The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Refugees and Victims of War-- something that's not been mentioned.

Diamond18 · 12-22-2002, 08:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yet this experiment in social perception is one-sided. It is expended only on the Rohirrim. The orcs and the Uruk-hai remain limited to their traditional role of usurpers. They are the "Other", the outsiders, those beyond the pale. There is nothing to humanize them as the People of the Mark are humanized. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, Bethberry, I don't see why this should be a problem. The Orcs and Uruk-hai are not human, so they shouldn't be humanized. The Rohirrim are human, so they should be humanized. Acutally, this statement leaves out Dwarves and Hobbits and Elves, so I'll re-state it: Orcs and Uruk-hai have no humanizing qualities in their natures, and so to say that because the Rohirrim do the story is lopsided is a bit odd. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It is a one-sided expansion of vision and thus, I would say, a misappropriation of sympathy. It emotionalizes the heroic epic without making us understand, in our bones, what the real nature of evil is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I totally disagree with that. Tolkien never wanted us to sympathize with the Orcs, and if that means we can't sympathize with the Rohirrim, who can we sympathize with? And if we can't sympathize with anyone, what is the point of the story? Evil affects humans (or Elves etc.), and if you don't show that you're not showing evil. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What I am suggesting is that PJ's use of the plight of the refugees represents another way in which he has displaced the heroic epic of the past to create a modern story. He is writing a contemporary interpretation of Tolkien, and not rendering an epic in itself. There are problems with this, not simply a complaint that PJ isn't being faithful to Tolkien. When he brings in the social cost of war, he changes the nature of the battle between good and evil, of the heroic endeavour itself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, I disagree. If you're going to show evil, you should show what evil is destroying. Tolkien did this with the Hobbits in the Shire, so I don't think there's anything wrong with showing the way it affects humans. And I also don't see why this detracts or changes the heroic nature of the story and the Quest. It seems like you're saying that showing the people whom the Quest is trying to protect makes the Quest to protect them seem less heroic. ???[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

12-22-2002, 08:27 PM	#16
Diamond18 Eidolon of a Took Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: my own private fantasy world Posts: 3,460	<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Yet this experiment in social perception is one-sided. It is expended only on the Rohirrim. The orcs and the Uruk-hai remain limited to their traditional role of usurpers. They are the "Other", the outsiders, those beyond the pale. There is nothing to humanize them as the People of the Mark are humanized. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, Bethberry, I don't see why this should be a problem. The Orcs and Uruk-hai are not human, so they shouldn't be humanized. The Rohirrim are human, so they should be humanized. Acutally, this statement leaves out Dwarves and Hobbits and Elves, so I'll re-state it: Orcs and Uruk-hai have no humanizing qualities in their natures, and so to say that because the Rohirrim do the story is lopsided is a bit odd.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It is a one-sided expansion of vision and thus, I would say, a misappropriation of sympathy. It emotionalizes the heroic epic without making us understand, in our bones, what the real nature of evil is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I totally disagree with that. Tolkien never wanted us to sympathize with the Orcs, and if that means we can't sympathize with the Rohirrim, who can we sympathize with? And if we can't sympathize with anyone, what is the point of the story? Evil affects humans (or Elves etc.), and if you don't show that you're not showing evil.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> What I am suggesting is that PJ's use of the plight of the refugees represents another way in which he has displaced the heroic epic of the past to create a modern story. He is writing a contemporary interpretation of Tolkien, and not rendering an epic in itself. <P>There are problems with this, not simply a complaint that PJ isn't being faithful to Tolkien. When he brings in the social cost of war, he changes the nature of the battle between good and evil, of the heroic endeavour itself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Again, I disagree. If you're going to show evil, you should show what evil is destroying. Tolkien did this with the Hobbits in the Shire, so I don't think there's anything wrong with showing the way it affects humans. And I also don't see why this detracts or changes the heroic nature of the story and the Quest. It seems like you're saying that showing the people whom the Quest is trying to protect makes the Quest to protect them seem less heroic. ???<p>[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ] __________________ All shall be rather fond of me and suffer from mild depression.