Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[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]

Originally Posted by davem

One cannot simply apply primary world rules & values to a secondary world unthinkingly.

What limits do you have in mind?

Originally Posted by davem

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".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

. . . 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.)