[Celuien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I suppose it depends on what particularities of his view with which you are contending or working.

*coughMeadHallcough*

I was thinking most specifically of the letter we were debating over on the planning thread, and wondering if there's a case to be made that Tolkien, since he didn't seem to like the state of things to which he made reference in that letter, might have altered it in the same way as he altered the Orcs.

For those not familiar with the debate I'm talking about, here's a quote from the letter we were discussing:

In this fallen world, the friendship that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman...This 'friendship' has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails.

And from Bethberry: [Courtly love diverts] the young man's eyes off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. . . . It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose.. . . Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so),...the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. . . . Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing), she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit. . . . You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton--I don't refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy 'conquests' or even enjoy the giving of pain--but these are abnormalities. . . . Unless perverted by bad contemporary fashions they do not as rule talk 'bawdy'; not because they are purer than men (they are not) but because they don't find it funny. I have known those who pretended to, but it is a pretence. It may be intriguing, interesting, absorbing (even a great deal to absorbing) to them: but it is just p lumb natural, a serious, obvious interest; where is the joke? ... But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous... Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world) or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one), both partners might have found more suitable mates...

I would particularly posit that the last sentence from the quote Bethberry gave does not necessarily follow in the LotR. Aragorn and Arwen. Beren and Luthien. Those matches were required by 'fate,' if you will, for the story of Middle-earth to unfold as it did. In addition to the appearance that the couples in question were just made for each other. What could be more suitable than that?

So, to write in the spirit of Tolkien in this particular case, how much would one draw from the rather pragmatic advice he gave his son, and how much from the admittedly less detailed view of relationships he gave in the published works? And how similar are they really?

I think this is a critical element in how and why LotR has proven to have such relevance; because so much of what is written into the warp and weft of the story is precisely about the way the world is. Many people do stand by and let evil happen. Many people wrestle with the fact of leaders doing evil in the name of good. These are just two things I can think of that are contained in LotR and are very much with us, and always will be.

And of course, there is applicability. Great point, and maybe something to be added to the dream or escape explanation of fantasy as a genre. Is it an expression of a vision of what might be for this world, in a less direct and non-allegorical sphere?