Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Mark Luthien for me. I'll give quotes anytime you want, although I guess it is quite pointless, no matter how superb she is portrayed, if our tastes vastly differ.

Yes, I imagine you could come up with quotes... you are certainly this website's quote-master. But much as "Studies show..." can be used to promote any position in the book, quotes can back up just about any position one wants to take on any subject. Tolkien certainly changed his mind about enough things enough times to make that the case.

In any event, you seem to be taking "seductive" a bit too literally. It is not my intent to suggest that Smaug or Glaurung has a greater sexual appeal to the reader (or other characters) than Lúthien. Seduction is not, of course, a term limited in its usage purely to sexual matters. By seductive here, I was meaning the ability to draw the reader in, to fascinate the reader, to make the reader like the character despite his/her "real life" dislike for anything the character would actually be in the real world.

Though I am sure that face-to-face, Lúthien would (by simple reason of being human in appearance, gorgeous, possessed of a positive personality, and there being a strong case for her being persuasive) be much more seductive than either dragon, as a CHARACTER to a READER, the ones that seduce are more often the dragons.

It might make a good Poll question, if Fordhim or someone ever wants for another topic there, to ask who readers think is more seductive, as a character to a reader: Lúthien or the dragons. My hunch? The dragons. I've heard a lot of people on this site say that Lúthien is boring... or a bore to read, anyway. I haven't heard anyone say that of Glaurung or Smaug that I am able to recall.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Yes, I imagine you could come up with quotes... you are certainly this website's quote-master.

Since I take this as a compliment, thanks!

But much as "Studies show..." can be used to promote any position in the book, quotes can back up just about any position one wants to take on any subject.

My opinion is that Tolkien uses far less equivocal terms than you imply.

Originally Posted by davem

one may see them as wrong but enjoy what they get up to

I believe this is our middle ground.

I will go further than that; I was talking a few years back to my teacher of peace studies, and he mentioned that there exists yin and yang in every situation, so I asked him about yang in SS soldiers. He mentioned discipline and, IIRC, comradery and courage. These are points I concede. Enemies, whether real or imaginary, may display (moral) qualities which we already agree with, and recognising them in these persons is not in itself something immoral. But, as you say in this particular instance, this does not amount to agreeing with their immorality.

One could look at a great master's painting depicting a battle. One may admire heroism, sacrifice, or deplore the stupidity of dying for the economical or dogmatic interest of others (if somehow this was the historical motive, which it usually was). However, if one was to delight in all the wounds and harm, if one was to be derriving some sadistic pleasure from this, then, if it fits my previous argument about moral values, it would be cultivating immorality.

Regarding enjoying imaginary humorous situations, I don't see any moral contradiction in that, as long as the person in question, if it has the moral values I mentioned, delights only in the genuine hilarity and derrives zero pleasures from infliction of harm. Also, I don't believe such a person would put oneself in moral contradiction with oneself if he somehow involuntarily laughed at a particulary hilarious (in itself) element in a real life dramatic event, as long as there was no siding with any values he himself considers immoral.

Many persons view cartoons as particulary violent and don't watch Tom and Jerry for that reason, despite what might amount to some exoneration of humour in both real and imaginary situations. I know many persons, westerners included, who share these feelings. The "whole/package deal" is not worth it for some.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Davem, you have yet to address my point that fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas, where any intention is subject to moral evaluation, regardless of whether it becomes enacted or not.

I attempted to address it when I asked whether you believed this was a 'universal' 'truth' or one that only applied to those who believe/accept it - which seems to be. Its a bit difficult to answer such a question - you seem to state 'x' is a fact (ie 'fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas' or ''x' is the norm') but when I challenge such statements & point out exceptions to your 'universal truths' you simply come back & say 'Well, obviously 'x' doesn't apply to everybody only to those who accept 'x' is the case.'

To attempt an answer I would say that fantasy & imagination are part of one's universe of ideas but that the ability to distinguish between fantasy (torturing an elf or Donald Duck) & reality (torturing your next door neighbour) is the first requirement of a sane human being.

I find this idea horribly misrepresentative of Tolkien, since he considered Melkor & co to be the manifestations of evil/Satan. There is no single shred of evidence in the letters or anywhere that he has any afinity with it, with the moral values that it represents. Neither in imagination, nor in matters relating to real life.

Well, he wouldn't have come out & said he thought Morgoth, Balrogs, Ringwraiths etc were 'cool' would he - I think one can pick that up from the way he uses them.

And I do not think there is any evidence that he considered Melkor to be the manifestation of Satan - he may have used he names Sauron/Satan interchangeably but I think he could distinguish between the two - & if he couldn't then he was a bit weird & should have known better. The point you're missing is that he chose to write about a world of dragons, Balrogs & Orcs.

Now, by quoting:

Originally Posted by Letter #256
Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good.

I suppose your point is that Tolkien would have felt that anyone who had no time for his Elves is simply 'sated with good'. This is hardly an inevitable conclusion - the reader may just find them boring, irritating & want the silly smile knocked off their face - & that wouldn't make the reader a 'bad person' or that they were 'sated with good'- it would just mean the reader was the kind of person who found Tolkien's Elves boring, irritating & in need of being de-silly-smiled'.

Now, back to Dragons:

But the land of Merlin and Arthur was better than these, and best ofall the nameless North of Sigurd of the Volsungs, and the prince of all dragons. Such lands were pre-eminently desirable. I never imagined that the dragon was of the same order as the horse. And that was not solely because I saw horses daily, but never even the footprint of a worm. The dragon had the trade-mark Of Faerie written plain upon him. In whatever world he had his being it was an Other-world. Fantasy, the making or glimpsing of Other-worlds, was the heart of the desire of Faerie. I desired dragons with a profound desire. Of course, I in my timid body did not wish to have them in the neighbourhood, intruding into my relatively safe world, in which it was, for instance, possible to read stories in peace of mind, free from fear. But the world that contained even the imagination of Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril. The dweller in the quiet and fertile plains may hear of the tormented hills and the unharvested sea and long for them in his heart. For the heart is hard though the body be soft. (On Fairy Stories)

You state my position as:

As you stated yourself, the literary role of the dragon is to give more valour. Tolkien talks about the author of Beowulf as liking dragons as a poet for a good reason, since they are "essential both to the machinery and the ideas of a poem or tale".

I stated that was part of it - not the whole thing. If you read the above quote from OFS you can see what I'm talking about -

But the world that contained even the imagination of Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril.

Note- the world that contained the imagination of Fafnir, not Sigurd. And Tolkien is clear that to have a world that contained Fafnir is worth any kind of peril. In short, Dragons are worth having whatever the cost. Worth having around, not worth having around simply to 'elevate' the hero when he kills them. And when we come to the statement:

The dweller in the quiet and fertile plains may hear of the tormented hills and the unharvested sea and long for them in his heart.

Who, in Tolkien's mythology, 'tortures the hills'? Melkor. And yet Tolkien talks of longing for them in his heart. Tolkien wanted the whole of hiss world - not just the 'good' parts. He wanted Balrogs & dragons & Orcs & Trolls. Because that was the world of the 'Nameless North' which inspired him & drove his imagination.

I think the problem here is that you are viewing (& expecting the rest of of us to do the same) the Legendarium as a work of moral didacticism, if not of Christian theology. It is not. It is a work of Art. It is as it is & not something else. It is not a parable, or a re-write of the Bible.

EDIT

Re Turin & Gollum. Turin is hardly just a victim of circumstances - he brings disaster on himself by his attempts to avoid Morgoth's curse. His fate is determined for the most part by his own decisions. This is why his fate is tragic. Gollum is hardly that different.

As to the way you are approaching Tolkien's work - you seem to feel that because a character is said to be 'good' that the reader must agree that that character is good because if he/she doesn't then the reader is 'bad'. Readers have different tastes. Many readers distinguish between fact & fantasy, & wouldn't have a problem with Tom having a piano dropped on his head or Kenny being riddled with bullets & eaten by rats, because they aren't real people. They wouldn't think that the writer who has Kenny being killed in that way is no different from some sick individual who fantasised about doing the same thing to a real child.

One may find Orcs or dragons more interesting & entertaining than Elves. Some readers think Lizzie Bennett one of the most interesting, witty & insightful characters in English literature - others may find her annoying, trivial & self obsessed & wish that someone had dropped a piano on her head. Neither reader is good or bad, moral or immoral.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

To attempt an answer I would say that fantasy & imagination are part of one's universe of ideas but that the ability to distinguish between fantasy (torturing an elf or Donald Duck) & reality (torturing your next door neighbour) is the first requirement of a sane human being.

Davem, what is the significant difference between imagining torturing your neighbour and imagining torturing a neighbour who is in every detail similar to the "real" one, in a world where the only difference from the "real" one is that your town's name ends with an extra "t" (or put any trivial difference, or no difference at all)?

Originally Posted by davem

I think one can pick that up from the way he uses them.

However, there is a distinction to be made between the literary value and moral values of an evil character. Working to enhance the value of a literary work by presenting a properly powerful enemy does not amount to adhering to that evil character's values.

Originally Posted by davem

The point you're missing is that he chose to write about a world of dragons, Balrogs & Orcs.

Why do you say I miss this point? I already acknowledged, at least in my second to last post the literary value, giving high tone and lofty serioussness. Again, literary, not moral, value.

Originally Posted by davem

I suppose your point is that Tolkien would have felt that anyone who had no time for his Elves is simply 'sated with good'.

No, I was addressing what I understood from your post that dislike of the boredom of good characters somehow implies or allows for siding with immoral characters in their evil. This is a false dilemma, a reader is not forced to side with the opposite side in the performing of their immoral acts, if the good side is somehow boring.

Originally Posted by davem

And yet Tolkien talks of longing for them in his heart.

Yeah, for tales of valour, for the heart of a timid boy may be tough, although his body may be soft. Desiring to display and cultivate courage (even if only in an imaginary setting) could imply respect of enemies, but not adherence to their values.

Originally Posted by davem

It is not. It is a work of Art.

I am not aware that being a work of Art negates all the stated intentions concerning the moral and religious truths in the Legendarium. This is a false dilemma.

Originally Posted by davem

Turin is hardly just a victim of circumstances - he brings disaster on himself by his attempts to avoid Morgoth's curse. His fate is determined for the most part by his own decisions.

Do you deny the importance of Melkor's curse or of how Glaurung messed his mind?

Originally Posted by davem

others may find her annoying, trivial & self obsessed & wish that someone had dropped a piano on her head.

Oh, the irony of that in the context of our discussion .

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Davem, what is the significant difference between imagining torturing your neighbour and imagining torturing a neighbour who is in every detail similar to the "real" one, in a world where the only difference from the "real" one is that your town's name ends with an extra "t" (or put any trivial difference, or no difference at all)?

The difference is that one is a real person & the other a fantasy being that only exists in your imagination.

However, there is a distinction to be made between the literary value and moral values of an evil character. Working to enhance the value of a literary work by presenting a properly powerful enemy does not amount to adhering to that evil character's values.

No it doesn't. But I still reckon he feels Smaug is awesome.

Why do you say I miss this point? I already acknowledged, at least in my second to last post the literary value, giving high tone and lofty serioussness. Again, literary, not moral, value.

He could have acheived the same effect by writing a novel about WWII. He chose to write a novel based in Northern Myth & people it with monsters.

No, I was addressing what I understood from your post that dislike of the boredom of good characters somehow implies or allows for siding with immoral characters in their evil. This is a false dilemma, a reader is not forced to side with the opposite side in the performing of their immoral acts, if the good side is somehow boring.

I was merely pointing out that a reader may take such a dislike to good characters that he or she would like to do to them what the enemy does. Or they may just find the good guys no more convincing & 'real' than Tom or Kenny & think Fingolfin getting 'maced' just as funny as Kenny getting skewered with a girder.

I am not aware that being a work of Art negates all the stated intentions concerning the moral and religious truths in the Legendarium. This is a false dilemma.

And I'm not aware that Art has to include an element of moral didacticism - or that even if it does the reader has to pay any attention to them.

Do you deny the importance of Melkor's curse or of how Glaurung messed his mind?

Nope. But Turin brought 90% of his disasters on himself by attempting to escape from Morgoth's curse rather than being a direct result of it. Its quite likely that Morgoth's curse actually consisted of just making Turin a cocky so-&-so & let him destroy himself.

Oh, the irony of that in the context of our discussion .

Nope. I honestly think that if someone had dropped a piano on Lizzie Bennett's head Pride & Prejudice would have been a much better novel. I wouldn't have wished anyone to drop a piano on Jane Austen's head though.

[Raynor]

The difference is that one is a real person & the other a fantasy being that only exists in your imagination.

I can't even begin to grasp this

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this moral person we are talking about can have two imaginary proccesses, one which deals with the actual neighbour, the other with an imaginary identical neighbour - and the only thing that makes the first imaginary process immoral and the second not so, is that the second imaginary process is, well, more imaginary.

It seems to me that you fail to acknowledge - in this argument - that the "real" neighbour doesn't exist in one's mind as such, but it is only an imaginary construct. All the world is re-created in our mind - we imagine it. Frankly, l find this to be common sense in the modern world.

If two imaginary processes are identical, in every aspect, then if one implies immorality, so does the second.

He could have acheived the same effect by writing a novel about WWII. He chose to write a novel based in Northern Myth & people it with monsters.

I beg to differ:

Originally Posted by Part Five, Biography, by John Carpenter

Once or twice he decided to move away from the mythical, legendary, and fantastic, and wrote a conventional short story for adults, in a modern setting. The results were unremarkable, showing that his imagination needed myth and legend in order to realise its full potential.

And I'm not aware that Art has to include an element of moral didacticism - or that even if it does the reader has to pay any attention to them.

But this work does contain, in and of itself, elements of moral and religious truths, regardless of whether reader chooses to ignore them or not.

I honestly think that if someone had dropped a piano on Lizzie Bennett's head Pride & Prejudice would have been a much better novel.

I take it this is an instance of british humour concerning the possibility of writting better novels while being brain damaged and crippled.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I can't even begin to grasp this

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this moral person we are talking about can have two imaginary proccesses, one which deals with the actual neighbour, the other with an imaginary identical neighbour - and the only thing that makes the first imaginary process immoral and the second not so, is that the second imaginary process is, well, more imaginary.

Yes, but you see, I can tell the difference between the real neighbour & the fantasy one - even if both exist in my mind. And the point is I wouldn't act out my fantasy on real life.

It seems to me that you fail to acknowledge - in this argument - that the "real" neighbour doesn't exist in one's mind as such, but it is only an imaginary construct. All the world is re-created in our mind - we imagine it. Frankly, l find this to be common sense in the modern world.

Yes, & the universe is simply a vast energy field - & I'd like to see how you bring morality into things on the sub atomic level. Morality comes in at a higher level.

If two imaginary processes are identical, in every aspect, then if one implies immorality, so does the second.

It may 'imply' it. It doesn't prove it. It may just imply one can create a false analogy.

But this work does contain, in and of itself, elements of moral and religious truths, regardless of whether reader chooses to ignore them or not.

Not if the reader doesn't pick up on them. And who says it 'contains elements of moral & religious truth anyway - who says that the 'moral & religious truths' are actually 'true'? Again, this is assuming that which is to be proved. The reader may be perfectly moral, but not hold these 'truths' to be true. They may not consider Tolkien's characters to be anymore 'real' or convincing than a cartoon character. They may even be able to recognise that they are made up figures with no emotions, thought processes, capacity to really suffer, hope or dream, than Tom or Kenny. They may have no more reality to the reader than a figure in a computer game.

The problem is you are attempting top make moral judgements about a reader based on what the characters mean/represent to you, when the reader may feel nothing of the sort about them.

I take it this is an instance of british humour concerning the possibility of writting better novels while being brain damaged and crippled.

No. Its an example of a character being hit by a piano, which character, as far as we know, did not write a novel. Lizzie Bennett being the heroine of Pride & Prejudice which was written by Jane Austen. (Though actually, in my fantasy of Lizzie being hit by the piano she wasn't left brain damaged or crippled, but made a full recovery - the only long term effects being that she had piano keys for teeth......)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Form

In any event, you seem to be taking "seductive" a bit too literally. It is not my intent to suggest that Smaug or Glaurung has a greater sexual appeal to the reader (or other characters) than Lúthien. Seduction is not, of course, a term limited in its usage purely to sexual matters. By seductive here, I was meaning the ability to draw the reader in, to fascinate the reader, to make the reader like the character despite his/her "real life" dislike for anything the character would actually be in the real world.

Indeed. 'Desire' can cover all manner of things, not just sex. I know what Tolkien meant about profoundly desiring Dragons - you do not want them living next door to you and burning your house down, but this doesn't stop you from finding them utterly awesome and fantastic (in oh so many ways!) and wishing that somehow they really could exist in this world with us. Ever noticed how many kids love dinosaurs and other huge beasts? It's the same thing - awe. The film Reign of Fire, which is not one of the best things around, there is a scene in it which just has to be watched over and over again - when this ridiculously monstrous dragon just sits back on his haunches and annihilates Leicester with one firey blast. It's cool. Simple as. Now I don't want Leicester destroying, oh no, as tgwbs lives there (although any wandering, homeless dragons are quite welcome to nest in L**ds or in the environs of Richard Branson's house if they wish )! But in the film this is just jaw-droppingly awesome.

It's monsters. They are bigger and badder than us. They are scary yet beautiful. If you wanted to write a fantasy with all the elements in place you'd have to get a Dragon in there. I'm enjoying ITV's shockingly good (shocking because ITV are usually crud) Saturday 'monster drama' Primeval which features all kinds of awesome monsters, and waiting for the next series of Doctor Who with the Daleks, Cybermen, etc, and another series of Torchwood with it's Weevils and evil faeries. Plus hopefully another series of Robin Hood with it's deliciously evil bad guys. TV makers have cottoned on to the fact that we like things like this, because they're just so much more exciting than the 'reality' stuff that's churned out! I don't care if some kid from Doncaster can sing well or not, I want Monsters and baddies!