What’s the case for The Prince being sarcastic? I realize it’s quite different from his Discourses on Livy, but I’ve read it as being more of a “extreme measures for an extreme situation” kind of deal. He does write in the Discourses that a sufficiently corrupted society could require a monarch using extreme and unusual means.
Historical context basically, I don’t remember the exact argument for it but it’s a commonly held view by specialists that I’ve seen referenced in newspaper-published essais.
In some ways he was quite progressive. He wrote strong female characters before it was cool, made a case for diversity (the way different races all have some unique characteristics that help them achieve victory as a team) and championed protecting the environment from villains who would exploit and destroy it (I know, it used to be a republican position, not anymore though). With his popularity, do we really want him to be claimed by fascists? What stands to be gained from bringing him to the court of public opinion, now that he’s long dead?
That will be relevant if there’s proof of the Tolkien estate supporting fascists. Or do you believe in punishing the children for the sins of their fathers?
Honestly if the person written a story is dead and the none is getting money or it I do not care.
I feel you. It would sound silly if I said I can’t read the Prince because Machiavelli was a bad guy
Also, The Prince is highly sarcastic but is a good notice to anyone living in what might become a horrible place about what to avoid in leaders.
Funny how the Republican party match up with his qualifications.
What’s the case for The Prince being sarcastic? I realize it’s quite different from his Discourses on Livy, but I’ve read it as being more of a “extreme measures for an extreme situation” kind of deal. He does write in the Discourses that a sufficiently corrupted society could require a monarch using extreme and unusual means.
Historical context basically, I don’t remember the exact argument for it but it’s a commonly held view by specialists that I’ve seen referenced in newspaper-published essais.
I agree. My issue is that Tolkien’s views are rarely talked about or they are excused. He is often put forth as a straight progressive.
In some ways he was quite progressive. He wrote strong female characters before it was cool, made a case for diversity (the way different races all have some unique characteristics that help them achieve victory as a team) and championed protecting the environment from villains who would exploit and destroy it (I know, it used to be a republican position, not anymore though). With his popularity, do we really want him to be claimed by fascists? What stands to be gained from bringing him to the court of public opinion, now that he’s long dead?
The Tolkien estate is getting money.
That will be relevant if there’s proof of the Tolkien estate supporting fascists. Or do you believe in punishing the children for the sins of their fathers?