Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[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......)

[Raynor]

Yes, but you see, I can tell the difference between the real neighbour & the fantasy one - even if both exist in my mind.

But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.

And the point is I wouldn't act out my fantasy on real life.

I never argued on that direction in this thread.

It may 'imply' it. It doesn't prove it.

Can you please rephrase?

Not if the reader doesn't pick up on them.

Who do you think cannot pick up this moral and religious elements? If you mean that one spots them but chooses to ignore them, then no problem.

The reader may be perfectly moral, but not hold these 'truths' to be true.

So, what 'truths' could not be hold by a 'perfectly moral' reader, to use your own expression?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.

I can.

It doesn't prove it. It may imply it.

Who do you think cannot pick up this moral and religious elements? If you mean that one spots them but chooses to ignore them, then no problem.

I mean someone who thinks they're just reading a fantasy novel. And if the reader is not religious they may not be aware of the 'religious' elements - all they may be aware of is that some of the characters have a religious belief.

So, what 'truths' could not be hold by a 'perfectly moral' reader, to use your own expression?

Ones that may apply in a secondary world but not necessarily in the Primary world. In the secondary world it is 'true' that balrogs are a threat to life & limb. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it is 'true' that Morgoth has corrupted the very stuff of the material universe. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it may be 'true' that torturing an Elf is a bad thing. In the primary world one would have to prove that Elves actually exist here for that to be true. A reader may be reading the book for escape, not for edification.

Of course, the reader is free to decide that torturing an elf is a fine thing, something to be encouraged, & that medals should be handed out for doing so. I won't condemn them for it, or think any less of them. In short, I don't think the reader's response to the characters in a book says anything about their morality. I'm not going to judge someone on their response to a book. I don't believe anything of any value can be learned about a person from their response to fictional characters.

[Raynor]

It doesn't prove it. It may imply it.

Thanks davem, that is really helpful. I can only pray you will excuse me if I don't give you a rep for this tremenous effort, but I am too tired by your game. This is the worst I ever got in any discussion on any Tolkien board.

I can.

This is pretty pointless, but I will ask anyway: how?

I mean someone who thinks they're just reading a fantasy novel.

I am not aware that reading a book merely as a fantasy novel precludes naturally identifying moral or religious elements.

And if the reader is not religious they may not be aware of the 'religious' elements - all they may be aware of is that some of the characters have a religious belief.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

In the secondary world it is 'true' that balrogs are a threat to life & limb. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it is 'true' that Morgoth has corrupted the very stuff of the material universe. In the primary world it is not.

But these are not examples of moral truths, but examples of persons and events. You are dodging my question

In the secondary world it may be 'true' that torturing an Elf is a bad thing. In the primary world one would have to prove that Elves actually exist here for that to be true.

But surely you recognise that what is immoral is "torture of living beings" in itself.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

This is pretty pointless, but I will ask anyway: how?

It is pretty pointless of course. You set up a false dilemma. 'How can one distinguish between two identical things?' We aren't dealing with two identical things - we were talking about two similar things.

I am not aware that reading a book merely as a fantasy novel precludes naturally identifying moral or religious elements.

Again, they may not be looking for such elements, they may not even care about such elements.

But surely you recognise that what is immoral is "torture of living beings" in itself.

Elves are not 'living beings'. Again, you're failing to distinguish between a reader's response to fictional characters in a fictional world & real people in the real world. You cannot claim the 'thought' behind the two events is identical - its like claiming that thinking about a blue car is the same as thinking about blue sky because both thoughts are about blue things.

[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!