Ye Olde Staging Point

Two passages from The Silmarillion stand out as my favorites. The first is the tale of Hurin's last stand against an overpowering enemy force:

Last of all Hurin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed; and it is sung that the axe smoked in the black blood of the troll-guard of Gothmog until it withered, and each time that he slew Hurin cried: 'Aure entuluval! Day shall come again!' Seventy times he uttered that cry; but they took him at last alive, by the command of Morgoth, for the Orcs grappled him with their hands, which clung to him still though he hewed off their arms; and ever their numbers were renewed, until at last he fell beneath them.

The second is the account of Fingolfin's final battle against the Great Enemy, Morgoth, and his death:

Now news came to Hithlum that Dorthonion was lost and the sons of Finarfin overthrown, and that the sons of Feanor were driven from their lands. Then Fingolfin beheld (as it seemed to him) the utter ruin of the Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled with wrath and despair he mounted upon Rochallor his great horse and rode forth alone, and none might restrain him.... a great madness of rage was upon him, so that his eyes shone like the eyes of the Valar. Thus he came alone to Angband's gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once more upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth to single combat. And Morgoth came....

Thrice [Fingolfin] was crushed to his knees, and thrice arose again and bore up his broken shield and stricken helm. But the earth was all rent and pitted about him, and he stumbled and fell.... Yet with his last and desperate stroke Fingolfin hewed the foot [of Morgoth]....

Thus died Fingolfin, High King of the Noldor, most proud and valiant of the Elven-kings of old.

These are powerful accounts--Hurin and Fingolfin are just two of the book's many great heroes who, in the absence of any hope, fight desperately and fanatically to the bitter end. There is a dearth of hope in The Silmarillion, and this theme carries into The Lord of the Rings--you see traces of it in Theoden's charge at the Pelennor Fields and in Eowyn's suicidal stand against the Witch-king of Angmar. Hurin and Fingolfin know that their efforts are futile. In The Return of the King, Theoden and Eowyn (and Gandalf and most of the Fellowship, for that matter) know this as well. Things turn out reasonably well in the latter case--but they shouldn't have, by any reasonable estimation.

The heroes of Middle Earth--like the very World in which they live--yearn for release from the pain and grief that taints Creation, and in that sense they carry with them a powerful hope that evil will one day be wiped away. I have read much about these themes of hope (often in respect to the Christian themes in Tolkien's works). But I have read very little commentary on the undercurrents of hopelessness that often crop up side-by-side with these optimistic themes. Middle Earth is filled with heroes who look around them, see no hope at all, and yet choose to go on fighting--often to their inevitable deaths. Why do they do this?

Is it possible to have hope in the face of absolutely certain defeat? Is this hope, faith, or simple stubbornness? Is this an unconscious understanding that Good will triumph in the end, or is it a grim fatalism that sees Doom on the horizon and prefers to charge into it rather than wait for its inevitable arrival?

Posted by Andy at 11:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Yesterday marked the debut of the latest attempt at "liberal talk radio," which is getting some mixed reviews. I've been a fan of Rush Limbaugh since high school, and have listened to my share of liberal talk radio programs (during my trips to and from Chicago on Saturdays to visit Michele), so I'm always interested in these efforts. When I first heard about this latest effort a few months ago, I was tempted to roll my eyes--not because I find the idea of liberal talk radio absurd, but because it seems like every other year somebody tries to hype a "left-wing version" of Rush Limbaugh, only to have the effort either slip quickly into radioland obscurity or never even get off the ground. This effort looks a bit more promising than past attempts, mostly because there's a recognizable personality (Al Franken) behind it.

Nevertheless, I personally don't expect this to go very far before petering out. Why has liberal talk radio failed to make an impact or gather an audience despite numerous attempts?

I think the most important reason is that the liberal radio approach has almost always been reactionary. That is, the stated goal is always something along the lines of "offer an alternative to right-wing radio," "offer a Democrat answer to Rush Limbaugh," "break the conservative stranglehold on radio"--that sort of thing. This all basically amounts to creating an imitation Rush Limbaugh--but a talk show that claims to be "like Rush--but liberal!" does not exactly resonate with any promise of originality or creativity.

The comparison that immediately springs to mind is that of the Christian music industry. I cannot count the number of times I've read--online or in print, and on some occasions even in Christian music stores--lists of recommendations for Christians who want "cleaned-up" religious alternatives to popular secular bands. You may have seen this sort of thing--"If you like Pearl Jam, you'll love [Christian band name]!" So the main appeal of this band is that they sound just like Pearl Jam? Be still, my beating heart! In the same way, I have a hard time seeing a "Democrat version" of Rush (or his many imitators) capturing the hearts and minds of listeners, any more than a "right-wing version" of, say, Michael Moore ("like Michael Moore--but conservative!") would.

When I look at this latest liberal effort and see shows with titles like "The O'Franken Factor," my suspicions that this is just a feeble effort to clone conservative successes (without bothering to learn why conservative shows are popular in the first place) seem to be confirmed. Unless Franken and his compatriots quickly establish that their shows are unique, interesting, and have something new to offer, nobody apart from existing Franken fans is going to tune in.

(It's worth pointing out that many of Rush's right-wing imitators are guilty of the same thing--and for this reason among others, I seriously doubt that they'll be able to stick around nearly as long as Rush has.)

I think the above reason is the most important reason that liberal radio has failed in the past and risks failing again. Other factors play into it as well, though. For one, for years now, mainstream Democrat candidates, pundits, and politicians have been expressing outright contempt for the "idiot masses" who tune in to Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts (I specifically remember this hitting a peak during the 2002 elections). We've all heard references to the "mindless Ditto-heads" who believe anything that Rush tells them. I've never heard any Democrat, in the midst of these criticisms, ever suggest that maybe Rush (for example) is popular because large numbers of people find his show entertaining, amusing, and informative. Conservative talk radio has long been a place where conservatives go to hear information they aren't getting from other sources--it isn't a tool by which the masses are enslaved to a right-wing agenda. But if the prevailing view in the Democratic party towards talk radio listeners is that they are mindless morons with no free will, exactly what am I supposed to think about their own efforts to reach this same radio-listening audience?

Liberal talk show hosts are going to find out the hard way that radio listeners aren't brainless morons. Just as Rush can't "force" people to tune into his show, Al Franken and the like can't just assume that the country's liberals are going to automatically tune in. A successful liberal radio show will be one that works hard to earn a listening audience by demonstrating that their show is worth hearing. Rush himself is the perfect example of this--starting out with a tiny radio show, over time he earned an ever-growing audience by providing a compelling program that people found worthwhile.

There are doubtless other challenges facing liberal talk radio, but I'll stop rambling for now. There's definitely room in the world for a high-quality liberal radio program, but it will require its founders to work hard to distinguish themselves and to give people a good reason to tune in. And so despite my own thoroughly conservative tendencies, I wish Al Franken and the others involved here good luck--I think they're going to need it.

Posted by Andy at 1:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)