Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

I suppose that more than anything, I'm pointing out the great flaw in Middle-Earth, which is that the evil are doomed to evil with no chance or choice of repentance.

The subject of irremediable allegiance to evil is not considered settled. Anyway, Tolkien stated in the letters that "there exists the possibility of being placed in a position beyond one's power", and he wasn't having only Middle Earth in mind - and I agree. While having a mythological-level power at one's disposal may ease almost complete corruption of others (Tolkien stated that no one can be absolute evil), even in our world there are, unfortunately, ways to condition persons into evil.

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

Melkor and the fallen Maiar and Valar may be evil by intent, but not the orcs and the trolls. They are victims as much as the Elves and Men.

However, there are characters (Gollum the most representative) that refuse repentance and persist in wickedness.

[the guy who be short]

Bear in mind that Gollum came close to repentance. Appendix B, 11 March, 3019:

Gollum visits Shelob, but seeing Frodo asleep almost repents.

Sam drove Gollum away from repentance with his lack of compassion and mercy.

Also... who really admires / wants to be like Gollum?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

What is your argument here? That a certain thing is good because it is popular? That, in and of itself, is an instance of "ad populum" fallacy. Yes, I argue that there is a degree of immorality if we delight in evil qualities, and the fact that many people find it acceptable doesn't make it so. If I may quote Gandhi, the truth is the truth even if spoken by one single person.

Think about it logically. That so many people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would logically mean said billions of people would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving if liking a bad guy is immoral. But they aren't.

Many villify the video game industry for peddling games based on violence, but only a tiny handful of people who play said games are violent and these are people who you find were usually disturbed to begin with. Even those who supposedly only like thoroughly 'wholesome' things who are disturbed are perfectly capable of turning those 'wholesome' things into sickness, as shown by the sicko who visited my blog this week or the priests and pastors found guilty of crimes against children.

Being into good or bad characters has absolutely no bearing on a person's intentions.

Your argument is irrelevant because it doesn't address the question, which concerned our attitudes towards evil persons - and not what makes a person evil or not, and not what should we do about books where evil characters appear.

Yes it does. The question asks us if people who like 'bad guys' are evil. The answer is "don't be silly".

There's one bad guy who is utterly repellent, more so than anything you'll find in Tolkien, but who has turned out to be some weird kind of anti-hero to decent people the world over. Hannibal Lecter.

In the novel Hannibal we see him on the loose, up to his old tricks, but when the other gang of bad guys are about to feed him to the man-eating pigs we're hoping against hope that he gets free. Even Clarice Starling, his nemesis hopes that he gets free. Bear in mind that this guy is a pure sociopath, someone beyond all hope of reason, beyond cure, he is as close to pure evil as you could hope to get in this world. He east people's faces! But we want him to get away!

Concerning your first example, Tolkien is a foremost defender of the idea that fairy-tales and religion are not mutually exclusive - quite the contrary.

Fairy tales are the remnants of the Old Religion, and the New Religion appropriated so much from it that of course it also appropriated the Fairy tales where it could. Tolkien's theory on Fairy Tale reflecting Christianity doesn't really work in truth because fairy tale is beyond the constraints of religion, in many cases existed as a rebellion and defence against religion - his thoughts are more those of a man trying to reconcile his faith with his fascination for the blood thirsty and deeply pagan.

Originally Posted by CaptainofDespair

Exploring the attraction of the bad guys is one thing, but maligning the people who like them is entirely a different matter. I think the direction and tone of the thread needs a change, then, if this is the case.

Indeed. Let's be careful as there are many people on here who could easily be offended by being tarred with the 'evil' brush. Just as we don't appreciate being told we don't understand Tolkien's work because we are not Christian we also get the 'ump when told we are evil for maybe getting a kick out of reading about Saruman or Orcs or Dragons.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

Bear in mind that Gollum came close to repentance. Appendix B, 11 March, 3019: Sam drove Gollum away from repentance with his lack of compassion and mercy.

Also... who really admires / wants to be like Gollum?

I've got a friend who fancies Gollum - she says she wants to mother him, and was delighted when I gave her a Gollum screensaver and wallpaper saying "Oh, I love Gollum, he's so lovely."

She's also a Christian. And is delightfully eccentric and kind.

Gollum repents by falling into the cracks of doom, and he is almost there before that stage until as tgwbs says, he is driven away from it. He is consumed by the Ring, so we just can't say for sure he failed to repent as he was out of his mind.

[Raynor]

Think about it logically. That so many people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would logically mean said billions of people would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving if liking a bad guy is immoral.

I am. This argument is a slippery slope fallacy: you have yet to prove that if one delights in evil, then one will necessarily do evil acts. Fortunately, there are steps.

Being into good or bad characters has absolutely no bearing on a person's intentions.

However, that does not make delighting in evil morally right (when it occurs).

The question asks us if people who like 'bad guys' are evil. The answer is "don't be silly".

So, I take it you will never justify why you consider there is a moral exception in this subject?

But we want him to get away!

Being a victim of evil (or accidents) doesn't make one good. However, to turn to Tolkien, we must be tempered by mercy in our personal judgement; "But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge."

Tolkien's theory on Fairy Tale reflecting Christianity doesn't really work in truth because fairy tale is beyond the constraints of religion, in many cases existed as a rebellion and defence against religion - his thoughts are more those of a man trying to reconcile his faith with his fascination for the blood thirsty and deeply pagan.

I certainly doubt he considered fairy-tales all over the world as reflecting Christianity; his position was that fairy tales can be used as an alternative vehicle for conveying the truth.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am. This argument is a slippery slope fallacy: you have yet to prove that if one delights in evil, then one will necessarily do evil acts.

You mean you have to prove that.

[Raynor]

Bear in mind that Gollum came close to repentance.

However, lack of favorable conditions is not an excuse for persistance in wickedness.

Also... who really admires / wants to be like Gollum?

If it has any relevance, I actually debated with such a person.

[Durelin]

Another *example* is overkill, but my willpower is lacking, too...

(I apologize for this being all over the place...I tend to ramble and think aloud in my posts. Hence the over use of ellipses. Also, apologies for responding only generally to other's posts. There's too much for me to pick out specifics.)

I think I can easily be said to be one who perhaps takes her fascination with evil characters to "another level," as I have roleplayed numerous very nassssty evil characters just here on the Barrow-Downs, and I've done more with evil characters elsewhere, as well.

I am a Catholic (though I must say, I disagree with the Church on a lot of things, and I have many beliefs that coincide more with Buddhism than Catholicism), and regardless of my faith, I am a person who believes very strongly in my morals. I have also been deemed a little "Goth" by many.

I find the exploration of an evil mind, particularly a fictional evil mind, to be quite interesting, and so I love doing it in my roleplaying. In both my reading and writing, I mean to escape. Sometimes my escape is into the mind of a valiant hero with a pristine soul...other times it's into the mind of a...well, a really really nasty jerk. Sometimes I jump back and forth between the two. The reality is I'm somewhere in between the two, because frankly no one is perfect.

What it boils down to is that I think all people tend to be very interested in what they're not. Everyone does a little "roleplaying." Everyone daydreams. Why? Because none of us are perfectly in love with ourselves (People who are "in love with themselves" superficially not being what I'm talking about...nor is that the goal I'm talking about; more talking about idealistic self-actualization.). Is that "morally wrong?"

Perhaps part of why I have only read LotR fully once is actually because of how little there is about the baddies. Maybe I'm missing some exploration into Sauron's psyche. Even if not for something just to enjoy in and of itself, then maybe just for deeper reason for wanting the good guys to kick his butt.

I think most people have an in-born sense of that whole "good triumphs over evil" stuff, regardless of what we deem to be "good" or "bad." Human beings on the whole are really very resilient, both physically and emotionally. Much more than we will give ourselves credit for, I think. So many of us - dare I say most? - have no problem dabbling in the *evil* mindset. Besides, even if we're pessimistic about the real world, in Middle-earth we know the good guys always win.

Exploring the "dark side" intellectually is fun. You can even see if from a spiritual sort of view and see it as a way to deal with the "evil within us." We (general "we," and not necessarily the collective whole) delve into the mind of someone who we can look at and say is "evil," see their reasons for what they do, look at how they destroy themselves and others...all that jazz. We can understand their desire for power and the like, and considering we all know what anger and hatred is like to some degree, we can even begin to understand their reasons for destroying people, creatures, and things.

Does that mean we're giving *insert really evil dude/dudette here* a thumbs up? No, not necessarily. Would I invite Morgoth to dinner? Maybe; I'd just keep count of the silverware.

As a side note - I think I can easily admire Gollum's resilience. The fact that after all that time under the effects of the Ring he still had some sort of humanity to him is astounding. And do remember that this is a magical Ring, and beyond even Catholicism's outlook on *the work of the Devil* in everyday temptation.

[Raynor]

You mean you have to prove that.

Let us look at your argument again:

1. if liking a bad guy is immoral

2. it would logically mean billions of people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving

Since you have made said statement, the burden of proof lies on you to show the inevitability of the outcome. You need to prove that a certain liking will necessarily bring about the said actions. I am curious how.

However, if you insist that you have no burden of proof whatsoever, I will point that there is no known conditioning of human nature that necessarily drives a person to action based on a certain liking he has. Simply having a liking does not imply that the liking will translate into intention, which will translate into action. If you know of any such law of human nature, please provide it.

What I have argued from the begining is that if morality is defined as chosing between good and evil in any situation, then <<the argument that "chosing evil in fictional settings is somehow good or morally acceptable" is false>> is a truism.

[Durelin]

A person who "likes" Morgoth isn't "choosing evil," they're choosing to be (or they just happen to be) entertained by an evil character - entertained whether they just find him/her amusing, exciting, or even intellectually stimulating, etc., or all of the above.

Edit: I can see where you might say that crazy people who get really into the evil mindset could be "immoral," but then you have the argument of whether or not someone is actually choosing evil simply in a fantasy or if they're only actually choosing evil if they act on whatever "immoral/evil fantasy" they might have. Perhaps that's where the disagreement really lies? Or simply people are talking about two different sides of the spectrum....

[Raynor]

A person who "likes" Morgoth isn't "choosing evil," they're choosing to be (or they just happen to be) entertained by an evil character - entertained whether they just find him/her amusing, exciting, or even intellectually stimulating, etc., or all of the above.

However, it is one thing to say <<"I like amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" "and I admit that said evil guys may display them">> and totally another to say <<"I like Melkor because he is evil and that attracts me about him">>. Simply liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong; it is deligthing in evil (as I pointed out several times) that I consider it raises questions about morality.

I can see where you might say that crazy people who get really into the evil mindset could be "immoral," but then you have the argument of whether or not someone is actually choosing evil simply in a fantasy or if they're only actually choosing evil if they act on whatever "immoral/evil fantasy" they might have.

I am not sure I follow; can you please rephrase?

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, it is one thing to say <<"I like amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" "and I admit that said evil guys may display them">> and totally another to say <<"I like Melkor because he is evil and that attracts me about him">>. Simply liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong; it is deligthing in evil (as I pointed out several times) that I have a problem with.

Delighting in evil in the sense of having fun killing people? Then yes, I certainly agree.

I am not sure I follow; can you please rephrase?

Sorry! To think I express my thoughts better in writing than in spoken word...pretty scary...

Well, to put it simply: is thinking about killing someone evil, or is it only evil if you actually do it? And, is it evil in the same way? And...there are probably innumerable questions involved in that.

[Raynor]

Delighting in evil in the sense of having fun killing people? Then yes, I certainly agree.

Well, not fun in doing them was my point, but in "witnessing" instances of evil, in and of itself.

is thinking about killing someone evil, or is it only evil if you actually do it?

As I have argued, morality is defined first and foremost by intention.

I would also consider Tolkien's own statements:

Originally Posted by Footnotes to Melkor /Morgoth, Myths Transformed

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

therefore, an good intention defines the morality of the action, almost regardless of consequences [Edit: and this is why I consider that Tolkien stated in letter #246 that "To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve." - good intent saves, but it requires full cooperation/dedication]

Originally Posted by Letter #181

I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

therefore, an evil intent defines the morality of an action as evil, even if "macrocosmically" it may result in good.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I will point that there is no known conditioning of human nature that necessarily drives a person to action based on a certain liking he has. Simply having a liking does not imply that the liking will translate into intention, which will translate into action.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Simply liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong; it is deligthing in evil (as I pointed out several times) that I consider it raises questions about morality.

You've just killed your argument there. So you agree that liking a bad guy is not necessarily wrong!

Originally Posted by Durelin

Exploring the "dark side" intellectually is fun. You can even see if from a spiritual sort of view and see it as a way to deal with the "evil within us." We (general "we," and not necessarily the collective whole) delve into the mind of someone who we can look at and say is "evil," see their reasons for what they do, look at how they destroy themselves and others...all that jazz. We can understand their desire for power and the like, and considering we all know what anger and hatred is like to some degree, we can even begin to understand their reasons for destroying people, creatures, and things.

Very good point. That's possibly why we do like bad guys and find them thrilling to read about (probably why we enjoy thrillers and horror too). They provide a safe way to explore evil without having to be involved ourselves - in much the same way young girls have posters of 'pretty boy' popbands on their walls as a way of exploring boyfriends without having to have a real one. Even with the writer you can see the exploration taking place - Tolkien was known to write about his own nightmares, his own psyche, with instances such as Numenor's drowning, and he made a drawing of Maddo, his son's own nightmare creature(quite a scary drawing actually); in creating odd beings like Balrogs and Gollum and the Witch King he was able to explore his own concepts of Darkness on the page. His books are filled with marvellous moments of horror, clearly something he relished writing about, and he well knew the power of hints and 'things left unsaid'... No wonder readers thrill to it all.

[Raynor]

You've just killed your argument there. So you agree that liking a bad guy is not necessarily wrong!

So, instead of presenting any proof for your position you resort to distorting my argument? I have said "liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong" - but liking evil for evil is. If we can't agree on these two basic ideas, I don't think we will get anywhere on this part.

That's possibly why we do like bad guys and find them thrilling to read about (probably why we enjoy thrillers and horror too). They provide a safe way to explore evil without having to be involved ourselves

Again, a difference should be made between the utilitarian aspect of using art to exorcise various issues - and liking evil for evil's sake. The first offers no moral justification for the second.

Tolkien was known to write about his own nightmares, his own psyche, with instances such as Numenor's drowning, and he made a drawing of Maddo, his son's own nightmare creature(quite a scary drawing actually); in creating odd beings like Balrogs and Gollum and the Witch King he was able to explore his own concepts of Darkness on the page. His books are filled with marvellous moments of horror, clearly something he relished writing about, and he well knew the power of hints and 'things left unsaid'... No wonder readers thrill to it all.

What do you actually mean? That he enjoyed nightmares (and the likes) for what they were?? I am not aware that he has any 'morbid' propensities, or that, if he has, he is "ok" with them. Please clarify.

[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".

[Thenamir]

Originally Posted by Tolkien, letter #246

"To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve."

I like that quote so much, Raynor, it's becoming my new sig. Thanks!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

So, instead of presenting any proof for your position you resort to distorting my argument? I have said "liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong" - but liking evil for evil is. If we can't agree on these two basic ideas, I don't think we will get anywhere on this part.

Proof? What proof do I need? Because someone happens to get some fun out of play acting the role of an Orc you simply cannot say "Oh, he is evil." Why? Because the odds are that he is not. Thankfully this world is not full of muderers and perverts. But it is full of people that get a chill or a thrill from reading about bad guys. davem explains it very well. No more 'proof' is needed.

Besides, this is getting boring. I don't come on here to dance on a pinhead as the Downs saying goes. I just came here to defend the many many Tolkien fans and members of this very site who happen to get a kick out of the bad guys and are perfectly harmless and decent people. I need no more 'proof' of their being good people than that I know for a fact that they are,

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

What proof do I need?

Regarding your previous statement:

Think about it logically. That so many people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would logically mean said billions of people would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving if liking a bad guy is immoral.

Originally Posted by Lal

Because someone happens to get some fun out of play acting the role of an Orc you simply cannot say "Oh, he is evil."

You are vague about this; if playing an orc is simple childplay, named that way, then yeah, there is no problem. If it involves theft or unnecessary destruction, as the children in Gondor in the fourth age do (as in the New Shadow), then yeah, it is morally wrong.

Originally Posted by Lal

I just came here to defend the many many Tolkien fans and members of this very site who happen to get a kick out of the bad guys and are perfectly harmless and decent people.

We are in agreement on this; as you see from the begining of this post, I am actually asking you to prove your own statement that people who entertain certain... delights, will necessary behave in any evil way.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Regarding your previous statement:
You are vague about this; if playing an orc is simple childplay, named that way, then yeah, there is no problem. If it involves theft or unnecessary destruction, as the children in Gondor in the fourth age do (as in the New Shadow), then yeah, it is morally wrong.
We are in agreement on this; as you see from the begining of this post, I am actually asking you to prove your own statement that people who entertain certain... delights, will necessary behave in any evil way.

Well I think something has got lost along the way! Because obviously I don't think people will act immorally just because they like a bad guy!

And how many people who play act at loving Orcs are actually thieves or vandals? I'd say the number must be so small as to be able to be counted on the fingers of Frodo's damaged hand!

[Raynor]

Because obviously I don't think people will act immorally just because they like a bad guy!

However, my point is that one doesn't have to act on a certain desire/intention to be immoral. One cannot say that he delights in evil and still claim complete morality.

And how many people who play act at loving Orcs are actually thieves or vandals?

Please specify what you mean by playing an orc; if it is a mere name, or if it actually implies replicating, to whatever extent, destructive acts of the orcs.

[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.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Perhaps language is tripping us up here.

Please specify what you mean by playing an orc; if it is a mere name, or if it actually implies replicating, to whatever extent, destructive acts of the orcs.

Surely everyone would agree that if someone imitates an orc and, as part of this "play acting", consciously commit destructive acts in the "real world", then this is not moral behavior. Conversely, if I write for an orc in an RPG (which I presently do) and use it to explore certain questions of psychology or faerie and my "real" behavior does not become orclike, I would not call such an situation immoral or negative in any way or sense.

Would the 'destructive' orc have been a destructive person in real life even if they had never taken on the persona of one of Tolkien's monstors? ...probably so. The basic problem undoubtedly lies within....the orc facade is one of many outer trappings they might have used to express something within that is basically wrong, but they could easily have used another persona, and the end results would be the same.

[Raynor]

if I write for an orc in an RPG (which I presently do) and use it to explore certain questions of psychology or faerie and my "real" behavior does not become orclike, I would not call such an situation immoral or negative in any way or sense.

I agree; this would be the utilitarian aspect of art I reffered to previously. However, I would have my doubts about this case, if the person in question would start derailing the RPG thread intentionally (I have no idea how, I am close to clueless how these thigns work), or if he intentionally uses overly strong imagery in order to negatively affect the others.

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.

However, being impressed by a certain display of power does not justify developing a liking for the evil. If such a situation is developed, then morality is called into question; simply because we have a 'natural' tendency doesn't put us outside good and evil. Upholding morality actually requires us in such situations to reject evil and choose good, even when it is not useful, pleasant or satisfying. If one realises he actually develops a liking for evil, then one has the obligation to exert at least. self-examination, if he is to claim moral standing. Natural does not make it right.

[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.)

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

The kinds of people I am admittedly ranting about in my long-winded post are those who also know the difference between fiction and reality, but who also sympathize with and would (if they could) emulate the practices and methods of the villains. In essence, they are calling evil good, and good evil. I humbly ask The 1,000th Reader to confirm whether or not I have interpreted the question correctly.

Pretty much. On a lesser note, it is also wondering why some less obsessed fans always say that Melkor was doing good things yet never acknowledge that in the end, Melkor was a jerk and they're just playing.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, my point is that one doesn't have to act on a certain desire/intention to be immoral. One cannot say that he delights in evil and still claim complete morality.

But the sticking point is that we cannot say what is moral and what is immoral. You can't tell me what's moral. I can't tell you what's moral. And even 'God' can't tell us what's moral.

As an aside - why can't 'God' tell us that? Simply because there are many 'Gods' and even those who ostensibly share the same God can have huge differences - e.g. many still think homosexuality is immoral whereas their brothers and sisters in the same faith wholeheartedly believe it to be perfectly moral. These kinds of differences are common across all faiths and ideologies.

Even when we get into questions of 'violence' there are questions of what morality is. Some tribespeople in New Guinea have been cannibals (and are said to remain cannibals, despite attempts to persuade them away from the practise) and this is a deeply held part of of their morality - the enemy must be consumed in order to achieve a complete victory over him. That kind of morality makes Westerners cringe, but it's a morality all the same, no matter if we feel uncomfortable with it. Even in the West similar differences are thrown up by the question of circumcision. A friend of mine was 'honoured' with an invite to a female ceremony in Tanzania and despite finding this act to be immoral had to go along as this was very much moral in that culture; likewise there has been a storm in the UK after a Jewish baby died following a circumcision with both sides throwing around terms like 'child abuse' and 'religious tradition'.

Who's right? I can't say. Nor can you.

So in an infinitely less serious circumstance, that of say whether you find Saruman a bit exciting, is it:
a. even possible or permissible to say someone is immoral just from whether they like x, y or z character in a book, given that morality cannot be determined at some static point anyway.
and
b. is it important anyway? Are we just being a little bit silly?

I have to say that if anyone from outside the Tolkien community saw this they'd be laughing their heads off. Just how irrelevant and out of touch do we sound? Like it actually matters if you like the literary creations that are Orcs when there are people out there right now engaging in real, genuine and truly frightening acts of cruelty. And we're being asked if we want to tar and feather some ordinary kid for being fond of imaginary characters in a ruddy book!

All I'm asking is that we simply Get A Grip.

[Salacia Deloresista]

I don't think it's at all petty to examine the bad guys. The heroes are extremely heroic, and that's why we love the story, but what makes the bad guy's tick, and why is that fascinating? That's a question worth a discussion thread.

Now granted, I don't root for the bad guys in LotR (at 4' 11" I sympathize a little too much with the hobbits) but I have to admit to a kind of fascination with them. One of the things that really struck me when I read LotR for the first time was how, unlike a lot of other fairy tales, the lines between "good" and "evil" are not quite as defined. The ring works by twisting the weaknesses and desires of each character and bending them to it's own will. The servants of Sauron are not some "other" which we can put in a box and call evil, but a vision of what we could become, a vision of fallen humanity. Sauron's servants are those creatures who simply gave up fighting with themselves and gave in to the lure of the ring.

We all know/knew people like that, especially in high school. That's the guy who got sick of constantly trying and failing and so gave up, became a stoner, dropped out of school and now flips burgers somewhere. Recognizing that evil is something we all have in us brings the orcs and goblins and other creatures a lot closer.

So those guys, the ones who root for the bad guys, they're not rooting for evil, they're rooting for themselves.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

even possible or permissible to say someone is immoral just from whether they like x, y or z character in a book, given that morality cannot be determined at some static point anyway.

Ah, the moral relativism defence.

I have little reason to worry about it; logically, moral relativism is twice contradicting: it allows for two opposite propositions, p and non-p, to be true (it defeats the very foundation of logic); and second: if there is no single standard to judge the value of a proposition, then even moral relativism has its limits and it naturally implies that other standards, contradicting moral relativism, are true as well. Frankly, moral relativism has no logical standing in a debate.

I have no problem drawing a line between concepts which lie upon a continua in the conceptual space - and matters are not as shady in Middle Earth as in the primary world. There, the very essence of Melkor and Sauron is nihilism. I am really curious who would argue that nihilism, utter destruction of everything, could be construed in a moral way. Nihilism itself excludes morality, since it allows for nothing to exist and therefore no distinctions to be made.

[Thenamir]

Bravo, Raynor, well said indeed.

Can I interject one more thought here (implying that you could say "no" ) -- that just as many here have said, there is far less gray and more black-and-white in Middle-Earth. I can understand someone being intrigued by Saruman or Gollum, who appear to have had struggles with their choices, the spark of good fighting, albeit unsuccessfully, their selfish bent. Such was the case in the end with Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker, a wonderful study into the dynamics of an evil character who repents in the end. I don't think anyone here would object to that.

What I believe is causing so much heated verbaige here is the existence of those who don't just appreciate a well-written literary exploration of a character who turns out to be evil (as most of us here do) -- they would BE Sauron or Morgoth if they could -- or, to put it in more real-world terms, they would BE Hitler or Stalin or Hannibal if it was within their ability. The ones who who don't care about others, being supremely consumed with self.

In other words, they're not just fascinated by evil -- they embrace it, they emulate it, they take it as a role model. It's that kind of person we don't understand.

[the guy who be short]

First, a defence of moral relativism:

1) Raynor, you don't explain your contradictions. However, I presume the first works as follows. The statements "no moral system is better than another" and "moral relativism is the only logical moral system" contradict one another.

In reponse to this, moral relativism is not a moral system, it is amoral. It does not say "this is good, this is bad, live your life by these rules." It says "good and bad do not exist, they are unnatural fabrications of the human mind enforced by society."

2)

if there is no single standard to judge the value of a proposition, then even moral relativism has its limits and it naturally implies that other standards, contradicting moral relativism, are true as well.

Again, moral relativism is not a morality system.

To relate this to Tolkien:

Viewed from a morally relative, or amoral, perspective, I see no objective evil in supporting evil characters. It's all in the minds of those who are offended.

[Thenamir]

Viewed from a morally relative, or amoral, perspective, I see no objective evil in supporting evil characters. It's all in the minds of those who are offended.

A genuinely curious question -- since you use the phrase in your explanation, would you mind defining "objective evil" from an amoral perspective?

[Lalwendë]

An observation: I'm chucking to myself how the debate seems to have subtly shifted away from people criticising those who just get some fun out of supporting the bad guys into criticising those who take the bad guys as an inspiration for sociopathy. Quite a different thing, and I'd venture to say you're as likely to find someone inspired to acts of sociopathy inspired by Tolkien's bad guys as you are to find a Leprechaun. And nobody would disagree that sociopathic behaviour is bad. Of course, saying that someone who is just into the bad guys and gets some fun out of it is evil or immoral, is actually quite rude to a lot of Downs members, who we know are decent people.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Frankly, moral relativism has no logical standing in a debate.

On the contrary. It takes centre stage in such a debate as this where we are criticising our fellow Downers for liking the bad guys and finding them entertaining (or that's the way it started anyway before the U turn!). Standing back and asking What Is Morality is vital where we are throwing around insults at decent people and casting aspersions on their moral fibre and character.

I aint going to judge others by anyone else's standards, only by my own. I won't be told who to like and who to mark down as 'immoral'.

Sorry but the thought just occurred to me that the point of this whole thread is supremely dodgy! The cheek of it! Why should anyone tell me or anyone else which characters we should like and which we should dislike?!

Can we not get on to looking at the much more fruitful question of why people like bad guys rather than offending people any further?

[Thenamir]

Lal, I truly mean no offense, but either you are missing our points entirely, or you are deliberately ignoring our patient attempts to explain ourselves, twisting our efforts into straw men easier to knock down.

Nowhere have I said nor implied that Tolkien's bad guys inspire people to sociopathy, and I don't think that's the point of the other posters here. The reverse is our real point, that there are sociopaths and near-sociopaths (by far the tiny minority of readers) who empathize with Tolkien's bad guys because those characters are evil.

If you are going to debate these matters, please do us the kindness of actually reading what we're saying.

[Lalwendë]

Here's the thing though. It's not being said that "there are loads of people who like the bad guys and get some fun from them, and tiny, ridiculously small percentage of those might be borderline sociopaths". That would be OK. It's being said that "if you like the bad guys then that suggests you're bit fishy to me".

That's just plain not nice. Nor is it fair.

Aside from anything else, is there any balance provided by looking at the equally tiny number of loons who are into Hobbits or Elves? Not all of them will be 100% nice either. Being into the bad guys is not a 'marker' of someone to avoid.

So anyway...you agree that just because Johnny or Susan think Orcs are fun and likes to write evil characters in RPGs or maybe habitually goes to conventions dressed as the Witch King or has a Balrog theme on their profile or likes to wind up Elf-heads by acting the minion, it does not mean they are immoral or evil?

[davem]

Of course, the underlying assumption seems to be that good & evil in M-e correspond exactly to good & evil in our world. Yet the morality of M-e is Tolkien's morality. Good & evil in M-e are what Tolkien says they are. But the reader's moral value system may not correspond to Tolkien's - & why should it? Why should the reader simply accept that what Tolkien claims is 'good' is actually 'good' - at least as far as the Primary world is concerned? Tolkien may be the 'God' of M-e (ie the creator & to some extent the sustainer), but in the primary world Tolkien is a man with his own values.

The reader has a right to hold to their own sense of good & evil & apply it to the world of M-e - if they choose to take that approach to the story. If the reader prefers the 'evil' characters over the 'good' that is simply their take on things.

It seems to me that there are those whose moral value system corresponds more or less exactly with Tolkien's own & who therefore feel that they can sit in judgement on the moral value system of other readers. One may love Tolkien's creation, his style, his inventiveness, be fascinated by his languages, his creativity, admire the dedication required in producing what he did. But...

One does not have to accept his position on good & evil. One can take any approach, side with any character. To think Sauron was cool & Frodo was a jerk loser is fine & neither better nor worse morally than to hold the opposite view. To think Sauron is cool does not imply one thinks Hitler was cool. A reader who cheered when Morgoth's hordes obliterated Gondolin would not necessarily have cheered when the Twin Towers came down. One may find Sauron cool & not feel Hitler was cool because Sauron & Hitler are not the same - one is a character in a story while the other was a sick & evil human being & Gondolin is not New York.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

moral relativism is not a moral system, it is amoral. It does not say "this is good, this is bad, live your life by these rules." It says "good and bad do not exist, they are unnatural fabrications of the human mind enforced by society."

Moral relativism is all fine and dandy, until we get to the hard stuff. There are certain horrors and degradations of human behaviour that simply cross cultural boundaries. And this is even more true in Tolkien's world, where evil acts with a mythological-level power.

If the only people who disagree that <<delighting in evil is immoral>> are the same people who consider that <<there is nothing wrong, evil, or immoral about rape, or unnecessary harm, or Melkorian-style nihilism>>, then, frankly, I will happily rest my case.

If it is only all the other people [the ones who consider that <<rape, or unnecessary harm, or Melkorian-style nihilism are wrong, evil, immoral, in and of themselvs>>] agree that delighting in evil is immoral, then I am satisfied. I need not go any further than that.

Originally Posted by Lal

Standing back and asking What Is Morality is vital where we are throwing around insults at decent people and casting aspersions on their moral fibre and character.

Why are you trying so hard to twist arguments about ideas into arguments about persons? No single person has been targeted, only ideas. If a general moral judgement is true, then uttering it is not an insult, so please don't make it look so.

This whole discussion has started when you claimed that there is nothing wrong with liking bad guys because they are fictional. If you make this statement in an open debate, then you must be ready to have it challenged.

The curiosity of this is that, as pointed previously, you implied the existence of an absolute moral value: "it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice." and "We don't fail to see that at all [that "good" is good for all"], but when confronted, you resort to an argument that "there isn't in fact an absolute moral scale", which denies the previous "ok". Unless you qualify your statement as a purely personal position, then it can only be naturally read as presuming an absolute morality. I hope you see the contradiction.

Originally Posted by Lal

you agree that just because Johnny or Susan think Orcs are fun and likes to write evil characters in RPGs or maybe habitually goes to conventions dressed as the Witch King or has a Balrog theme on their profile or likes to wind up Elf-heads by acting the minion, it does not mean they are immoral or evil?

Please qualify your statements. Do they think that orcs can sometimes make jokes or do they think destruction done by the orcs is fun? Do they dress as the witch-king because such clothes are trendy (or whatever adjective, or whatever reason) or because they believe that (almost) irredeemable allegiance to evil is acceptable? I don't understand your last refference to make a comment on it.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why are you trying so hard to twist arguments about ideas into arguments about persons? No single person has been targeted, only ideas. If a general moral judgement is true, then uttering it is not an insult, so please don't make it look so.

A person's ideas are very personal to them. What you fail to take in is that by saying if a person likes the bad guys in a book that they are immoral you are INSULTING them. And I personally thought that kind of thing was not allowed on here. All I want to do is to defend those Downers who I personally know are decent people and are anything BUT immoral who happen to like one or two of the bad guys. There is NOTHING wrong in what they do.



I'm afraid I want no more part of this. It's offensive, frankly. I will not 'justify', 'prove', 'qualify' or otherwise anything I have said because I am simply defending the right of people not to be insulted for the things in Tolkien which they personally find entertaining.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

I will not 'justify', 'prove', 'qualify' or otherwise anything I have said because I am simply defending the right of people not to be insulted for the things in Tolkien which they personally find entertaining.

Simply because a person has a choice does not make that particular choice moral. If that choice is not moral, then simply stating the truth is not in itself an insult.

If you refuse to qualify your statements and clarify contradictions between your posts, then I guess discussion is indeed impossible.