|
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.
|