“Not all those who wander are lost.” -- J.R.R. Tolkien

J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings has fascinated the reading public since it was first published in the mid-20th century. From 10-year-olds reading wide-eyed under their bed covers, to college-aged hippies of the 1960's, to fantasy buffs of every age today, to merely casual viewers of Peter Jackson's award winning movie adaptation of the trilogy -- each of us, for reasons personal to his own nature, is enthralled by Tolkien's world of elves and men, dwarves and wizards, orcs and balrogs. And, of course, hobbits.

Tuesday, I will attend the third in a series of five lectures at the University of Washington by Robin Chapman Stacey, a UW professor of history. In her first two lectures, Professor Stacey has emphasized a fact well known to Tolkien devotees, but perhaps not to the general public: Tolkien was first and foremost an accomplished student of philology and languages. He also was something of an English eccentric, the sort of guy some of us would love to have known, a man of great curiosity who simply loved messing around with words, grammar, syntax -- inventing his own vocabularies and etymologies -- a curious form of recreation that dated back to his earliest childhood.

Tolkien's specialty, his real love, was the Scandinavian, Germanic and Celtic languages of northern Europe, hardly a surprise to any reader of LOTR who possesses even a casual acquaintance with those languages. While Tolkien "should" have been concentrating on his research as a Professor of Philology and Linguistics at Oxford, he spent much of his spare time making up pretend languages and figuring out the rules by which they were derived from earlier, more ancient (and equally fabricated) lost languages. Eventually, he felt he needed an historical and mythical context in which to flesh out and explain the world from which such languages evolved. Hence, his writing of LOTR, and of his earlier novel The Hobbit.

To anyone for whom wasting time pleasurably includes reading medieval history and sci-fi/fantasy, and thumbing through dictionaries seeking word meanings and derivations -- this writer cheerfully pleads guilty -- these lectures have been a joy to attend. The titles of the five weekly lectures in the series are:

l. "He has been inside language" (Tolkien's love of creating "nonsense languages")

2. "A mythology for England" (The Silmarillion as the back-story for LOTR)

3. "The war to end all wars" (impact of World War I on Tolkien's writing)

4. "A fundamentally religious work" (impact of Tolkien's Catholicism on his work)

5. "Allegory and farewell" (later adaptations and criticisms of his work)

Professor Stacey has pointed out that many of Tolkien's Oxford colleagues considered his fantasy writings an enormous waste of Tolkien's time. They were disappointed that a scholar with such impressive potential for linguistic research should have allowed his focus to be diverted by such childish pursuits.

J.R.R. Tolkien's writings have awakened interest, for untold numbers of readers, in the medieval world, in Nordic mythology, and in the way language develops and affects our lives. He has brought bittersweet joy to children and adults alike. (I once read of a sixth grade boy who cried for days -- heartbroken -- after he finished the last chapter of The Return of the King.) God had created our own world for our enjoyment, Tolkien believed. Therefore, true worship of God and gratitude for that creation required that he himself wield his pen to "sub-create" new worlds for us to inhabit and enjoy.

Like Philip Pullman, who apparently hated the works of both Tolkien and Tolkien's friend and Oxford colleague C.S. Lewis, Tolkien created an alternative world to our own crowded, increasingly homogeneous, modern Earth, a world of primitive beauty and terror that has the power to lift our hearts and minds to a higher plane, and then to return us to our own world as more sensitive and creative human beings.

Not a bad way to have your life remembered. Hardly a "waste of time," eh?

An endorsement

The New York Times endorsed Hillary Clinton in its editorial pages yesterday. As the writer for the newspaper noted, Obama and Clinton have very similar views on issues of foreign and domestic policy. The race is not between conflicting policies, but between persons. The newspaper acknowledged Obama's strengths, and Clinton's weaknesses. The editorial encouraged Ms. Clinton to change the sometimes harsh tone of her campaign, to be more of a uniter and less of a divider.

But for the Times, the decisive issue is Hillary Clinton's "abiding, powerful intellect," and the depth of her knowledge and experience.

Well, gosh, if the New York Times can endorse candidates, why can't the Northwest Corner?

I agree with virtually everything stated in the fair and thoughtful Times editorial. I think either candidate would be an excellent president. But the critical factor not mentioned by the Times is "electability."

Obama inspires enthusiasm across a wide spectrum of Democrats and independents. Even some Republicans have tempting thoughts of jumping party lines in November. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, faces the undying hostility of a significant fraction of the voters. This hostility is unfair. It's based on nothing rational. Her opponents can't explain their hatred of Ms. Clinton, at least in terms that make any sense to a rational listener. Fear of strong women probably plays some part in this hostility, but is not the only factor. Many of her detractors would have had no difficulty in voting for Margaret Thatcher.

In any event, nothing that Clinton can do will win these voters over between now and November. They are beyond logical argument, and Hillary can't turn herself into Laura Bush, if that's what it would take. If we subtract the Hillary-haters, what's left? Are there enough swing voters so eager to punish the Republicans for the misrule of the past eight years that they will vote for Hillary over any Republican candidate? A Republican candidate who even some Democrats find attractive, such as John McCain?

I don't know. And I'm not willing to gamble. Unless there develops a mob of anti-black, anti-Obama voters that is every bit as large and rabid as the gang of anti-Hillary haters -- in which case, this country is really in trouble -- I'll support Obama because (1) he will make a strong president, and (2) he can win.

I plan to vote for Barack Obama in the Washington caucuses on February 9.

--------------------

NOTE (1-27-08): In this morning's edition, the Seattle Times endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination.

The Perils of Being an Actor

Members of Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, will picket the funeral of Australian actor Heath Ledger, who, among his many roles -- including the role of "The Joker" in a new Batman film to be released posthumously -- acted the part of a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain. In a press release, the Kansas church has attributed Ledger's death to "the wrath of God," wrath apparently incurred solely because of his cowboy role.

“Heath Ledger is now in Hell, and has begun serving his eternal sentence there,” the Westboro Baptist announcement says.

--Fox News

No slippery distinctions between character and actor muddy the fine clarity of Westboro Baptist's theology, it would appear. "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players," etc. etc.

Readers may recall that Anthony Hopkins, even more shockingly, played Hannibal Lector, a murderer and eater of human flesh, in The Silence of the Lambs. Actor Hopkins thus, like Ledger, flagrantly disregarded yet another injunction found in the Book of Leviticus:

Do not eat meat with the blood still in it. Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard. Do not ... tattoo yourselves.

--Leviticus 19:26-28 (emphasis added).

Be afraid, Mr. Hopkins. Be very afraid.

Seahawks Dive

In keeping with the Northwest Corner's tradition of giving some notice, but only passing notice, to the local sports scene, I'll just observe that the Seahawks abruptly removed themselves from the NFL playoffs today. In a display of utter fecklessness before a national TV audience, the sort of stunned performance that endears Northwest teams to those of us here in Seattle, they swiftly surrendered an early 14-0 first quarter lead. Seemingly dazed by the onslaught of Wisconsin snow, Packer defenders, and Brett Favre passes, they come limping back to Seattle at the short end of a 42-20 final score. Wait 'til next year.

This result is worth noting only because of its consistency with other sports events this year

Seattle Mariners. An 88-74 season and second place AL West finish don't sound all that bad, but they hide a truly remarkable fin-de-saison collapse. From August 25 to September 11, the Mariners won 2 and lost 15 games, decisively dealing themselves out of contention for the division pennant, as well as the wild card and the playoffs. At least we still have Ichiro.

University of Washington. The once mighty Huskies ended up at the very bottom of the Pac-10 standings with a 2-7 conference record (4-9 overall). No bowl game for these Dawgs. Grumblings became audible as some alumni sought the scalp of one of the classiest coaches in college football, Tyrone Willingham. Meanwhile, the disgraced coach who contributed to this sad state of affairs was hired as head coach by UCLA. "Bow down to Washington ... heaven help the foes of Washington!" Yeah, right.

Seattle Supersonics. Yeah, they are still around, barely. At present, their win-loss record is 9-27, making them the 27th best team out of 30 in the NBA. Oh well, good enough for Oklahoma City, I guess.

All this, and months of rain as well. It's enough to keep Californians down there south of the Siskiyous where they belong. Me? I think I'll go see a good movie.

His Final Summit

Statue of Sir Edmund Hillary, with Everest in background

Life in our century doesn't offer many heroes. Men's greatest achievements seem soon tarnished by rumors of steroids, bribes, gambling scandals, ghost-written books, domestic violence. Apparent heroes end up on inane talk shows, revealing themselves to be self-centered jerks.

But today, a true hero died.

Sir Edmund Hillary has passed away at the age of 88. On May 29, 1953, he and his Sherpa companion Tenzing Norgay were the first human beings ever to reach the summit of Mount Everest.

In 1953, Everest was a remote peak in an inaccessible kingdom. Fat cat businessmen couldn't pay $60,000 -- or any price at all -- to be hauled up the mountain by guides, or to drag themselves up by use of fixed ropes. Helicopters didn't fly to base camp with fresh supplies. Simply reaching what is now "Everest Base Camp" required a major expedition.

Major corporations did not sponsor climbs. Climbers did not wear company logos. Climbers did not keep in touch with their families by radio, and certainly not by email. The Kingdom of Nepal limited access to the area to one expedition per year. Sir Edmund, then a simple New Zealand beekeeper, made his climb as part of an official expedition by the British Royal Geographical Society. He climbed the final stretch to the summit, from 27,900 feet, together with Tenzing Norgay, giving his name to the "Hillary step," a 40-foot cliff that every summiteer must negotiate just before the summit.

Word of his triumph reached London during the coronation ceremonies for Queen Elizabeth II. His triumph was viewed as a triumph for the entire British Commonwealth and Empire.

The newspapers will be full of the story tomorrow, as will the newsmagazines. I won't try to tell their story here. Although the expedition was a team effort, Sir Edmund's success was also celebrated as a victory for the individual spirit, as inspiring in its way as the later American moon landing was as a national endeavor. Sir Edmund himself became a celebrity and a hero.

But, for me, he remains a hero because of the way he spent his remaining 54 years of life.

He never forgot that his climb had been possible only because of his Sherpa support. In an era when European supremacy was often taken for granted, he never revealed, at least as long as Tenzing Norgay remained alive, which climber first set foot on the summit -- as if who was "first" even mattered. He saw and he was moved by the deep spirituality and the harmony with nature of the Sherpa people. He also saw, and was moved, by the Sherpas' material poverty, and their lack of education and health care. Although he served for a time as New Zealand's ambassador to India (and Nepal), he devoted much of his remaining life to raising money for schools and hospitals in the Khumbu region, and to preserving the Khumbu's environment from degradation by climbers and trekkers.

Today, anyone who visits the Khumbu (the Everest region populated by the Sherpa people) will encounter the schools and the medical facilities made possible by Sir Edmund's efforts. Visitors will meet the Sherpa people -- still sturdy, hard-working and poor -- but now healthier and with more hope for the future than they could have anticipated but for his efforts.

"I cannot do everything, but I can do something." Sir Edmund's life exemplifies the spirit behind that saying. At 88, he has now climbed his final summit. He has achieved his ultimate success. He lived, and he has died, a hero.

----------------------------------

AUTHOR'S NOTE (1-12-08): The following anecdote is from this week's Time Magazine. Edmund Hillary's life is a beacon of sanity and selflessness in contrast to everything that is wrong about today's "celebrities."

"I never deny the fact that I think I did pretty well on Everest," he [Sir Edmund] told a reporter in 1992. "But I was not the heroic figure the media and the public made me out to be."

Once, while resting on a rock during a short trek in Nepal with friend and film director Michael Dillon, an American walker stopped and showed Hillary how to hold an ice-axe. "Hillary listened and thanked him, but said nothing else," remembers Dillon. "The American went away without any idea whom he had spoken to." The first man to stand on top of the world didn't see himself as a hero. Others always will.

A Tiny Ripple of Hope

It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
--Robert F. Kennedy (1966)

This week, I've heard a haunting melody, a stirring rhythm, arising from the small towns and cornfields of Iowa; I've felt a trembling in the earth, a promise of change that sends a shiver down my spine. I feel the first tentative hope for the dawning of one more renewal in American political life, hope that arrives just when I feared we no longer were capable, or deserving, of such renewal.

Barack Obama. Age 46. Half Kenyan, half Kansan. A black man who speaks Indonesian, graduated from Hawaii's most exclusive prep school, and served as president of the Harvard Law Review. An Illinois liberal who speaks a new political language, a language that appeals to a broader audience. An African-American civil rights advocate who captures the hearts of white Iowa voters. A U.S. Senator. A successful middle-aged politician who can't help looking like a geeky kid speaking at graduation.

How unlikely a voice seems Mr. Obama's, how unlikely that his should be the voice crying in the wilderness, crying that we should make straight our paths. And yet. And yet, I dare to hope.

He would be but the latest avatar of an historical American type -- the political evangelist, calling the nation to renewal and to new achievement. We recall Teddy Roosevelt, leading the country forth from the corruption and torpor of the late 19th century. FDR, assuring us that we had nothing to fear but fear itself. Bobby Kennedy, quoting George Bernard Shaw: "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not."

But what is Barack Obama's program, skeptics ask? It's important to know, of course, and his Democratic rivals demand to know. If Obama has any hope of succeeding in his campaign, we will know more in coming weeks. But the details of his platform, as opposed to its broad outlines, matter little -- few campaign promises survive the crash and shock of unanticipated crises. They matter little, except insofar as they show the measure of the man.

Teddy Roosevelt's program was an unexceptional populism. FDR's New Deal often bordered on a form of fascism, and much of it was held unconstituional. Robert Kennedy stole Gene McCarthy's program, in many respects, and repackaged it in a form more digestible to more people.

The details of their programs were vague before they were elected (or assassinated), and in some respects were unworkable if and when enacted. The real legislative successes of these leaders were ones hammered out as the need arose, in consultation with leaders in Congress. What these men did give us, however, by force of their personality and their ability to "connect" with the electorate, was hope. Hope for a better America than was offered by the corporate greed of Gilded Age capitalism. Hope in the midst of the Depression for a return to prosperity. Hope for a return to peace in Vietnam, and for an America the young could once more love and respect.

Forty years after RFK electrified the nation, Barack Obama appears on the scene. Obama just may be offering our generation a new hope, hope for an escape from the gravest deadend and paralysis in American politics since the Civil War -- our seemingly irreversible polarization between two mutually hostile and uncomprehending factions.

It's too early to tell whether Obama is capable of carrying our dreams upon his shoulders, and offering back the hope we need. It's also too early to judge whether he has the qualities necessary to govern the nation as President, as opposed to simply inspiring it as orator. But, experience and detailed programs are not always presidential prerequisites. Presidents grow in office. Harry Truman was a political unknown (outside Missouri) when he became President.

Finally, I'm well aware that it is failing and floundering societies that hunger most urgently for inspiring, rather than simply competent, leaders. Such a hunger can be irrational and dangerous. Hitler and Mussolini each assumed such an inspirational role, seizing power when citizens in their own countries became fearful and desperate. Focus on the character of the leader rather than the workability of his proposals is risky.

But historically, we have been more fortunate than have countries like Germany and Italy. Our hunger for change has always been tempered by common sense. Our own political "saviors" -- our Roosevelts (both of them), our Kennedys, our Lincolns -- have been inspiring men, rational men -- not perfect men, but men who each led us out of the wilderness of his time and made the country governable once more by the capable but less charismatic Presidents who followed.

God, they say, has a special place in his heart for children, idiots, and the United States of America. Maybe so.

We live in interesting times. Let's keep our eyes and ears open and our hopes high in the weeks ahead.