Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mister Underhill
A theme of Tolkien's is that '. Consequently, while evil or deeply flawed characters bring more ability and/or will to project raw power onto the field, in practice they are not as "powerful" as they might seem since their attitudes towards power and its use and the choices they make ultimately leave them vulnerable.
|
I think it could be argued that this is an instance of Tolkien imposing his own beliefs, or hopes, on his creation. Certainly in M-e its true that 'evil choices lead to self-defeat, whereas self-sacrificing choices lead to victory', but is that true in the primary world? Certainly we would all wish it to be the case, but how many of us can say it reflects our everyday experience?
If Feanor was Tolkien's own alter-ego, it seems he was punishing himself for his 'sins' in Feanor's fate. Maybe Tolkien created the world as he felt it 'ought' to be in his Middle-earth. I suppose it could be argued that if the primary world had been as Tolkien felt it should be he wouldn't have bothered to create a 'secondary' one. So, was M-e really a 'reflection' of our world, an attempt to enable us to see things 'as we were meant to see them' (OFS) or was it his attempt to get us to see the world as he felt it
ought to be, but plainly was not (in his view)? In short, was M-e truly 'escapist' in the pejorative sense?
Yet this begs a further question - if the 'primary' world is not (as our experience suggests) a place where goodness & compassion ultimately win out, why do we respond so strongly to a world that is so 'out of touch' with our experience? Where does our innate sense that the way things work in M-e is 'right' & the way things seem to be in the 'real' world is wrong or 'faulty' come from?