Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[The 1,000 Reader]

LOTR, Sil, etc. are great books which tell tales of hope, combat, and most importantly of all are entertaining. The main characters, who support the good side of life, range from Frodo to Fingolfin. Though the majority of the tales are quite "black and white", Tolkien never fails to tell a grand story.

However, after reading the books and observing the Professor's letters, there is an odd group of fans that stand out. It appears as if they cast aside any message the works of Tolkien are made to tell, and key points are forgotten. To put it in short:

These people like/root for the bad guys.

In all honesty, this makes no sense whatsoever. As displayed numerous times, the orcs and such beasts are nasty, intolerant, lack honor, and are excessively violent. Morgoth was selfish and bent on ruining the lives of those who were happy and did no wrongs. Sauron was exactly like Morgoth, except bent on ruling them (and dumber, in my opinion.) Mordor and Angband were savage wastelands, and no effort was made to improve them.

On the other side of the spectrum, the men of Middle-Earth are kind, wise, and less narrow-minded. The elves are gentle and respectful. The hobbits are an ideal race who are peaceful, content with life and one with nature. They are all living harmless, happy lives. With care, their lands are lovely.

So, why do people root for and like the forces of evil? It seems like a lost cause. As a closing and powerful note, I have a message written by a former fan of Darkness which drives the point home.

I used to be a rabid supporter of Melkor and Sauron and their ilk, but not anymore. Why? Mainly because they were a lot of selfish ********.

Let's go back to Melkor's theme. Now, once I would have said this was a grand expression of creativity; Melkor was putting his rights of sub-creation to the test, being true to himself and not a slave. But really, playing that theme was just plain wrong. Let's think: creator vs. creation, who knows better? Now as much as you want to romanticise his rebellion, the fact of the matter remains plain: Melkor's will have mistakes in it while Eru's will not; or, assuming Eru is not perfect but only very powerful, it will logically have fewer mistakes because of his higher position.

Then, let's look at the results: Valinor vs. Utumno/Angband. Where would you rather live, honestly? Honestly now. We have our fun on this board talking about Elf-roasts and whatnot, but in all seriousness the realms of darkness were not nice places. They were filled with violence, filth, destruction and degradation. Where would you rather live, the Shire or Mordor? The Shire is a lovely place filled with kind folk who enjoy nothing more than eating and giving one another presents. Mordor is a militaristic society that runs on slave labor and is ruled by a megalomaniac.

The point of the above comparison is, who REALLY had a better plan for the world? The followers of Eru, or the followers of Melkor? His "rights" to follow his own plan notwithstanding, Melkor was a bloody evil idiot who, judging from the sort of places he produced, could not possibly have had anyone's best interests in mind, and he should have just sat down, shut up and played along with the rest.

So, why do certain readers find themselves supporting the evils of Tolkien's world?

[Mithalwen]

Natural rebels? The sterility of absolute goodness - I am thinking a little of Blake and his resentment of the stifling effect of tradition and the establishment (of course for Blake Orc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_(William_Blake)) is a positive figure.

Villains can be more attractive than heroes, especially perhaps to adolescents who are going through a rebellious phase anyway.

While I think rooting for Sauron would be a bit sinister, there are lots of Sarumans in the modern world - he would have fitted in quite nicely with the "Greed is Good" culture of the 80's. In fact he may well have been reincarnated as Gordon Gekko.

Also, Middle Earth isn't so black and white (and is a lot more interesting when it is not so). The LOTR is the closest to being black and white and even there those who are good often have to break the rules to "do the right thing" (Faramir, Eomer, Eowyn, Beregond...), Boromir and Denethor are not faultless but they are not evil.

The Silmarillion is packed with characters who fought Morgoth but were not "pure white". Feanor for a start is hardly a gentle and respectful elf.... yet noone could have hated Morgoth more. He like Thingol and Turgon could be accused of selfishness. Personally I find Luthien incredibly selfish since she is only does anything when motivated by her own interest....

Basically a character who is all white is as interesting as a blank piece of paper...

[Raynor]

Personally I find Luthien incredibly selfish since she is only does anything when motivated by her own interest....How come you consider her selfish, and acting in self interest only, when she gave up her family, royal status, freedom, immortality and risked her life for her beloved? I don't deny there is satisfaction in love, but that in itself hardly amounts to selfishness, esspecially when one sacrifices everything for love.

[Lalwendë]

People root for them because they can. It's a book. You can do what you want with it. It's not the law. So you can like which ever characters you want to like.

I wouldn't say I root for the bad guys, but they are certainly fascinating and they have to be or a piece of literature would cease to be literature and would just become worthless pap. Can you imagine how interminably boring a novel of over 1,000 pages would be if it was just whimsical doings of Hobbits or Elves being nice to one another? It would be truly vomit worthy. :eek:

And Tolkien gives us characters who are flawed on both sides, characters who are interesting and complex, like Gollum and Saruman. If he'd just written a black and white novel then it would be rubbish, like some cruddy simplistic 'sword and sorcery' nonsense. Instead he gives us subtlety, shade and light.

I don't care how bad Saruman is. He is a fantastic and utterly fascinating character, more so than some of the Elves who can come across as boring prigs. Thankfully Tolkien gives plenty of page time to his more complex creations. The Shire, Mordor, Angband, Rivendell etc don't exist, so questions over whether I'd rather live in one of them more than another are irrelevant, because to put it bluntly, I WON'T ever live in any of them, I will always live on Planet Earth. Neither Eru nor Morgoth exist nor ever did exist nor ever will, so I can like who I want to like.

In short. There isn't a wrong side, because these are just characters in a book. ;)

[Raynor]

the bad guys, but they are certainly fascinating and they have to be or a piece of literature would cease to be literature and would just become worthless papI don't think that literature dealing with overcoming one's shortcomings, fears, or with finding purpose or inspiration, or actualising an ideal is worthless. And such subjects don't require bad guys.
The Shire, Mordor, Angband, Rivendell etc don't exist, so questions over whether I'd rather live in one of them more than another are irrelevant
...
In short. There isn't a wrong side, because these are just characters in a book. (To avoid any misunderstandings, I am talking strictly on the general level; nothing I say is directed at any person in particular; I am talking ideas not individuals.) But doesn't being moral mean chosing good not evil in every situation? Can a person chose evil and not good in a situation and claim that he/she is still moral because said choice could never come into materialisation? Doesn't intention in fact define morality, moreso than the materialisation of intention? Isn't this an instance of hypocrisy?

[The 1,000 Reader]

Villains can be more attractive than heroes, especially perhaps to adolescents who are going through a rebellious phase anyway.

I know, yet the fans in question are hateful of the lively, peaceful hobbits. It's as if they were reading a completely different book. They see Frodo as garbage and Sam as an idiot, not to mention a horrid hate for Gandalf. They are not rebellious teens: a good deal of them are middle-aged folk.

While I think rooting for Sauron would be a bit sinister, there are lots of Sarumans in the modern world - he would have fitted in quite nicely with the "Greed is Good" culture of the 80's. In fact he may well have been reincarnated as Gordon Gekko.

Saruman was in fact a good villain, as well as Gollum, yet the fans the thread is referring to seem to forget that these fellows, despite their dynamics, were evil in the end. Yes, they can be liked as characters, but when Tolkien fans start treating them like the Messiah, that's not right.

Also, Middle Earth isn't so black and white (and is a lot more interesting when it is not so). The LOTR is the closest to being black and white and even there those who are good often have to break the rules to "do the right thing" (Faramir, Eomer, Eowyn, Beregond...), Boromir and Denethor are not faultless but they are not evil.

Yes, the good guys aren't perfect, but in a way that makes the arguement stronger. The good guys of Middle-Earth are not the typical one-dimensional characters: they are like real people. On the other hand, the orcs and their ilk are just bland, hateful monsters. It is also diversity that makes Saruman and Gollum stand-out villains.

The Silmarillion is packed with characters who fought Morgoth but were not "pure white". Feanor for a start is hardly a gentle and respectful elf.... yet noone could have hated Morgoth more. He like Thingol and Turgon could be accused of selfishness. Personally I find Luthien incredibly selfish since she is only does anything when motivated by her own interest....

That is true as well, but only goes to show that the good forces of Middle-Earth are realistic and not the standard "goody-two-shoes". Not only are they trying to preserve all that is good and happy in the world, they're real people in a sense.

Basically a character who is all white is as interesting as a blank piece of paper...

I am of that same mindset, yet the heroes of Middle-Earth are not all white or in a similar catagory. That is why I don't understand why anybody supports the evil side to such a major degree: the better motive, the development and emotion, all of that is with the side of good.

[Lalwendë]

Saruman was in fact a good villain, as well as Gollum, yet the fans the thread is referring to seem to forget that these fellows, despite their dynamics, were evil in the end. Yes, they can be liked as characters, but when Tolkien fans start treating them like the Messiah, that's not right.



Seriously, why isn't it 'right'? Right and wrong don't come into it when thinking about a book as you're free to enjoy the characters in whatever way you like. Remember Tolkien's work is not scripture, it's literature, it's Art. Even if it were scripture (which I think some people think it is for some reason) you're still free to treat it in any way you like.

There are some Downers who happen to love Orcs, think Melkor is ace and have crushes on Grima. So what? They aren't wrong, but it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice.

[the guy who be short]

To those who says Middle-Earth isn't black and white - look at orcs. Do they have any chance of repentance? They're an entire race doomed to evil.

I find this unfair. When I was younger, I set about writing a story that basically mirrored LotR, with a few changes. One of these was the repentance of those created by evil.

Though I've never supported the evil side, it's interesting - not weird, to me - that people do. Remember that good and evil are relative concepts. The elves were doomed to hate orcs and try to wipe them out. The orcs were doomed to hate elves and try to wipe them out. To the orcs, the Elves must have appeared as evil aggressors. Supporting them is entirely fair.

On a character basis, we have some grey. But on a racial basis, we have white and black in the Elves and Orcs. All you have to do is press a button to invert the colours.

[Lalwendë]

The other thing is, these characters are nice and safe in a book so we're able to enjoy the bad guys to the full if we like - they aren't real so we can freely imagine what it would be like to be them, it's fun! Who hasn't dressed up on Halloween or for a fancy dress party as something a bit scary? We like thrills and chills as they're just exciting.

Quite ironic really that when you see kids fighting and causing trouble, it's never the Goths who are fond of 'unwholesome' doomy gloomy stuff, it's the supposedly 'ordinary' lads who like the 'wholesome' things like Football who are busy beating each other up in the pub.

Some people are frightened of things a bit different to the 'norm' whereas others aren't.

[davem]

I think Tolkien kind of 'assumes' the reader will feel more drawn to the 'good' side. In an interview (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2001/12/04/batolk04.xml&page=5) he spoke of the underlying morality of the world he created:

Did this alternative creation worry Tolkien, a lifetime Roman Catholic? It did not seem to. I had remarked to him once that, despite the absence of organised religion in his mythical world - no priests, no temples - his peoples still behaved well. Yes, of course, he said, there was "what theologians call natural morality, natural duties and courtesies - ".

So Tolkien assumes that attitudes which are often held up as part of the 'Christian' underpinning of his creation are in fact anything but - they are the result of 'natural morality, natural duties & courtesies - when a man refuses to strike an enemy when he's down, that sort of thing'.

It is this 'natural morality' that Tolkien plays on - he assumes the reader will be drawn to the good side not because they are made more 'attractive' & exciting, but because whether the reader is 'religious' or not they will be, by their nature, more attracted by the good side - in fact, their behaviour will actually seem more 'natural' to the reader than the behaviour of the bad side.

Hence, anyone who is attracted by the bad side is (according to the theory Tolkien espoused) is going against their own natural inclinations.

Of course, Tolkien could have been wrong.

[Mithalwen]

How come you consider her selfish, and acting in self interest only, when she gave up her family, royal status, freedom, immortality and risked her life for her beloved? I don't deny there is satisfaction in love, but that in itself hardly amounts to selfishness, esspecially when one sacrifices everything for love.


She did that in order to get her beloved ie self interest. It is a similar situation to some of my friends who think they are martyrs becasue their lives revolve around their children. As far as the rest of the world goes they are incredibly selfish..... :rolleyes: But this is off topic - you don't have tosearch far to find more of my opinions on Luthien.

[shieldmaiden4xsword]

Maybe because they don't understand the good side? Or because.... they have nothing in common with the good side and root for the bad side instead? Because it just seems that the good guys are helplessly good? (they're not) or maybe cuz the bad guys seem to be freer? (they're not) Or because..... the good side is so so soooo far away from them.... they desparately want to be in the good side but it seems that they wouldn't fit in there?

*sigh* I'll say.... there's the good side, and the bad side. There's a clear difference between both of them. Would you be a mindless slaying creature or someone that fights for the good of Middle Earth, for those that he/she loves....

If it was selfishness for Luthien, then we're all selfish.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Seriously, why isn't it 'right'? Right and wrong don't come into it when thinking about a book as you're free to enjoy the characters in whatever way you like. Remember Tolkien's work is not scripture, it's literature, it's Art. Even if it were scripture (which I think some people think it is for some reason) you're still free to treat it in any way you like.

I meant to a nearly-cultist point. Letting fiction have such a grand effect on your life like that is what's messed up.

There are some Downers who happen to love Orcs, think Melkor is ace and have crushes on Grima. So what? They aren't wrong, but it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice.

They aren't hated, but their reasoning is not very fleshed out. In the end, orcs are just rude and brutal animals.

[CaptainofDespair]

They aren't hated, but their reasoning is not very fleshed out. In the end, orcs are just rude and brutal animals.

One could say the same of humans.

In any case, I feel (as a card-carrying member of the "I Heart the Witch-King" Fan Club) that I can at least speak for myself, and just maybe, some of the "evil-lovers" out there. Or not.

Evil is an exciting element. It allows one to be put into a mindset that is apart from, and yet similar to, that of Good. It can be quite enthralling. And so, to cheer for the vile is to cheer for the hopelessly doomed to defeat. It's fun to watch that downfall. There's not much suspense (as you may be able to guess quite well how the Enemy always causes its own end), but you can still sit back and watch the fireworks. Looking at things from the side of Good, the "miraculous" nature of every victory is always a bother.

There are, of course, more reasons. But I feel this one is enough.

[Bêthberry]

I think Tolkien kind of 'assumes' the reader will feel more drawn to the 'good' side.
So Tolkien assumes that attitudes which are often held up as part of the 'Christian' underpinning of his creation are in fact anything but - they are the result of 'natural morality, natural duties & courtesies - when a man refuses to strike an enemy when he's down, that sort of thing'.

It is this 'natural morality' that Tolkien plays on - he assumes the reader will be drawn to the good side not because they are made more 'attractive' & exciting, but because whether the reader is 'religious' or not they will be, by their nature, more attracted by the good side - in fact, their behaviour will actually seem more 'natural' to the reader than the behaviour of the bad side.

Hence, anyone who is attracted by the bad side is (according to the theory Tolkien espoused) is going against their own natural inclinations.

Of course, Tolkien could have been wrong.

It's interesting to consider this in relation to Tolkien's attitude towards the "long defeat."

If people have a natural inclination to the good side, as Tolkien assumes, what causes the long defeat--why doesn't this natural inclination result in victory rather than defeat? Is there an inherent fallibility which limits this natural inclination? Or is evil stronger than good? In the mythology, Middle earth is inherently flawed. How does this attitude towards an innate goodness fit in with this idea?

Just pondering these points out of idle curiosity.

[davem]

It's interesting to consider this in relation to Tolkien's attitude towards the "long defeat."

If people have a natural inclination to the good side, as Tolkien assumes, what causes the long defeat--why doesn't this natural inclination result in victory rather than defeat? Is there an inherent fallibility which limits this natural inclination? Or is evil stronger than good? In the mythology, Middle earth is inherently flawed. How does this attitude towards an innate goodness fit in with this idea?

Just pondering these points out of idle curiosity.

Good point - Tolkien assumes such a 'natural morality' in the reader but not in all the inhabitants of his world - which seems to imply that his secondary world does not operate by the same 'rules' as the primary.

Yet possibly this comes back to the different creation myths - the primary world was created 'good' & fell post creation, while the secondary world was created with Melkor's 'flaws' inherent in it.

So the reader is reading about an 'alien' world in which the 'natural morality' which holds in our world does not hold in that world. The inhabitants of M-e, it seems, do not have such a 'natural morality' - which seems to mean that when they make choices in conformity with our 'natural morality' they are making an unnatural choice. So one could argue that such choices are more difficult for them than they would be for us......

Unless....but... what I mean to say is.....er....

[shieldmaiden4xsword]

But for me, it's kind of sad watching something go down the pit. From the thing it once was, to the creature it became. It's rather saddening, that people are capable of such evil.... not just orcs.

[Lalwendë]

I meant to a nearly-cultist point. Letting fiction have such a grand effect on your life like that is what's messed up.


Well I'd agree with that! You could say I'm obsessed, in fact if someone who wasn't a fan of Tolkien walked into our house they would start rolling their eyes and muttering about "weird nerds..." or something like that. But there are degrees of obsession. What can be charming and eccentric can quickly become disturbing - such as the woman I used to know who lived as a Klingon (had a Klingon wedding and spoke Klingon at home) who did indeed prove to be delusional as she locked herself and her husband in the cellar with survival supplies (and little hats made of tinfoil) over the Millennium eve... :rolleyes:

But do you really know anyone who follows the dark forces of Tolkien's work to that extent? I don't, and I've been a fan since the early 80s - any Orcs fans I know treat is purely as fun. Most of the borderline obsessives are fans of Elves or Hobbits.

I don't think that literature dealing with overcoming one's shortcomings, fears, or with finding purpose or inspiration, or actualising an ideal is worthless. And such subjects don't require bad guys.

Is there any though? Even if there are no 'bad guys', then there at least 'bad things' to be dealt with. The only literature which approaches that (that I can think of) is some descriptive poetry, e.g. some of Keats' Odes, and this is not lengthy stuff, suggesting it cannot be stomached at great length by the reader or indeed the writer!

[Elmo]

We must all bow down and worship Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedom, because remember, darkness itself is worshipful.

[Raynor]

So the reader is reading about an 'alien' world in which the 'natural morality' which holds in our world does not hold in that world. The inhabitants of M-e, it seems, do not have such a 'natural morality' - which seems to mean that when they make choices in conformity with our 'natural morality' they are making an unnatural choice. So one could argue that such choices are more difficult for them than they would be for us.The question comes that there were at most two humans who experienced 'natural morality', and they live no more, physically. An argument could also be made that even if they experienced it, they didn't act on it - since they became moral (i.e. able to chose right from evil) only after their Fall, a Fall which corrupts them at least morally (as far as I understand Christianity). In any case, no human currently (or ever) knows natural morality. The same as in Middle Earth. Therefore, I believe that comparing both worlds post-Fall is possible and valid.
Even if there are no 'bad guys', then there at least 'bad things' to be dealt with. You may be right, but I doubt that an evil situations or evil in non-sentient forms could be somehow admired or desired.
darkness itself is worshipful.What do you mean? I doubt you got the right forum ;).

[Bêthberry]

Good point - Tolkien assumes such a 'natural morality' in the reader but not in all the inhabitants of his world - which seems to imply that his secondary world does not operate by the same 'rules' as the primary.

Yet possibly this comes back to the different creation myths - the primary world was created 'good' & fell post creation, while the secondary world was created with Melkor's 'flaws' inherent in it.

So the reader is reading about an 'alien' world in which the 'natural morality' which holds in our world does not hold in that world. The inhabitants of M-e, it seems, do not have such a 'natural morality' - which seems to mean that when they make choices in conformity with our 'natural morality' they are making an unnatural choice. So one could argue that such choices are more difficult for them than they would be for us......

Unless....but... what I mean to say is.....er....

Well, judging just from the interview you linked to, I can't see where Tolkien assigns this natural morality to readers but not to his secondary world. Of course, one can never completely rely upon newspaper articles, which are so severely pruned by space limitations and subject to their journalists' decisions of what to highlight and whatnot, but that passage leads one to assume that Tolkien assigns natural morality to his sub-created world.


Did this alternative creation worry Tolkien, a lifetime Roman Catholic? It did not seem to. I had remarked to him once that, despite the absence of organised religion in his mythical world - no priests, no temples - his peoples still behaved well. Yes, of course, he said, there was "what theologians call natural morality, natural duties and courtesies - when a man refuses to strike an enemy when he's down, that sort of thing".

He regarded artistic creativity, including his own, as a gift from God: we are created in the image of our Creator, and our own sub-creations, as he called them, were a pale reflection of that original.


Bolding mine.

Actually, I rather like the idea that Tolkien chose to make goodness dramatically exciting, althought I'm not sure he ever stated this explicitly. He chose to set himself an artistic challenge and not make evil aesthetically attractive--quite a turnaround from most literature! He focussed upon the actions and choices and emotions of his heroes and doesn't in much way make Saruman or Gollem in any way someone we would want to emulate or be. Who of us would like to be in Gollem's shoes--or rather, walk with his bruised and torn and cut bare feet? Not many I wager. (I could of course be wrong about this.)

Did Tolkien learn a lesson from Milton in particular?

[Elmo]

What do you mean? I doubt you got the right forum Out of darkness the world was made, and the lord of darkness may yet make other worlds to be gifts to those who serve him, so that the increase of their power shall find no end. That is why we should worship Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedom.

[Mithalwen]

Out of darkness the world was made, and the lord of darkness may yet make other worlds to be gifts to those who serve him, so that the increase of their power shall find no end. That is why we should worship Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedom.


Err you do realise that it is a work of fiction? :cool:

[Elmo]

What???? You mean I built this sacrificial temple in my back garden for nothing! Don't worry, I only burned a few twigs and PE teachers in it...

Anyway to go back to the topic at hand, I find it more interesting and 3D if you read the books as the Morgoth's advocate. I mean he was the only one showing a bit of independence and free thinking in the music of Arda, usually things people are praised for.

On a side note, is it true that some Russian guy rewrote Lord of the Rings from the 'enemies' view point. If so I'd be interested in reading this...

[The 1,000 Reader]

Hey, you do understand that Morgoth was a selfish jerk who only cared for himself, wanted everybody dead, and was the creator of oppression, torture, and the places he created were proof that he had nobody's best interests in mind, right?

[CaptainofDespair]

Hey, you do understand that Morgoth was a selfish jerk who only cared for himself, wanted everybody dead, and was the creator of oppression, torture, and the places he created were proof that he had nobody's best interests in mind, right?

So what if Morgoth was selfish? Does it really matter that much to you that people may actually, genuinely like him?

Now, I do understand that Morgoth is all of the above. But he is also the most individual of all the Valar. He rebelled wanting to be his own "person", to create beings all his own. Who hasn't wanted something like that at some point in their lives? You can relate to Morgoth's desires to a degree. He just happens to be the very extreme of the spectrum.

At least, that's my take on Morgoth.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Yes, I admit that he can be related to, but in the end he is a sick man. I have no problem with people finding some relation in Morgoth or thinking that Nazgul on Fell Beasts look awesome, but when people do not ultimately accept or see the forces of darkness as the horrors they are when all is said and done, that is what confuses me. Sure, an army of trolls or a eye of fire can seem cool, but when you totally lose the point of the book and see the evil as the way to live, that's rather messed up, and that's what the thread's about.

[CaptainofDespair]

but when you totally lose the point of the book and see the evil as the way to live, that's rather messed up, and that's what the thread's about.

Who, in reading LOTR, actually sees evil as a way to live?

Edit: Mind the fact that you don't get a great impression of how evil actually lives in LOTR. Also, forget the sociopaths.

[The 1,000 Reader]

I've seen some odd fans. They aren't really turned evil, but the certainly would seem to give you the impression. They don't seem to know when the "play" ends. I've never seen this behavior in "fans of good." Overall though, I didn't mean for this thread to be almost entirely focused on the oddest of fans, I just wanted to know why some fans of the darkness never seemed to acknowledge, even for a second, that the bad guys were ultimately the ones who were wrong and nasty. Like I said, the Nazgul are cool, but I still know that in the end they were heartless murderers.

[Lalwendë]

I've seen some odd fans. They aren't really turned evil, but the certainly would seem to give you the impression. They don't seem to know when the "play" ends. I've never seen this behavior in "fans of good." Overall though, I didn't mean for this thread to be almost entirely focused on the oddest of fans, I just wanted to know why some fans of the darkness never seemed to acknowledge, even for a second, that the bad guys were ultimately the ones who were wrong and nasty. Like I said, the Nazgul are cool, but I still know that in the end they were heartless murderers.

Would it matter if they were 'evil'? Evil's a value judgement at heart - if someone is being cruel to animals or children or exercising psychological torment and threats on people then that's evil behaviour. But as for some kids mucking around in robes and thinking they're going to summon up a manifestation of Sauron or something - well it's just not going to happen, so leave them to their play-acting.

Fact is, a lot of young people like Tolkien's work for the adventure and the thrills and the monsters and the sword fighting, and that's not 'wrong', and put that together with the interest a lot of young people also have in being alternative and trying different things ( from growing your hair long to dabbling in magic - it can cover just about anything) and some will want to play act that Sauron and Orcs really existed. So long as you don't start actually living full time as an Orc or a Hobbit then you're just a fan responding to the work, that's all.

People do know that the Orcs were nasty, but they still find them interesting. And anyway, it's so easy to wind up young, idealistic Elf-heads by pretending to be a Minion...and it can be great fun too.... :p

What do you think of vampires?

[Elmo]

People do know that the Orcs were nasty, but they still find them interesting. And anyway, it's so easy to wind up young, idealistic Elf-heads by pretending to be a Minion...and it can be great fun too....

I'll second that :D

Does anyone actually read Lord of the Rings and thinks 'hey let's try and raise an army of orcs and try and take over the whole world'? This reminds of all that crap about Harry Potter being the antichrist.

[Thenamir]

...I...<grrr>...will...not...<oomph>...post...on..<aiiii!!>...this...thread...

[Thenamir]

Forgive me for catching up on replies to 30 posts in one.
So, why do people root for and like the forces of evil?
The fact is they don't think about the woebegotten serfs and plebes who live out their lives in misery. These are the twisted souls who want to BE the villain, the One In Charge, the one who calls the shots. The ones who think that Good is boring and Evil is exciting are the ones who imagine that they will be the recipients of all the goodies. The ones who sympathize with evil are the ones who fail to see that "good" is good for all, while evil is good only for the one on top, and they want to be that one.
Melkor was a bloody evil idiot who, judging from the sort of places he produced, could not possibly have had anyone's best interests in mind, and he should have just sat down, shut up and played along with the rest.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
The sterility of absolute goodness - I am thinking a little of Blake and his resentment of the stifling effect of tradition and the establishment
To that I can only replyWhen an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent being says to you, "Don't go there," it is not ruggend individualism, nor free thinking, nor creative license to go there anyway -- it is probably suicide.
How come you consider her selfish...when one sacrifices everything for loveGreater love has no man, than to lay down his life for a friend.
you can like which ever characters you want to like...There isn't a wrong side, because these are just characters in a book. This is very true. But it seems to me that you can tell quite a bit about a person from knowing with whom they sympathize. If you'd rather be buddies with Sauron than Gandalf, then I'll keep my eyes on you while I feel for my hatchet. (Apologies to C. S. Lewis.) And Yes, Virginia, there is a wrong side -- if you favor totalitarianism versus freedom, you are on the wrong side, for the reasons Second of the Nine states above.
Doesn't intention in fact define morality, moreso than the materialisation of intention?Precisely, Raynor. When your intention is to satisfy and gratify youself without regard for the well-being and happiness of others, that is the quintessential definition of evil.a good deal of them are middle-aged folkIf anyone thinks the Goth contingent is confined to teenagers, you are gravely mistaken. There are people of all ages who are miserable, and would like nothing more than to drag everyone else down into their misery with them -- the idea that someone, somewhere is happy makes them go postal.
There are some Downers who happen to love Orcs, think Melkor is ace and have crushes on Grima. So what? They aren't wrong, but it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice.LOL -- just read that over again to yourself, saying that it is wrong to say that people are wrong -- can you not see the self-contradiction? Without admitting it to yourself, you are guilty of establishing a standard of right and wrong, while at the same time saying that such standards should not exist! It is certainly not wrong (in the sense of "illegal") to hold such views. But to glorify oppression, tyranny, and self-aggrandizement is indeed wrong (in the sense of "immoral" or "evil"). Whatever happened to the maxim, "Do unto others as you would like them to do to you"?good and evil are relative concepts. The elves were doomed to hate orcs and try to wipe them out. The orcs were doomed to hate elves and try to wipe them out. To the orcs, the Elves must have appeared as evil aggressors. Supporting them is entirely fair...we have white and black in the Elves and Orcs. All you have to do is press a button to invert the colours.Heavens! Surely you will not tell me that you are trying to draw some kind of twisted moral equivalence between the live-and-let-live (for the most part) Elves, and the murderous near-automatons of a ruthless and compassionless overlord? "Oh, if we could just undertstand the orcs, learn why their hatred is so great, perhaps we could reason with them, help them find their inner orcling..." This kind of reasoning is what blinds beople into inaction until it is too late.How shall any tower withstand such numbers and such reckless hate?

I am skipping around a bit here -- please do not think that because I left a post without comment that it was not interesting or insightful. My time is limited. And several posts were adequately answered by others. This post is already long enough, and perhaps if I find more time tomorrow, I will pick up some other points which fatigue does not allow me to cover now. Feel free to flame away!

[Lalwendë]

Whatever happened to the maxim, "Do unto others as you would like them to do to you"?

I personally follow the maxim "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". I am beholden to nobody but myself, and I certainly do not need a supernatural presnece to tell me how to behave. I am mature enough to work that out for myself, and I have been brought up that way by Christian and Agnostic parents. I am one of the most responsible, law-abiding and moral people I know, if I say so myself.

This also gives me the advantage of being able to distinguish a fictional character from a real one. If people who cannot do that wish to judge me for it, then it's not my problem but theirs. Far too many people judge by appearances I'm afraid.

As indeed people judge Goths. Yet in comparison to the herd mentality of most young people you could not hope to meet a bunch of more creative, interesting, intellectual, thoughtful people. I hope to have a young Goth (or similar ;) ) child one day ;).

And I'm afraid a large contingent of Tolkien fans, including members of this very board, are kids and adults just like that. We are not all cuddly, fluffy little good girls who sit with our hands neatly folded on our laps. Some of us indeed might be pinko commies, gays, ethnic minorities or 'satanic' atheists and pagans. Personally I don't really care what a person is, it certainly does not make them wrong.

The ones who sympathize with evil are the ones who fail to see that "good" is good for all, while evil is good only for the one on top, and they want to be that one.

No. We don't fail to see that at all. But we do know that these are just made up characters in a book and if you really want to judge people for having fun with them, then really, its just sad.

[Raynor]

But we do know that these are just made up characters in a bookHowever, as has been pointed out previously, this invokes an exception to morality that, as far as I am aware, does not exist. As far as I am aware, this point has not been yet addressed.

[Lalwendë]

However, as has been pointed out previously, this invokes an exception to morality that, as far as I am aware, does not exist. As far as I am aware, this point has not been yet addressed.

Sorry but it's ever so slightly paranoid to think that the billions of ordinary people who find the bad guys in books or films or comics thrilling are somehow "morally wrong".

If we took things to that extreme we'd be telling kids that Doctor Who was evil because he is a Time Lord and it refutes scriptures. Or that they shouldn't read the Wind In The Willows because talking, sentient animals are pagan. Or that they shouldn't listen to Motorhead as it might make you gay (as one notoriously silly website claims). In fact many people claim nobody should read Tolkien because it encourages witchcraft.

They should get a life.

[CaptainofDespair]

They should get a life.

Precisely! Thank you, Lal!

~*~

Now, I have a thought I'd like to share.

In reading over the posts on this thread, it seems to me that few are actually trying to answer the question The 1,000 Reader first posed (and this includes him). Rather, I think a good portion of the posts are not discussing why people might like the bad guys, but actually seem to be criticizing those people for liking the bad guys (i.e. the questioning of morality, etc). Exploring the attraction of the bad guys is one thing, but maligning the people who like them is entirely a different matter. I think the direction and tone of the thread needs a change, then, if this is the case.

[the guy who be short]

Surely you will not tell me that you are trying to draw some kind of twisted moral equivalence between the live-and-let-live (for the most part) Elves, and the murderous near-automatons of a ruthless and compassionless overlord?I suppose that more than anything, I'm pointing out the great flaw in Middle-Earth, which is that the evil are doomed to evil with no chance or choice of repentance. An orc is unable to repent of its "evil" - the evil is inherent in its blood. And, if this is the case, and morality is defined by intent, not genetics, then orcs are not immoral.

The argument that orcs are evil is similar to labelling the mentally ill as evil. They don't choose to hear voices commanding them to murder. They are doomed to it.

Melkor and the fallen Maiar and Valar may be evil by intent, but not the orcs and the trolls. They are victims as much as the Elves and Men.

What d'you say? - if we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses.The passage in the Stairs of Cirith Ungol always gets me. You see that orcs are slaves of Sauron, as much to be pitied as hated.


If anyone thinks the Goth contingent is confined to teenagers, you are gravely mistaken. There are people of all ages who are miserable, and would like nothing more than to drag everyone else down into their misery with them -- the idea that someone, somewhere is happy makes them go postal.None of the Goths I know are depressed, and none of the depressive people I know are Goths. I'd say being a Goth is more about being different than about being depressed. Also, as Lalwende says, the Goth subculture, in my experience, is unusually intelligent.

Some of us indeed might be pinko commies, gays, ethnic minorities or 'satanic' atheists and pagans.Some are all four at once. :p

[Raynor]

Sorry but it's ever so slightly paranoid to think that the billions of ordinary people who find the bad guys in books or films or comics thrilling are somehow "morally wrong".What is your argument here? That a certain thing is good because it is popular? That, in and of itself, is an instance of "ad populum" fallacy. Yes, I argue that there is a degree of immorality if we delight in evil qualities, and the fact that many people find it acceptable doesn't make it so. If I may quote Gandhi, the truth is the truth even if spoken by one single person.
If we took things to that extreme we'd be telling kids that Doctor Who was evil because he is a Time Lord and it refutes scriptures. Or that they shouldn't read the Wind In The Willows because talking, sentient animals are pagan.Your argument is irrelevant because it doesn't address the question, which concerned our attitudes towards evil persons - and not what makes a person evil or not, and not what should we do about books where evil characters appear.

Concerning your first example, Tolkien is a foremost defender of the idea that fairy-tales and religion are not mutually exclusive - quite the contrary.

[Thenamir]

If people who cannot do that wish to judge me for it, then it's not my problem but theirs.
Lalwendë, I apologize if this became a personal attack on you, it is not. I certainly know the difference between fiction and reality. I have nothing against those who enjoy a well-written villain in the context of a work of fiction -- such antagonists are necessary to good fiction. The kinds of people I am admittedly ranting about in my long-winded post are those who also know the difference between fiction and reality, but who also sympathize with and would (if they could) emulate the practices and methods of the villains. In essence, they are calling evil good, and good evil. I humbly ask The 1,000th Reader to confirm whether or not I have interpreted the question correctly.

And Lalwende, I note that you did not address the fundamental logical fallacies in your post which I pointed out. :D

Does anyone actually read Lord of the Rings and thinks 'hey let's try and raise an army of orcs and try and take over the whole world'? No, but there are those who read Mein Kampf and think the same thing. They are probably the same ones T1000R is talking about in his original post.

[Raynor]

I suppose that more than anything, I'm pointing out the great flaw in Middle-Earth, which is that the evil are doomed to evil with no chance or choice of repentance.The subject of irremediable allegiance to evil is not considered settled. Anyway, Tolkien stated in the letters that "there exists the possibility of being placed in a position beyond one's power", and he wasn't having only Middle Earth in mind - and I agree. While having a mythological-level power at one's disposal may ease almost complete corruption of others (Tolkien stated that no one can be absolute evil), even in our world there are, unfortunately, ways to condition persons into evil.
Melkor and the fallen Maiar and Valar may be evil by intent, but not the orcs and the trolls. They are victims as much as the Elves and Men.However, there are characters (Gollum the most representative) that refuse repentance and persist in wickedness.

[the guy who be short]

Bear in mind that Gollum came close to repentance. Appendix B, 11 March, 3019: Gollum visits Shelob, but seeing Frodo asleep almost repents.Sam drove Gollum away from repentance with his lack of compassion and mercy.

Also... who really admires / wants to be like Gollum? :D

[Lalwendë]

What is your argument here? That a certain thing is good because it is popular? That, in and of itself, is an instance of "ad populum" fallacy. Yes, I argue that there is a degree of immorality if we delight in evil qualities, and the fact that many people find it acceptable doesn't make it so. If I may quote Gandhi, the truth is the truth even if spoken by one single person.

Think about it logically. That so many people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would logically mean said billions of people would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving if liking a bad guy is immoral. But they aren't.

Many villify the video game industry for peddling games based on violence, but only a tiny handful of people who play said games are violent and these are people who you find were usually disturbed to begin with. Even those who supposedly only like thoroughly 'wholesome' things who are disturbed are perfectly capable of turning those 'wholesome' things into sickness, as shown by the sicko who visited my blog this week or the priests and pastors found guilty of crimes against children.

Being into good or bad characters has absolutely no bearing on a person's intentions.

Your argument is irrelevant because it doesn't address the question, which concerned our attitudes towards evil persons - and not what makes a person evil or not, and not what should we do about books where evil characters appear.

Yes it does. The question asks us if people who like 'bad guys' are evil. The answer is "don't be silly".

There's one bad guy who is utterly repellent, more so than anything you'll find in Tolkien, but who has turned out to be some weird kind of anti-hero to decent people the world over. Hannibal Lecter.

In the novel Hannibal we see him on the loose, up to his old tricks, but when the other gang of bad guys are about to feed him to the man-eating pigs we're hoping against hope that he gets free. Even Clarice Starling, his nemesis hopes that he gets free. Bear in mind that this guy is a pure sociopath, someone beyond all hope of reason, beyond cure, he is as close to pure evil as you could hope to get in this world. He east people's faces! But we want him to get away!

Concerning your first example, Tolkien is a foremost defender of the idea that fairy-tales and religion are not mutually exclusive - quite the contrary.

Fairy tales are the remnants of the Old Religion, and the New Religion appropriated so much from it that of course it also appropriated the Fairy tales where it could. Tolkien's theory on Fairy Tale reflecting Christianity doesn't really work in truth because fairy tale is beyond the constraints of religion, in many cases existed as a rebellion and defence against religion - his thoughts are more those of a man trying to reconcile his faith with his fascination for the blood thirsty and deeply pagan.


Exploring the attraction of the bad guys is one thing, but maligning the people who like them is entirely a different matter. I think the direction and tone of the thread needs a change, then, if this is the case.

Indeed. Let's be careful as there are many people on here who could easily be offended by being tarred with the 'evil' brush. Just as we don't appreciate being told we don't understand Tolkien's work because we are not Christian we also get the 'ump when told we are evil for maybe getting a kick out of reading about Saruman or Orcs or Dragons.

[Lalwendë]

Bear in mind that Gollum came close to repentance. Appendix B, 11 March, 3019: Sam drove Gollum away from repentance with his lack of compassion and mercy.

Also... who really admires / wants to be like Gollum? :D

I've got a friend who fancies Gollum - she says she wants to mother him, and was delighted when I gave her a Gollum screensaver and wallpaper saying "Oh, I love Gollum, he's so lovely."

She's also a Christian. And is delightfully eccentric and kind.

Gollum repents by falling into the cracks of doom, and he is almost there before that stage until as tgwbs says, he is driven away from it. He is consumed by the Ring, so we just can't say for sure he failed to repent as he was out of his mind.

[Raynor]

Think about it logically. That so many people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would logically mean said billions of people would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving if liking a bad guy is immoral.I am. This argument is a slippery slope fallacy: you have yet to prove that if one delights in evil, then one will necessarily do evil acts. Fortunately, there are steps.
Being into good or bad characters has absolutely no bearing on a person's intentions.However, that does not make delighting in evil morally right (when it occurs).
The question asks us if people who like 'bad guys' are evil. The answer is "don't be silly". So, I take it you will never justify why you consider there is a moral exception in this subject?
But we want him to get away!Being a victim of evil (or accidents) doesn't make one good. However, to turn to Tolkien, we must be tempered by mercy in our personal judgement; "But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge."
Tolkien's theory on Fairy Tale reflecting Christianity doesn't really work in truth because fairy tale is beyond the constraints of religion, in many cases existed as a rebellion and defence against religion - his thoughts are more those of a man trying to reconcile his faith with his fascination for the blood thirsty and deeply pagan.I certainly doubt he considered fairy-tales all over the world as reflecting Christianity; his position was that fairy tales can be used as an alternative vehicle for conveying the truth.

[Lalwendë]

I am. This argument is a slippery slope fallacy: you have yet to prove that if one delights in evil, then one will necessarily do evil acts.

You mean you have to prove that.
;)

[Raynor]

Bear in mind that Gollum came close to repentance.However, lack of favorable conditions is not an excuse for persistance in wickedness.
Also... who really admires / wants to be like Gollum?If it has any relevance, I actually debated with such a person.

[Durelin]

Another *example* is overkill, but my willpower is lacking, too...

(I apologize for this being all over the place...I tend to ramble and think aloud in my posts. Hence the over use of ellipses. Also, apologies for responding only generally to other's posts. There's too much for me to pick out specifics.)

I think I can easily be said to be one who perhaps takes her fascination with evil characters to "another level," as I have roleplayed numerous very nassssty evil characters just here on the Barrow-Downs, and I've done more with evil characters elsewhere, as well.

I am a Catholic (though I must say, I disagree with the Church on a lot of things, and I have many beliefs that coincide more with Buddhism than Catholicism), and regardless of my faith, I am a person who believes very strongly in my morals. I have also been deemed a little "Goth" by many.

I find the exploration of an evil mind, particularly a fictional evil mind, to be quite interesting, and so I love doing it in my roleplaying. In both my reading and writing, I mean to escape. Sometimes my escape is into the mind of a valiant hero with a pristine soul...other times it's into the mind of a...well, a really really nasty jerk. Sometimes I jump back and forth between the two. The reality is I'm somewhere in between the two, because frankly no one is perfect.

What it boils down to is that I think all people tend to be very interested in what they're not. Everyone does a little "roleplaying." Everyone daydreams. Why? Because none of us are perfectly in love with ourselves (People who are "in love with themselves" superficially not being what I'm talking about...nor is that the goal I'm talking about; more talking about idealistic self-actualization.). Is that "morally wrong?"

Perhaps part of why I have only read LotR fully once is actually because of how little there is about the baddies. Maybe I'm missing some exploration into Sauron's psyche. Even if not for something just to enjoy in and of itself, then maybe just for deeper reason for wanting the good guys to kick his butt.

I think most people have an in-born sense of that whole "good triumphs over evil" stuff, regardless of what we deem to be "good" or "bad." Human beings on the whole are really very resilient, both physically and emotionally. Much more than we will give ourselves credit for, I think. So many of us - dare I say most? - have no problem dabbling in the *evil* mindset. Besides, even if we're pessimistic about the real world, in Middle-earth we know the good guys always win. :p

Exploring the "dark side" intellectually is fun. You can even see if from a spiritual sort of view and see it as a way to deal with the "evil within us." We (general "we," and not necessarily the collective whole) delve into the mind of someone who we can look at and say is "evil," see their reasons for what they do, look at how they destroy themselves and others...all that jazz. We can understand their desire for power and the like, and considering we all know what anger and hatred is like to some degree, we can even begin to understand their reasons for destroying people, creatures, and things.

Does that mean we're giving *insert really evil dude/dudette here* a thumbs up? No, not necessarily. Would I invite Morgoth to dinner? Maybe; I'd just keep count of the silverware.

As a side note - I think I can easily admire Gollum's resilience. The fact that after all that time under the effects of the Ring he still had some sort of humanity to him is astounding. And do remember that this is a magical Ring, and beyond even Catholicism's outlook on *the work of the Devil* in everyday temptation. ;)

[Raynor]

You mean you have to prove that.Let us look at your argument again:
1. if liking a bad guy is immoral

2. it would logically mean billions of people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving Since you have made said statement, the burden of proof lies on you to show the inevitability of the outcome. You need to prove that a certain liking will necessarily bring about the said actions. I am curious how.

However, if you insist that you have no burden of proof whatsoever, I will point that there is no known conditioning of human nature that necessarily drives a person to action based on a certain liking he has. Simply having a liking does not imply that the liking will translate into intention, which will translate into action. If you know of any such law of human nature, please provide it.

What I have argued from the begining is that if morality is defined as chosing between good and evil in any situation, then <<the argument that "chosing evil in fictional settings is somehow good or morally acceptable" is false>> is a truism.

[Durelin]

A person who "likes" Morgoth isn't "choosing evil," they're choosing to be (or they just happen to be) entertained by an evil character - entertained whether they just find him/her amusing, exciting, or even intellectually stimulating, etc., or all of the above.

Edit: I can see where you might say that crazy people who get really into the evil mindset could be "immoral," but then you have the argument of whether or not someone is actually choosing evil simply in a fantasy or if they're only actually choosing evil if they act on whatever "immoral/evil fantasy" they might have. Perhaps that's where the disagreement really lies? Or simply people are talking about two different sides of the spectrum....

[Raynor]

A person who "likes" Morgoth isn't "choosing evil," they're choosing to be (or they just happen to be) entertained by an evil character - entertained whether they just find him/her amusing, exciting, or even intellectually stimulating, etc., or all of the above.However, it is one thing to say <<"I like amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" "and I admit that said evil guys may display them">> and totally another to say <<"I like Melkor because he is evil and that attracts me about him">>. Simply liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong; it is deligthing in evil (as I pointed out several times) that I consider it raises questions about morality.
I can see where you might say that crazy people who get really into the evil mindset could be "immoral," but then you have the argument of whether or not someone is actually choosing evil simply in a fantasy or if they're only actually choosing evil if they act on whatever "immoral/evil fantasy" they might have. I am not sure I follow; can you please rephrase?

[Durelin]

However, it is one thing to say <<"I like amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" "and I admit that said evil guys may display them">> and totally another to say <<"I like Melkor because he is evil and that attracts me about him">>. Simply liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong; it is deligthing in evil (as I pointed out several times) that I have a problem with.

Delighting in evil in the sense of having fun killing people? Then yes, I certainly agree.



I am not sure I follow; can you please rephrase?

Sorry! To think I express my thoughts better in writing than in spoken word...pretty scary...

Well, to put it simply: is thinking about killing someone evil, or is it only evil if you actually do it? And, is it evil in the same way? And...there are probably innumerable questions involved in that.

[Raynor]

Delighting in evil in the sense of having fun killing people? Then yes, I certainly agree.Well, not fun in doing them was my point, but in "witnessing" instances of evil, in and of itself.
is thinking about killing someone evil, or is it only evil if you actually do it?As I have argued, morality is defined first and foremost by intention.

I would also consider Tolkien's own statements:
Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.therefore, an good intention defines the morality of the action, almost regardless of consequences [Edit: and this is why I consider that Tolkien stated in letter #246 that "To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve." - good intent saves, but it requires full cooperation/dedication]
I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.therefore, an evil intent defines the morality of an action as evil, even if "macrocosmically" it may result in good.

[Lalwendë]

I will point that there is no known conditioning of human nature that necessarily drives a person to action based on a certain liking he has. Simply having a liking does not imply that the liking will translate into intention, which will translate into action.

Simply liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong; it is deligthing in evil (as I pointed out several times) that I consider it raises questions about morality.

You've just killed your argument there. So you agree that liking a bad guy is not necessarily wrong! :eek:

Exploring the "dark side" intellectually is fun. You can even see if from a spiritual sort of view and see it as a way to deal with the "evil within us." We (general "we," and not necessarily the collective whole) delve into the mind of someone who we can look at and say is "evil," see their reasons for what they do, look at how they destroy themselves and others...all that jazz. We can understand their desire for power and the like, and considering we all know what anger and hatred is like to some degree, we can even begin to understand their reasons for destroying people, creatures, and things.

Very good point. That's possibly why we do like bad guys and find them thrilling to read about (probably why we enjoy thrillers and horror too). They provide a safe way to explore evil without having to be involved ourselves - in much the same way young girls have posters of 'pretty boy' popbands on their walls as a way of exploring boyfriends without having to have a real one. Even with the writer you can see the exploration taking place - Tolkien was known to write about his own nightmares, his own psyche, with instances such as Numenor's drowning, and he made a drawing of Maddo, his son's own nightmare creature(quite a scary drawing actually); in creating odd beings like Balrogs and Gollum and the Witch King he was able to explore his own concepts of Darkness on the page. His books are filled with marvellous moments of horror, clearly something he relished writing about, and he well knew the power of hints and 'things left unsaid'... No wonder readers thrill to it all. :eek:

[Raynor]

You've just killed your argument there. So you agree that liking a bad guy is not necessarily wrong!So, instead of presenting any proof for your position you resort to distorting my argument? I have said "liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong" - but liking evil for evil is. If we can't agree on these two basic ideas, I don't think we will get anywhere on this part.
That's possibly why we do like bad guys and find them thrilling to read about (probably why we enjoy thrillers and horror too). They provide a safe way to explore evil without having to be involved ourselvesAgain, a difference should be made between the utilitarian aspect of using art to exorcise various issues - and liking evil for evil's sake. The first offers no moral justification for the second.
Tolkien was known to write about his own nightmares, his own psyche, with instances such as Numenor's drowning, and he made a drawing of Maddo, his son's own nightmare creature(quite a scary drawing actually); in creating odd beings like Balrogs and Gollum and the Witch King he was able to explore his own concepts of Darkness on the page. His books are filled with marvellous moments of horror, clearly something he relished writing about, and he well knew the power of hints and 'things left unsaid'... No wonder readers thrill to it all.What do you actually mean? That he enjoyed nightmares (and the likes) for what they were?? I am not aware that he has any 'morbid' propensities, or that, if he has, he is "ok" with them. Please clarify.

[davem]

Perhaps there is some confusing of the primary & secondary worlds here. One cannot simply apply primary world rules & values to a secondary world unthinkingly. There is a dynamic interaction/inter-relationship between both sides in the story, & both sides are, in their way 'attractive'. Overwhelming destructive power touches something deep in us. I remember the old PBS series 'Joseph Cambell & the Power of Myth', where Bill Moyers recalled an account from someone who had witnessed the fire-bombing of Dresden first hand. When asked about his reaction he simply said 'It was sublime'.

Now, he wasn't using the word 'sublime' in in any moral sense, or implying that it was 'good' (Dictionary definition: impressing the mind with a sense of grandeur or power; inspiring awe, veneration, etc.: Switzerland has sublime scenery.
supreme or outstanding;complete; absolute; utter). Hence, in this sense it is perfectly understandable that the 'power' displayed by the Evil side (personified in Morgoth slaying the trees, Sauron bringing Numenor to its spectacular end , Smaug blasting apart Esgaroth, Morgoth's massive armies blitzing Gondolin, etc) will be 'attractive' to some readers - not because they 'admire' the motives of the enemy, but because witnessing such pure & overwhelming power unleashed is awe inspiring. Suddenly order is replaced by chaos & destruction, fire, noise, light, & a sudden silence. One is over-awed & the only word for it is 'sublime'.

But this is not a 'moral' issue. It is a human one. To witness overwhelming, uncontrolled power is to be confronted with one's own smallness & insignificance & at the same time to be opened up to something 'greater'. Morgoth & his minions are, in this sense, sublime figures, & its easy to feel awe at their actions.

Yet, as I stated, it is dangerous to confuse the primary & secondary worlds. One can feel awe for a 'sublime' figure like Morgoth or Smaug but this does not imply that one would feel a similar awe for Hitler. Anyone who thinks one would has little understanding of human psychology.

[Raynor]

One cannot simply apply primary world rules & values to a secondary world unthinkingly.What limits do you have in mind?
To witness overwhelming, uncontrolled power is to be confronted with one's own smallness & insignificance & at the same time to be opened up to something 'greater'. Morgoth & his minions are, in this sense, sublime figures, & its easy to feel awe at their actions. There are few, if any, such instances. We are left to wonder how a certain battle went about; concerning the first one, all that is said of Melkor is in one phrase; while depicting it in more detail might produce the effect you are reffering to, it is not the case. Later on, he avoids battle as much as possible; his confrontation with Fingolfin was forced upon him, to an extent, and his victory was diminutive; by the time of the war of wrath, he hides, "unvaliant".

[Thenamir]

"To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve."

I like that quote so much, Raynor, it's becoming my new sig. Thanks!

[Lalwendë]

So, instead of presenting any proof for your position you resort to distorting my argument? I have said "liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong" - but liking evil for evil is. If we can't agree on these two basic ideas, I don't think we will get anywhere on this part.


Proof? What proof do I need? Because someone happens to get some fun out of play acting the role of an Orc you simply cannot say "Oh, he is evil." Why? Because the odds are that he is not. Thankfully this world is not full of muderers and perverts. But it is full of people that get a chill or a thrill from reading about bad guys. davem explains it very well. No more 'proof' is needed.

Besides, this is getting boring. I don't come on here to dance on a pinhead as the Downs saying goes. I just came here to defend the many many Tolkien fans and members of this very site who happen to get a kick out of the bad guys and are perfectly harmless and decent people. I need no more 'proof' of their being good people than that I know for a fact that they are,

[Raynor]

What proof do I need?Regarding your previous statement:
Think about it logically. That so many people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would logically mean said billions of people would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving if liking a bad guy is immoral.Because someone happens to get some fun out of play acting the role of an Orc you simply cannot say "Oh, he is evil."You are vague about this; if playing an orc is simple childplay, named that way, then yeah, there is no problem. If it involves theft or unnecessary destruction, as the children in Gondor in the fourth age do (as in the New Shadow), then yeah, it is morally wrong.
I just came here to defend the many many Tolkien fans and members of this very site who happen to get a kick out of the bad guys and are perfectly harmless and decent people.We are in agreement on this; as you see from the begining of this post, I am actually asking you to prove your own statement that people who entertain certain... delights, will necessary behave in any evil way.

[Lalwendë]

Regarding your previous statement:
You are vague about this; if playing an orc is simple childplay, named that way, then yeah, there is no problem. If it involves theft or unnecessary destruction, as the children in Gondor in the fourth age do (as in the New Shadow), then yeah, it is morally wrong.
We are in agreement on this; as you see from the begining of this post, I am actually asking you to prove your own statement that people who entertain certain... delights, will necessary behave in any evil way.

Well I think something has got lost along the way! Because obviously I don't think people will act immorally just because they like a bad guy!

And how many people who play act at loving Orcs are actually thieves or vandals? I'd say the number must be so small as to be able to be counted on the fingers of Frodo's damaged hand! ;)

[Raynor]

Because obviously I don't think people will act immorally just because they like a bad guy!However, my point is that one doesn't have to act on a certain desire/intention to be immoral. One cannot say that he delights in evil and still claim complete morality.
And how many people who play act at loving Orcs are actually thieves or vandals? Please specify what you mean by playing an orc; if it is a mere name, or if it actually implies replicating, to whatever extent, destructive acts of the orcs.

[davem]

There are few, if any, such instances. We are left to wonder how a certain battle went about; concerning the first one, all that is said of Melkor is in one phrase; while depicting it in more detail might produce the effect you are reffering to, it is not the case. Later on, he avoids battle as much as possible; his confrontation with Fingolfin was forced upon him, to an extent, and his victory was diminutive; by the time of the war of wrath, he hides, "unvaliant".

Well, I suppose some readers have more powerful imaginations than others....

In the end though we're dealing with a work of fantasy & emotional response over-rides moral judgement - if the story is effective. If a reader can step back & 'analyse' the story in terms of what is 'moral' & 'immoral' the story cannot really be working in the way it should. The reader may feel happiness or sadness, fear, horror, shock, joy, anger etc. but if the reader is so 'detatched' from the events of the story that he/she can undertake a moral & ethical analysis of the story either the story is unengaging or the reader has no imagination.

This is why I think attempting a moral evalutaion of the reader based on their emotional response to the events of the story is a dead end.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Perhaps language is tripping us up here.

Please specify what you mean by playing an orc; if it is a mere name, or if it actually implies replicating, to whatever extent, destructive acts of the orcs.

Surely everyone would agree that if someone imitates an orc and, as part of this "play acting", consciously commit destructive acts in the "real world", then this is not moral behavior. Conversely, if I write for an orc in an RPG (which I presently do) and use it to explore certain questions of psychology or faerie and my "real" behavior does not become orclike, I would not call such an situation immoral or negative in any way or sense.

Would the 'destructive' orc have been a destructive person in real life even if they had never taken on the persona of one of Tolkien's monstors? ...probably so. The basic problem undoubtedly lies within....the orc facade is one of many outer trappings they might have used to express something within that is basically wrong, but they could easily have used another persona, and the end results would be the same.

[Raynor]

if I write for an orc in an RPG (which I presently do) and use it to explore certain questions of psychology or faerie and my "real" behavior does not become orclike, I would not call such an situation immoral or negative in any way or sense.I agree; this would be the utilitarian aspect of art I reffered to previously. However, I would have my doubts about this case, if the person in question would start derailing the RPG thread intentionally (I have no idea how, I am close to clueless how these thigns work), or if he intentionally uses overly strong imagery in order to negatively affect the others.
This is why I think attempting a moral evalutaion of the reader based on their emotional response to the events of the story is a dead end.However, being impressed by a certain display of power does not justify developing a liking for the evil. If such a situation is developed, then morality is called into question; simply because we have a 'natural' tendency doesn't put us outside good and evil. Upholding morality actually requires us in such situations to reject evil and choose good, even when it is not useful, pleasant or satisfying. If one realises he actually develops a liking for evil, then one has the obligation to exert at least. self-examination, if he is to claim moral standing. Natural does not make it right.

[Bêthberry]

. . . In the end though we're dealing with a work of fantasy & emotional response over-rides moral judgement - if the story is effective. If a reader can step back & 'analyse' the story in terms of what is 'moral' & 'immoral' the story cannot really be working in the way it should. The reader may feel happiness or sadness, fear, horror, shock, joy, anger etc. but if the reader is so 'detatched' from the events of the story that he/she can undertake a moral & ethical analysis of the story either the story is unengaging or the reader has no imagination. . . .


Stepping in here with an observation. This is your literary viewpoint about stories, davem, but it is not the only literary viewpoint. Readers, critics, audience, storytellers themselves have argued for eons--probably since the first day after the first story was told to an audience--over whether the purpose of art is to instruct or to entertain. And then there is a sizable group who reject that either/or situation and argue for a synthesis of the two.

You really cannot tell a reader that his (or her) analysis of a story arises from his (or her) lack of imagination or the story's lack of entertainment, because you can't get into a person's head. Without knowing what prompts the analysis, you cannot substitute your own theory for its genesis and assume it pertains truly in all cases. After all, for all any of us know, a reader might simply be playing with the text, delighting himself (or herself) with how many ways he (or she) may find to engage his (etc.) mind with it.

Observation concluded. You may proceed. ;)

(Likely this thread will come to rival the infamous "C" thread, at least for its head-knocking.)

[The 1,000 Reader]

The kinds of people I am admittedly ranting about in my long-winded post are those who also know the difference between fiction and reality, but who also sympathize with and would (if they could) emulate the practices and methods of the villains. In essence, they are calling evil good, and good evil. I humbly ask The 1,000th Reader to confirm whether or not I have interpreted the question correctly.

Pretty much. On a lesser note, it is also wondering why some less obsessed fans always say that Melkor was doing good things yet never acknowledge that in the end, Melkor was a jerk and they're just playing.

[Lalwendë]

However, my point is that one doesn't have to act on a certain desire/intention to be immoral. One cannot say that he delights in evil and still claim complete morality.

But the sticking point is that we cannot say what is moral and what is immoral. You can't tell me what's moral. I can't tell you what's moral. And even 'God' can't tell us what's moral.

As an aside - why can't 'God' tell us that? Simply because there are many 'Gods' and even those who ostensibly share the same God can have huge differences - e.g. many still think homosexuality is immoral whereas their brothers and sisters in the same faith wholeheartedly believe it to be perfectly moral. These kinds of differences are common across all faiths and ideologies.

Even when we get into questions of 'violence' there are questions of what morality is. Some tribespeople in New Guinea have been cannibals (and are said to remain cannibals, despite attempts to persuade them away from the practise) and this is a deeply held part of of their morality - the enemy must be consumed in order to achieve a complete victory over him. That kind of morality makes Westerners cringe, but it's a morality all the same, no matter if we feel uncomfortable with it. Even in the West similar differences are thrown up by the question of circumcision. A friend of mine was 'honoured' with an invite to a female ceremony in Tanzania and despite finding this act to be immoral had to go along as this was very much moral in that culture; likewise there has been a storm in the UK after a Jewish baby died following a circumcision with both sides throwing around terms like 'child abuse' and 'religious tradition'.

Who's right? I can't say. Nor can you.

So in an infinitely less serious circumstance, that of say whether you find Saruman a bit exciting, is it:
a. even possible or permissible to say someone is immoral just from whether they like x, y or z character in a book, given that morality cannot be determined at some static point anyway.
and
b. is it important anyway? Are we just being a little bit silly?

I have to say that if anyone from outside the Tolkien community saw this they'd be laughing their heads off. Just how irrelevant and out of touch do we sound? Like it actually matters if you like the literary creations that are Orcs when there are people out there right now engaging in real, genuine and truly frightening acts of cruelty. And we're being asked if we want to tar and feather some ordinary kid for being fond of imaginary characters in a ruddy book! :eek:

All I'm asking is that we simply Get A Grip.

[Salacia Deloresista]

I don't think it's at all petty to examine the bad guys. The heroes are extremely heroic, and that's why we love the story, but what makes the bad guy's tick, and why is that fascinating? That's a question worth a discussion thread.

Now granted, I don't root for the bad guys in LotR (at 4' 11" I sympathize a little too much with the hobbits) but I have to admit to a kind of fascination with them. One of the things that really struck me when I read LotR for the first time was how, unlike a lot of other fairy tales, the lines between "good" and "evil" are not quite as defined. The ring works by twisting the weaknesses and desires of each character and bending them to it's own will. The servants of Sauron are not some "other" which we can put in a box and call evil, but a vision of what we could become, a vision of fallen humanity. Sauron's servants are those creatures who simply gave up fighting with themselves and gave in to the lure of the ring.

We all know/knew people like that, especially in high school. That's the guy who got sick of constantly trying and failing and so gave up, became a stoner, dropped out of school and now flips burgers somewhere. Recognizing that evil is something we all have in us brings the orcs and goblins and other creatures a lot closer.

So those guys, the ones who root for the bad guys, they're not rooting for evil, they're rooting for themselves.

[Raynor]

even possible or permissible to say someone is immoral just from whether they like x, y or z character in a book, given that morality cannot be determined at some static point anyway.Ah, the moral relativism defence.

I have little reason to worry about it; logically, moral relativism is twice contradicting: it allows for two opposite propositions, p and non-p, to be true (it defeats the very foundation of logic); and second: if there is no single standard to judge the value of a proposition, then even moral relativism has its limits and it naturally implies that other standards, contradicting moral relativism, are true as well. Frankly, moral relativism has no logical standing in a debate.

I have no problem drawing a line between concepts which lie upon a continua in the conceptual space - and matters are not as shady in Middle Earth as in the primary world. There, the very essence of Melkor and Sauron is nihilism. I am really curious who would argue that nihilism, utter destruction of everything, could be construed in a moral way. Nihilism itself excludes morality, since it allows for nothing to exist and therefore no distinctions to be made.

[Thenamir]

Bravo, Raynor, well said indeed.

Can I interject one more thought here (implying that you could say "no" :p ) -- that just as many here have said, there is far less gray and more black-and-white in Middle-Earth. I can understand someone being intrigued by Saruman or Gollum, who appear to have had struggles with their choices, the spark of good fighting, albeit unsuccessfully, their selfish bent. Such was the case in the end with Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker, a wonderful study into the dynamics of an evil character who repents in the end. I don't think anyone here would object to that.

What I believe is causing so much heated verbaige here is the existence of those who don't just appreciate a well-written literary exploration of a character who turns out to be evil (as most of us here do) -- they would BE Sauron or Morgoth if they could -- or, to put it in more real-world terms, they would BE Hitler or Stalin or Hannibal if it was within their ability. The ones who who don't care about others, being supremely consumed with self.

In other words, they're not just fascinated by evil -- they embrace it, they emulate it, they take it as a role model. It's that kind of person we don't understand.

[the guy who be short]

First, a defence of moral relativism:

1) Raynor, you don't explain your contradictions. However, I presume the first works as follows. The statements "no moral system is better than another" and "moral relativism is the only logical moral system" contradict one another.

In reponse to this, moral relativism is not a moral system, it is amoral. It does not say "this is good, this is bad, live your life by these rules." It says "good and bad do not exist, they are unnatural fabrications of the human mind enforced by society."

2) if there is no single standard to judge the value of a proposition, then even moral relativism has its limits and it naturally implies that other standards, contradicting moral relativism, are true as well.Again, moral relativism is not a morality system.

To relate this to Tolkien:

Viewed from a morally relative, or amoral, perspective, I see no objective evil in supporting evil characters. It's all in the minds of those who are offended.

[Thenamir]

Viewed from a morally relative, or amoral, perspective, I see no objective evil in supporting evil characters. It's all in the minds of those who are offended.
A genuinely curious question -- since you use the phrase in your explanation, would you mind defining "objective evil" from an amoral perspective? :D

[Lalwendë]

An observation: I'm chucking to myself how the debate seems to have subtly shifted away from people criticising those who just get some fun out of supporting the bad guys into criticising those who take the bad guys as an inspiration for sociopathy. Quite a different thing, and I'd venture to say you're as likely to find someone inspired to acts of sociopathy inspired by Tolkien's bad guys as you are to find a Leprechaun. And nobody would disagree that sociopathic behaviour is bad. Of course, saying that someone who is just into the bad guys and gets some fun out of it is evil or immoral, is actually quite rude to a lot of Downs members, who we know are decent people.


Frankly, moral relativism has no logical standing in a debate.

On the contrary. It takes centre stage in such a debate as this where we are criticising our fellow Downers for liking the bad guys and finding them entertaining (or that's the way it started anyway before the U turn!). Standing back and asking What Is Morality is vital where we are throwing around insults at decent people and casting aspersions on their moral fibre and character.

I aint going to judge others by anyone else's standards, only by my own. I won't be told who to like and who to mark down as 'immoral'.

Sorry but the thought just occurred to me that the point of this whole thread is supremely dodgy! The cheek of it! Why should anyone tell me or anyone else which characters we should like and which we should dislike?!

Can we not get on to looking at the much more fruitful question of why people like bad guys rather than offending people any further?

[Thenamir]

Lal, I truly mean no offense, but either you are missing our points entirely, or you are deliberately ignoring our patient attempts to explain ourselves, twisting our efforts into straw men easier to knock down.

Nowhere have I said nor implied that Tolkien's bad guys inspire people to sociopathy, and I don't think that's the point of the other posters here. The reverse is our real point, that there are sociopaths and near-sociopaths (by far the tiny minority of readers) who empathize with Tolkien's bad guys because those characters are evil.

If you are going to debate these matters, please do us the kindness of actually reading what we're saying.

[Lalwendë]

Here's the thing though. It's not being said that "there are loads of people who like the bad guys and get some fun from them, and tiny, ridiculously small percentage of those might be borderline sociopaths". That would be OK. It's being said that "if you like the bad guys then that suggests you're bit fishy to me".

That's just plain not nice. Nor is it fair.

Aside from anything else, is there any balance provided by looking at the equally tiny number of loons who are into Hobbits or Elves? Not all of them will be 100% nice either. Being into the bad guys is not a 'marker' of someone to avoid.

So anyway...you agree that just because Johnny or Susan think Orcs are fun and likes to write evil characters in RPGs or maybe habitually goes to conventions dressed as the Witch King or has a Balrog theme on their profile or likes to wind up Elf-heads by acting the minion, it does not mean they are immoral or evil?

[davem]

Of course, the underlying assumption seems to be that good & evil in M-e correspond exactly to good & evil in our world. Yet the morality of M-e is Tolkien's morality. Good & evil in M-e are what Tolkien says they are. But the reader's moral value system may not correspond to Tolkien's - & why should it? Why should the reader simply accept that what Tolkien claims is 'good' is actually 'good' - at least as far as the Primary world is concerned? Tolkien may be the 'God' of M-e (ie the creator & to some extent the sustainer), but in the primary world Tolkien is a man with his own values.

The reader has a right to hold to their own sense of good & evil & apply it to the world of M-e - if they choose to take that approach to the story. If the reader prefers the 'evil' characters over the 'good' that is simply their take on things.

It seems to me that there are those whose moral value system corresponds more or less exactly with Tolkien's own & who therefore feel that they can sit in judgement on the moral value system of other readers. One may love Tolkien's creation, his style, his inventiveness, be fascinated by his languages, his creativity, admire the dedication required in producing what he did. But...

One does not have to accept his position on good & evil. One can take any approach, side with any character. To think Sauron was cool & Frodo was a jerk loser is fine & neither better nor worse morally than to hold the opposite view. To think Sauron is cool does not imply one thinks Hitler was cool. A reader who cheered when Morgoth's hordes obliterated Gondolin would not necessarily have cheered when the Twin Towers came down. One may find Sauron cool & not feel Hitler was cool because Sauron & Hitler are not the same - one is a character in a story while the other was a sick & evil human being & Gondolin is not New York.

[Raynor]

moral relativism is not a moral system, it is amoral. It does not say "this is good, this is bad, live your life by these rules." It says "good and bad do not exist, they are unnatural fabrications of the human mind enforced by society."Moral relativism is all fine and dandy, until we get to the hard stuff. There are certain horrors and degradations of human behaviour that simply cross cultural boundaries. And this is even more true in Tolkien's world, where evil acts with a mythological-level power.

If the only people who disagree that <<delighting in evil is immoral>> are the same people who consider that <<there is nothing wrong, evil, or immoral about rape, or unnecessary harm, or Melkorian-style nihilism>>, then, frankly, I will happily rest my case.

If it is only all the other people [the ones who consider that <<rape, or unnecessary harm, or Melkorian-style nihilism are wrong, evil, immoral, in and of themselvs>>] agree that delighting in evil is immoral, then I am satisfied. I need not go any further than that.
Standing back and asking What Is Morality is vital where we are throwing around insults at decent people and casting aspersions on their moral fibre and character.Why are you trying so hard to twist arguments about ideas into arguments about persons? No single person has been targeted, only ideas. If a general moral judgement is true, then uttering it is not an insult, so please don't make it look so.

This whole discussion has started when you claimed that there is nothing wrong with liking bad guys because they are fictional. If you make this statement in an open debate, then you must be ready to have it challenged.

The curiosity of this is that, as pointed previously, you implied the existence of an absolute moral value: "it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice." and "We don't fail to see that at all [that "good" is good for all"], but when confronted, you resort to an argument that "there isn't in fact an absolute moral scale", which denies the previous "ok". Unless you qualify your statement as a purely personal position, then it can only be naturally read as presuming an absolute morality. I hope you see the contradiction.
you agree that just because Johnny or Susan think Orcs are fun and likes to write evil characters in RPGs or maybe habitually goes to conventions dressed as the Witch King or has a Balrog theme on their profile or likes to wind up Elf-heads by acting the minion, it does not mean they are immoral or evil?Please qualify your statements. Do they think that orcs can sometimes make jokes or do they think destruction done by the orcs is fun? Do they dress as the witch-king because such clothes are trendy (or whatever adjective, or whatever reason) or because they believe that (almost) irredeemable allegiance to evil is acceptable? I don't understand your last refference to make a comment on it.

[Lalwendë]

Why are you trying so hard to twist arguments about ideas into arguments about persons? No single person has been targeted, only ideas. If a general moral judgement is true, then uttering it is not an insult, so please don't make it look so.

A person's ideas are very personal to them. What you fail to take in is that by saying if a person likes the bad guys in a book that they are immoral you are INSULTING them. And I personally thought that kind of thing was not allowed on here. All I want to do is to defend those Downers who I personally know are decent people and are anything BUT immoral who happen to like one or two of the bad guys. There is NOTHING wrong in what they do.

:rolleyes:

I'm afraid I want no more part of this. It's offensive, frankly. I will not 'justify', 'prove', 'qualify' or otherwise anything I have said because I am simply defending the right of people not to be insulted for the things in Tolkien which they personally find entertaining.

[Raynor]

I will not 'justify', 'prove', 'qualify' or otherwise anything I have said because I am simply defending the right of people not to be insulted for the things in Tolkien which they personally find entertaining.Simply because a person has a choice does not make that particular choice moral. If that choice is not moral, then simply stating the truth is not in itself an insult.

If you refuse to qualify your statements and clarify contradictions between your posts, then I guess discussion is indeed impossible.

[Bêthberry]

I'm afraid I want no more part of this. It's offensive, frankly. I will not 'justify', 'prove', 'qualify' or otherwise anything I have said because I am simply defending the right of people not to be insulted for the things in Tolkien which they personally find entertaining.

Oooh, umbrage and high dudgeon. Isn't that the last resort of those left without a leg to stand on? ;) :)

I still think it would be valuable to consider where Tolkien put the dramatic action, whose decisions he described, how he presented the choices available in Middle-earth.

We don't have to accept his moral vision, but far more interesting than saying anything goes or you're bad if you like orcs is the aesthetic question of what he choose to highlight.

In giving the main focus to the choices and travails of the heroes, without developing the baddies to any large extent, without making them as attractive, as, say, the Byronic heroes were attractive, was Tolkien in fact creating a situation in which the very unwritten parts, the unstated possibilities, in fact create a situation which, likely, Tolkien wished to avoid, that is, an imaginative and dramatic interest in the baddies.

Would we all be as interested in balrog wings if Tolkien had been more direct? I don't think so. So, all this interest in Sauron and Melkor and orcs and Saruman, is it in fact created by Tolkien's avoidance of extensive description of evil. Is this a pursuable line of discussion?

[Raynor]

In giving the main focus to the choices and travails of the heroes, without developing the baddies to any large extent, without making them as attractive, as, say, the Byronic heroes were attractive, was Tolkien in fact creating a situation in which the very unwritten parts, the unstated possibilities, in fact create a situation which, likely, Tolkien wished to avoid, that is, an imaginative and dramatic interest in the baddies.

Would we all be as interested in balrog wings if Tolkien had been more direct? I don't think so. So, all this interest in Sauron and Melkor and orcs and Saruman, is it in fact created by Tolkien's avoidance of extensive description of evil. Is this a pursuable line of discussion?I agree; I previously (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=512598&postcount=57)answered to one of davem's post that we can hardly be impressed by the might and splendour of Melkor, since Tolkien dedicates very little space to that.

I would say that Tolkien definitely saw displaying of majesty/power as morally wrong; it was an error for the valar to manifest themselves in majesty fully revealed to bring the elves to Aman; fully revealed power was also forbidden to the Istari; Melkor himself has shown himself in a most majestic form to corrupt Men. I believe there is a theme at play.

[Lalwendë]

Not at all Bb. I am genuinely offended by what Raynor is implying about many good people on here and see no value in continuing such unpleasant discussion while it will be insulting other people. It isn't nice, is it, to be associated with rapists, Stalin, Hitler and other nasties? It brings to mind the similar offence caused by ANOther thread we all know about. One of my good pals here, who I can personally vouch for as being a great guy (and he knows who he is if he reads this) keeps telling us about his replica of Angband in his cellar. Yeah, he's evil he is. Riiiiiiiiiight.

But that's my last word on that. And I will not be drawn on it, thank you very much.

And anyway I shall let you off Bb ;) because you're trying to do what I've tried to do more'n a few times which is draw this thread out of the poison and into more interesting light.

I shall see if it goes on that way before deciding whether to bother any more.

[The Saucepan Man]

Just an observation, but I hope that it might take the sting out of this thread. It looks to me like there is a certain amount of talking at cross-purposes going on here.

As far as I can see, no one arguing that delighting in evil is immoral has sought to suggest that any member of the Barrow Downs is immoral. Nor, as I see it, have they sought to imply as much by suggesting that having a light-hearted “crush” on Wormtongue or building a replica of Angband, or any other such weird and wonderful things that a Downer might do, is immoral. Their case, as I understand it, is that those who take a delight in the deeds of Tolkien’s evil characters, who genuinely find their intent and purpose, as depicted by Tolkien, laudable, is an approach lacking in morality. That, it seems to me, is a proposition which may be discussed without anyone taking offence, save for those falling within that category. And I seriously doubt that anyone who would wish to spend any significant amount of time on the Downs would fall within that category.

Similarly, I do not understand those who are arguing that it is justifiable to find the evil characters interesting, or to have a bit of fun with them (for example, to dress up as the Witch King or write an evil character in an RPG), to be seeking to suggest that the deeds and purposes of those characters, as depicted by Tolkien, are morally acceptable. Their case, as I understand it, is that academic, literary or merely light-hearted interest in the evil characters does not denote sociopathy or immorality.

If my understanding of both positions is correct, then it seems to me that they are largely, if not wholly, reconcilable, and I am really not sure what this argument has been about at all. I would therefore counsel taking the diversion offered up by Bêthberry, rather than continuing it.

[Thenamir]

We have been discussing these characters in somewhat of a vacuum. Tolkien was not silent about these tragic heroes. Let us examine what Tolkien chose to highlight about the subjects to which we refer. Pay attention, there will be a test afterwards. :p

Morgoth:

From splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless. Understanding he turned to subtlety in perverting to his own will all that he would use, until he became a liar without shame. He began with the desire of Light, but when he could not possess it for himself alone, he descended through fire and wrath into a great burning, down into Darkness. And darkness he used most in his evil works upon Arda, and filled it with fear for all living things.

In the powers and knowledge of all the other Valar he had part, but he turned them to evil purposes, and squandered his strength in violence and tyranny. For he coveted Arda and all that was in it, desiring the kingship of Manwë and dominion over the realms of his peers.

But he desired rather to subdue to his will both Elves and Men, envying the gifts with which Ilúvatar promised to endow them; and he wished himself to have subject and servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over other wills.

Then Melkor saw what was done, and that the Valar walked on Earth as powers visible, clad in the raiment of the World, and were lovely and glorious to see, and blissful, and that the Earth was becoming as a garden for their delight, for its turmoils were subdued. His envy grew then the greater within him; and he also took visible form, but because of his mood and the malice that burned in him that form was dark and terrible. And he descended upon Arda in power and majesty greater than any other of the Valar, as a mountain that wades in the sea and has its head above the clouds and is clad in ice and crowned with smoke and fire; and the light of the eyes of Melkor was like a flame that withers with heat and pierces with a deadly cold.

But ever the Noldor feared most the treachery of those of their own kin, who had been thralls in Angband; for Morgoth used some of these for his evil purposes, and feigning to give them liberty sent them abroad, but their wills were chained to his, and they strayed only to come back to him again.

But in the north Melkor built his strength, and he slept not, but watched, and laboured; and the evil things that he had perverted walked abroad, and the dark and slumbering woods were haunted by monsters and shapes of dread...And in that dark time Melkor bred many other monsters of divers shapes and kinds that long troubled the world...

...all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes.

...he [Manwë] saw not to the depths of Melkor’s heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him for ever.

...Then Melkor lusted for the Silmarils, and the very memory of their radiance was a gnawing fire in his heart. From that time forth, inflamed by this desire, he sought ever more eagerly how he should destroy Fëanor and end the friendship of the Valar and the Elves; but he dissembled his purposes with cunning, and nothing of his malice could yet be seen in the semblance that he wore. Long was he at work, and slow at first and barren was his labour. But he that sows lies in the end shall not lack of a harvest, and soon he may rest from toil indeed while others reap and sow in his stead.

...Thus with lies and evil whisperings and false counsel Melkor kindled the hearts of the Noldor to strife; and of their quarrels came at length the end of the high days of Valinor [quote]and the evening of its ancient glory.

Sauron:
Among those of his servants that have names the greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called Sauron, or Gorthaur the Cruel. In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda, in his vast works and in the deceits of his cunning, Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself. But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.

...Sauron, greatest and most terrible of the servants of Morgoth, who in the Sindarin tongue was named Gorthaur, came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower upon Tol Sirion. Sauron was become now a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and of phantoms, foul in wisdom, cruel in strength, misshaping what he touched, twisting what he ruled, lord of werewolves; his dominion was torment.

So, now, let's review. Even for Lalwendë who has her fingers in her ears and isn't listening anymore. ;)


Arrogant and contemptful of everything except themselves
Liars without shame
Selfish in the extreme
Use fear and intimidation to dominate other wills
Turn good things to evil purposes
Usurpers of the rightful realms of others
Coveting everything for themselves
Appear in dark and terrible forms
Tortured, maimed, killed, enslaved, perverted the elves
Completely loveless
Envious, jealous and bitter
Ever striving to insert strife and dissent
Cunning dissemblers and deceivers
Instrumental in the downfall of Numenor and the consequent deaths of almost an entire race
And in the end complete losers and failures.


Yep. Darn fine upstanding citizens, role models for people of all ages, inspirations to generations of Tolkien fans the world over, marks of excellence that we should all strive to achieve. I can only hope my children read and learn from these great heroes of Middle Earth.

Is it possible that some may understand why we might feel a little uneasy around those who uphold these characters as the "good guys"?

[davem]

I still think we have to step back & remember that we are dealing with a work of fantasy. One may like a character in a work of fiction even if that character does things which would be morally unnacceptable in real life. Morgoth is not (& never was) real - neither are Hobbits or Elves, Dwarves or Dragons. Hence we are dealing with fantasy figures doing 'nasty', 'immoral' things to other fantasy figures. Or to put it another way, words on a page.

To make moral judgements about another human being based on whether they like or admire a particular character is to cross a line. LotR is neither the Bible nor the Koran - it is not a divinely inspired book of Law intended for the moral guidance of humanity. Whatever the author's intention (or hope) may have been, it is for most readers an escapist fantasy.

One could argue that the Elves & most of the men are the kind of boring, self righteous prigs that needed (or at least provoked) the contempt of Morgoth. Indeed I would certainly argue that without the Enemy the story (& the world of Arda Unmarred itself) would have been so dull that no-one would have cared whether the good guys 'lived in bliss' forever.

The enemy are the ones who make the story interesting, exciting & worth reading. They are the source of the dynamism & power in the work. If there is an 'endless defeat' going on - ie an eternal battle - it is because if ever the good guys won the story would be dead in the water. Tolkien may not have liked that anymore than some posters here, but its true.

Bb's point is worth exploring because it seems to me that it is the case that the very undeveloped nature (in terms of description) of the enemy makes them more 'archetypal' & therefore more open to 'projection'. Their very 'undeveloped & unexplored' nature makes them more attractive in many ways than the Elves. They're interesting & therefore attractive because they're unknown, mysterious.

I think another aspect of their attractiveness is simply that one cannot help but feel a bit suspicious as to whether they are actually as 'bad' as they're painted - we don't, for intsance, have their side of the story - Thenamir has given us the Human-Elvish perspective on them, but is that the whole story? What, really, motivated Melkor's rebellion - we're basically told he decided to be 'bad', but we're not told why he made that decision. Maybe he heard the Theme & thought 'For Eru's sake! What is this bland, middle of the road pap we're being expected to play. This tune needs jazzing up a bit if its going to have a chance of getting to Number One.' And, as I said, if he hadn't 'jazzed it up' & added some beats it would have been a pretty dull gig ('Christian Rock' anyone??).

So, I can definitely see the attraction the evil characters hold for some readers - without them there would be no stories - or would anyone care to speculate on what kind of tales we'd have if there was no Melkorian rebellion, no Glaurung, no Sauron, no Ring, no Lord of the Nazgul for Eowyn to confront.

And that is the point - the Lord of the Nazgul is cool, & so is Eowyn's dispatching of him....

[Raynor]

As far as I can see, no one arguing that delighting in evil is immoral has sought to suggest that any member of the Barrow Downs is immoral. Nor, as I see it, have they sought to imply as much by suggesting that having a light-hearted “crush” on Wormtongue or building a replica of Angband, or any other such weird and wonderful things that a Downer might do, is immoral. Their case, as I understand it, is that those who take a delight in the deeds of Tolkien’s evil characters, who genuinely find their intent and purpose, as depicted by Tolkien, laudable, is an approach lacking in morality. That, it seems to me, is a proposition which may be discussed without anyone taking offence, save for those falling within that category. And I seriously doubt that anyone who would wish to spend any significant amount of time on the Downs would fall within that category.I agree with all your points.
Their case, as I understand it, is that academic, literary or merely light-hearted interest in the evil characters does not denote sociopathy or immorality.With the exception of "light-hearted interest" (which seems a bit too vague in the context of our discussion - I always requested qualifications), I have stated a similar idea
Simply liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong; it is deligthing in evil (as I pointed out several times) that I consider it raises questions about morality. So, I can definitely see the attraction the evil characters hold for some readers - without them there would be no stories - or would anyone care to speculate on what kind of tales we'd have if there was no Melkorian rebellion, no Glaurung, no Sauron, no Ring, no Lord of the Nazgul for Eowyn to confront.There is nothing wrong with recognising that evil characters pose greater challenges in stories, and greater challenges in stories make them more interesting. However, such a recognition is not in itself an equivalent for justification of deligthing in evil. Moral integrity requires that one's actions, ideas and feelings are consistently compatible with what one considers morality. Any such inconsistency, on whatever level, is, by definition, immoral. One has the free will to do whatever, and one may tolerate one's natural propensities, but that doesn't make every action and every propensity moral, just because they are enacted or tolerated.

[davem]

There is nothing wrong with recognising that evil characters pose greater challenges in stories, and greater challenges in stories make them more interesting. However, such a recognition is not in itself an equivalent for justification of deligthing in evil. Moral integrity requires that one's actions, ideas and feelings are consistently compatible with what one considers morality. Any such inconsistency, on whatever level, is, by definition, immoral. One has the free will to do whatever, and one may tolerate one's natural propensities, but that doesn't make every action and every propensity moral, just because they are enacted or tolerated.

But in the end a story is entertainment, & as I stated we are dealing with fantastical characters in a fantastical setting. Of course, applicability comes in - to the extent taht the reader wishes - but my own feeling is that one cannot make judgements about a reader's morality based on which characters they prefer or support. One may enjoy seeing Elves hacked apart by Orcs simply because one finds Elves annoyingly smug & think they deserve all they get (which I don't actually, but I accept some readers may).

One cannot simply project Middle-earth onto our world & apply the standards of good & evil in that world to our own - who are the Elves & who the Orcs in our world? How can one relate the secondary world to the primary so precisely as to be able to make such judgements as 'If you like the Orcs you must also like rapists & murderers' or 'If you side with Melkor you must be a neo-Nazi'. It simply doesn't work. Primary & Secondary worlds are too different, character's motivations & desires in the Secondary world cannot be simply projected onto human beings in the Primary. Taking LotR as a guide for moral behaviour in the 21st Century is bound to be a failure, because the Primary world is a whole lot more complicated than the Secondary one.

Tolkien never accounts for the existence of evil in M-e - in the sense that we are never told why Melkor chooses to rebel. Tolkien simply tells us that he 'rebelled'. In fact, one gets the feeling that he couldn't explain it at all - he needed an 'evil enemy' & stuck one in & told the reader - 'He's evil'. We have no real sense of why Melkor does the nasty stuff - which allows the reader to invent all kinds of justifications, even to the extent of thinking he may just possibly have had a good reason - or at least that he rebelled because he didn't want to be a servant, & wanted to do his own thing - why did Eru give him free will if he wasn't to be allowed to use it? If I gave you a million dollars & then commanded you only to use it as I dictated you might well be tempted to see my 'gift' as worthless & throw it back in my face.

In other words, I can see the argument that Eru is the power mad dictator & Melkor saw the whole thing as a laboratory for Eru's 'experimentations' (or his 'Art') & decided he would have none of it, & sought to wreck the whole silly thing. Its an argument. Hence, if a reader takes that approach I would not declare them 'immoral'. They are judging characters in a story & their attitude to 'evil' acts in the Primary world may be entirely different.

And this thread is asking about some readers support of the 'evil' characters in M-e, not their support of evil people in this world.

[Raynor]

Davem, if I understand your argument correctly, you say that there are no ideas/feelings/propensities which are evil/immoral/wrong in and of themselves, regardless whether they are put to action or not. Please confirm.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

There is nothing wrong with recognising that evil characters pose greater challenges in stories, and greater challenges in stories make them more interesting. However, such a recognition is not in itself an equivalent for justification of delighting in evil.

I think one has to make a distinction between liking, being amused by or being intrigued by an evil character and delighting in evil. Personally, I have observed that it is often the evil characters in stories that have the most interesting past, the writer has to decide what made them evil and why. In Tolkien's work one does grow curious about why characters fell into evil, like Saruman, for example, if he just became evil and no explanation was given, wouldn't you want to know what the reason was? Is this curiosity to know the reasons a delight in evil? I do not think so.

Also, more often than not, many amusing quotable quotes come from the evil characters. :D
One of my favorite scenes is the confrontation between Gandalf, Theoden and the rest with Saruman. Mainly because a lot of the things Saruman says make me laugh, especially since it sometimes seems that he over-reacts. "LATER? LATER? Yes, when you have the keys of Barad-Dur itself..."
Granted, many of the good characters have good quotes to, so there is a good balance.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that it also worth making the point, I think, that some of the evil characters display qualities which it is possible to admire for their effectiveness, even if one does not approve of the purpose to which they were put. Saruman's powers of persuasion, Sauron's artistry in Ringcraft or the magnificence of Smaug, for example.

[Thenamir]

Thenamir has given us the Human-Elvish perspective on them, but is that the whole story?
I am on admittedly murkier ground here, but I interpreted the quotes of my last post to be those of an "omniscient author" rather than a "Human-Elvish" history. I am curious to know if those who are better informed can expound upon Tolkien's intent here. Thanks!

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

The original conception for the Silmarillion material in the Book of Lost Tales was that Eriol heard the tales directly from various Elves. Later this changed so that the legends were written down by Eriol (eventually Ælfwine) at Tavrobel in Tol Eressëa from the Golden Book of Tavrobel, which is a history composed by the Elda Pengoloð. Later conceptions of transmission are unclear, but The Silmarillion as published makes no mention of its fictional authorship and I don't recall anything Tolkien wrote that contradicts the idea that The Silmarillion is a collection of records kept by the Eldar (more specifically the Noldor).

This being the case, anyone with any sort of historical training will be able to postulate a significant amount of bias in favour of the Elves in most of the material on which we base our judgement. LR is the Hobbit perspective, with interpolations from human and Elvish records; the Silmarillion is the Elvish perspective received second-hand through Eriol/Ælfwine (via Old English), or Bilbo Baggins' Translations from the Elvish (via Westron), whichever version you prefer.

However, these aren't historical documents. Tolkien knew both sides of the argument, and in fact he presents Morgoth and Sauron's views at several points in HoME and LR, not to mention those of the Orcs through their reported speech. He demonstrates that the unrepresented side is arrogant, power-hungry, destructive, cruel and greedy. Why, then, do people like them?

As far as I can see, there are several reasons. Firstly and most importantly, the bad guys get to do as they please. Everyone else has to obey the rules, or at least take some account of others when making decisions, but evil characters, being completely egocentric, are allowed to ride roughshod over everyone to get what they want. Those of us who do consider others might well find it therapeutic occasionally to step into the shoes of someone who doesn't.

Added to that there's the obsession with rebellion. If anything, the modern era is one of social disobedience and non-conformism, so that we're practically raised to support anyone who doesn't obey the rules. If the rules are that we all share things and respect one another we want to see someone who lies, cheats and steals. Tolkien would probably have said that this is our fallen nature speaking, attracting us to the selfish, degraded and base; but very few people still think as he did.

Finally there's irony. Above all rhetorical techniques, our age has made irony its own. One of the reasons why LR is so unpopular is that it contains virtually none: it takes itself absolutely seriously, and the current fashion is for detached amusement. The ironic approach to LR and The Silmarillion is to try to write a revisionist history of Arda, or at least to identify with one of the characters presented to us as irredeemably evil. Then again, perhaps Saucepan is right and the admirable quality is that the evil characters are effective. Their methods work in the majority of situations, and a utilitarian mind might think that therefore theirs is the course to take.

Having said that, this is all invented. It's not real. I hope that none of us would choose to follow Morgoth or Sauron if they were real physical presences, that is without being somehow duped or coerced. Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, Grima and Shelob, and all of the other evil characters of Arda are just figments of Tolkien's imagination, and supporting one of them won't change the world one iota. It won't even change Middle-earth, because that story has already been written and the one person capable of re-writing it is dead. In that sense, then, this argument has no bearing on reality and is inherently pointless. If we were discussing why people choose evil at all, well that would be the sort of relevant philosophical discussion that the last century prompted many more people than us to consider, and Tolkien was not the least of them. It's possible that he would have regarded sympathy with his evil characters as symptomatic of humanity's spiritual weakness, or he may possibly have noted that those who can imagine being the Witch-king or Sauron are probably in less spiritual danger than those who simply dream of making the world a better place for people whether they like it or not. Sauron himself fell because he wanted to order the world and improve it, so he must always have imagined himself to be among the virtuous until he reached a point where good and evil were no longer important concepts for him.

Personally I don't see any harm in dressing up as the Witch-king or imagining oneself to be an Orc, other than a general discomfort with taking fandom that far at all. Provided that we do the right thing when it matters (in real life), we can do whatever we like in our imaginations. Importantly, if it's such a bad thing to identify with Tolkien's villains, then what can we say about the person who wrote them?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I agree; I previously answered to one of davem's post that we can hardly be impressed by the might and splendour of Melkor, since Tolkien dedicates very little space to that.


I disagree with you here. You may not spend a lot of time describing, say, a mountain, yet when you actually see one, it is a splendid sight. That said, I take your point that the Tolkiens may not have wanted that to be a focal point except where it is needed to show valour in other characters. Melkor's might is expressed more in his battle with Fingolfin so that the elven king's fall seems all the more wondrous, given that he wounds the great creature.

[Formendacil]

The thought occurs to me that if one is going to take readers to task for a certain fascination with the evil characters, then one should perhaps berate Tolkien himself for the same reason. After all, if he could invent such compelling evil characters (instead of just the bare minimum of evil bad guy needed for some conflict), then perhaps he deserves as much censure as those who have readerly interest in those characters. After all, Tolkien very often portrays the "good guys" in a poor light, and occasionally gives reasons to sympathise with utterly abhorrent characters.

Perhaps the professor had a soft spot for evil domination himself. It would probably have solved so many of his problems. :p

[davem]

Davem, if I understand your argument correctly, you say that there are no ideas/feelings/propensities which are evil/immoral/wrong in and of themselves, regardless whether they are put to action or not. Please confirm.

Then it seems you haven't understood my argument at all.

Of course there are ideas/feelings/propensities which are evil/immoral/wrong in and of themselves, regardless whether they are put to action or not.

when those ideas/feelings/propensities relate to the primary world. In the case of a fictional creation though one has much greater imaginative freedom. As I have repeated, one may side with Melkor as a rebel against Eru if one finds Eru a narrow minded, totalitarian megalomaniac. One may also side with the Orcs if one finds the Elves boring, self satisfied & smug. One may also decide to think oneself into the mindset of an Orc or Nazgul just out of curiosity. One may just like Dragons. Tolkien's creation is not the be all & end all. One is not required to 'choose a side' as if one's immortal soul depended on the choice. One may (if one is a Christian) may have to choose the side of God & His angels in this world if one is to save one's immortal soul from hell, but choosing to side with Melkor over Eru will have no effect on one's soul & at most provide a new & interesting angle from which to approach the story.

In short, this thread is dealing with a question of psychology rather than morality. Why would a reader choose to side with the 'bad guys'? Why not? The idea that someone who thinks Morgoth is a cool dude & wishes he had stomped the Elves into the mud is placing their immortal soul at risk is so far fetched as to be unworthy of being taken seriously. Players of Middle-earth strategy & role playing games regularly adopt the role of the Witch-king or Sauron himself (in many cases because the game is a two hander & someone has to be the bad guy, in some cases just because they want to rule the world - of Arda!), but the idea that that person, in throwing him or herself fully into the game is risking becoming a psychopath & running amok with a scimitar in the street is absolultely laughable.

[Thenamir]

I think "fascination with" is a far cry from "agreement with", but that's just me.

[Durelin]

I think a part of a person can almost "agree with" some things about some really bad dudes, because we all know there's a part to us that just wants to kick some butt. In both good guys and bad guys, we like the tough guys. We like the guy that can slaughter his enemies, whether they are "good" or "bad," because he's a mean, tough-a, killing machine...and a lot of people find that pretty *cool*. We can very much understand a selfish desire to live, we can empathize with even very nasty and bloody revenge, we can agree to living by one's "own rules" without adhering to rules like "slaughter all Hobbits, because they smell" or better yet, "because it's fun."

So, I think in a sense a person can agree with a bad guy, even when you apply their ideas or their behaviors (quirks, ways of carrying themselves - that sort of thing, I suppose) to the "real world." When it comes to their actual deeds, though? Not so much.

I do agree that the line between interest, fascination, etc., and the sort of "agreeing with" you're probably talking about, Thenamir, has been blurred beyond recognition. The blurring has been done on both sides, though, so I definitely don't think you can single anyone out for "not listening."

Sorry for the quotes abuse...

[davem]

I think "fascination with" is a far cry from "agreement with", but that's just me.

How far a cry? And to risk repeating myself, why does it actually matter if a reader is 'in agreement with' a fictional character or not? It tells us precisely nothing about the reader's morality, psychology, ethics, political stance or inside leg measurement. You can discuss, agonise about & lose sleep over the question of why some readers prefer Melkor to Eru & even if you come up with an answer it'll be worth absolutely zilch. It will tell you nothing about the reader, the book or how long a piece of string actually is.

[The Saucepan Man]

And to risk repeating myself, why does it actually matter if a reader is 'in agreement with' a fictional character or not? It tells us precisely nothing about the reader's morality, psychology, ethics, political stance or inside leg measurement. I thoroughly disagree. I would submit that a reader's genuine reaction to a work of fiction can, depending upon the nature of the work, tell us much concerning their morality, psychology, ethics and, perhaps, their political stance. Most probably not their inside leg meansurement, though.

Of course, we would be judging that by reference to our own conceptions of morals, psychology, ethics and politics, but that is inevitable. And I think, at least within a single society at a fixed period of time, one can establish an approximation of consensus in these areas (right/wrong, sane/insane, left-wing/right-wing etc), even if there is disagreement on some of the grey areas. But we are not really talking about grey areas here. We are talking about good an evil.

I would certainly feel that I was able to draw conclusions about a person if they genuinely sympathised with Big Brother and though that Winston Smith had it coming to him or, to use an example cited earlier by Lal, if they thought that Hannibal Lector's dietary preferences were quite normal.

[Raynor]

when those ideas/feelings/propensities relate to the primary world.However, I talked about ideas and feelings. That makes the separation between primary world and inner world irrelevant - and your argument becomes self-contradicting.

Imagination/fairy tale/fantasy is part of a person's universe of ideas - but you seem to deny this, even if, for me at least, it is an evident truth. If for the whole there is a norm: "certain ideas/feelings/propensities are immoral", then this rule exists also for the parts of it.

If an idea/feeling/propensity is defined as immoral in itself, then any instance of it, regardless the condition, is immoral. One cannot say one considers the idea of derriving pleasure from tales of rape as immoral, and then delight from the idea hinted in Myths Transformed that Men were forced to mate with beasts - and then one still claims moral integrity.
One can't say one considers derriving pleasure from tales of tortures, killings and unncessary destructions as evil in itself, and then delight when Gondolin is destroyed or when people are tortured in Numenor - and still consider oneself as moral.

[davem]

However, I talked about ideas and feelings. That makes the separation between primary world and inner world irrelevant - and your argument becomes self-contradicting.

Imagination/fairy tale/fantasy is part of a person's universe of ideas - but you seem to deny this, even if, for me at least, it is an evident truth. If for the whole there is a norm: "certain ideas/feelings/propensities are immoral", then this rule exists also for the parts of it.

No, because you're assuming that what one reader considers good (& evil) is the same as what another reader does. I don't accept that fantasising about 'x' is equal to actually doing 'x' - particularly not when we're dealing with Orcs, Elves, Dragons & Ringwraiths. This is a fantasy world & cheering when a Goblin kills an Elf for his magic sword is not the same as cheering when a mugger stabs a commuter for his cellphone.

Take a scene from Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell:

The camp was a dreary, silent place. A thick snow was falling and the strange soldiers lay, wrapped in their black cloaks, upon the snowy ground. At first the young women thought the soldiers must be dead - an impression which was strengthened by the great multitude of ravens and other black birds which had settled over the camp, and indeed upon the prostrate forms of the soldiers themselves - yet the soldiers were not dead; from time to time one would stir himself and go attend to his horse, or brush a bird away if it tried to peck at his face.
At the approach of the young women a soldier got to his feet. One of the women shook off her fears and went up to him and kissed him on the mouth.
His skin was very pale (it shone like moonlight) and entirely without blemish. His hair was long and straight like a fall of dark brown water. The bones of his face were unnaturally fine and strong. The expression of the face was solemn. His blue eyes were long and slanting and his brows were as fine and dark as pen strokes with a curious flourish at the end. None of this worried the girl in the least. For all she knew every Dane, Scot and Frenchman ever born is eerily beautiful.
He took well enough to the kiss and allowed her to kiss him again. Then he paid her back in kind. Another soldier rose from the ground and opened his mouth. Out of it came a sad, wailing sort ofrnusic. The first soldier- the one the girl had kissed - began to coax her to dance with him, pushing her this way and that with his long white fingers until she was dancing in a fashion to suit him.
This went on for some time until she became heated with the dance and paused for a moment to take off her cloak. Then her companions saw that drops of blood, like beads of sweat, were forming on her arms, face and legs, and falling on to the snow. This sight terrified them and so they ran away. The strange army never entered Allendale. It rode on in the night towards Carlisle. The next day the townspeople went cautiously up to the fields where the army had camped. There they found the girl, her body entirely white and drained of blood while the snow around her was stained bright red.
By these signs they recognised the Daoine Sidhe - the Fairy Host.

Here we have a more 'traditional' account of Fairies than Tolkien gives us. How many of us do not feel a thrill of excitement when we read about the fate of the young woman at the hands of the Fairy Host. How many of us are fascinated by these mysterious creatures & want to know more about them? And do any of us, on reading that passage think 'Oh, what evil creatures! Anyone who is excited by them must be sick'? No, we are attracted by these dark mysterious beings with such mysterious powers.

And now, hands up anybody who feels the kind of excitement & attraction I'm talking about who actually wants to go out & force a young woman to dance until she bleeds to death?

If an idea/feeling/propensity is defined as immoral in itself, then any instance of it, regardless the condition, is immoral. One cannot say one considers the idea of derriving pleasure from tales of rape as immoral, and then delight from the idea hinted in Myths Transformed that Men were forced to mate with beasts - and then one still claims moral integrity.

That depends on whether you judge people on what they do or on what they think. I think your position would lead us to the kind of situation we see in Minority Report - where people are incarcerated for crimes they intend to commit - or worse - for fantasising about shooting the guy who cuts them up on the freeway, or punching the boss out for balling them out. This kind of fantasy is a release. By indulging in such fantasises we deal with them without acting them out - that's the function of fantasy - we fantasise about doing 'x' so that we don't actually do 'x'. In fact, if we didn't fantasise about doing bad things every so often there would be a whole lot more bad things happening.

One can't say one considers derriving pleasure from tales of tortures, killings and unncessary destructions as evil in itself, and then delight when Gondolin is destroyed or when people are tortured in Numenor - and still consider oneself as moral.

So, 'deriving pleasure' from such tales is no different from committing such acts? There's no difference between fantasising about punching the idiot who walks out in front of your car, forcing you to slam on the brakes & actually getting out of your car & actually punching him? Well, I'd say there's a world of difference as far as he's concerned - cos in the first instance he crosses the road & carries on with his day & in the second he spends most of the day in casualty with a broken nose.

And you're still avoiding the central point - some readers may think Gondolin was filled with annoying self satisfied idiots & deserved what it got - you're attempting to impose your moral value system on other readers & condemning them for not living up to your standards.

[Raynor]

No, because you're assuming that what one reader considers good (& evil) is the same as what another reader does.You are misrepresenting my argument - I am not talking about my ideas. In the very paragraph you quoted, I said (emphasis added):
If for the whole there is a norm: "certain ideas/feelings/propensities are immoral", then this rule exists also for the parts of it.This assumes that the person in question has the above mentioned moral norm. If he has that norm, then yeah, any instance of it crossing it is immoral, regardless the circumstance. If somehow this was unclear, I apologise.
How many of us do not feel a thrill of excitement when we read about the fate of the young woman at the hands of the Fairy HostI'll be frank, I consider fascination with vampires and the likes as wrong.
So, 'deriving pleasure' from such tales is no different from committing such acts? How could you possibly derrive that from my statement? Anyway, my answer is that there is a whole world of a difference between the two.
In fact, if we didn't fantasise about doing bad things every so often there would be a whole lot more bad things happening. You seem quite sure of this idea. How can you back it? How can you prove that thinking about an evil thing necessarily drives us away from doing it?
some readers may think Gondolin was filled with annoying self satisfied idiots & deserved what it got Do these readers believe that slaughter of civilians, plunder & co are justified?

[davem]

This assumes that the person in question has the above mentioned moral norm. If he has that norm, then yeah, any instance of it crossing it is immoral, regardless the circumstance. If somehow this was unclear, I apologise.

And this idea of a 'norm' isn't perjorative? You are taking your moral value system & attempting to present it as the norm, thereby implying that anyone who doesn't share it is immoral.

I'll be frank, I consider fascination with vampires and the likes as wrong.

Okay...... in the sense of incorrect or immoral? So, Dracula, Anne Rice, Buffy, Angel, all immoral works? Because all of them are based on this 'fascination with Vampires'. Personally, being that Vampires are no more real than Tolkien's Elves, Orcs or Balrogs (or his Vampires come to that) in what sense is this fascination with none existent creatures 'wrong'? The idea that fascination with 'good' non existent creatures is 'right' & that fascination with 'bad' non existent creatures is 'wrong' is not one I can get my head around TBH.

You seem quite sure of this idea. How can you back it? How can you prove that thinking about an evil thing necessarily drives us away from doing it?

I didn't say it necessarily does, only that, based on a study of Freud & Jung it is fairly apparent.

Do these readers believe that slaughter of civilians, plunder & co are justified?

They may just realise that these 'civilians' never actually existed. Gondolin never actually existed. The Orcs who destroyed it never actually existed. I can't see where condemning such readers for their 'immorality' is justified?

[Raynor]

And this idea of a 'norm' isn't perjorative?
Why? Norm is a standard notion in ethics and morality.
You are taking your moral value system & attempting to present it as the norm, thereby implying that anyone who doesn't share it is immoral. For the second time, I am talking about a case in which the person adopts said moral principles, that certain ideas/feelings/propensities are wrong/evil/immoral.
in the sense of incorrect or immoral?Immoral.
So, Dracula, Anne Rice, Buffy, Angel, all immoral works? If they try to present vampires as role-models, then, to me, the answer is yes. However, I am not aware this is the case with these works.
Personally, being that Vampires are no more real than Tolkien's Elves, Orcs or Balrogs (or his Vampires come to that) in what sense is this fascination with none existent creatures 'wrong'?For me, it relates to a personal conviction, that being fascinated with vampires enstrages one from his soul.
fascination with 'good' non existent creatures is 'right' It is right because it is consistent with morality; quite a truism I might say. I find pleasure and satisfaction in such a fascination, because it fulfills and helps, in its own way, a desire to come closer to what I believe is my ideal.
I didn't say it necessarily does, only that, based on a study of Freud & Jung it is fairly apparent. Can you give those quotes?
They may just realise that these 'civilians' never actually existed. You still haven't answered my question.

[davem]

Why? Norm is a standard notion in ethics and morality.
For the second time, I am talking about a case in which the person adopts said moral principles, that certain ideas/feelings/propensities are wrong/evil/immoral.

Once its established & agreed upon, not when one simply assumes that which is to be proved.


If they try to present vampires as role-models, then, to me, the answer is yes. However, I am not aware this is the case with these works.

But you didn't mention anything about presenting them as role models - you talked about having a 'fascination with them'.

For me, it relates to a personal conviction, that being fascinated with vampires enstrages one from his soul.

I think 'personal convictions' are all well & good, but to simply throw one into a discussion (one in which, I might add, you have repeatedly demanded that other posters supply 'evidence' & justify each single point they make) is hardly likely to further the discussion. I have a 'personal conviction' that celery is the work of the devil, but I don't see that it contributes to the discussion either.

[quote[It is right because it is consistent with morality; quite a truism I might say. I find pleasure and satisfaction in such a fascination, because it fulfills and helps, in its own way, a desire to come closer to what I believe is my ideal.[/QUOTE]

No, you see, what you're doing is making all encompassing statements ('x' is a truism) & when the statement is challenged you respond to the effect that 'I was only referring to situations where said person accepts this to be the case.'

[Raynor]

Once its established & agreed upon, not when one simply assumes that which is to be proved.Ok, let me ask you again: if a person considers that rape, torture unnecessary killings and destructions, & co are immoral, then isn't it a contradiction in terms between <<to derrive pleasure from tales of rape, torture, etc>> and <<claiming to be moral>>?
But you didn't mention anything about presenting them as role models - you talked about having a 'fascination with them'.The first question was about fascination with vampires, the second was about books on vampires. I don't see the problem with my answers, perhaps you could clarify your comment.
I think 'personal convictions' are all well & good, but to simply throw one into a discussion (one in which, I might add, you have repeatedly demanded that other posters supply 'evidence' & justify each single point they make) is hardly likely to further the discussionI didn't throw this conviction; you requested that I present it.
No, you see, what you're doing is making all encompassing statements ('x' is a truism) & when the statement is challenged you respond to the effect that 'I was only referring to situations where said person accepts this to be the case.'First of all, I mentioned truism in my very last post. Second of all, which of my posts can be interpreted as to mean that I was not in fact reffering to a person who already accepts these moral values (i.e. that ideas/feelings/propensities of torture,rape, kilings are immoral)?

[davem]

Ok, let me ask you again: if a person considers that rape, torture unnecessary killings and destructions, & co are immoral, then isn't it a contradiction in terms between <<to derrive pleasure from tales of rape, torture, etc>> and <<claiming to be moral>>?

Well, let me ask you, just because you do not distinguish between reality & fantasy do you expect everyone to be bound by the same condition?

First of all, I mentioned truism in my very last post. Second of all, which of my posts can be interpreted as to mean that I was not in fact reffering to a person who already accepts these moral values (i.e. that ideas/feelings/propensities of torture,rape, kilings are immoral)?

And I was referring to a person who can distinguish between events in a fantasy world & events in real life.

So, back to the Vampire thing - is playing the Witch-king or Sauron in a M-e role-playing or strategy game (a computer or board game of which there are a few around) & throwing oneself into the game with gusto 'immoral'? Is choosing to play such a character an immoral act? Or do you think the player is capable of thinking 'Its only a game'? In the same way is a reader who chooses to side with Morgoth actually 'immoral'?

TBH, I think this is going around in circles - as it must, I suppose, in a debate where whenever one backs ones opponent into a corner he simply responds by denying he was ever in the room...

I therefore, am happy to leave things at this impasse......

[Raynor]

Well, let me ask you, just because you do not distinguish between reality & fantasy do you expect everyone to be bound by the same condition?First of all, you are not answering my question. Second of all, you are ignoring my post where I argued about fantasy and fairy tales and imaginations being part of one person's universe of ideas; if a certain idea/feeling/propensity is wrong/moral/evil, then this applies for all parts, including fantasy.
So, back to the Vampire thing - is playing the Witch-king or Sauron in a M-e role-playing or strategy game (a computer or board game of which there are a few around) & throwing oneself into the game with gusto 'immoral'? Is choosing to play such a character an immoral act? Or do you think the player is capable of thinking 'Its only a game'? In the same way is a reader who chooses to side with Morgoth actually 'immoral'?It is one thing to enact a character, it is another to adhere to the character's system of values. I hope that answers your questions.

[Lalwendë]

I think a part of a person can almost "agree with" some things about some really bad dudes, because we all know there's a part to us that just wants to kick some butt. In both good guys and bad guys, we like the tough guys. We like the guy that can slaughter his enemies, whether they are "good" or "bad," because he's a mean, tough-a, killing machine...and a lot of people find that pretty *cool*. We can very much understand a selfish desire to live, we can empathize with even very nasty and bloody revenge, we can agree to living by one's "own rules" without adhering to rules like "slaughter all Hobbits, because they smell" or better yet, "because it's fun."

You've been ignored a bit I think Durelin and you're bringing up some interesting things. I think in many ways the actions of bad guys sometimes appeal to our basic instincts - to survive. This is something you see in war films (I'm quite a fan of war films) where the bad guy as shown to us is of course the enemy, but in terms of killing people being wrong, the 'good' side are bad guys too; we cheer when the 'good' side win, even if this does mean laying waste to the enemy in horrible ways. Think about Dambusters - in reality, we know it's not exactly a good thing to drown a lot of innocent people! But when we watch the film we are taken out of that and all we want is to see the crews get home. Good and bad all blur in a war film - as they do in Tolkien's work if we sit and consider what he tells us about war, which is to put it basically, that war is A Very Bad Thing.

Of course where bad guys are more clear cut, often we like them because they provide a safe space for us to explore our own dark sides (which we all have, as uncomfortable as it is to confront that!). We are given the space to imagine and to experience another aspect of life without ever having to go out snd do those things ourselves. One of the most valuable functions of dystopian fiction is to serve to remind us all of where we can go very wrong, often from good intentions; bad guys serve a similar purpose, they allow us to explore possibilities in a safe way. Like davem says, we fantasise about wreaking horrible revenge on people who do us wrong and in doing this we actually stop ourselves from acting in that way. Fantasy's inherent element of escape provides that and it's why fantasy, crime, thrillers, horror and 'adult' novels always have done and always will sell very well indeed.

Interestingly, Tolkien gives us the privilege of watching Galadriel's very own moment of megalomaniac fantasising, and then Sam's. His characters do just what we do when confronted with difficult situations (or dark characters!). And there are yet more characters. The Ring in so many ways is symbolic of the Shadow (the repressed side of us all, in Jungian psychology) within us all; for those who it does not trap it provides a release from that Shadow, in the same way that imagining the vampire or the Dragon or Magneto or Saruman can provide release for our own repressed Shadows.

In Tolkien's work one does grow curious about why characters fell into evil, like Saruman, for example, if he just became evil and no explanation was given, wouldn't you want to know what the reason was? Is this curiosity to know the reasons a delight in evil? I do not think so.

Tolkien leaves us the space to imagine. This is not the only way to handle horror, as many writers handle it graphically. Tolkien instead gives us the monster under the bed who we can only imagine - in this way he positively invites us to utilise the images within our own heads to picture his monsters. This is in fact very healthy for us, as we are encouraged to picture our demons and fears rather than repress them - and we know that Tolkien himself worked out his own lifelong incubus (not the right word, but I can't think of the precise term here) about an all-encompassing, apocalyptic wave in the shape of Numenor's drowning. So many works of literature and Art come from the same kind of source - way too many to list!

The thought occurs to me that if one is going to take readers to task for a certain fascination with the evil characters, then one should perhaps berate Tolkien himself for the same reason. After all, if he could invent such compelling evil characters (instead of just the bare minimum of evil bad guy needed for some conflict), then perhaps he deserves as much censure as those who have readerly interest in those characters. After all, Tolkien very often portrays the "good guys" in a poor light, and occasionally gives reasons to sympathise with utterly abhorrent characters.

Form, you're probably the very guy to answer this one actually. I've been reading a lot about gothic architecture and art lately, and the thing which strikes me is how Catholicism is a huge influence on these architects. Obviously the old Gothic cathedrals (York Minster, Westminster Abbey etc) were built when Catholicism was the only brand of Christianity around, but as for Gothic from the Victorian period onwards, it existed in a multi-sect world - the interesting thing is that the architects were almost all Catholics. And if you look at Gothic architecture it positively delights in the grotesque - gargoyles, dragons, snakes, demons. In York Minster Chapter House are carvings of people having their eyes gouged out, and in other places I've seen carvings of people merrily engaging in torture, quite smutty designs, all kinds of very irreligious, non pious work.

Then many of our most fantastical writers and artists also turn out to be Catholics - Tolkien's work is especially noted for it's vivid description and wild creations. So in a long-winded way (the spiel was necessary to frame this ;) ) is it a particularly Catholic 'thing' to have a vivid, and even at times quite bloodthirsty imagination? Some of the Catholic rites are very colourful, for example the traditional Catholic crucifix is the only one with an actual depiction of Jesus, I'm sure I don't need to chuck out any more examples of the vivid rites observed and images used!

I can't help thinking that Tolkien's pre-occupation with monsters and bad guys and so on stems at least in part from his religion?

Course, it could also be to do with his status as an ex-serviceman! His near contemporary Mervyn Peake was inspired to write Gormenghast partly due to his experiences in liberating the Death camps.

I've not even started on the ramifications of the men dreamed up by the Bronte sisters yet, and of course of the heaving passions they provoke in women the world over. ;)

[Raynor]

we fantasise about wreaking horrible revenge on people who do us wrong and in doing this we actually stop ourselves from acting in that way.Can you give a proof of this less vague than the one davem presented?
The thought occurs to me that if one is going to take readers to task for a certain fascination with the evil characters, then one should perhaps berate Tolkien himself for the same reason.For the same reason?? In what manner can you say that Tolkien delighted in evil? I am really curious.
After all, if he could invent such compelling evil characters (instead of just the bare minimum of evil bad guy needed for some conflict) This subject has been raised previously; if we check the Silmarillion, there is little said of Melkor, even at the height of his power. The most compelling part is one phrase. The same goes for LotR, as Sauron never takes the center stage; there isn't even a single instance where he is directly addressed in the second person. After all, Tolkien very often portrays the "good guys" in a poor light, and occasionally gives reasons to sympathise with utterly abhorrent characters.Should I presume you are reffering to mercy towards evil characters?

[The Saucepan Man]

There's no difference between fantasising about punching the idiot who walks out in front of your car, forcing you to slam on the brakes & actually getting out of your car & actually punching him? Well, I'd say there's a world of difference as far as he's concerned - cos in the first instance he crosses the road & carries on with his day & in the second he spends most of the day in casualty with a broken nose.Of course there's a world of difference. That's why, while some of us might experience an impulse to punch someone's lights out when they cut us up, most of us wouldn't do it. Why? Because we know that it would be wrong. No, it does not make one an immoral person to think about it, but surely we recognise it as a momentary lapse?

And I might add that there is also a world of difference between fantasising about punching said person and fantasising about torturing and killing them.

Finding Sauron or an Orc or Smaug interesting literary creations is one thing. But sympathising with and supporting their (fictional) purposes is surely quite another.

[Durelin]

I can't help thinking that Tolkien's pre-occupation with monsters and bad guys and so on stems at least in part from his religion?

We're back to your "Nightmare World of Tolkien" thread. :D And I think the following reply should go on that thread, but since it was sparked here...

I was trying to think of a more precise approach to why the heck Catholicism is so rooted in this idea of humans having a tendency towards sin, and original sin and damnation and all that being inescapable except through this God guy who is...well, we don't know you have to believe, and being born into it...loss of innocence, temptation, Old Testament striking down-ness... But it just goes way too far back. And that's not where I wanted to go, perhaps because anthropology is something I like to think about but never would even think of really drawing conclusions from... And we're talking more about more modern Catholicism, rather than Judaism and early Christianity, I suppose. Well, we can try and limit it to that, anyway, to help my little brain...

Anyway... Then I remembered Augustine. Where does Catholicism get a ton of its more "modern" philosophy? Who wrote a proof for the existence of God? From a guy who had a "concubine" for over fifteen years before his conversion. Then we have Paul. He supposedly was persecuting Christians before he started writing his epistles. Whether or not he really was doesn't really matter, because it's Christian (or at least Catholic) tradition that says he did. Whether or not he was a really nasty jerk, or whether or not Augustine was a sordid man is very debatable, but Catholicism isn't about denying all sorts of nasty stuff.

Catholicism, in its aspects that still reflect early Christianity, is still a lot about conversion - conversion of the sinner, even though people typically only consider that the sort of "born again" fundamentalist-type thing. But, Christianity has always been attractive to people in bad situations.

But what does that have to do with all the blood and gore and dark stuff? Maybe it's meant to be self-reflective? Or maybe it wasn't meant to be, but the darkness of the human heart manifests itself in strange ways? Admonishment through figures and symbols and even architecture? It's always been: look at Jesus, the blood, the pain, the suffering, the death...that's God. The ultimate being. That's like the ultimate admonishment. And not necessarily in a negative way...nor in a parent scolding a child sort of way. I think it's more of a personal admonishment.

Those are my thoughts on it, anyway (and there's a lot missing there I wanted to express, but I'm getting bogged down). Basically just part of my own personal philosophy, I guess. Or my own personal philosophy of the moment... Yep, after almost seven years of Catholic school that's all I've got. :p

Apologies for how my mind likes to bounce all over the place...

[davem]

First of all, you are not answering my question. Second of all, you are ignoring my post where I argued about fantasy and fairy tales and imaginations being part of one person's universe of ideas; if a certain idea/feeling/propensity is wrong/moral/evil, then this applies for all parts, including fantasy.

Sorry, does this apply to 'everybody' or just to those who hold to your 'norm' - you do seem to keep jumping about on this one. You cannot simply translate events in a secondary world to the primary world & make such sweeping judgements. The reader knows M-e is a fantasy, hence the reader feels free to 'sympathise' with any character - either permanently or temporarily. You seem to wish to place moral sanctions on the reader's imagination - 'If you imagine 'x' you are being immoral.' My position is that the reader's imagination is sacrosanct & I have no right to judge another person on what they choose to imagine or fantasise about. I can judge another person on what they do, but not on what they imagine - particularly where they are imagining doing 'x' in a fantasy world. To imagine torturing an Elf is not the same thing as imagining torturing your next door neighbour. Or in the words of Elizabeth I 'I will not make windows into men's souls.'

It is one thing to enact a character, it is another to adhere to the character's system of values. I hope that answers your questions.

And how does one 'enact a character' without at least temporarilly adhering to that character's system of values? To portray Morgoth in a game requires the player to wipe out & torment the Elven & Human characters in the same way Morgoth did in the story.

Again, you seem to be rejecting the idea that the reader/player can distinguish between fantasy & reality & understands that Morgoth torturing Hurin is absolutely different from Mengele torturing a Jewish child.

No, it does not make one an immoral person to think about it, but surely we recognise it as a momentary lapse? And I might add that there is also a world of difference between fantasising about punching said person and fantasising about torturing and killing them.

Yes - because we recognise that person is a human being, not a literary creation. Fantasising about torturing Mickey Mouse or Barbie is not immoral & doesn't require repentance on the reader's part - though it may be a singularly odd thing to fantasise about. And that's the point - it may be odd to side with Morgoth or the Orcs & cheer them on, but it cannot be called 'immoral' & the idea that it is a symptom of some kind of psychological or spiritual 'flaw'' cannot be taken seriously.

Finding Sauron or an Orc or Smaug interesting literary creations is one thing. But sympathising with and supporting their (fictional) purposes is surely quite another.

Sauron, an Orc or Smaug are not real. They are made up characters doing made up things to other made up characters. I simply cannot see how this can become a 'moral' question. Its a book. More, its a fantasy book. Can we actually imagine non Tolkien, or non fantasy fans generally, taking seriously the idea that someone who sides with Orcs over Elves is 'immoral'?

Look, while I'm 'in' the world of M-e (ie when I'm reading the books) I take the Elves' part & see Morgoth & his hordes as the enemy - because the story wouldn't work (for me) if I didn't. I would find the story made little sense if I didn't take that appproach. But if another reader sides with Morgoth & thinks Ringwraiths are cool, Orcs are sexy, Hobbits deserve all they get & that the average Elf would benefit from a couple of hours on the rack that's not a problem for me. I don't consider such a reader 'immoral' or think they are putting their immortal soul at risk.

EDIT

Raynor - your position seems to me equivalent to two people watching a Tom & Jerry cartoon. One laughs when Jerry drops a piano on Tom's head. The other reacts angrily & demands 'Would you laugh if that happened in real life?' Because finding it funny when a cartoon piano is dropped on a cartoon cat is no different to finding it funny when a real piano is dropped onto a real cat - the thought processes of the person who laughed are exactly the same.

[Macalaure]

I’ve been hesitating to post on this thread, though I’ve been following it closely. Here now are my two cent, for what they might be worth.


The first question which arises is: What is evil? Was Melkor’s discord in the Ainulindalë evil already? Debatable, I think. But if we follow Melkor on his path then we will sooner or later hit on some things which are undebatably evil. This suffices for my purposes here.

I think there are many different stages of ‘liking evil’ which I feel have sometimes been mixed up in this thread. I’ll try to spell them out. The following probably isn’t complete – it’s just the things that have accumulated in my mind.


Empathy – I would take this as the first stage. One develops a certain understanding for the baddies’ situation and his motives. The baddie is pitied, in the most positive sense. This empathy does not include the approval of their deeds or intentions. Is it immoral? On the contrary, I think. In fact, I would go so far to call somebody who is unable of it immoral, because it means absence of pity.

Sympathy – This is more or less a natural consequence of empathy, though many people won’t go this far from there. Still, just because we sympathise with a character does not imply the approval of his deeds and intentions and therefore no immorality.

Fascination – I find it difficult to explain this properly. A kind of increase of sympathy. It includes a partial identification with the character. Partial is important, as, for example, a person who detests elves still knows that slaughtering them isn’t right. I'm aware this is a vague item.

Delight – This seems to be the point most fought over. Somebody recognises evil and delights in it and adopts it for reasons of entertainment. But, in order to be able to recognise it, one needs to be able to perceive something as evil, so the moral system of the person is ‘intact’ and the delight in evil will not affect the every-day behaviour. For these reasons, I see no immorality in it, since the persons real actions and intentions are unaffected. Can a moral person not delight in fictional immorality? I see no reason why.

Identification – Couldn’t find a better word for what I mean. At this stage, somebody identifies with a villain, completely or nearly completely, as opposed to the identification mentioned under fascination. The morals connected with the villain are adopted into the own moral system, or they were already equal beforehand. This is the big difference to what I said under delight. Of course, people like this delight in the portrayed evil, too, but for different reasons. Since the majority of them (I hope!) is not able to act according to their beliefs in their every-day life, they might seek delight in literature or play. But since the deeds portrayed are not evil in their mindset (though they might still call them evil) it is not the same. I would say that this is the item where the mark to immorality has been, at last, stepped over.
Sure, one could argue that these people just have a different moral system, and that one is as good as the other, but I think one has to stop at some point. Though I know it contradicts itself, I would say that there are some moral systems which are immoral. I’ll leave the solution to philosophers...

Of course, these categories overlap and have blurry edges.


The second question: Why? I admit I don’t know what to explain for most of the items (all except identification, in fact), because I think this is quite normal behaviour for a human being. Sorry.
Concerning identification, I can hardly imagine that Tolkien's works influenced a person in a way as to turn him into an immoral person. Therefore I would say that the views they hold already were like this before they read the books. Under this circumstance, it is no problem to find characters to identify with. What made these people hold their views in the first place? That's another question, and probably beyond the scope of this thread.


PS: Do examples for real-world evil-doers always have to come from German history? Yes, Hitler was bad, really and earnestly bad. But history offers so many other bad people. Be more imaginative! :rolleyes:

[Lalwendë]

But what does that have to do with all the blood and gore and dark stuff? Maybe it's meant to be self-reflective? Or maybe it wasn't meant to be, but the darkness of the human heart manifests itself in strange ways? Admonishment through figures and symbols and even architecture? It's always been: look at Jesus, the blood, the pain, the suffering, the death...that's God. The ultimate being. That's like the ultimate admonishment. And not necessarily in a negative way...nor in a parent scolding a child sort of way. I think it's more of a personal admonishment.

Some of the stuff I hear from Catholics about all the demons and angels and other odd characters amazes me actually, it's like some kind of supremely Gothic fantasy what with Nephilim and Seraphim and all that. It can also be a little bit scary and frightening. There's also so much emphasis on blood, for example the whole story of the crucifixion strikes me as very violent in the Catholic version, as opposed to being quite sanitised in the CofE version!

Of course, this could be to do with the age of the religion, which was created in an age when we were all so much closer to Death and had a very real relationship with it; people's life expectancy was not as it is today, disease was common, as was the likelihood of being killed in battle or in a violent manner. People have only recently given over the job of raising and then slaughtering animals for food; there's a series on the BBC right now called Kill It, Cook It, Eat It which takes a stark look at killing animals for food, or so I hear as I cannot stomach the thought of it, but my father had no qualms about taking a gun out and killing a bird to be eaten later. What I'm saying is that basically we are all isolated nowadays from Death and from violence and those who created Catholicism were not. That's why I think the gore is there. If you look at examples of non-Christian myth that too is also bloody and displays a relish for violence.

What I think is that writers such as Tolkien acknowledge the inevitability of the potential for extreme violence within us all, the animal aspects of us, The Shadow. That's why I've picked up on this that SpM says:

Of course there's a world of difference. That's why, while some of us might experience an impulse to punch someone's lights out when they cut us up, most of us wouldn't do it. Why? Because we know that it would be wrong. No, it does not make one an immoral person to think about it, but surely we recognise it as a momentary lapse?

And I might add that there is also a world of difference between fantasising about punching said person and fantasising about torturing and killing them.

There is indeed a difference, but nevertheless people put into extreme situations do imagine doing such things. If your life was ever threatened or that of someone close to you (and I sincerely hope it is not!) you may be driven to thinking about what you'd like to do to someone which may indeed involve killing them. I'm sure I don't have to spell out the kind of circumstance, you know what I mean! Of course few of those in such horrible circumstances ever act on their imaginations but nevertheless the potential is there in all of us. A difficult thing to acknowledge perhaps, but never say never until you are in their shoes...What fantasy (and this is encompassing sci-fi, horror and crime fiction) allows us to do is to explore this darkness safely and in many ways to actually prevent us from acting in extreme ways.

[davem]

Macalaure I could accept your points in relation to evil people in this world - someone who sympathises with a suicide bomber, or an axe murderer come to that, would have serious issues. I just don't see that it applies to a reader who sympathises with a figure in a fantasy novel.

There does seem almost to be a kind of equivalence implied between, say, the destruction of Gondolin & the bombing of Hiroshima - so that a reader who was to say 'I think the destruction of Gondolin was cool - those Orcs showed those smug Elves what for!' was to get the response 'Well, I suppose you think it was fine for terrorists to destroy the Twin Towers then, huh?' The two events have no connection - well, I'd like to see anyone provide a one-to-one correlation between the events.

It seems to me that anyone who did respond to such a reader by accusing them of supporting the destruction of the Twin Towers is confusing fantasy & reality, & worse, demanding that others do the same thing. There is no primary world equivalent of Gondolin, of Morgoth, of Smaug, of the Ring - setting aside 'applicability' which an entirely personal response - so how one can relate secondary world events & characters to the primary world in a way that a) elicits general agreement & b) makes any kind of logical sense is beyond me.

In the same way the idea that 'the thought behind the events (torturing a real human being & torturing an Elf - or a pixie) is the 'same' because both involve the thought of torture is completely illogical (not to say irrational).

Last night i watched a couple of episodes of South Park. In both Kenny was killed - in the first he had his head split in half by a boomerang which Wendy had thrown from the top of a stockade which the girls had built to stop the boys infecting them with STD's. In the second he died when a girder broke off Cartman's Roller Coaster & skewered him. And it was funny in both cases - because Kenny is a cartoon character. If I'd seen a news report about such things happening to a real 8 year old I wouldn't have thought it was funny, because I can distinguish between fantasy/imagination & reality. I don't find real children being killed funny but I find a cartoon character being killed in spectacular & inventive ways to be funny. And no matter how many times I saw Kenny being killed I would never become immunised against feeling horror & sadness when I heard of a real child being killed. Why? Because a fantasy character is not a real person. Because the thought of killing a fantasy character is not the same as the thought of killing a real person. To claim any similarities between the two makes no logical sense.

[Lalwendë]

And just to add to what davem says, it's not only silly to get fantasy and reality mixed up, but it's also dangerous. Going down that road leads us to state or authoritarian control over culture. It's not a big step from banning a violent video game, to banning Boxing, to banning heavy metal and rap, to banning fantasy literature altogether. We all have the freedom to decide for ourselves what's made up and what's real. Kids today get a seriously bum deal - they get blamed for just about everything and all the adults seem to think they are somehow 'dangerous' (news - it's been like that for ever, that's the nature of the generation gap). Kids play Grand Theft Auto and listen to Marilyn Manson and think these things are seriously cool, and we say it's going to make them go out and kill. No it isn't. 99.9% of kids are perfectly capable of distinguishing between reality and dreams.

What about Tolkien, "desiring Dragons with a profound desire"?

I know exactly where he's coming from. Despite what they do, Dragons are just The Coolest Thing Ever. They are Awesome.

:cool:

[the guy who be short]

we fantasise about wreaking horrible revenge on people who do us wrong and in doing this we actually stop ourselves from acting in that way.Interesting you should mention this, Lal. Freud's theory on dreaming is that dreams act out our fantasies - violent or sexual in nature - that we know are not acceptable in real-life society. By allowing these bestial urges to let off steam in a dream world, we stop ourselves from committing such acts in real life. Perhaps fantasy does the same.

The Ring as the "repressed side" - interesting. Something I've never thought about before, but it fits well. Perhaps we need a thread to discuss the psychology of Tolkien.

Can you give a proof of this [above theory of repression] less vague than the one davem presented?Can anybody prove Freud's theory conclusively? No, because it is so difficult to falsify. However here is some supporting evidence for his ideas about dreams:

PET scans indicate that the rational part of the brain (which includes the superego, which imposes morality) are inactive during dreaming. By contrast, the forebrain, concerned with motivation (the id is Freudian terms, the primitive urges) are very active. Why is it necessary to hand the body over to the primal urges during dreaming? Freud's theory - that it is necessary to allow them some expression so that they do not interfere with real life - fits. (Solms, 2000)

Raynor, can you reconcile these statements:
What is your argument here? That a certain thing is good because it is popular? That, in and of itself, is an instance of "ad populum" fallacy. Yes, I argue that there is a degree of immorality if we delight in evil qualities, and the fact that many people find it acceptable doesn't make it so. If I may quote Gandhi, the truth is the truth even if spoken by one single person.Norm is a standard notion in ethics and morality.Morality is defined by the norm, and yet defining morality by the norm is wrong?

[davem]

Lal brings up an interesting point re Tolkien's 'profound' desire for dragons. I think its clear that there are dragons in Tolkien's mythology not because he wanted 'an evil creature' but because he desired them to be there. And interestingly, he did not meake his dragons good (a la Anne McCaffrey) or morally neutral (a la Ursula Le Guin) but evil. The dragons he 'desired' were the powerful, destructive 'immoral' dragons of traditional Western myth.

Which opens a wider question - to what extent did he 'desire' the other 'evil' creatures of myth - Goblins, Trolls (& by extension Nazgul riding Fell Beasts & Balrogs)? I think it would be difficult to argue that he did not desire the 'evil' creatures as much as the 'good'. Why else would he choose to write a mythology based so strongly in Northern myth? In Northern myth the monsters are as important as the 'heroes'. What would Beowulf be without Grendel & the Dragon? Tolkien tells us in M&C - not very much. The monsters are essential, because of what they symbolise - which is not so much 'evil' as the archetypal forces Man must confront.

Tolkien chooses to create a world where mythological creatures of good & evil (Dragons in particular) can live, move & have their being. Morgoth, Sauron, Ungoliante, Durin's Bane, all live because Tolkien chooses to give them life. They exist because he desired them to exist - & not simply as 'enemies' but because he desired them to exist as they are. They fascinated him - as much if not more than his 'good' creations. The amount of time he spent analysing them, the overwhelming nature & effect of their very presence, speaks to this fact. The idea that he viewed them with as much hatred as his good characters is, to my mind, a misunderstanding. Good & Evil balance each other in his creation. No one who reads The Hobbit can doubt that Tolkien relished writing the Smaug scenes - one can tell he loved writing Smaug's dialogue, & the description of Smaug's power, launching himself from the Mountain to devastate Lake Town could only have been written by someone in awe of dragons & whose desire for them was indeed 'profound'. In contrast the events which follow Smaug's death are 'mundane' because we have in effect seen the end of the mythological world symbolised by the Dragon.

And Balrogs - well, if Tolkien isn't in awe of his own creation here! The Balrog exudes power & menace. This is not simply a 'demon' , but rather a creature of Power, a fallen angel. Tolkien is justly proud of what his imagination has brought forth.

This is where the whole idea that what one thinks about reflects one's morality - if so then either Tolkien should only have written about beautiful Elves singing beneath trees in Valinor if he was a 'good' person' or he wasn't such a 'good' person after all - it was his imagination that gave birth to Morgoth, Sauron, Ungoliante, Smaug & Durin's Bane & they exist because he desired they exist.

Or maybe the human mind (& particularly the mind of the Artist) is a more complex thing than some will credit. In the end it was Tolkien himself who destroyed Gondolin - he created it, gave it being, & he also created & gave being to the hordes who destroyed it. If Orcs tortured & murdered Elves & Men it was because Tolkien invented all three & had them do what they did. The idea that Tolkien only thought about (& only desired) Elves, Valar & good Men & that the 'evil' creatures somehow intruded themselves from 'outside' his imagination, to despoil his beautiful Arda is ridiculous. Tolkien created the good & the evil, the creators & the destroyers, because that's the kind of world he wanted to write about. Those creatures, the good & the evil, existed because he desired them - 'with a profound desire'.

[Formendacil]

For the same reason?? In what manner can you say that Tolkien delighted in evil? I am really curious.

I'm speaking as an amateur writer here (RPGs for the most part), but what tales do you think are the most fun to write? The most satisfying to have come out finished?

It's not the happy ones.

Of all of Tolkien's tales, I would personally say that the one that would be the most satisfying to finish would have been the Narn i Chín Húrin. The Lay of Leithian simply doesn't compare, in terms of satisfaction of completion. Why? Well, this is all complete opinion as to why I would enjoy writing Túrin's tale most-- it's the saddest, most evil. Maybe we never see Morgoth or Sauron up close, but to say that we don't see much of them is simply nonsense. The entire tragedy of the House of Húrin is Morgoth's work. The dialogue of Morgoth and Húrin, and the dialogues later of Glaurung and Túrin are dialogues that I think would have been absolutely delicious to write. And yes, the good, noble characters would have been pleasing to write in all their tragic-heroic glory... but the really fun lines to have penned would have been Morgoth's, would have been Glaurung's.

It has already been brought up how Tolkien liked dragons... and I don't think anyone would say that Tolkien's dragons are nice characters. They are purely evil. But fascinating. Deadly fascinating. Are ANY characters really so seductive as Smaug or Glaurung? We know they are evil--Tolkien makes that quite clear--and we are glad when Túrin or Bard kills them... but they are compelling, fascinating characters.

This subject has been raised previously; if we check the Silmarillion, there is little said of Melkor, even at the height of his power. The most compelling part is one phrase. The same goes for LotR, as Sauron never takes the center stage; there isn't even a single instance where he is directly addressed in the second person. Should I presume you are reffering to mercy towards evil characters?

Mercy towards evil characters?

Not at all.

To be honest... I find the idea that one should berate readers for enjoying the evilness of the evil characters to be a little ridiculous. I was attempting to raise, with a deliberate pointness, the question that if one is going to censure the reader then one ought to censure the author. After all, in condemning those who view pornography, do we not normally reserve even greater condemnation for those who provide the pornography?

Of course... who around here wants to make the claim that Tolkien had some severe psychological problems and was morally in the wrong to have relished (as I think he must have) writing those scenes of evil in ascendance. And it doesn't even matter if he actually did relish writing them or not-- the logical principle remains the same. If we can conceive of Tolkien enjoying it, and still think him a moral person, then I think a reader enjoying reading the same cannot either be censured.

[davem]

I think Form raises an important point - one may enjoy, relish even, a good villain. One does not have to agree with, let alone support what they do, but one may enjoy it. The villains often get the best lines, perform the most entertaining acts & in a way most significant, get the most spectacular endings.

So, one may side with the 'villains' & not see then as 'wrong' in any way. Or one may see them as wrong but enjoy what they get up to - Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham was the only good thing about Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves in many people's opinion. Darth Vader was the dark heart of the Star Wars movies & let's face it Han Solo was vastly more attractive than that 'goody-goody' Luke - because Han was a bit dangerous, & much more of a 'rebel' than most of the 'worthies' in the Rebel Alliance. Ask any actor whether they would rather play a villain or a hero & they would choose the villain.

Or in a more literary vein - who is the most charismatic figure, the tragic 'hero' of Paradise Lost - Satan. Which leads us on to the question of why writers like to write such attractive, charismatic villains & why readers like to read about them & enjoy being around them?

My theory? Not because in most cases they feel a psychological, let alone a spiritual, affinity with them - but more often than not because they don't. The villain is so 'different' to the reader/viewer that they are attractive for that very reason - opposites attract.

And, yet, as I've been arguing, some readers may actually like the villain, & feel fine about what he's up to. But again, that tells us nothing about the reader's psychological state. It may simply be that they find the 'good' side so bland & uninteresting that they side with anyone who is out to give them a good kicking. Which is why, again one cannot judge a reader's relationship with the primary world by the choices he or she makes regarding the secondary world - the 'good' guys in the secondary world may bore them silly.

[Lalwendë]

Heh. In actual fact it's not only pretty tedious but very difficult to write a character who is 100% perfect - they invariably come out like our ol' friend Mary Sue. :eek: All good characters have at least one flaw, a fatal flaw preferably, and a combination of a few flaws is usually good as they not only struggle with the obstacles of a plot but struggle with these in individual ways and at the same time, struggle with their flaws. Without flaws, characters cannot grow - how could you grow if you were already perfect?

[davem]

Of course, Turin is a pretty good example of a flawed character. Someone so driven by pride (ofermod if you will - at least Tolkien's conception of ofermod), who kills innocent people - including his best friend, marries & impregnates his sister & probably provokes a massacre of his own people - taken at face value we would have to class him among the 'bad guys' - yet Tolkien makes him a tragic figure with whom the reader sympathises. Turin is classed among the good guys, but Gollum, an equally tragic victim of circumstances, tends to be classed among the 'bad guys'.

[Raynor]

To imagine torturing an Elf is not the same thing as imagining torturing your next door neighbour.
...
Again, you seem to be rejecting the idea that the reader/player can distinguish between fantasy & reality & understands that Morgoth torturing Hurin is absolutely different from Mengele torturing a Jewish child. Can a moral person not delight in fictional immorality? If a person defines torture and derriving pleasure from torture or recount of it as immoral, then: the instance in which <<the description of torture (to oneself or to others)>> is correlated with <<adherence to the idea of torture and of derriving pleasure from torture or recount of it>> is immoral. No matter the context, real, imaginary, hypothetical.

Davem, you have yet to address my point that fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas, where any intention is subject to moral evaluation, regardless of whether it becomes enacted or not.
To portray Morgoth in a game requires the player to wipe out & torment the Elven & Human characters in the same way Morgoth did in the story. Really? From do you derrive this necessity?? Show me one such instance of an rpg in the Downs where a character describes how he torments elves and humans as Morgoth did.
Going down that road leads us to state or authoritarian control over culture.I disagree; in my argument at least, the problem does not rest with the content, but with what sort of satisfaction one derrives from that content. Immoral feelings can be cultivated from practically anything, if imagination serves.
Can anybody prove Freud's theory conclusively? No, because it is so difficult to falsify. However here is some supporting evidence for his ideas about dreams:

PET scans indicate that the rational part of the brain (which includes the superego, which imposes morality) are inactive during dreaming. By contrast, the forebrain, concerned with motivation (the id is Freudian terms, the primitive urges) are very active. Why is it necessary to hand the body over to the primal urges during dreaming? Freud's theory - that it is necessary to allow them some expression so that they do not interfere with real life - fits. (Solms, 2000)I know far too little about this subject to make comments. I will take your point that this is not a conclusive evidence.
Morality is defined by the norm, and yet defining morality by the norm is wrong?I don't think I follow, can you please rephrase?
I think its clear that there are dragons in Tolkien's mythology not because he wanted 'an evil creature' but because he desired them to be there. And he explains there why: because they are by definition other-wordly and therefore have the trademark of Faerie. He finds them a fascinating product of the imagination, which enlarges the status of the hero. He is definitely able to differentiate between draco and draconitas. He talks in M&C about the perfect resistance of the northern heroes: perfect because it has no escape or hope for victory. The might of this terrible foe, "more evil than any human enemy" gives "lofty tone and high serioussness". As you stated yourself, the literary role of the dragon is to give more valour. Tolkien talks about the author of Beowulf as liking dragons as a poet for a good reason, since they are "essential both to the machinery and the ideas of a poem or tale". I certainly doubt that he considers that the writer of Beowulf adhered to the moral values of malice, greed, destruction" which describe his dragon. "He has victory but no honour" - the honour belongs rightly to the moral side.
The idea that he viewed them with as much hatred as his good characters is, to my mind, a misunderstanding. I find this idea horribly misrepresentative of Tolkien, since he considered Melkor & co to be the manifestations of evil/Satan. There is no single shred of evidence in the letters or anywhere that he has any afinity with it, with the moral values that it represents. Neither in imagination, nor in matters relating to real life.
Are ANY characters really so seductive as Smaug or Glaurung? Mark Luthien for me. I'll give quotes anytime you want, although I guess it is quite pointless, no matter how superb she is portrayed, if our tastes vastly differ. I was attempting to raise, with a deliberate pointness, the question that if one is going to censure the reader then one ought to censure the author. After all, in condemning those who view pornography, do we not normally reserve even greater condemnation for those who provide the pornography?The intent of 99.999% of pornography in the movie is clear; they want to promote pornography, it is an end, not a means to an end. They don't do this stuff to transmit any other message. To say that the presence of evil characters in Tolkien's work equates promotion of evil characters, is, well, beyond false comparison. It may simply be that they find the 'good' side so bland & uninteresting that they side with anyone who is out to give them a good kicking.I am sure you know what Tolkien thought of this, emphasis added
Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. Turin is classed among the good guys, but Gollum, an equally tragic victim of circumstances, tends to be classed among the 'bad guys'.False analogy; Turin was fighting, to the best of his knowledge, the good fight - unlike Gollum. Yet it is clear that Gollum knows the differences between right and evil and still persists in wickedness. Turin was forced by a greater power to do evil too; Gollum refused his chances of repentance.

[Formendacil]

Mark Luthien for me. I'll give quotes anytime you want, although I guess it is quite pointless, no matter how superb she is portrayed, if our tastes vastly differ.

Yes, I imagine you could come up with quotes... you are certainly this website's quote-master. But much as "Studies show..." can be used to promote any position in the book, quotes can back up just about any position one wants to take on any subject. Tolkien certainly changed his mind about enough things enough times to make that the case.

In any event, you seem to be taking "seductive" a bit too literally. It is not my intent to suggest that Smaug or Glaurung has a greater sexual appeal to the reader (or other characters) than Lúthien. Seduction is not, of course, a term limited in its usage purely to sexual matters. By seductive here, I was meaning the ability to draw the reader in, to fascinate the reader, to make the reader like the character despite his/her "real life" dislike for anything the character would actually be in the real world.

Though I am sure that face-to-face, Lúthien would (by simple reason of being human in appearance, gorgeous, possessed of a positive personality, and there being a strong case for her being persuasive) be much more seductive than either dragon, as a CHARACTER to a READER, the ones that seduce are more often the dragons.

It might make a good Poll question, if Fordhim or someone ever wants for another topic there, to ask who readers think is more seductive, as a character to a reader: Lúthien or the dragons. My hunch? The dragons. I've heard a lot of people on this site say that Lúthien is boring... or a bore to read, anyway. I haven't heard anyone say that of Glaurung or Smaug that I am able to recall.

[Raynor]

Yes, I imagine you could come up with quotes... you are certainly this website's quote-master.Since I take this as a compliment, thanks!
But much as "Studies show..." can be used to promote any position in the book, quotes can back up just about any position one wants to take on any subject.My opinion is that Tolkien uses far less equivocal terms than you imply.
one may see them as wrong but enjoy what they get up toI believe this is our middle ground.

I will go further than that; I was talking a few years back to my teacher of peace studies, and he mentioned that there exists yin and yang in every situation, so I asked him about yang in SS soldiers. He mentioned discipline and, IIRC, comradery and courage. These are points I concede. Enemies, whether real or imaginary, may display (moral) qualities which we already agree with, and recognising them in these persons is not in itself something immoral. But, as you say in this particular instance, this does not amount to agreeing with their immorality.

One could look at a great master's painting depicting a battle. One may admire heroism, sacrifice, or deplore the stupidity of dying for the economical or dogmatic interest of others (if somehow this was the historical motive, which it usually was). However, if one was to delight in all the wounds and harm, if one was to be derriving some sadistic pleasure from this, then, if it fits my previous argument about moral values, it would be cultivating immorality.

Regarding enjoying imaginary humorous situations, I don't see any moral contradiction in that, as long as the person in question, if it has the moral values I mentioned, delights only in the genuine hilarity and derrives zero pleasures from infliction of harm. Also, I don't believe such a person would put oneself in moral contradiction with oneself if he somehow involuntarily laughed at a particulary hilarious (in itself) element in a real life dramatic event, as long as there was no siding with any values he himself considers immoral.

Many persons view cartoons as particulary violent and don't watch Tom and Jerry for that reason, despite what might amount to some exoneration of humour in both real and imaginary situations. I know many persons, westerners included, who share these feelings. The "whole/package deal" is not worth it for some.

[davem]

Davem, you have yet to address my point that fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas, where any intention is subject to moral evaluation, regardless of whether it becomes enacted or not.

I attempted to address it when I asked whether you believed this was a 'universal' 'truth' or one that only applied to those who believe/accept it - which seems to be. Its a bit difficult to answer such a question - you seem to state 'x' is a fact (ie 'fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas' or ''x' is the norm') but when I challenge such statements & point out exceptions to your 'universal truths' you simply come back & say 'Well, obviously 'x' doesn't apply to everybody only to those who accept 'x' is the case.'

To attempt an answer I would say that fantasy & imagination are part of one's universe of ideas but that the ability to distinguish between fantasy (torturing an elf or Donald Duck) & reality (torturing your next door neighbour) is the first requirement of a sane human being.

I find this idea horribly misrepresentative of Tolkien, since he considered Melkor & co to be the manifestations of evil/Satan. There is no single shred of evidence in the letters or anywhere that he has any afinity with it, with the moral values that it represents. Neither in imagination, nor in matters relating to real life.

Well, he wouldn't have come out & said he thought Morgoth, Balrogs, Ringwraiths etc were 'cool' would he - I think one can pick that up from the way he uses them.

And I do not think there is any evidence that he considered Melkor to be the manifestation of Satan - he may have used he names Sauron/Satan interchangeably but I think he could distinguish between the two - & if he couldn't then he was a bit weird & should have known better. The point you're missing is that he chose to write about a world of dragons, Balrogs & Orcs.

Now, by quoting:


Originally Posted by Letter #256
Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good.

I suppose your point is that Tolkien would have felt that anyone who had no time for his Elves is simply 'sated with good'. This is hardly an inevitable conclusion - the reader may just find them boring, irritating & want the silly smile knocked off their face - & that wouldn't make the reader a 'bad person' or that they were 'sated with good'- it would just mean the reader was the kind of person who found Tolkien's Elves boring, irritating & in need of being de-silly-smiled'.

Now, back to Dragons:

But the land of Merlin and Arthur was better than these, and best ofall the nameless North of Sigurd of the Volsungs, and the prince of all dragons. Such lands were pre-eminently desirable. I never imagined that the dragon was of the same order as the horse. And that was not solely because I saw horses daily, but never even the footprint of a worm. The dragon had the trade-mark Of Faerie written plain upon him. In whatever world he had his being it was an Other-world. Fantasy, the making or glimpsing of Other-worlds, was the heart of the desire of Faerie. I desired dragons with a profound desire. Of course, I in my timid body did not wish to have them in the neighbourhood, intruding into my relatively safe world, in which it was, for instance, possible to read stories in peace of mind, free from fear. But the world that contained even the imagination of Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril. The dweller in the quiet and fertile plains may hear of the tormented hills and the unharvested sea and long for them in his heart. For the heart is hard though the body be soft. (On Fairy Stories)

You state my position as:

As you stated yourself, the literary role of the dragon is to give more valour. Tolkien talks about the author of Beowulf as liking dragons as a poet for a good reason, since they are "essential both to the machinery and the ideas of a poem or tale".

I stated that was part of it - not the whole thing. If you read the above quote from OFS you can see what I'm talking about -

But the world that contained even the imagination of Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril.

Note- the world that contained the imagination of Fafnir, not Sigurd. And Tolkien is clear that to have a world that contained Fafnir is worth any kind of peril. In short, Dragons are worth having whatever the cost. Worth having around, not worth having around simply to 'elevate' the hero when he kills them. And when we come to the statement:

The dweller in the quiet and fertile plains may hear of the tormented hills and the unharvested sea and long for them in his heart.

Who, in Tolkien's mythology, 'tortures the hills'? Melkor. And yet Tolkien talks of longing for them in his heart. Tolkien wanted the whole of hiss world - not just the 'good' parts. He wanted Balrogs & dragons & Orcs & Trolls. Because that was the world of the 'Nameless North' which inspired him & drove his imagination.

I think the problem here is that you are viewing (& expecting the rest of of us to do the same) the Legendarium as a work of moral didacticism, if not of Christian theology. It is not. It is a work of Art. It is as it is & not something else. It is not a parable, or a re-write of the Bible.

EDIT

Re Turin & Gollum. Turin is hardly just a victim of circumstances - he brings disaster on himself by his attempts to avoid Morgoth's curse. His fate is determined for the most part by his own decisions. This is why his fate is tragic. Gollum is hardly that different.

As to the way you are approaching Tolkien's work - you seem to feel that because a character is said to be 'good' that the reader must agree that that character is good because if he/she doesn't then the reader is 'bad'. Readers have different tastes. Many readers distinguish between fact & fantasy, & wouldn't have a problem with Tom having a piano dropped on his head or Kenny being riddled with bullets & eaten by rats, because they aren't real people. They wouldn't think that the writer who has Kenny being killed in that way is no different from some sick individual who fantasised about doing the same thing to a real child.

One may find Orcs or dragons more interesting & entertaining than Elves. Some readers think Lizzie Bennett one of the most interesting, witty & insightful characters in English literature - others may find her annoying, trivial & self obsessed & wish that someone had dropped a piano on her head. Neither reader is good or bad, moral or immoral.

[Raynor]

To attempt an answer I would say that fantasy & imagination are part of one's universe of ideas but that the ability to distinguish between fantasy (torturing an elf or Donald Duck) & reality (torturing your next door neighbour) is the first requirement of a sane human being.Davem, what is the significant difference between imagining torturing your neighbour and imagining torturing a neighbour who is in every detail similar to the "real" one, in a world where the only difference from the "real" one is that your town's name ends with an extra "t" (or put any trivial difference, or no difference at all)?
I think one can pick that up from the way he uses them.However, there is a distinction to be made between the literary value and moral values of an evil character. Working to enhance the value of a literary work by presenting a properly powerful enemy does not amount to adhering to that evil character's values.
The point you're missing is that he chose to write about a world of dragons, Balrogs & Orcs.Why do you say I miss this point? I already acknowledged, at least in my second to last post the literary value, giving high tone and lofty serioussness. Again, literary, not moral, value. I suppose your point is that Tolkien would have felt that anyone who had no time for his Elves is simply 'sated with good'. No, I was addressing what I understood from your post that dislike of the boredom of good characters somehow implies or allows for siding with immoral characters in their evil. This is a false dilemma, a reader is not forced to side with the opposite side in the performing of their immoral acts, if the good side is somehow boring.
And yet Tolkien talks of longing for them in his heart. Yeah, for tales of valour, for the heart of a timid boy may be tough, although his body may be soft. Desiring to display and cultivate courage (even if only in an imaginary setting) could imply respect of enemies, but not adherence to their values.
It is not. It is a work of Art.I am not aware that being a work of Art negates all the stated intentions concerning the moral and religious truths in the Legendarium. This is a false dilemma.
Turin is hardly just a victim of circumstances - he brings disaster on himself by his attempts to avoid Morgoth's curse. His fate is determined for the most part by his own decisions.Do you deny the importance of Melkor's curse or of how Glaurung messed his mind? others may find her annoying, trivial & self obsessed & wish that someone had dropped a piano on her head.Oh, the irony of that in the context of our discussion ;).

[davem]

Davem, what is the significant difference between imagining torturing your neighbour and imagining torturing a neighbour who is in every detail similar to the "real" one, in a world where the only difference from the "real" one is that your town's name ends with an extra "t" (or put any trivial difference, or no difference at all)?

The difference is that one is a real person & the other a fantasy being that only exists in your imagination.

However, there is a distinction to be made between the literary value and moral values of an evil character. Working to enhance the value of a literary work by presenting a properly powerful enemy does not amount to adhering to that evil character's values.

No it doesn't. But I still reckon he feels Smaug is awesome.

Why do you say I miss this point? I already acknowledged, at least in my second to last post the literary value, giving high tone and lofty serioussness. Again, literary, not moral, value.

He could have acheived the same effect by writing a novel about WWII. He chose to write a novel based in Northern Myth & people it with monsters.

No, I was addressing what I understood from your post that dislike of the boredom of good characters somehow implies or allows for siding with immoral characters in their evil. This is a false dilemma, a reader is not forced to side with the opposite side in the performing of their immoral acts, if the good side is somehow boring.

I was merely pointing out that a reader may take such a dislike to good characters that he or she would like to do to them what the enemy does. Or they may just find the good guys no more convincing & 'real' than Tom or Kenny & think Fingolfin getting 'maced' just as funny as Kenny getting skewered with a girder.

I am not aware that being a work of Art negates all the stated intentions concerning the moral and religious truths in the Legendarium. This is a false dilemma.

And I'm not aware that Art has to include an element of moral didacticism - or that even if it does the reader has to pay any attention to them.

Do you deny the importance of Melkor's curse or of how Glaurung messed his mind?

Nope. But Turin brought 90% of his disasters on himself by attempting to escape from Morgoth's curse rather than being a direct result of it. Its quite likely that Morgoth's curse actually consisted of just making Turin a cocky so-&-so & let him destroy himself.

Oh, the irony of that in the context of our discussion ;).

Nope. I honestly think that if someone had dropped a piano on Lizzie Bennett's head Pride & Prejudice would have been a much better novel. I wouldn't have wished anyone to drop a piano on Jane Austen's head though.

[Raynor]

The difference is that one is a real person & the other a fantasy being that only exists in your imagination.I can't even begin to grasp this :eek:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this moral person we are talking about can have two imaginary proccesses, one which deals with the actual neighbour, the other with an imaginary identical neighbour - and the only thing that makes the first imaginary process immoral and the second not so, is that the second imaginary process is, well, more imaginary.

It seems to me that you fail to acknowledge - in this argument - that the "real" neighbour doesn't exist in one's mind as such, but it is only an imaginary construct. All the world is re-created in our mind - we imagine it. Frankly, l find this to be common sense in the modern world.

If two imaginary processes are identical, in every aspect, then if one implies immorality, so does the second.
He could have acheived the same effect by writing a novel about WWII. He chose to write a novel based in Northern Myth & people it with monsters.I beg to differ:
Once or twice he decided to move away from the mythical, legendary, and fantastic, and wrote a conventional short story for adults, in a modern setting. The results were unremarkable, showing that his imagination needed myth and legend in order to realise its full potential. And I'm not aware that Art has to include an element of moral didacticism - or that even if it does the reader has to pay any attention to them.But this work does contain, in and of itself, elements of moral and religious truths, regardless of whether reader chooses to ignore them or not.
I honestly think that if someone had dropped a piano on Lizzie Bennett's head Pride & Prejudice would have been a much better novel.I take it this is an instance of british humour concerning the possibility of writting better novels while being brain damaged and crippled.

[Lalwendë]

In any event, you seem to be taking "seductive" a bit too literally. It is not my intent to suggest that Smaug or Glaurung has a greater sexual appeal to the reader (or other characters) than Lúthien. Seduction is not, of course, a term limited in its usage purely to sexual matters. By seductive here, I was meaning the ability to draw the reader in, to fascinate the reader, to make the reader like the character despite his/her "real life" dislike for anything the character would actually be in the real world.

Indeed. 'Desire' can cover all manner of things, not just sex. I know what Tolkien meant about profoundly desiring Dragons - you do not want them living next door to you and burning your house down, but this doesn't stop you from finding them utterly awesome and fantastic (in oh so many ways!) and wishing that somehow they really could exist in this world with us. Ever noticed how many kids love dinosaurs and other huge beasts? It's the same thing - awe. The film Reign of Fire, which is not one of the best things around, there is a scene in it which just has to be watched over and over again - when this ridiculously monstrous dragon just sits back on his haunches and annihilates Leicester with one firey blast. It's cool. Simple as. Now I don't want Leicester destroying, oh no, as tgwbs lives there (although any wandering, homeless dragons are quite welcome to nest in L**ds or in the environs of Richard Branson's house if they wish ;))! But in the film this is just jaw-droppingly awesome.

It's monsters. They are bigger and badder than us. They are scary yet beautiful. If you wanted to write a fantasy with all the elements in place you'd have to get a Dragon in there. I'm enjoying ITV's shockingly good (shocking because ITV are usually crud) Saturday 'monster drama' Primeval which features all kinds of awesome monsters, and waiting for the next series of Doctor Who with the Daleks, Cybermen, etc, and another series of Torchwood with it's Weevils and evil faeries. Plus hopefully another series of Robin Hood with it's deliciously evil bad guys. TV makers have cottoned on to the fact that we like things like this, because they're just so much more exciting than the 'reality' stuff that's churned out! I don't care if some kid from Doncaster can sing well or not, I want Monsters and baddies!

[davem]

I can't even begin to grasp this :eek:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this moral person we are talking about can have two imaginary proccesses, one which deals with the actual neighbour, the other with an imaginary identical neighbour - and the only thing that makes the first imaginary process immoral and the second not so, is that the second imaginary process is, well, more imaginary.

Yes, but you see, I can tell the difference between the real neighbour & the fantasy one - even if both exist in my mind. And the point is I wouldn't act out my fantasy on real life.

It seems to me that you fail to acknowledge - in this argument - that the "real" neighbour doesn't exist in one's mind as such, but it is only an imaginary construct. All the world is re-created in our mind - we imagine it. Frankly, l find this to be common sense in the modern world.

Yes, & the universe is simply a vast energy field - & I'd like to see how you bring morality into things on the sub atomic level. Morality comes in at a higher level.

If two imaginary processes are identical, in every aspect, then if one implies immorality, so does the second.

It may 'imply' it. It doesn't prove it. It may just imply one can create a false analogy.

But this work does contain, in and of itself, elements of moral and religious truths, regardless of whether reader chooses to ignore them or not.

Not if the reader doesn't pick up on them. And who says it 'contains elements of moral & religious truth anyway - who says that the 'moral & religious truths' are actually 'true'? Again, this is assuming that which is to be proved. The reader may be perfectly moral, but not hold these 'truths' to be true. They may not consider Tolkien's characters to be anymore 'real' or convincing than a cartoon character. They may even be able to recognise that they are made up figures with no emotions, thought processes, capacity to really suffer, hope or dream, than Tom or Kenny. They may have no more reality to the reader than a figure in a computer game.

The problem is you are attempting top make moral judgements about a reader based on what the characters mean/represent to you, when the reader may feel nothing of the sort about them.

I take it this is an instance of british humour concerning the possibility of writting better novels while being brain damaged and crippled.

No. Its an example of a character being hit by a piano, which character, as far as we know, did not write a novel. Lizzie Bennett being the heroine of Pride & Prejudice which was written by Jane Austen. (Though actually, in my fantasy of Lizzie being hit by the piano she wasn't left brain damaged or crippled, but made a full recovery - the only long term effects being that she had piano keys for teeth......)

[Raynor]

Yes, but you see, I can tell the difference between the real neighbour & the fantasy one - even if both exist in my mind.But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.
And the point is I wouldn't act out my fantasy on real life.I never argued on that direction in this thread.
It may 'imply' it. It doesn't prove it. Can you please rephrase?
Not if the reader doesn't pick up on them.Who do you think cannot pick up this moral and religious elements? If you mean that one spots them but chooses to ignore them, then no problem.
The reader may be perfectly moral, but not hold these 'truths' to be true. So, what 'truths' could not be hold by a 'perfectly moral' reader, to use your own expression?

[davem]

But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.

I can.

It may 'imply' it. It doesn't prove it.
Can you please rephrase?

It doesn't prove it. It may imply it.

Who do you think cannot pick up this moral and religious elements? If you mean that one spots them but chooses to ignore them, then no problem.

I mean someone who thinks they're just reading a fantasy novel. And if the reader is not religious they may not be aware of the 'religious' elements - all they may be aware of is that some of the characters have a religious belief.

So, what 'truths' could not be hold by a 'perfectly moral' reader, to use your own expression?

Ones that may apply in a secondary world but not necessarily in the Primary world. In the secondary world it is 'true' that balrogs are a threat to life & limb. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it is 'true' that Morgoth has corrupted the very stuff of the material universe. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it may be 'true' that torturing an Elf is a bad thing. In the primary world one would have to prove that Elves actually exist here for that to be true. A reader may be reading the book for escape, not for edification.

Of course, the reader is free to decide that torturing an elf is a fine thing, something to be encouraged, & that medals should be handed out for doing so. I won't condemn them for it, or think any less of them. In short, I don't think the reader's response to the characters in a book says anything about their morality. I'm not going to judge someone on their response to a book. I don't believe anything of any value can be learned about a person from their response to fictional characters.

[Raynor]

It doesn't prove it. It may imply it.Thanks davem, that is really helpful. I can only pray you will excuse me if I don't give you a rep for this tremenous effort, but I am too tired by your game. This is the worst I ever got in any discussion on any Tolkien board.
But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.I can.This is pretty pointless, but I will ask anyway: how?
I mean someone who thinks they're just reading a fantasy novel.I am not aware that reading a book merely as a fantasy novel precludes naturally identifying moral or religious elements.
And if the reader is not religious they may not be aware of the 'religious' elements - all they may be aware of is that some of the characters have a religious belief.Aren't you contradicting yourself?
In the secondary world it is 'true' that balrogs are a threat to life & limb. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it is 'true' that Morgoth has corrupted the very stuff of the material universe. In the primary world it is not.But these are not examples of moral truths, but examples of persons and events. You are dodging my question
In the secondary world it may be 'true' that torturing an Elf is a bad thing. In the primary world one would have to prove that Elves actually exist here for that to be true.But surely you recognise that what is immoral is "torture of living beings" in itself.

[davem]

This is pretty pointless, but I will ask anyway: how?

It is pretty pointless of course. You set up a false dilemma. 'How can one distinguish between two identical things?' We aren't dealing with two identical things - we were talking about two similar things.

I am not aware that reading a book merely as a fantasy novel precludes naturally identifying moral or religious elements.

Again, they may not be looking for such elements, they may not even care about such elements.

But surely you recognise that what is immoral is "torture of living beings" in itself.

Elves are not 'living beings'. Again, you're failing to distinguish between a reader's response to fictional characters in a fictional world & real people in the real world. You cannot claim the 'thought' behind the two events is identical - its like claiming that thinking about a blue car is the same as thinking about blue sky because both thoughts are about blue things.

[Raynor]

We aren't dealing with two identical things - we were talking about two similar things. So, the names, figures, places, sounds, and everything one can imagine about that scene are identical, but still, the two imaginary processes are not identical? How do they differ, davem?
Again, they may not be looking for such elements, they may not even care about such elements.Does that mean that nothing precludes "naturally identifying moral or religious elements" when a book is read merely as a fantasy novel?
Elves are not 'living beings'. But they represent living beings. By your reasoning, no 'perfectly moral' person could hold any truth to be actually true, because all characters in a book are in fact fictional.

[davem]

So, the names, figures, places, sounds, and everything one can imagine about that scene are identical, but still, the two imaginary processes are not identical? How do they differ, davem?

If they were 'identical' they wouldn't be two imaginary processes but a single imaginary process duplcated. Thus it is not possible to 'compare or contrast' them.

Does that mean that nothing precludes "naturally identifying moral or religious elements" when a book is read merely as a fantasy novel?

It doesn't 'precude' it. It simply may not be part of the reader's response. Making a salad does not preclude using celery, but a salad does not require celery to be a salad.

But they represent living beings. By your reasoning, no 'perfectly moral' person could hold any truth to be actually true, because all characters in a book are in fact fictional.

And yet they are not 'living beings' therefore the reader is not responding to living beings - unless they choose to respond to them as living beings. You seem to be implying that the reader has no choice in the matter, & that if they think a dragon frying an Elf is cool, or exciting they should be judged as immoral. Again, if a viewer laughs when Kenny is killed is the viewer laughing at the death of a child or his he laughing at the dispatching of a cartoon character? Is there a 'qualitative' difference or are the thoughts 'identical'? The reader may respond to Tolkien's characters as living beings, but they are free not to. A 'perfectly moral' being can choose how they respond to characters (or truths) in a book. Because its fiction.

[Raynor]

If they were 'identical' they wouldn't be two imaginary processes but a single imaginary process duplcated. Thus it is not possible to 'compare or contrast' them.So if there is no difference between them, then if the first imaginary process is immoral, then so it the second.
It doesn't 'precude' it.Then you agree that anyone can pick up the moral and religious elements in the works.
You seem to be implying that the reader has no choice in the matterNo, you are missing my point. The question was what (general) moral or religious truths from M.E. cannot be hold true by a 'perfectly moral' reader - so far you have presented nothing that precludes this. The cartoons you are reffering to are a false analogy, since they are not trying to convey an immoral idea, but hilarity - if they do try to portray unncessary killings or suffering as acceptable values, then they are immoral.

[davem]

So if there is no difference between them, then if the first imaginary process is immoral, then so it the second.

If one chooses to judge it. However, I dispute that fanatasising about killing an Elf is the same as fantasising about killing a real human being, & that fantasising about killing a real human being is qualitatively different from actually killing them. All the rest is a side issue as far as I can see.

Then you agree that anyone can pick up the moral and religious elements in the works.

I also agree that anyone can pick up the spelling mistakes, typos & bad grammar. I'm arguing they may choose not to, that they may not be interested in them & that they may not correspond to the reader's own moral value system.

No, you are missing my point. The question was what (general) moral or religious truths from M.E. cannot be hold true by a 'perfectly moral' reader - so far you have presented nothing that precludes this. The cartoons you are reffering to are a false analogy, since they are not trying to convey an immoral idea, but hilarity - if they do try to portray unncessary killings or suffering as acceptable values, then they are immoral.

And I'm arguing that this may not be the reader's approach to the story. You seem to be elevating a 'moral' reading over any other. A work of fiction cannot be 'immoral' - only the intent of the maker & the interpretation of the reader can be judged moral or immoral. Therefore the whole thing is subjective.

What this comes down to is a simple question - are you prepared to judge a person's character based on whether they choose Morgoth over Eru, or think A Nazgul is cooler than an Elf? If a reader chooses to approach Tolkien's work as being no more 'serious' or 'deep' than South Park then, however 'moral' they are they may side with Morgoth, Eru or the Fox in the Shire & it will have absolutely no relevance at all in terms of understanding the reader's moral value system. Again, you are taking your own approach to the work as being the 'norm'.

[Raynor]

If one chooses to judge it.But our moral person is supposed to do that about himself.
A work of fiction cannot be 'immoral' - only the intent of the maker & the interpretation of the reader can be judged moral or immoral.A message cannot be immoral? How about a message promoting racism or fascism?
are you prepared to judge a person's character based on whether they choose Morgoth over Eru, or think A Nazgul is cooler than an Elf?You keep throwing this argument at me. We were talking here strictly about your proposed 'perfectly moral' person and what it could or could not do.
If a reader chooses to approach Tolkien's work as being no more 'serious' or 'deep' than South Park then, however 'moral' they are they may side with Morgoth, Eru or the Fox in the Shire & it will have absolutely no relevance at all in terms of understanding the reader's moral value system.I agree, since in this case there is no actual siding in either instance.

[davem]

But our moral person is supposed to do that about himself.

No - he can do that. Supposed implies obligation

A message cannot be immoral? How about a message promoting racism or fascism?

A message is just words. The writer's intent may be immoral, The reader's reaction may be immoral but the words cannot be immoral as they either consist of sounds or letters

You keep throwing this argument at me. We were talking here strictly about your proposed 'perfectly moral' person and what it could or could not do.

And I say again, the 'moral person' may not choose to analyse the work in such a way. And there is no requirement for them to do so.

[The Saucepan Man]

If your life was ever threatened or that of someone close to you (and I sincerely hope it is not!) you may be driven to thinking about what you'd like to do to someone which may indeed involve killing them. I'm sure I don't have to spell out the kind of circumstance, you know what I mean! Of course few of those in such horrible circumstances ever act on their imaginations but nevertheless the potential is there in all of us. A difficult thing to acknowledge perhaps, but never say never until you are in their shoes...I don’t deny that I might well experience those kinds of feelings in the situation that you describe, and I don‘t actually find it that difficult to acknowledge. It would, nevertheless represent a lapse from my own moral stance, however understandable, because I do not regard murdering someone in response to a crime that they have committed, whatever the crime, as morally acceptable. Nor do I regard torture as morally acceptable under any circumstances.

Just because a moral person may have a certain impulse, it does not make that impulse morally acceptable. Nor does having the immoral impulse make them an immoral person, particularly if they would never dream of acting on it.

Yes - because we recognise that person is a human being, not a literary creation.Quite, and I was responding to your description of a hypothetical “real life” situation.

That said, I cannot, as I have said previously, agree that a reader’s response to a work of fiction cannot necessarily tell us anything about that reader. It depends what the work of fiction is. Your examples of Tom & Jerry and South Park are false analogies. One has to look at the context of the fictional world in which the events portrayed take place. Where violence takes place in a cartoon context, where it is understood by the viewer that its purpose is humour, that it is not intended to raise moral issues, and that no “real harm” ever comes to the protagonists, then I see no problem in that. But where evil, torture and suffering are portrayed in a world with a similar moral code to that of our own society and are portrayed as causing real harm in that fictional world, and where morality is necessarily implicated by the creation and portrayal of good beings and evil beings, then it seems to me that it does say something about the reader’s morality if they genuinely side with those who are portrayed as evil and who are responsible for the torture, murder and suffering, and regard those things as worthy (as opposed to simply finding them interesting, playing at sympathising with them, or admiring certain (admirable) qualities in them).

I note that you did not address my examples of 1984 and Silence of the Lambs. Would you draw no conclusions about a reader if they were genuinely to sympathise with the stated aims and actions of Big Brother and thought Winston Smith had it coming to him, or if they were genuinely to regard Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism as acceptable? If not, then we have no common ground here, because I most certainly would.

[davem]

That said, I cannot, as I have said previously, agree that a reader’s response to a work of fiction cannot necessarily tell us anything about that reader. It depends what the work of fiction is. Your examples of Tom & Jerry and South Park are false analogies. One has to look at the context of the fictional world in which the events portrayed take place. Where violence takes place in a cartoon context, where it is understood by the viewer that its purpose is humour, that it is not intended to raise moral issues, and that no “real harm” ever comes to the protagonists, then I see no problem in that. But where evil, torture and suffering are portrayed in a world with a similar moral code to that of our own society and are portrayed as causing real harm in that fictional world, and where morality is necessarily implicated by the creation and portrayal of good beings and evil beings, then it seems to me that it does say something about the reader’s morality if they genuinely side with those who are portrayed as evil and who are responsible for the torture, murder and suffering, and regard those things as worthy (as opposed to simply finding them interesting, playing at sympathising with them, or admiring certain (admirable) qualities in them).

I note that you did not address my examples of 1984 and Silence of the Lambs. Would you draw no conclusions about a reader if they were genuinely to sympathise with the stated aims and actions of Big Brother and thought Winston Smith had it coming to him, or if they were genuinely to regard Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism as acceptable? If not, then we have no common ground here, because I most certainly would.

And I can only restate my opinion that it all depends on how the reader treats the story. What you may find to be a work with an ethical stance may be read by the another person as no more 'real', with no more relation to the real world than South Park or Tom & Jerry.

In short, the reader may not take the work seriously. One is not obliged to. One of Lal's favourite movies is The Wicker Man (the original). She takes it absolutely seriously & finds the ending horrific. I found it comical & thought the ending hilarious. Christopher Lee singing 'Summer is icummen in' & prancing around in a dress while Edward Woodward goes up in flames was the most surreal & hilarious thing I can remember. I found 1984 so over the top - as did Aldous Huxley btw - & Silence of the Lambs so ridiculously far up its own fundament that I couldn't take either of them seriously, & to be honest, if 1984 had ended with Big Brother dancing around in a dress singing 'Summer is icummen in' while Winston was scoffed by rats it would not have seemed out of place. And if Hannibal had eaten the annoying Clarice's liver with some fava beans & a nice chianti I wouldn't have blamed him.

A reader will respond to a text as they wish. For some readers The Sil is as far fetched as South Park & a lot less entertaining. I respect their right to feel that way about it, even though I do not share their view, & don't therefore think I can draw any conclusions about their morality as far as events in the real world are concerned.

[The Saucepan Man]

But we are not talking here about people who find Tolkien's works silly or ridiculous. We are, as far as I am concerned anyway, talking about people who treat it seriously, yet genuinely support the evil characters.

I would agree that, if they find it silly, they are not really genuinely siding with evil, and so few, if any, conclusions could be drawn with regard to their morality.

[davem]

But we are not talking here about people who find Tolkien's works silly or ridiculous. We are, as far as I am concerned anyway, talking about people who treat it seriously, yet genuinely support the evil characters.

I would agree that, if they find it silly, they are not really genuinely siding with evil, and so few, if any, conclusions could be drawn with regard to their morality.

But they may take it 'seriously' as a work of fantasy with no relation to the real world, so I would still argue that their support of the 'evil' side cannot be used to judge their morality as far as the real world is concerned. Supporting 'evil' characters in a fantasy world so far detached from the everyday world they live in means such conclusions cannot be drawn.

I cannot declare someone who thinks Orcs slaughtering Elves is cool (however 'seriously' they might take the slaughter) to be 'immoral' in the same way (or at all if it comes to that) that I would instantly declare someone who thought Serbs slaughtering Bosnians was cool. And I don't accept that the same thought processes are behind the former as behind the latter.

[Lalwendë]

One of Lal's favourite movies is The Wicker Man (the original). She takes it absolutely seriously & finds the ending horrific.

Certainly NOT that modern desecration *spits* - I certainly have imagined what I'd like to do to those film-makers...

I like it because it's pure gothic horror, suspense building throughout, surreal moments, black humour...I find that kind of thing genuinely frightening, but the most frightening thing I have ever seen and ever will see was Threads. As for traditional horror films, those with suspense like Halloween are scary, those which just have gore are pure comedy. I laughed all the way through The Evil Dead, the same with The Exorcist and The Omen - both were just stupid.

What makes The Wicker Man frightening is that you can imagine a small community going collectively insane - in fact cults do go insane in this kind of way, and what makes Threads frightening is we're only ever one step away from nuclear holocaust happening. However children do not get possessed by the devil, there's no such thing as an antichrist and the only evil thing that shacks in the woods are likely to contain are loads of woodlice and spiders.

Just because a moral person may have a certain impulse, it does not make that impulse morally acceptable. Nor does having the immoral impulse make them an immoral person, particularly if they would never dream of acting on it.

It makes you human. We all experience unpleasant feelings from time to time, and many of us hold them all of the time. And you know, being a legal professional, how important it is to be very careful when applying decisions of 'morals' to cases e.g. it may be 'moral' to some religions to hate gays, but a judge cannot ever let off someone who is a gay basher on the basis of the accused's 'moral' grounds. Likewise, if the public were to decide we'd soon have capital punishment back, but our law makers judge this to be immoral and will not allow it. Thankfully! Just one example of how blurred the boundaries really can be...

[The Saucepan Man]

But they may take it 'seriously' as a work of fantasy with no relation to the real world, so I would still argue that their support of the 'evil' side cannot be used to judge their morality as far as the real world is concerned. I will note my disagreement and leave it at that.

Lal, as I made clear earlier, I accept that there are grey areas in the field of morality and ethics. Even with regard to torture, which some people might regard as justifiable to gain information in order to avert an atrocity (an argument which I consider fails logically, as torture is generally one of the less effective means of gaining reliable information). I can only speak from my own moral stance, but I believe that there is a large part of it which is shared by the society which I live in generally.

As regards the relationship between law and morality, there are very many areas of conduct which I would regard as immoral or unethical, even though not wrong in the legal sense. Similarly, there are laws enacted in some places of the world (even in the UK) which I find contrary to my own sense of ethics and morality. This is an area with which I am rather familiar, being the person responsible for the code of business conduct in the company for which I work, and for training people on both legal and ethical behaviour.

In any event, I would regard a momentary lapse in morality, such as in the circumstances we were discussing, as very different from taking a genuine delight in, and sympathising with, the torture and murder of innocents, even in a fictional fantasy setting. Neither, of course, are illegal.

[the guy who be short]

I don't think I follow, can you please rephrase?Okay. I'll reproduce those two quotes here.

What is your argument here? That a certain thing is good because it is popular? That, in and of itself, is an instance of "ad populum" fallacy. Yes, I argue that there is a degree of immorality if we delight in evil qualities, and the fact that many people find it acceptable doesn't make it so. If I may quote Gandhi, the truth is the truth even if spoken by one single person.Norm is a standard notion in ethics and morality.

In the first quote, you say that popularity cannot be used to define morality. Consensus does not equal righteousness. The many cannot justify acts of evil by virtue of being many.

In the second quote, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that the "norm" - that is, the majority view - is a standard notion in ethics, and that a majority view is an ethical one.

Obviously you can't hold both these contradictory views at once, so you must choose one. If you choose the latter, then morality is defined by culture. If you choose the former, then it is pointless to discuss the issue of morality with you, because you'll be certain that your morality is the only right one.


Would you draw no conclusions about a reader if they were genuinely to sympathise with the stated aims and actions of Big Brother and thought Winston Smith had it coming to him, or if they were genuinely to regard Hannibal Lecter’s cannibalism as acceptable?There have been many cultures where cannibalism is seen as perfectly acceptable. Obviously it would be a little odd if the man down the street in Britain started eating people, but you can't just say that anybody who has belonged to a cannibalistic culture is evil.


The argument between davem and raynor seems rather cyclical. So, if I may, I'll bring in amorality again.

Humans need fantasies to make life bearable... Show me one atom of justice. One molecule of mercy. And yet you act like there was some sort of rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.Isn't the whole argument about morality pointless, seeing as what evil is is entirely subjective? Can't we just accept that if somebody likes orcs, then they are evil according to the 1000th reader, Raynor or Thenamir, and not evil according to Lalwende and Davem?

[The Saucepan Man]

There have been many cultures where cannibalism is seen as perfectly acceptable. Obviously it would be a little odd if the man down the street in Britain started eating people, but you can't just say that anybody who has belonged to a cannibalistic culture is evil.I am not saying that at all. Morality, to my mind, can vary over both time and geography. I know this only too well from my job. In any event, I do not regard cannibalism as immoral per se. Indeed, I believe that it is justified in certain circumstances (such as those depicted in the film and book Alive). However, I would regard Hannibal Lector's behaviour as immoral and, indeed, evil. Murdering people and eating them is both illegal and regarded as immoral in the society within which I live and my question was directed towards people living within the same society.

[The Saucepan Man]

Isn't the whole argument about morality pointless, seeing as what evil is is entirely subjective? Can't we just accept that if somebody likes orcs, then they are evil according to the 1000th reader, Raynor or Thenamir, and not evil according to Lalwende and Davem?I think that there is a legitimate issue here. To depersonalise it somewhat, I would suggest the following proposition:

If X is regarded as immoral within the moral norms of a particular society or group, is it immoral within that society/group genuinely to delight in, sympathise with and support the fictional representation of the perpetration of X?

I would say that it depends upon the fictional context, but would disagree that it is necessarily not immoral to do so. In other words, depending upon the fictional contest, I would say that it can be immoral to do so.

Edit: To contextualise it in terms of Tolkien's works, I would say that it is immoral within the society/group in question genuinely to delight in, sympathise with and support the perpetration of X within Tolkien's works.

[davem]

I am not saying that at all. Morality, to my mind, can vary over both time and geography. I know this only too well from my job. In any event, I do not regard cannibalism as immoral per se. Indeed, I believe that it is justified in certain circumstances (such as those depicted in the film and book Alive). However, I would regard Hannibal Lector's behaviour as immoral and, indeed, evil. Murdering people and eating them is both illegal and regarded as immoral in the society within which I live and my question was directed towards people living within the same society.

So morality is determined by the society in which one happens to live? So a reader who willingly sides with the Orcs at the beginning of the 21st century is 'immoral' but a reader, say 200 years in the future who happens to live in a society where 'orcish' behaviour is generally accepted would be 'moral'? To me this seems not to make sense because it reduces 'morality' to whatever is socially acceptable. But in theory what is socially acceptabie could be different in 20 years, or two years - or two months. So, a person who is considered 'immoral' today could be considered 'moral' in two years time & 'immoral' again two years later - without changing their position as regards what is right & wrong but simply because what is socially acceptable changes.

And to move on. Let's say someone who fully supports the evil side in LotR is 'immoral'. What should we do about them? Should they be watched? Should they be allowed to adopt children? Can they be trusted not to steal cars, rob houses or mug grannies?

But can we judge their 'morality' only through the way they respond to fictional characters - is that sufficient evidence on which to base our judgement? And which fictional works are we to use in order to make our judgement? Who decides? And is it to be a question only of judging the reader's morality? I'm sure Germaine Greer for example would decide that anyone who liked Tolkien (whether they were rooting for the Good guys or the Bad guys) was emotionally & intellectually immature for instance.

You see, this whole issue of judging an individual's moral, ethical or intellectual state based on their choice of who to cheer on in a work of fiction puts those who use that criterion in a difficult position in regards to other people - if you truly believe someone who cheers on the Orcs is 'immoral' then what are you going to do about it? What are you going to do with them? Either you believe that although they are immoral people they are harmless (in which case the whole issue has nothing more than curiosity value - & morality is trivial issue as far as you are concerned because it has no effect on people's behaviour or the way they treat others) or you believe that their immorality makes them at least a potential threat to others, & you therefore have an obligation to restrict what they can do for the greater good....

Based on whether they think Orcs are cooler than Elves. On whether they enjoy the thought of (non-existent) Elves being dragged into a (non-existent) Angband by (non-existent) Orcs to be tortured by a (non-existent) Morgoth & his (non-existent) Balrogs . Or even on whether they get off on the idea of a (non-existent) dragon razing a (non-existent) town built in stilts in a (non-existent) lake.

[Lalaith]

Hmmm.....

I've lived long enough to feel fairly confident about the following things.

a) lots of young people find bad and naughty things glamorous and exciting. This is, inter alia, why rumours of devilish messages played backwards at the end of certain heavy metal records do nothing but increase interest in said records. And why bands like Iron Maiden call their albums things like "Number of the Beast".

b) mostly this fascination with the bad and naughty is harmless, and most people eventually get bored with it. In real life, evil tends to be mundane, nasty, stupid and unpleasant - the hyperintelligent villain a la Lecter is a total fiction. I don't think Tolkien is a particularly good example of evil fascinatiion, because his villains are mostly quite un-glamorous, lacking a hinterland....they don't have a patch on Milton's Satan, for example...with the possible exception of Saruman, and Sauron-as-Annatar. The personification of Sauron in the films was a bit more metal, however, and that may be what's got people excited.

c) on the other hand, moral relativism sucks. I am probably considered to be on the liberal end of things, but there are certain things that I strongly believe are wrong, and I don't give a monkeys if these things were/are considered ok in ancient Babylon or Easter Island or whatever. They're still wrong.

[The Saucepan Man]

So morality is determined by the society in which one happens to live?Largely, yes. Quite obviously so, to my mind. Otherwise we would still have slavery and we would still be putting people on the rack. :rolleyes: And I can assure you, from my professional experience, that what is regarded as entirely ethical within one society may well be regarded as quite unethical within another.

... if you truly believe someone who cheers on the Orcs is 'immoral' then what are you going to do about it?I didn't say that it necessarily made them an immoral person. I said that the "act" of doing so was an immoral one. And I don't propose doing anything about it. I simply don't regard it as a moral way to react to the work.

Either you believe that although they are immoral people they are harmless (in which case the whole issue has nothing more than curiosity value - & morality is trivial issue as far as you are concerned because it has no effect on people's behaviour or the way they treat others) or you believe that their immorality makes them at least a potential threat to others, & you therefore have an obligation to restrict what they can do for the greater good....Davem, this is quite preposterous, and you know it. For one thing, I did not say that it necessarily made them dangerous. And, for another, it is not a crime to think in an immoral way, and I would strongly oppose any suggestion that it should be.

[Bêthberry]

And, for another, it is not a crime to think in an immoral way, and I would strongly oppose any suggestion that it should be.

It has often been remarked that Middle-earth lacks priests and churches, but interestingly it also lacks police and lawyers--at least until Sharkey gets his hands on The Shire.

I wonder if the thugs of the Shire are as attractive as orcs for some readers? I mean, are some baddies more interesting than others?

Note meaning to imply that loyers are baddies, of course. :D

[Lalwendë]

Course, the more I read that morality is based upon what society you live in and what age you live in, the more it sounds like morality is indeed relative! That's on both a global and a temporal basis. But even within one nation 'morality' can be very different. To me, it's instinctively abhorrent that a woman should feel she ought to go around with her face covered, but to the woman living just a few houses away, it's the correct moral thing to do. And that's where the bind lies.

I do my best not to judge (though I acknowledge that it is pretty much inevitable that I will judge people - as a human I am constantly comparing people to find out "Are they like me? Are they not?" - something which stems from our basic survival instinct). In a society, especially a modern society, a multi-cultural society, sometimes it's the only way that you can get along with your neighbours and colleagues, to accept that you will never agree, and that their morality is very different to your own. That's why morality is relative in the modern world. If we all conform to one 'norm' then everyone in a multi-cultural society must behave in the same way, including women all either wearing or not wearing the hijab; the fact that women do not tells us morality is not at all 'fixed' but that it fluctuates.

And that's why I say it is extremely rude to place the highly emotive and loaded term 'immoral' on someone for who they like and do not like in a piece of fiction. We have no knowledge whatsoever of that person, their background (cultural, religious, political, economic, temporal, geographical etc), their intentions, their other likes/dislikes (if they generally like evil characters or good ones, and if this is just one instance of liking a bad guy or one in a long sequence) - so we cannot simply say He or She is immoral based on whether they like an Orc or an Elf.

That is what is commonly known as Judging A Book By It's Cover.

Something we should all avoid. Me too. I tend to react when I see a chav (holding on to my handbag and wondering where the car is etc), but I find that if I actually speak to said chav, he's usually perfectly ordinary and up to no harm at all (and often quite pleased to be finally spoken to like a human being!). Basing your moral judgement of someone based on something as purely surface as which characters they like or do not like without knowing much, much more about that person is at the root of prejudice.

"You do not like the same thing as I do, therefore I do not think you are as moral as I am" is not far from "You do not follow the same faith/politics/football team as I do, therefore you are not as good as I am". We all do it, we should perhaps try to avoid doing it and confront our prejudices - it's a lifelong struggle, constantly challenged when someone of the opposite view confronts us, but one we have to deal with or we may as well drop the civilised front and all pick up our bone axes and go for it.

[davem]

I didn't say that it necessarily made them an immoral person. I said that the "act" of doing so was an immoral one. And I don't propose doing anything about it. I simply don't regard it as a moral way to react to the work.

Davem, this is quite preposterous, and you know it. For one thing, I did not say that it necessarily made them dangerous. And, for another, it is not a crime to think in an immoral way, and I would strongly oppose any suggestion that it should be.

The problem is we have three options - 1) the person is immoral & their choice of who they support reflect their natural immorality, 2) the person is moral but chooses to agree with an immoral act & 3) the person is amoral & chooses to agree with an immoral act. I leave aside the sudden flashes of anger & desire to lash out which will soon pass or be over-ridden by the individual.

The reason this is a 'problem' is that all three of the above alternatives mean that the person is actually 'immoral'.

1) means we are dealing with an immoral person.

2)If a moral person chooses to behave immorally, or support an immoral action he or she cannot be considered 'moral' - why would a moral person choose to support an immoral action? Indeed, how could a moral person be considered 'moral' by anyone if they choose to support an immoral act? Hence, a 'moral' person who chooses to support an immoral act is a logical impossibility. Thus, option 2) means we are dealing with an immoral person.

3) If an 'amoral' person chooses to support an immoral act they cannot actually be considered 'amoral' because they are making a conscious choice not to be either moral or amoral. So, option 3) again means we are dealing with an immoral person.

Which leaves us with an immoral person (said immorality being a temporary or permanent state). And it further leaves us with your statement that the immoral choice (freely made) does not make the person dangerous. But what does it make them - & if it doesn't make them dangerous in any way then for all practical purposes it is irrelevant - other than to give us someone to look down on as being 'less moral' than we are - but that is pretty much worthless if moral or immoral choices make no difference in real terms. What effect in real terms does making immoral choices have in your view? Aren't you in effect simply saying 'its not a nice way to think but it makes no practical difference to you or anyone else'?

Or when you say 'it does not necessarily make them dangerous' are you adding the unspoken corrollory 'but it may do'? In which case what do you do? You know that someone who consciously supports an immoral act may be dangerous but you do nothing about it?

My position is that supporting the 'bad guys' in a work of fiction is an aesthetic/emotional choice which may be made for many reasons - not a 'moral' choice. It is a matter of personal taste not ethics & personal taste is not something which can be held up for moral judgement.

[the guy who be short]

3) If an 'amoral' person chooses to support an immoral act they cannot actually be considered 'amoral' because they are making a conscious choice not to be either moral or amoral.An amoral person will consider their acts to be amoral, whatever these acts may be. It would be better to say that, from the viewpoint of somebody who thinks supporting orcs is immoral, the person is immoral.

"You do not like the same thing as I do, therefore I do not think you are as moral as I am" is not far from "You do not follow the same faith/politics/football team as I do, therefore you are not as good as I am".Nicely stated.

moral relativism sucks. I am probably considered to be on the liberal end of things, but there are certain things that I strongly believe are wrong, and I don't give a monkeys if these things were/are considered ok in ancient Babylon or Easter Island or whatever. They're still wrong.Why? What makes them so wrong? Where does this "wrongness" come from?


SpM - In saying that morality depends on social context, you are supporting moral relativism. However, you seem to be saying that this does not make that society's morality any less valid as a system and, furthermore, that a society's system of morality should be used to judge the individuals within it.

What about dissenters? Mixed-race marriages, gay marriages and supporting women's right have all been regarded as immoral in history (simply staying within British history). I presume you have no objection to these things now. How can you support temporal, societal-based morality to judge people today, but be against using it historically?

I'm sleepy (shamefully early, I know!) and am aware that I'm a bit rambly, but I hope that was clear enough to be understood.

[davem]

An amoral person will consider their acts to be amoral, whatever these acts may be. It would be better to say that, from the viewpoint of somebody who thinks supporting orcs is immoral, the person is immoral.

Yes. I know. But I am a bear of very little brain ....

[Lalwendë]

And to follow on from what tgwbs says about how people have struggled to change the morality 'accepted' by society, what about those who go against the grain of a wider society which is, according to them, immoral? What about resistance fighters?

And we also have to think about who sets the moral tone of a society. Is it the majority opinion? Is it done by consensus? Or is it set by Authority? Which Authority?

These are difficult questions which absolutism only prevents us from answering intelligently. All we can do if we are absolutist is run around in circles like dogs chasing our tails.

Personally, I always bear Gandalf's words to Frodo in mind about not being hasty to judge. This is one of the most important things Tolkien tells us.

Maybe those 'moral truths' which we hold most dear are the ones which we ought to question the most? There are things which I strongly believe are wrong, but merely my thinking them to be wrong doesn't achieve anything, it certainly doesn't help me to understand those who take the opposite view. Challenging our own moral assumptions does not mean we will end up with an amoral society as decisions will always be reached on what is best given the circumstances, but it does better equip us to be tolerant and to see situations from all sides. Not doing this leads to conflict. The Cold War was all about this, two 'sides' unable to see life as it was on the opposing side, unable to simply stop and question if they really did have it right, but all too ready to annihilate the world in the pursuit of defending their own moral agendas and 'strongly held beliefs'.

[davem]

And another thing....

Why would anyone side with the 'Bad Guys'? Because of the way they percieve the 'Good Guys'?

I found this essay:Lord of the Rings as a Defence of Western Civilisation:http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:rI1ENzF5VLcJ:www.staustinreview.com/StAR/january_west_article.pdf+lord+of+the+rings+as+a+de fence+of+western+civilisation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk&client=firefox-a Which states:

So to say that The Lord of the Rings is a defense of Western
civilization is not to say that it is a defense of our civiliza-
tion as it exists. Instead, it has much to tell us about the dis-
repair into which Western civilization has fallen. As Tolkien
would sometimes write, we face “Mordor in our midst.”

Since September 11, it is easier for most of us to believe
that. Lest we have any doubts, we can see the poisonous
fruit produced by the forces of Mordor in the rubble of the
World Trade Center.

Someone from outside the 'Western (Civilised) World' (or even some within it) who first encountered LotR via that essay might have a very different perspective on what the 'Good guys' in the book are up to. Once again, we have to ask how the reader who sides with the 'bad guys' actually percieves the 'good guys'? The 'West' (in particular America according to this writer) is Gondor, Rohan & the Shire & those in opposition to the 'West' is 'Mordor' - & LotR is a 'defence of the West' & its (Right Wing) values according to the writer of this piece.

[The Saucepan Man]

Note meaning to imply that loyers are baddies, of course.Of course not. Some of them ... ahem ... us have chosen the light side. ;)

And that's why I say it is extremely rude to place the highly emotive and loaded term 'immoral' on someone for who they like and do not like in a piece of fiction.I am not talking about making judgments on the basis of which characters people like and dislike, so please do not imply that I am being rude by reference to something that I have not done. Heavens, it is well documented that I am a great fan of Smaug as a character. That does not mean that I think he was right to attack a bunch of innocent people and destroy their homes. My point was referring to those who delight in, sympathise with and support the atrocities committed by the evil characters in LotR. I consider myself perfectly justified to view that as an immoral standpoint, although I would not necessarily judge them as a person by it (or not by that alone, at least). I am merely stating my own personal view in a debate on the issue. Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything that you say.

Aren't you in effect simply saying 'its not a nice way to think but it makes no practical difference to you or anyone else'?In a nutshell, yes. To be honest, I see little relevance to my life or anyone else's in this debate, but I am a sucker for pointless debates ... :p ;)

With one caveat. If a person habitually delighted in, sympathised with and supported the evil acts of fictional characters, I would expect that to be relevant in any psychological assessment of that individual and, were there evidence of such behaviour, it would be relevant in any criminal prosecution of them for any serious crime which they might commit. As I said, such a pattern of behaviour is not illegal, and 9.99 times out of 10 it will not lead to dangerous behaviour. But, were it to do so, it would be considered relevant in assessing their state of mind.

However, I know of no one who approaches fiction in this way, and I believe that there are very few people who do. Indeed, I strongly suspect that the views referred to in the opening post, which kicked of this debate, were not genuinely held but were merely "showing off". So, yes, it is largely irrelevant.

Indeed, the "off topic" elements of this debate, concerning moral relativism and the application of systems of morality and ethics are of far more interest to me, particularly as it is an area in which I work.

However, you seem to be saying that this does not make that society's morality any less valid as a system and, furthermore, that a society's system of morality should be used to judge the individuals within it.Not all situations require society's moral judgment. Most of those which do are enacted in law. In many situations that are not, no moral judgment is required at all by society in general (although individuals may take it upon themselves to make such a judgment, and are generally free to do so).

Sometimes, however, moral judgments are required, even where there is no issue of law involved. To take an example with which I am professionally familiar, should a company do business in a country with a poor human rights record? There are arguments both ways. On one side, it might be argued that the company brings employment to people and treats them well as employees (assuming that it does), and also that bringing investment into the country might benefit its people and even, ultimately, lead to a change in the regime or a more enlightened approach. On the other, it might be argued that, in doing so, the company is supporting an appalling regime. Similarly, where mundane bribes are accepted (and legal) in a country, should a company doing business in that country pay those bribes simply in order to be able to compete? In these sorts of situations, people have to make moral judgments, and they will generally apply the moral standards of their home society.

How can you support temporal, societal-based morality to judge people today, but be against using it historically?In the same way that I generally support the application of the law as it is now, rather than as it was 20, 100 or 200 years ago. But, as I said, where the moral issue is not enacted in law, and where differing moral standpoints cause no harm to society, I personally see no particular reason to judge, in the sense of condemning, although I may well form a view and feel myself perfectly at liberty to state it.

And to follow on from what tgwbs says about how people have struggled to change the morality 'accepted' by society, what about those who go against the grain of a wider society which is, according to them, immoral? What about resistance fighters? What about them? They may well have a good cause. As I said, it is perfectly possible to regard a law, or indeed the moral values of a society, as immoral. Of course, they can only reach that stage by making a moral judgment. Having made that judgment, are they justified in using violence to enforce it? Instinctively, I would say no. Yet some who have been hailed as great heroes were once terrorists, carrying out terrorists acts.

To be honest, while this is a fascinating area, and one in which I have a particular interest, it is veering quite seriously off-topic. It is also an area in which there are often no easy answers. So I think that I'd best leave it be for now, much as I would like to continue this discussion.

[Salacia Deloresista]

I find that debating the morality of characters in Lord of the Rings is hard to do, since, as a children's story the moral lesson was put in by the author himself. There's a reason why Frodo is endearing and Sauron is a fiery eyeball, and that's because beautiful is good and ugly is bad, end of story. Debate relative morality with a bad guy like Raskolnikov, not Sauron. Lord of the Rings is too Paradise Lost for me to see much ground for realtive morality.

[Bêthberry]

It is fascinating to read all this sound and fury in defense of the position that literature, as a sub-created world, cannot be applied to the primary world, but is simply, merely and only a spot of puff, just entertainment, without any other relation to ourselves as human beings and our culture than a smacking good time-eater.

For this is not, for example, how post-colonial writers in Africa regard stories. Take Ngugi wa Thiong'o, for example. He writes movingly of the power of language to define our selves, particularly of his experience as a child in the oral culture of the African language Kikuyu and then in the written culture of his colonial school, where English was imposed and the oralture (oral literature) of Kenya denigrated.

What, according to Thiong'o, was the effect of the nightly stories told in Kikuyu?


We therefore learned to value words for their meanings and nuances. Language was not a mere string of words. It had a suggestive power well beyond the immediate and lexical meaning. Our appreciation of the suggestive magical power of language was reinforced by the games we played with words through riddles, proverbs, transpositions of syllables, or through nonsensical but musically arranged words. So we learned the music of our language on top of the content. The language, through images and symbols, gave us a view of the world, but it had a beauty of its own.

Language is not a non-reactive agent. Again:



Lanuage has a relationship to human experience, human culture, and human perception of reality.

For Thiong'o, the language of Imperialism, English, colonised the minds of the children of Africa, so that it not only devalued their own language and culture, but made language a cerebral activity, rather than "an emotionally felt experience", one divorced from the life which Kenyan children knew.

So, how does this relate to our reading of Tolkien? What do we do when we read him? Is reading him merely a cerebral activity, divorced from our experience in our daily language/s? Or does his language reverberate in our being, so that it mediates our relationships, it provides "image forming agents" in our mind which are part of the community and culture which English informs?

It doesn't follow from this that readers who enjoy orcs and trolls and dragons are immoral. But what does follow is that language does relate powerfully to the Primary world, even language in stories. Heck, even popular culture. How much of our reading of Tolkien influences the world we perceive? How much of Tolkien causes us to see the world in a particular way? Maybe that's what Tolkien does--provides us with a variety of mediations, so that some of us can become elves, some hobbits, some Men, some dragons, trolls, orcs even, or, at the very least, perceive the world as a place of struggle between good and bad agencies.

And it's funny, in a way, that Western culture (aka, some of its proponents here) seems intent to deny this purpose and value of language while writers in other cultures staunchly proclaim the kind of magical power for language which Tolkien himself espoused. Maybe that's what Tolkien does: allows us to perceive the world as elves, as hobbits, as Men, as orcs, trolls, dragons, or, at the very least, to perceive the world as a vast canvas of struggle between good and evil.

[davem]

Fascinating thoughts....however, Lal & I are off to Port Patrick in Bonnie Scotland for five days, so we'll have to leave you to sort it out for yourselves..

See yus at the weekend..

[Raynor]

No - he can do that. Supposed implies obligationI see. So I suppose that you consider the idea of moral obligation as absurd - since we established, I hope, that certain imaginary processes are immoral. Are you arguing that one is free to do whatever one wants, imagination included, no matter how strong that contradicts one's own morality?
But they may take it 'seriously' as a work of fantasy with no relation to the real world, so I would still argue that their support of the 'evil' side cannot be used to judge their morality as far as the real world is concerned. Supporting 'evil' characters in a fantasy world so far detached from the everyday world they live in means such conclusions cannot be drawn.Davem, do you argue that there is any qualitative difference between one's imagination and a book? If certain fantasies are immoral when one engages in them, as we explored previously, then these ideas are immoral too when one recognizes them in a book and adheres to them.
[QUOT=davemE] I cannot declare someone who thinks Orcs slaughtering Elves is cool (however 'seriously' they might take the slaughter) [/QUOTE]You are rather vague about this; what could they consider 'cool' about slaughtering elves?
In the second quote, you seem to contradict yourself by saying that the "norm" - that is, the majority viewAre you kidding?:eek: You take a statement of mine which states one idea, then you take another general affirmation I make, and define its meaning in your own way, [one which contradicts my previous statement and my previous opposition to moral relativism], then you attribute its meaning to me and ask me why I contradict myself? When did I define norm as majority view? Please clarify. I simply view norm as a whatever rule, standard, model; your qualification of it as 'majority's view' in the context of my argument is unwarranted.
Can't we just accept that if somebody likes orcs, then they are evil according to the 1000th reader, Raynor or Thenamir, and not evil according to Lalwende and Davem?My argument was that siding with the evil actions of the orcs may contradict one's own morality [if one holds various moral values to be true], regardless what other view as moral or not.
Let's say someone who fully supports the evil side in LotR is 'immoral'. What should we do about them? Should they be watched? Should they be allowed to adopt children? Can they be trusted not to steal cars, rob houses or mug grannies?As far as I know, all western societies prohibit any kind of discrimination based on beliefs.
It has often been remarked that Middle-earth lacks priests and churches, but interestingly it also lacks police and lawyers--at least until Sharkey gets his hands on The Shire.The hobbits have the shirrifs; the king was a priest-king in Numenor, and Tolkien speculates in the letters that Aragorn would return to that function.

[the guy who be short]

When did I define norm as majority view?That's what a norm is. Normal. Something widely accepted by most people.

My argument was that siding with the evil actions of the orcs may contradict one's own morality [if one holds various moral values to be true], regardless what other view as moral or not.Surely there is no argument then? If one holds that it is immoral to side with orcs (as you do), and sides with orcs, then this is immoral to that person. If one holds that siding with orcs is not immoral, and sides with orcs, then this is not immoral to that person.

I find that debating the morality of characters in Lord of the Rings is hard to do, since, as a children's story the moral lesson was put in by the author himself. There's a reason why Frodo is endearing and Sauron is a fiery eyeball, and that's because beautiful is good and ugly is bad, end of story.Strider looks foul, not to mention Ghan-buri-Ghan!

[Raynor]

That's what a norm is. Normal. Something widely accepted by most people.You are correct; my use of the word relied on equating norm with any moral principle; fortunately, a quick look in the dictionary cleared that up. Sorry for the blunder. Glad I learned something new :D
If one holds that it is immoral to side with orcs That was not my argument. I argued that if one believes that deligthing in evil deeds is immoral, then if siding with the orcs, or 'cheering them' as one debater has put it, means derriving pleasure from their deeds, then this is an immoral instance.
Strider looks foulHm, when is he described as such?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Hm, when is he described as such?
LotR, FotR, Chapter 'Strider':
[Frodo:] 'I think one of his [the Enemy's] spies would - well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand.'
'I see,' laughed Strider. 'I look foul and feel fair. Is that it?'

[Raynor]

LotR, FotR, Chapter 'Strider':I was aware of that quote; however, Frodo does not reffer to Strider as looking foul, but strange, and Strider's play of words, esspecially his refference to the password (all that is gold does not glitter), show a discrepancy between his humble looks [with mud on his boots, trave-stained cloack, hood over head] and true majesty. Later on, when he doesn't have to be disguised, his fair looks are evident.

[Salacia Deloresista]

Just being covered by mud and dirt does not make him foul. He's dirty because he's a traveler, and because at that point in the story he's denying his heritage. But, he's also in a serious relationship with the most beautiful elf since Luthien. He's dirty, yes, but not foul and disfigured like an orc or goblin.

[Mithalwen]

, and because at that point in the story he's denying his heritage.

I think that that is a concept only of the films ... in the book he may not flaunt his status amongst the people of Bree who have no appreciation of the Rangers (until they go), but he is not in denial..... otherwise he would hardly lug the broken sword around with him at all times in a somewhat impractical fashion

[the guy who be short]

That was not my argument. I argued that if one believes that deligthing in evil deeds is immoral, then if siding with the orcs, or 'cheering them' as one debater has put it, means derriving pleasure from their deeds, then this is an immoral instance.Hmm. I think the real problem here is the word evil, which I have conveniently emboldened. What constitutes an "evil act" is very difficult to decide, as the adjective "evil" can be applied to more or less any act or thought.

I suppose you are right in that, if "support of antagonists," "support of those who deny the existence of a Higher Power," "support of quarrelsome beings" or support of some other characteristic of orcs is defined as an "evil act," then supporting an orc is indeed immoral.

Which means more or less that, if you define evil as support of orcs, then supporting orcs is immoral!

He's dirty, yes, but not foul and disfigured like an orc or goblin.I suppose so. But to take the opposite argument, Sauron, for example, was meant to take a fair form.

The intent of 99.999% of pornography in the movie is clear; they want to promote pornography, it is an end, not a means to an end.I just found this and, although it's not relevant, I thought I'd mention that the Catalonian government is offering grants to local pornographers to create pornography in the Catalan language to "promote Catalan in every medium." This made me laugh.

[Raynor]

I suppose you are right in that, if "support of antagonists," "support of those who deny the existence of a Higher Power," "support of quarrelsome beings" or support of some other characteristic of orcs is defined as an "evil act," then supporting an orc is indeed immoral.No, I was thinking of plunder, rape, torture, unnecessary killings.

[the guy who be short]

No, I was thinking of plunder, rape, torture, unnecessary killings.Hmm, I see. If you think the above is evil, then supporting orcs is immoral.

I don't think orc-rape is mentioned anywhere (though Celegorm tried to force Luthien to be his wife). The Elves also seem susceptible to unnecessary killings - the Kinslayings, for example. The Elves like to plunder - the Noldo rebellion was partly out of yearning for new kingdoms, not to mention the lust for silmarils and other precious things. So I suppose we should also oppose the Noldor.

You've got me on torture though! Interesting that this seems to be something that fallen Elves do not partake in, though they're all too happy to murder. I wonder if that means anything.

[Raynor]

If you think the above is evil, then supporting orcs is immoral.I was only interested in this argument about the case when supporting evil characters is related to delighting in these evil acts.
I don't think orc-rape is mentioned anywhereI am not specifically interested in orcs, although Tolkien reffers to orcs raping in the Lay of Luthien (although some may equate that with plunder). More to the point, Tolkien speculated Melkor forced humans to mate with animals.
The Elves also seem susceptible to unnecessary killings - the Kinslayings, for example.I don't think we can extend that to the "elves". We don't know who started the actual fighting, and it was all down to Feanor, who drove his men on. Anyway, I was thinking of killing for the sake of killing when I said "unnecessary".

Faramir describes the rohirrim as:
For as the Rohirrim do, we now love war and valour as things good in themselves, both a sport and an endhowever, I am not aware that the rohirrim or the gondorians went out to kill just for the sake of it. But if they did, the same standard I have been arguing throughout this thread would apply to them too.
The Elves like to plunder - the Noldo rebellion was partly out of yearning for new kingdoms, not to mention the lust for silmarils and other precious things.The elves love to plunder? How so? Yearning for new kingdoms does not amount to that. I am not aware that they took any land by force from anyone, or that they dispossesed. Also the silmarils were theoretically theirs. As for other things, I don't know what you mean.
Interesting that this seems to be something that fallen Elves do not partake in, though they're all too happy to murder. All too happy to murder? Where is this particular trait described? If anything, at least their healers avoid this, since it reduces their abilities.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I am not aware that they took any land by force from anyone
Even though there where no established kingdom I belive that they took the land of the petty-dwarves and killed where they found them, but my memorie can be failing me.

Of course elves are not portraied as evil as the orcs, but they too seem to be intolerant of other races and sometimes other elves.

I actually don't see the orcs as pure evil, maybe because I don't belive in any such thing, but especially the conversation between Shagrat and Grishnákh convinces me that the orcs have other longings than just slaying. Maybe I mis-read the conversation (very likely), but they don't seem to be all that keen on war.

[Salacia Deloresista]

But to take the opposite argument, Sauron, for example, was meant to take a fair form.
Sauron was originally beautiful, but when he fell, he was corrupted in body and spirit. It's a very Paradise Lost moment, actually. Satan was beautiful, too, when he was an angel.

[Raynor]

Even though there where no established kingdom I belive that they took the land of the petty-dwarves and killed where they found them, but my memorie can be failing me.For all intents and purposes, the petty dwarves appeared to the elves as beasts who attacked them. They stopped as soon as they recognized they were sentient beings - that is, after meeting the 'greater' dwarves I am looking foward to anyone putting any argument that someone could have behaved better than the elves.
Of course elves are not portraied as evil as the orcs, but they too seem to be intolerant of other races and sometimes other elves.To what cases of intolerance are you reffering?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

For all intents and purposes, the petty dwarves appeared to the elves as beasts who attacked them. They stopped as soon as they recognized they were sentient beings - that is, after meeting the 'greater' dwarves I am looking foward to anyone putting any argument that someone could have behaved better than the elves. That is just silly as you ask people argue something that no one could actually know. . .We can only look at what the elves did and draw conclutions from that, well I guess we could do some speculation, but that is likely to be on very thin grounds. Just like I could not know if France would have done better than the US as the worlds only super-power. . .they would be in a completely different situation and therefore they would probably act differently.

What is interesting is that people seem to classify evil and good when clearly there is no true good beings. . .

You say that the elves only killed the petty-dwarves because they where beasts. .. Does that mean that you think ignorance is a good excuse for doing immoral things? If so I belive that most of the evil deeds of men could be excused.

I actually do not think it matters one bit wether someone could have acted better than the elves, at least not when you talk morality and such. One should be judged by ones own actions and not the ones of others.

To what cases of intolerance are you reffering?
If you will not accept "the creatures of Morgoth" as an answer :p then what about towards dwarves. . .I do realise that this was mutual and due the whole war buisness.

[Raynor]

Does that mean that you think ignorance is a good excuse for doing immoral things?No, but at least spiritually, intention counts. And in this context the elves too were victimes, when they were ambushed by night and the likes.
I actually do not think it matters one bit wether someone could have acted better than the elves, at least not when you talk morality and such. One should be judged by ones own actions and not the ones of others.I fail to see the relevance of a morality standard that no one could ever achieve. Tolkien too rejected criticism of Frodo, that he could have done better, saying such a thing could have happened only in stories unconcorned with "real moral and mental probability". I hold that the same applies here.
then what about towards dwarves. . .I do realise that this was mutual and due the whole war buisness.Can you be more specific about this particular intolerance?

[Boromir88]

Forgive me for only skimming through this thread (at least I don't have my old signature up anymore). Some points I wanted to remark upon...

I think Lal speaks quite well for me, the bad guys are just far more fascinating. Saruman is the 2nd most fascinating character in Lord of the Rings to me...can anyone guess the first? (And no it's not Gothmog :rolleyes: )

As a huge Sean Bean fanguy; he remarks that the good roles get a little boring and he prefers to play the rough 'n tough, conflicted, or downright evil character. As he said about his concerned father role in Silent Hill...it just got too boring and he loves playing characters with far more depth and even a touch of 'evil.'

I'd also like to point out, what Tolkien does excel at is not really defining good and evil as this black and white concept (all these good guys over here are pure, righteous and good...and they're facing all these dirty, rotten, evil people)....but there are 'areas of gray:'

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right…In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.~Letter dated 25 September 1954

There are a few characters that I would say are nearly and completely evil (afterall Tolkien does say Sauron and Morgoth were in 'absolute satanic rebellion'). But, I don't think the 'nature of evil' is so rigid...at least Tolkien felt like he didn't make it so easily defined as 'good vs. evil.'

I've never really been happy with the summary of the Lord of the Rings as a battle of 'good vs. evil' I mean sure there are good characters and there are bad...however good and evil exist on both sides. As Tolkien remarks about WW2:
For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed.But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn men and elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are so clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side...~Letter 66

Let's say if we look at the 'good' side in The Lord of the Rings...Denethor comes to mind as one that's a bit confused about good and evil. Sure he is completely and fully against Sauron...but that does not make him a 'good person.' Denethor was a capable and strong ruler; however he was filled with pride and despair...as Tolkien puts it he became 'corrupted by politics,' he became obsessed with his power as Steward and if he had still lived after the War of the Ring he would have 'ruled as a tyrant.' No one believes a Tyrant is good do they? :D

On the 'evil' side, we have some examples...Grima, Saruman, and Gollum. All of these characters are fighting against the destruction of the Ring and the 'free peoples' yet they are not on Sauron's side. They have their own objectives or were just led astray and decieved. How about the Haradrim warriors through Sam's point of view:
It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace - all in a flash of thought which was quickly driven from his mind.~Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
What it all comes down to when the boundaries between good and evil are not so rigid...there is a lot of 'jumbled' and 'gray' areas; I think we see that others (certainly myself) pity people on the 'evil side' (Gollum and Grima)...or find them fascinating as characters (like Saruman). Then we look at the 'good side' and see characters that have become corrupted and controlling (Denethor) or who are struggling with good and evil (Boromir). Boromir wants to do the right thing, he wants to be 'noble' and 'honourable' but he doesn't always succeed (and that being due to the pull of the Ring and Boromir's attraction to it).

[Roa_Aoife]

I, like Boromir have only skimmed through this thread. (I hate joining these kind of things late- there's so much to catch up on.)

Anyways, I saw the thread and I had to reply. Mostly becausae I find myself holding to different veiwpoints over what appears to be two different topics. The questions as I see them are in two sets.

The questions specific to this topic:

1) Why do some people prefer "bad" characters over "good" characters?

2) Does doing so make said people morally wrong, bad, corrupt, etc?

And the more broad questions that have arisen as a result:
3) Is the morality of literature seperate from the morality of reality?

4) Can morality be relative based on culture or at all?

At least, this is what I have percieved to be the main questions. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

So then,

1) Because as many have said, the bad guys are more interesting, more cool, more defined, in many circumstances. Because the good guys can be annoying. For example- I greatly dislike the Elves. I find them arrogant, and going back through Tolkien's history, they are responsible in a big way for the events surrounding the One Ring and Sauron's rise to power. And yet they still find time to look down on Men, who have done pretty much nothing but save their pretty little butts everytime they cause trouble. *grumble grumble*

On the other hand, my favorite character is Sam. One of my friends is a fan of Smeagol, and thinks Sam is "too noble, too dull, too bland," etc. She likes Smeagol becuase he's interesting- he shows conflict and uncertainty, whereas Sam never waivers.

And yet, we both are die hard fans of Darth Vader. (Not Anakin, from the new movies. Vader, the original.) It's difficult to find a more black and white universe than that of Star Wars. It's Light vs Dark. And yet, fans of the movies and books alike are found in equal numbers on both sides.

My point is that different people find different things appealing. Some think bad guys are "cool" (like Vader), some think that they aren't. Some people like the ideals the the good guys up-hold, some think the good guys are a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant, legalistic morons (like the Jedi counsel). Explaining why each individual likes what they like is something only they can do, and sometimes it just boils down to, "I just do."


2)It really depends. Is this the person who laughs when the main bad guy pushes an old woman down the stairs? Or do they just find the bad guys more appealing, in an almost asthetically way? If it's the latter, I fail to see how it makes them immoral. I may disagree with my friend's view points about Smeagol, but I would have a hard time saying that she's a bad person for it. If, however, she thought everything Morgoth and Sauron did was right, funny, or generally appealing, she probably wouldn't be the kind of person I would be friends with.

It takes more than an unpopular opinion to make someone morally bad. It takes an entire personality built on the enjoyment of others' suffering. And, without knowing more about someone than thier opinion, I would abstain from making such a judgement.


3)Yes, and no. Everything we read, see and experience shapes our world view, whether we agree with it or disagree. Further more, the media and literature that is popular says a great deal about our current culture. In that sense, the two are not seperate. However, saying that a single work of fiction is equivalent is ludicrous. LOTR, no matter how insightful and well written and popular, does not define morality for the real world. While many religious themes are found through out it, it sets up its own morality. Tolkien may have had a message in it- that's been debated on end elsewhere- but it would be difficult to say that said message was about right and wrong, or something else entirely.


4) Oooh, the big one. I for one, have never believed that morality is relative. After all, we all agree that murder and genocide, whatever the culture, is wrong. We all agree that the mutilation and castration of women, though consider acceptable and even morally right by some cultures, is wrong. I do, however, believe that there is a difference between what is culturally accepted, or even legally defined, and what is morally right and wrong. It is arrogant to think that a custom of a culture is the only right way to do something. Unfortunately, all cultures think this way. In fact, something as siginificant as every single culture ever documented having the same view regarding anything is considered a phenomenon in Anthropology. It's called Ethno-centricity.

But, again there is a difference between the culturally acceptable, and morality. You can't excuse every misdeed as "coming from a different culture." Somethings are right, and somethings are wrong, no matter who you are or where you come from.

Maybe the Orcs viewed the Elves as evil oppressors, but they destroyed countless lives in the fight against them. They stole from each other, betrayed each other, burned and pillaged, and sought to destroy everything that was ever built.

[Raynor]

I find them arrogant, and going back through Tolkien's history, they are responsible in a big way for the events surrounding the One Ring and Sauron's rise to power. And yet they still find time to look down on Men, who have done pretty much nothing but save their pretty little butts everytime they cause trouble.The elves contained Melkor in northern Middle Earth, preventing/limiting his nihilistic frenzy. They were also instrumental in defeating Sauron at the end of the first age; that some of them were deceived by Sauron doesn't amount to a group blame. Also, the little men saving their behinds were not so innocent when they attacked Valinor, or when they served Sauron or Melkor throughout the centuries.
While many religious themes are found through out it, it sets up its own morality. I have asked this before: what general moral principles from LotR could not be applied in real world - or, at least, are not suited to you?

[Roa_Aoife]

The elves contained Melkor in northern Middle Earth, preventing/limiting his nihilistic frenzy. They were also instrumental in defeating Sauron at the end of the first age; that some of them were deceived by Sauron doesn't amount to a group blame. Also, the little men saving their behinds were not so innocent when they attacked Valinor, or when they served Sauron or Melkor throughout the centuries.

As not all elves are responsible for what happened, niether did all Men serve darkness. And Melkor did not need containment in Middle Earth- he fled from the Valar after stealing the Silmarils (made by an elf) to increase his power. It had already been shown that he could not defeat the Valar. As for the defeat of Sauron and Morgoth, Men were just as instrumental. Not mention, there would have never been a problem with the Ring if the Elves hadn't shown him how to do it. And it wasn't just a few Elves that were fooled into trusting him. Celeborn was one of the few who didn't.

I have asked this before: what general moral principles from LotR could not be applied in real world - or, at least, are not suited to you?

Personally, none. I'm Christian (not Catholic) and I find the morals principals quite well suited to me. However, it does not make the LOTR a moral authority. (It's not the Bible or any other religious scripture, for heaven's sake.) The presence of religious themes has been debated upon elsewhere, and it's not what this topic is about.

[the guy who be short]

After all, we all agree that murder and genocide, whatever the culture, is wrong.Murder is allowed in some cultures in certain circumstances. The USA is one of them - Americans seem content to murder their (often mentally ill) criminals.


We all agree that the mutilation and castration of women, though consider acceptable and even morally right by some cultures, is wrong.
1) That's a contradiction of terms. If it's seen as morally right by some cultures, it cannot be universally agreed that it is evil.

2) How exactly are women castrated?



I don't think we can extend that to the "elves". We don't know who started the actual fighting, and it was all down to Feanor, who drove his men on. Anyway, I was thinking of killing for the sake of killing when I said "unnecessary".
The Noldor started the fighting in the first kinslaying by trying to steal ships. The other two kinslayings were silmaril-related, I believe. None of the kinslayings were necessary.

Is there any account of orcs killing just for the sake of killing? They always seem to justify it somehow in my experience.

As for other things, I don't know what you mean.That Dwarven Necklace, the name of which I've forgotten...

All too happy to murder?One example is Celegorm attempting to murder Beren by shooting him when his back was turned. The Elves of Nargothrond also shot anybody - Elf or Man - who approached their gates. That seems pretty inexcusable.

[Roa_Aoife]

Murder is allowed in some cultures in certain circumstances. The USA is one of them - Americans seem content to murder their (often mentally ill) criminals.

Firstly, we could debate on end as to wether or not the death penalty is murder, just as we could argue on end wether or not abortion is murder, and it would get us no where. Let's not turn this into that sort of debate.

1) That's a contradiction of terms. If it's seen as morally right by some cultures, it cannot be universally agreed that it is evil.

Fair enough, but my point was that cultural rights and wrongs are not always equivalent to moral rights and wrongs.

2) How exactly are women castrated?

The clitoris is sawed off with a knife when the girl reaches puberty. This was also practiced for some time in western culture, until women's rights came into play.

Is there any account of orcs killing just for the sake of killing? They always seem to justify it somehow in my experience.

"It's fun," doesn't count as a justification, and really, what justification did they use that didn't boil down to that, in the end? Not to mention, justification in one's own mind does not make it right. An abusive parent usually justifies beating their child, but that doesn't make it right.

[Raynor]

The Noldor started the fighting in the first kinslaying by trying to steal ships.We don't know who first drew swords.
The other two kinslayings were silmaril-related, I believe.
...
One example is Celegorm attempting to murder Beren by shooting him when his back was turned. 8 Noldor, driven by an oath that "none shall break and none should take" don't define an entire race.
They always seem to justify it somehow in my experience.Melkor's sole purpose in using the orcs, as stated in Myths Transformed, is the elimination of elves and men. I certainly doubt you consider some other reasons, such as plunder, as a justification.
That Dwarven Necklace, the name of which I've forgotten.The Nauglamir was made after the noldor reached Middle Earth. If it carried any corruption for an elf (Thingol), it was after it held the silmaril.
The Elves of Nargothrond also shot anybody - Elf or Man - who approached their gates.In what instances did they shoot? Celegorm and Curufin and their people found haven there, so did Orodreth.

[Elmo]

what instances did they shoot? Celegorm and Curufin and their people found haven there, so did Orodreth.

So great a fear did he set in their hearts that never after until the time of Turin would any Elf of that realm go into open battle; but with stealth and ambush, with wizardry and venomed dart, they pursued all strangers, forgetting the bonds of kinship. Thus they fell from the valour and freedom of the Elves of old, and their land was darkened.

'With venomed dart, they pursued all strangers' I feel they shot quite a lot of people.

We don't know who first drew swords.

Swords were drawn after the Teleri chucked the Noldor in the sea so I guess it was the Noldor who drew the swords first. Also isn't it claimed that the Teleri only had slender Elven bows to defend themselves with.

[Raynor]

I feel they shot quite a lot of people.But this hardly defines the elves in general. The elves of Nargothrond were twice marred, by the words of Feanor's son, and by the very curse of Mandos. I imagine they were also in a constant 'martial law' for quite some time.
Swords were drawn after the Teleri chucked the Noldor in the sea so I guess it was the Noldor who drew the swords first. Maybe.
Also isn't it claimed that the Teleri only had slender Elven bows to defend themselves with.Most of them, not all.