn't actually read the lord of the rings.

It doesn't feature in the films but the scouring of the Shire happens after the defeat of Sauron, in which Saruman and Wormtongue take over the Shire and push the same industrialization they were pushing at Orthanc. They have a small battle, Saruman is killed by Wormtongue, who is killed by Hobbits and then everything is right again for the last chapter.

I'd also say an industrial revolution of sorts is definitely a component of the story and unambiguously considered bad.

> It is also clear that the author hasn't actually read the lord of the rings.

He even says so in one of the early paragraphs. Also this substank "Launched 15 days ago". Feels like clickbait self-promotion.

I'm not sure why anyone's wasting time with this nonsense question while not-high.

Why are fantasy settings by and large medieval (and not evolving) probably has some interest (often the setting involves lost technology, "a great civilisation has disappeared". Tolkien does this too, with the silmarils, the fall of numenor). In fact per Tolkien law all the amazing elves are basically dying out and we're gonna be stuck with boring mortal men in the fourth age. So arguably all the good stuff has happened and we're on the road to ruin. Wonder if he read the daily mail?

A significant portion of authors might just be emulating Tolkien, I suppose. Also hard to have a secret elven forest base with high resolution satellite imagery, thermal imaging and precision guided weapons.

You don't need the books though, you can check online to see about the scouring of the shire and Saruman in general, which for the Tolkien case makes his views pretty clear.

If you really want to waste some time, consider that the eagles came and rescued Frodo/Bilbo from mount doom near the end. They could easily have flown them _into_ mordor in the first place, especially since at that time the Nazgul were not airborne, saving a very extensive tour of New Zealand (uh I mean middle earth) in the process. Would've needed far less elven bread and a smaller fellowship and got them more air miles. Gandalf could've also taken a spa holiday instead of an arduous hike, bungee jump with a balrog, death and resurrection, which I'm fairly sure weren't covered by his travel insurance and likely not recommended by his doctor.

Ultimately it is a story. In some senses alternative worlds allow you to compare "what ifs?" and this can be fun. However you have to be careful how much you read tvtropes...

Will remain neutral on all other opinions, but to be clear, I use the substack as a home for my reddit shitposts, some random person put it on here and it blew up

If only Tolkien wrote another story where the industrial revolution in Middle Earth (as you describe it) occurs, along with a fellowship that brings it down and returns Middle Earth to it's former glory.

This is in LORT. Remember when the hobbits return to the Shire at the end, and have to set things straight?

Kind of criminal that I have to scroll this far down to see someone mention Saruman industrializing the Shire.

Try “the Last Ringbearer”.

As is common, fantasy stories depict individual heroes overthrowing bureaucracies.

(Harry Potter is an obvious exception where it's the other way around.)

> (Harry Potter is an obvious exception where it's the other way around.)

It is? Harry spent a lot of time contending with bureaucracy, whether in the form of overbearing schoolteachers or a corrupt Ministry of Magic. One of the series’ major villains, Dolores Umbridge, is sort of a personification of bureaucracy.

As has been explained in more detail by more capable media critics than me, Harry Potter's overall narrative arc is about restoring bureaucracy, not overthrowing it. The problem are never the systems but individuals abusing them because they're evil (with little motivation given).

If anything, framing it as "the bureaucracy overthrowing the hero" (or the hero making peace with the system, for a less dramatic interpretation) is only wrong because this implies the hero was ever at odds with the system to begin with. The system is never questioned (except by Hermione, who is portrayed as annoying an naive when she does it), only individual bad actors are identified defeated.

The ending of Harry Potter does not have wizards living openly alongside muggles, house elves liberated, mutual respect and trust between wizards and goblins, or the abolition of the Ministry. Instead it shows the next generation of students getting to experience the same exciting start in their train ride to Hogwarts with the implication that this time, things will be different because the evil people are REALLY gone this time.

Harry Potter is distinctly about protecting the "sanctity" of institutions, at the expense of individuality. Umbridge may be the personification of bureaucracy in our minds, but in JKR's, she's a threat to the image of British boarding schools being elite, character-building places for children. Note that, as a disciplinarian, she's functionally equivalent to Snape. That was not Umbridge's "sin". Her sin was teaching to the test, removing the academic rigor of Hogwarts, presumably leaving it on par with lesser schools.

We might even look at her clothing and, in our minds, it looks very conservative. But in the wizard world, we never see anyone wearing such outlandishly colorful clothing. What looks like a makeup MLM saleswoman's outfit to us is a radical expression of individual style in the HP world.

In Harry Potter, individuality comes at a price. The more you express individualistic thought, living outside of the norms of society, the more impoverished you need to be to remain "good". Look at the Weasleys. Look at the Lovegoods. Those that attempt to be successful and individuals are default evil.

HP is so incredibly conservative, it's surprising everyone was surprised by JKR's politics.

Harry's single ambition through the books is becoming a member of the Wizarding police/SWAT team (Aurors), totally integrated into the system. The only things he had any personal problem with was occasionally who's in charge. In fact, he stays (almost) moot through the entire series of books on questions such as the fact of elves being literal slaves, where people who speak out (e.g. Hermione) are portrayed as shrill whiners.

On that one Harry takes a more individualistic approach: You can't save those who don't want to be saved. Most house elves are happy where they are and fear being freed, but Harry had no problem helping Dobby, who obviously wanted out.

Paul Kingsnorth has some wonderful essays exploring this exact concept.

This old game explores industrialized fantasy as well:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcanum:_Of_Steamworks_and_M...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com