Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

Oooh, umbrage and high dudgeon. Isn't that the last resort of those left without a leg to stand on?

I still think it would be valuable to consider where Tolkien put the dramatic action, whose decisions he described, how he presented the choices available in Middle-earth.

We don't have to accept his moral vision, but far more interesting than saying anything goes or you're bad if you like orcs is the aesthetic question of what he choose to highlight.

In giving the main focus to the choices and travails of the heroes, without developing the baddies to any large extent, without making them as attractive, as, say, the Byronic heroes were attractive, was Tolkien in fact creating a situation in which the very unwritten parts, the unstated possibilities, in fact create a situation which, likely, Tolkien wished to avoid, that is, an imaginative and dramatic interest in the baddies.

Would we all be as interested in balrog wings if Tolkien had been more direct? I don't think so. So, all this interest in Sauron and Melkor and orcs and Saruman, is it in fact created by Tolkien's avoidance of extensive description of evil. Is this a pursuable line of discussion?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

In giving the main focus to the choices and travails of the heroes, without developing the baddies to any large extent, without making them as attractive, as, say, the Byronic heroes were attractive, was Tolkien in fact creating a situation in which the very unwritten parts, the unstated possibilities, in fact create a situation which, likely, Tolkien wished to avoid, that is, an imaginative and dramatic interest in the baddies.

Would we all be as interested in balrog wings if Tolkien had been more direct? I don't think so. So, all this interest in Sauron and Melkor and orcs and Saruman, is it in fact created by Tolkien's avoidance of extensive description of evil. Is this a pursuable line of discussion?

I agree; I previously answered to one of davem's post that we can hardly be impressed by the might and splendour of Melkor, since Tolkien dedicates very little space to that.

I would say that Tolkien definitely saw displaying of majesty/power as morally wrong; it was an error for the valar to manifest themselves in majesty fully revealed to bring the elves to Aman; fully revealed power was also forbidden to the Istari; Melkor himself has shown himself in a most majestic form to corrupt Men. I believe there is a theme at play.

[Lalwendë]

Not at all Bb. I am genuinely offended by what Raynor is implying about many good people on here and see no value in continuing such unpleasant discussion while it will be insulting other people. It isn't nice, is it, to be associated with rapists, Stalin, Hitler and other nasties? It brings to mind the similar offence caused by ANOther thread we all know about. One of my good pals here, who I can personally vouch for as being a great guy (and he knows who he is if he reads this) keeps telling us about his replica of Angband in his cellar. Yeah, he's evil he is. Riiiiiiiiiight.

But that's my last word on that. And I will not be drawn on it, thank you very much.

And anyway I shall let you off Bb because you're trying to do what I've tried to do more'n a few times which is draw this thread out of the poison and into more interesting light.

I shall see if it goes on that way before deciding whether to bother any more.

[The Saucepan Man]

Just an observation, but I hope that it might take the sting out of this thread. It looks to me like there is a certain amount of talking at cross-purposes going on here.

As far as I can see, no one arguing that delighting in evil is immoral has sought to suggest that any member of the Barrow Downs is immoral. Nor, as I see it, have they sought to imply as much by suggesting that having a light-hearted “crush” on Wormtongue or building a replica of Angband, or any other such weird and wonderful things that a Downer might do, is immoral. Their case, as I understand it, is that those who take a delight in the deeds of Tolkien’s evil characters, who genuinely find their intent and purpose, as depicted by Tolkien, laudable, is an approach lacking in morality. That, it seems to me, is a proposition which may be discussed without anyone taking offence, save for those falling within that category. And I seriously doubt that anyone who would wish to spend any significant amount of time on the Downs would fall within that category.

Similarly, I do not understand those who are arguing that it is justifiable to find the evil characters interesting, or to have a bit of fun with them (for example, to dress up as the Witch King or write an evil character in an RPG), to be seeking to suggest that the deeds and purposes of those characters, as depicted by Tolkien, are morally acceptable. Their case, as I understand it, is that academic, literary or merely light-hearted interest in the evil characters does not denote sociopathy or immorality.

If my understanding of both positions is correct, then it seems to me that they are largely, if not wholly, reconcilable, and I am really not sure what this argument has been about at all. I would therefore counsel taking the diversion offered up by Bêthberry, rather than continuing it.

[Thenamir]

We have been discussing these characters in somewhat of a vacuum. Tolkien was not silent about these tragic heroes. Let us examine what Tolkien chose to highlight about the subjects to which we refer. Pay attention, there will be a test afterwards.

Morgoth:

From splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless. Understanding he turned to subtlety in perverting to his own will all that he would use, until he became a liar without shame. He began with the desire of Light, but when he could not possess it for himself alone, he descended through fire and wrath into a great burning, down into Darkness. And darkness he used most in his evil works upon Arda, and filled it with fear for all living things.

In the powers and knowledge of all the other Valar he had part, but he turned them to evil purposes, and squandered his strength in violence and tyranny. For he coveted Arda and all that was in it, desiring the kingship of Manwë and dominion over the realms of his peers.

But he desired rather to subdue to his will both Elves and Men, envying the gifts with which Ilúvatar promised to endow them; and he wished himself to have subject and servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over other wills.

Then Melkor saw what was done, and that the Valar walked on Earth as powers visible, clad in the raiment of the World, and were lovely and glorious to see, and blissful, and that the Earth was becoming as a garden for their delight, for its turmoils were subdued. His envy grew then the greater within him; and he also took visible form, but because of his mood and the malice that burned in him that form was dark and terrible. And he descended upon Arda in power and majesty greater than any other of the Valar, as a mountain that wades in the sea and has its head above the clouds and is clad in ice and crowned with smoke and fire; and the light of the eyes of Melkor was like a flame that withers with heat and pierces with a deadly cold.

But ever the Noldor feared most the treachery of those of their own kin, who had been thralls in Angband; for Morgoth used some of these for his evil purposes, and feigning to give them liberty sent them abroad, but their wills were chained to his, and they strayed only to come back to him again.

But in the north Melkor built his strength, and he slept not, but watched, and laboured; and the evil things that he had perverted walked abroad, and the dark and slumbering woods were haunted by monsters and shapes of dread...And in that dark time Melkor bred many other monsters of divers shapes and kinds that long troubled the world...

...all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes.

...he [Manwë] saw not to the depths of Melkor’s heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him for ever.

...Then Melkor lusted for the Silmarils, and the very memory of their radiance was a gnawing fire in his heart. From that time forth, inflamed by this desire, he sought ever more eagerly how he should destroy Fëanor and end the friendship of the Valar and the Elves; but he dissembled his purposes with cunning, and nothing of his malice could yet be seen in the semblance that he wore. Long was he at work, and slow at first and barren was his labour. But he that sows lies in the end shall not lack of a harvest, and soon he may rest from toil indeed while others reap and sow in his stead.

[Quote]...Thus with lies and evil whisperings and false counsel Melkor kindled the hearts of the Noldor to strife; and of their quarrels came at length the end of the high days of Valinor

and the evening of its ancient glory.

Sauron:

Among those of his servants that have names the greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called Sauron, or Gorthaur the Cruel. In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda, in his vast works and in the deceits of his cunning, Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself. But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.

...Sauron, greatest and most terrible of the servants of Morgoth, who in the Sindarin tongue was named Gorthaur, came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower upon Tol Sirion. Sauron was become now a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and of phantoms, foul in wisdom, cruel in strength, misshaping what he touched, twisting what he ruled, lord of werewolves; his dominion was torment.

So, now, let's review. Even for Lalwendë who has her fingers in her ears and isn't listening anymore.

• Arrogant and contemptful of everything except themselves
• Liars without shame
• Selfish in the extreme
• Use fear and intimidation to dominate other wills
• Turn good things to evil purposes
• Usurpers of the rightful realms of others
• Coveting everything for themselves
• Appear in dark and terrible forms
• Tortured, maimed, killed, enslaved, perverted the elves
• Completely loveless
• Envious, jealous and bitter
• Ever striving to insert strife and dissent
• Cunning dissemblers and deceivers
• Instrumental in the downfall of Numenor and the consequent deaths of almost an entire race
• And in the end complete losers and failures.

Yep. Darn fine upstanding citizens, role models for people of all ages, inspirations to generations of Tolkien fans the world over, marks of excellence that we should all strive to achieve. I can only hope my children read and learn from these great heroes of Middle Earth.

Is it possible that some may understand why we might feel a little uneasy around those who uphold these characters as the "good guys"?

[davem]

I still think we have to step back & remember that we are dealing with a work of fantasy. One may like a character in a work of fiction even if that character does things which would be morally unnacceptable in real life. Morgoth is not (& never was) real - neither are Hobbits or Elves, Dwarves or Dragons. Hence we are dealing with fantasy figures doing 'nasty', 'immoral' things to other fantasy figures. Or to put it another way, words on a page.

To make moral judgements about another human being based on whether they like or admire a particular character is to cross a line. LotR is neither the Bible nor the Koran - it is not a divinely inspired book of Law intended for the moral guidance of humanity. Whatever the author's intention (or hope) may have been, it is for most readers an escapist fantasy.

One could argue that the Elves & most of the men are the kind of boring, self righteous prigs that needed (or at least provoked) the contempt of Morgoth. Indeed I would certainly argue that without the Enemy the story (& the world of Arda Unmarred itself) would have been so dull that no-one would have cared whether the good guys 'lived in bliss' forever.

The enemy are the ones who make the story interesting, exciting & worth reading. They are the source of the dynamism & power in the work. If there is an 'endless defeat' going on - ie an eternal battle - it is because if ever the good guys won the story would be dead in the water. Tolkien may not have liked that anymore than some posters here, but its true.

Bb's point is worth exploring because it seems to me that it is the case that the very undeveloped nature (in terms of description) of the enemy makes them more 'archetypal' & therefore more open to 'projection'. Their very 'undeveloped & unexplored' nature makes them more attractive in many ways than the Elves. They're interesting & therefore attractive because they're unknown, mysterious.

I think another aspect of their attractiveness is simply that one cannot help but feel a bit suspicious as to whether they are actually as 'bad' as they're painted - we don't, for intsance, have their side of the story - Thenamir has given us the Human-Elvish perspective on them, but is that the whole story? What, really, motivated Melkor's rebellion - we're basically told he decided to be 'bad', but we're not told why he made that decision. Maybe he heard the Theme & thought 'For Eru's sake! What is this bland, middle of the road pap we're being expected to play. This tune needs jazzing up a bit if its going to have a chance of getting to Number One.' And, as I said, if he hadn't 'jazzed it up' & added some beats it would have been a pretty dull gig ('Christian Rock' anyone??).

So, I can definitely see the attraction the evil characters hold for some readers - without them there would be no stories - or would anyone care to speculate on what kind of tales we'd have if there was no Melkorian rebellion, no Glaurung, no Sauron, no Ring, no Lord of the Nazgul for Eowyn to confront.

And that is the point - the Lord of the Nazgul is cool, & so is Eowyn's dispatching of him....

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by SpM

As far as I can see, no one arguing that delighting in evil is immoral has sought to suggest that any member of the Barrow Downs is immoral. Nor, as I see it, have they sought to imply as much by suggesting that having a light-hearted “crush” on Wormtongue or building a replica of Angband, or any other such weird and wonderful things that a Downer might do, is immoral. Their case, as I understand it, is that those who take a delight in the deeds of Tolkien’s evil characters, who genuinely find their intent and purpose, as depicted by Tolkien, laudable, is an approach lacking in morality. That, it seems to me, is a proposition which may be discussed without anyone taking offence, save for those falling within that category. And I seriously doubt that anyone who would wish to spend any significant amount of time on the Downs would fall within that category.

I agree with all your points.

Originally Posted by SpM

Their case, as I understand it, is that academic, literary or merely light-hearted interest in the evil characters does not denote sociopathy or immorality.

With the exception of "light-hearted interest" (which seems a bit too vague in the context of our discussion - I always requested qualifications), I have stated a similar idea

Originally Posted by post #51

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.

Originally Posted by davem

So, I can definitely see the attraction the evil characters hold for some readers - without them there would be no stories - or would anyone care to speculate on what kind of tales we'd have if there was no Melkorian rebellion, no Glaurung, no Sauron, no Ring, no Lord of the Nazgul for Eowyn to confront.

There is nothing wrong with recognising that evil characters pose greater challenges in stories, and greater challenges in stories make them more interesting. However, such a recognition is not in itself an equivalent for justification of deligthing in evil. Moral integrity requires that one's actions, ideas and feelings are consistently compatible with what one considers morality. Any such inconsistency, on whatever level, is, by definition, immoral. One has the free will to do whatever, and one may tolerate one's natural propensities, but that doesn't make every action and every propensity moral, just because they are enacted or tolerated.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There is nothing wrong with recognising that evil characters pose greater challenges in stories, and greater challenges in stories make them more interesting. However, such a recognition is not in itself an equivalent for justification of deligthing in evil. Moral integrity requires that one's actions, ideas and feelings are consistently compatible with what one considers morality. Any such inconsistency, on whatever level, is, by definition, immoral. One has the free will to do whatever, and one may tolerate one's natural propensities, but that doesn't make every action and every propensity moral, just because they are enacted or tolerated.

But in the end a story is entertainment, & as I stated we are dealing with fantastical characters in a fantastical setting. Of course, applicability comes in - to the extent taht the reader wishes - but my own feeling is that one cannot make judgements about a reader's morality based on which characters they prefer or support. One may enjoy seeing Elves hacked apart by Orcs simply because one finds Elves annoyingly smug & think they deserve all they get (which I don't actually, but I accept some readers may).

One cannot simply project Middle-earth onto our world & apply the standards of good & evil in that world to our own - who are the Elves & who the Orcs in our world? How can one relate the secondary world to the primary so precisely as to be able to make such judgements as 'If you like the Orcs you must also like rapists & murderers' or 'If you side with Melkor you must be a neo-Nazi'. It simply doesn't work. Primary & Secondary worlds are too different, character's motivations & desires in the Secondary world cannot be simply projected onto human beings in the Primary. Taking LotR as a guide for moral behaviour in the 21st Century is bound to be a failure, because the Primary world is a whole lot more complicated than the Secondary one.

Tolkien never accounts for the existence of evil in M-e - in the sense that we are never told why Melkor chooses to rebel. Tolkien simply tells us that he 'rebelled'. In fact, one gets the feeling that he couldn't explain it at all - he needed an 'evil enemy' & stuck one in & told the reader - 'He's evil'. We have no real sense of why Melkor does the nasty stuff - which allows the reader to invent all kinds of justifications, even to the extent of thinking he may just possibly have had a good reason - or at least that he rebelled because he didn't want to be a servant, & wanted to do his own thing - why did Eru give him free will if he wasn't to be allowed to use it? If I gave you a million dollars & then commanded you only to use it as I dictated you might well be tempted to see my 'gift' as worthless & throw it back in my face.

In other words, I can see the argument that Eru is the power mad dictator & Melkor saw the whole thing as a laboratory for Eru's 'experimentations' (or his 'Art') & decided he would have none of it, & sought to wreck the whole silly thing. Its an argument. Hence, if a reader takes that approach I would not declare them 'immoral'. They are judging characters in a story & their attitude to 'evil' acts in the Primary world may be entirely different.

And this thread is asking about some readers support of the 'evil' characters in M-e, not their support of evil people in this world.

[Raynor]

Davem, if I understand your argument correctly, you say that there are no ideas/feelings/propensities which are evil/immoral/wrong in and of themselves, regardless whether they are put to action or not. Please confirm.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There is nothing wrong with recognising that evil characters pose greater challenges in stories, and greater challenges in stories make them more interesting. However, such a recognition is not in itself an equivalent for justification of delighting in evil.

I think one has to make a distinction between liking, being amused by or being intrigued by an evil character and delighting in evil. Personally, I have observed that it is often the evil characters in stories that have the most interesting past, the writer has to decide what made them evil and why. In Tolkien's work one does grow curious about why characters fell into evil, like Saruman, for example, if he just became evil and no explanation was given, wouldn't you want to know what the reason was? Is this curiosity to know the reasons a delight in evil? I do not think so.

Also, more often than not, many amusing quotable quotes come from the evil characters.
One of my favorite scenes is the confrontation between Gandalf, Theoden and the rest with Saruman. Mainly because a lot of the things Saruman says make me laugh, especially since it sometimes seems that he over-reacts. "LATER? LATER? Yes, when you have the keys of Barad-Dur itself..."
Granted, many of the good characters have good quotes to, so there is a good balance.

[The Saucepan Man]

I think that it also worth making the point, I think, that some of the evil characters display qualities which it is possible to admire for their effectiveness, even if one does not approve of the purpose to which they were put. Saruman's powers of persuasion, Sauron's artistry in Ringcraft or the magnificence of Smaug, for example.

[Thenamir]

Thenamir has given us the Human-Elvish perspective on them, but is that the whole story?

I am on admittedly murkier ground here, but I interpreted the quotes of my last post to be those of an "omniscient author" rather than a "Human-Elvish" history. I am curious to know if those who are better informed can expound upon Tolkien's intent here. Thanks!

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

The original conception for the Silmarillion material in the Book of Lost Tales was that Eriol heard the tales directly from various Elves. Later this changed so that the legends were written down by Eriol (eventually Ælfwine) at Tavrobel in Tol Eressëa from the Golden Book of Tavrobel, which is a history composed by the Elda Pengoloð. Later conceptions of transmission are unclear, but The Silmarillion as published makes no mention of its fictional authorship and I don't recall anything Tolkien wrote that contradicts the idea that The Silmarillion is a collection of records kept by the Eldar (more specifically the Noldor).

This being the case, anyone with any sort of historical training will be able to postulate a significant amount of bias in favour of the Elves in most of the material on which we base our judgement. LR is the Hobbit perspective, with interpolations from human and Elvish records; the Silmarillion is the Elvish perspective received second-hand through Eriol/Ælfwine (via Old English), or Bilbo Baggins' Translations from the Elvish (via Westron), whichever version you prefer.

However, these aren't historical documents. Tolkien knew both sides of the argument, and in fact he presents Morgoth and Sauron's views at several points in HoME and LR, not to mention those of the Orcs through their reported speech. He demonstrates that the unrepresented side is arrogant, power-hungry, destructive, cruel and greedy. Why, then, do people like them?

As far as I can see, there are several reasons. Firstly and most importantly, the bad guys get to do as they please. Everyone else has to obey the rules, or at least take some account of others when making decisions, but evil characters, being completely egocentric, are allowed to ride roughshod over everyone to get what they want. Those of us who do consider others might well find it therapeutic occasionally to step into the shoes of someone who doesn't.

Added to that there's the obsession with rebellion. If anything, the modern era is one of social disobedience and non-conformism, so that we're practically raised to support anyone who doesn't obey the rules. If the rules are that we all share things and respect one another we want to see someone who lies, cheats and steals. Tolkien would probably have said that this is our fallen nature speaking, attracting us to the selfish, degraded and base; but very few people still think as he did.

Finally there's irony. Above all rhetorical techniques, our age has made irony its own. One of the reasons why LR is so unpopular is that it contains virtually none: it takes itself absolutely seriously, and the current fashion is for detached amusement. The ironic approach to LR and The Silmarillion is to try to write a revisionist history of Arda, or at least to identify with one of the characters presented to us as irredeemably evil. Then again, perhaps Saucepan is right and the admirable quality is that the evil characters are effective. Their methods work in the majority of situations, and a utilitarian mind might think that therefore theirs is the course to take.

Having said that, this is all invented. It's not real. I hope that none of us would choose to follow Morgoth or Sauron if they were real physical presences, that is without being somehow duped or coerced. Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, Grima and Shelob, and all of the other evil characters of Arda are just figments of Tolkien's imagination, and supporting one of them won't change the world one iota. It won't even change Middle-earth, because that story has already been written and the one person capable of re-writing it is dead. In that sense, then, this argument has no bearing on reality and is inherently pointless. If we were discussing why people choose evil at all, well that would be the sort of relevant philosophical discussion that the last century prompted many more people than us to consider, and Tolkien was not the least of them. It's possible that he would have regarded sympathy with his evil characters as symptomatic of humanity's spiritual weakness, or he may possibly have noted that those who can imagine being the Witch-king or Sauron are probably in less spiritual danger than those who simply dream of making the world a better place for people whether they like it or not. Sauron himself fell because he wanted to order the world and improve it, so he must always have imagined himself to be among the virtuous until he reached a point where good and evil were no longer important concepts for him.

Personally I don't see any harm in dressing up as the Witch-king or imagining oneself to be an Orc, other than a general discomfort with taking fandom that far at all. Provided that we do the right thing when it matters (in real life), we can do whatever we like in our imaginations. Importantly, if it's such a bad thing to identify with Tolkien's villains, then what can we say about the person who wrote them?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I agree; I previously answered to one of davem's post that we can hardly be impressed by the might and splendour of Melkor, since Tolkien dedicates very little space to that.

I disagree with you here. You may not spend a lot of time describing, say, a mountain, yet when you actually see one, it is a splendid sight. That said, I take your point that the Tolkiens may not have wanted that to be a focal point except where it is needed to show valour in other characters. Melkor's might is expressed more in his battle with Fingolfin so that the elven king's fall seems all the more wondrous, given that he wounds the great creature.

[Formendacil]

The thought occurs to me that if one is going to take readers to task for a certain fascination with the evil characters, then one should perhaps berate Tolkien himself for the same reason. After all, if he could invent such compelling evil characters (instead of just the bare minimum of evil bad guy needed for some conflict), then perhaps he deserves as much censure as those who have readerly interest in those characters. After all, Tolkien very often portrays the "good guys" in a poor light, and occasionally gives reasons to sympathise with utterly abhorrent characters.

Perhaps the professor had a soft spot for evil domination himself. It would probably have solved so many of his problems.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Davem, if I understand your argument correctly, you say that there are no ideas/feelings/propensities which are evil/immoral/wrong in and of themselves, regardless whether they are put to action or not. Please confirm.

Then it seems you haven't understood my argument at all.

Of course there are

ideas/feelings/propensities which are evil/immoral/wrong in and of themselves, regardless whether they are put to action or not.

when those ideas/feelings/propensities relate to the primary world. In the case of a fictional creation though one has much greater imaginative freedom. As I have repeated, one may side with Melkor as a rebel against Eru if one finds Eru a narrow minded, totalitarian megalomaniac. One may also side with the Orcs if one finds the Elves boring, self satisfied & smug. One may also decide to think oneself into the mindset of an Orc or Nazgul just out of curiosity. One may just like Dragons. Tolkien's creation is not the be all & end all. One is not required to 'choose a side' as if one's immortal soul depended on the choice. One may (if one is a Christian) may have to choose the side of God & His angels in this world if one is to save one's immortal soul from hell, but choosing to side with Melkor over Eru will have no effect on one's soul & at most provide a new & interesting angle from which to approach the story.

In short, this thread is dealing with a question of psychology rather than morality. Why would a reader choose to side with the 'bad guys'? Why not? The idea that someone who thinks Morgoth is a cool dude & wishes he had stomped the Elves into the mud is placing their immortal soul at risk is so far fetched as to be unworthy of being taken seriously. Players of Middle-earth strategy & role playing games regularly adopt the role of the Witch-king or Sauron himself (in many cases because the game is a two hander & someone has to be the bad guy, in some cases just because they want to rule the world - of Arda!), but the idea that that person, in throwing him or herself fully into the game is risking becoming a psychopath & running amok with a scimitar in the street is absolultely laughable.

[Thenamir]

I think "fascination with" is a far cry from "agreement with", but that's just me.

[Durelin]

I think a part of a person can almost "agree with" some things about some really bad dudes, because we all know there's a part to us that just wants to kick some butt. In both good guys and bad guys, we like the tough guys. We like the guy that can slaughter his enemies, whether they are "good" or "bad," because he's a mean, tough-a, killing machine...and a lot of people find that pretty *cool*. We can very much understand a selfish desire to live, we can empathize with even very nasty and bloody revenge, we can agree to living by one's "own rules" without adhering to rules like "slaughter all Hobbits, because they smell" or better yet, "because it's fun."

So, I think in a sense a person can agree with a bad guy, even when you apply their ideas or their behaviors (quirks, ways of carrying themselves - that sort of thing, I suppose) to the "real world." When it comes to their actual deeds, though? Not so much.

I do agree that the line between interest, fascination, etc., and the sort of "agreeing with" you're probably talking about, Thenamir, has been blurred beyond recognition. The blurring has been done on both sides, though, so I definitely don't think you can single anyone out for "not listening."

Sorry for the quotes abuse...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

I think "fascination with" is a far cry from "agreement with", but that's just me.

How far a cry? And to risk repeating myself, why does it actually matter if a reader is 'in agreement with' a fictional character or not? It tells us precisely nothing about the reader's morality, psychology, ethics, political stance or inside leg measurement. You can discuss, agonise about & lose sleep over the question of why some readers prefer Melkor to Eru & even if you come up with an answer it'll be worth absolutely zilch. It will tell you nothing about the reader, the book or how long a piece of string actually is.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

And to risk repeating myself, why does it actually matter if a reader is 'in agreement with' a fictional character or not? It tells us precisely nothing about the reader's morality, psychology, ethics, political stance or inside leg measurement.

I thoroughly disagree. I would submit that a reader's genuine reaction to a work of fiction can, depending upon the nature of the work, tell us much concerning their morality, psychology, ethics and, perhaps, their political stance. Most probably not their inside leg meansurement, though.

Of course, we would be judging that by reference to our own conceptions of morals, psychology, ethics and politics, but that is inevitable. And I think, at least within a single society at a fixed period of time, one can establish an approximation of consensus in these areas (right/wrong, sane/insane, left-wing/right-wing etc), even if there is disagreement on some of the grey areas. But we are not really talking about grey areas here. We are talking about good an evil.

I would certainly feel that I was able to draw conclusions about a person if they genuinely sympathised with Big Brother and though that Winston Smith had it coming to him or, to use an example cited earlier by Lal, if they thought that Hannibal Lector's dietary preferences were quite normal.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

when those ideas/feelings/propensities relate to the primary world.

However, I talked about ideas and feelings. That makes the separation between primary world and inner world irrelevant - and your argument becomes self-contradicting.

Imagination/fairy tale/fantasy is part of a person's universe of ideas - but you seem to deny this, even if, for me at least, it is an evident truth. If for the whole there is a norm: "certain ideas/feelings/propensities are immoral", then this rule exists also for the parts of it.

If an idea/feeling/propensity is defined as immoral in itself, then any instance of it, regardless the condition, is immoral. One cannot say one considers the idea of derriving pleasure from tales of rape as immoral, and then delight from the idea hinted in Myths Transformed that Men were forced to mate with beasts - and then one still claims moral integrity.
One can't say one considers derriving pleasure from tales of tortures, killings and unncessary destructions as evil in itself, and then delight when Gondolin is destroyed or when people are tortured in Numenor - and still consider oneself as moral.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, I talked about ideas and feelings. That makes the separation between primary world and inner world irrelevant - and your argument becomes self-contradicting.

Imagination/fairy tale/fantasy is part of a person's universe of ideas - but you seem to deny this, even if, for me at least, it is an evident truth. If for the whole there is a norm: "certain ideas/feelings/propensities are immoral", then this rule exists also for the parts of it.

No, because you're assuming that what one reader considers good (& evil) is the same as what another reader does. I don't accept that fantasising about 'x' is equal to actually doing 'x' - particularly not when we're dealing with Orcs, Elves, Dragons & Ringwraiths. This is a fantasy world & cheering when a Goblin kills an Elf for his magic sword is not the same as cheering when a mugger stabs a commuter for his cellphone.

Take a scene from Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell:

The camp was a dreary, silent place. A thick snow was falling and the strange soldiers lay, wrapped in their black cloaks, upon the snowy ground. At first the young women thought the soldiers must be dead - an impression which was strengthened by the great multitude of ravens and other black birds which had settled over the camp, and indeed upon the prostrate forms of the soldiers themselves - yet the soldiers were not dead; from time to time one would stir himself and go attend to his horse, or brush a bird away if it tried to peck at his face.
At the approach of the young women a soldier got to his feet. One of the women shook off her fears and went up to him and kissed him on the mouth.
His skin was very pale (it shone like moonlight) and entirely without blemish. His hair was long and straight like a fall of dark brown water. The bones of his face were unnaturally fine and strong. The expression of the face was solemn. His blue eyes were long and slanting and his brows were as fine and dark as pen strokes with a curious flourish at the end. None of this worried the girl in the least. For all she knew every Dane, Scot and Frenchman ever born is eerily beautiful.
He took well enough to the kiss and allowed her to kiss him again. Then he paid her back in kind. Another soldier rose from the ground and opened his mouth. Out of it came a sad, wailing sort ofrnusic. The first soldier- the one the girl had kissed - began to coax her to dance with him, pushing her this way and that with his long white fingers until she was dancing in a fashion to suit him.
This went on for some time until she became heated with the dance and paused for a moment to take off her cloak. Then her companions saw that drops of blood, like beads of sweat, were forming on her arms, face and legs, and falling on to the snow. This sight terrified them and so they ran away. The strange army never entered Allendale. It rode on in the night towards Carlisle. The next day the townspeople went cautiously up to the fields where the army had camped. There they found the girl, her body entirely white and drained of blood while the snow around her was stained bright red.
By these signs they recognised the Daoine Sidhe - the Fairy Host.

Here we have a more 'traditional' account of Fairies than Tolkien gives us. How many of us do not feel a thrill of excitement when we read about the fate of the young woman at the hands of the Fairy Host. How many of us are fascinated by these mysterious creatures & want to know more about them? And do any of us, on reading that passage think 'Oh, what evil creatures! Anyone who is excited by them must be sick'? No, we are attracted by these dark mysterious beings with such mysterious powers.

And now, hands up anybody who feels the kind of excitement & attraction I'm talking about who actually wants to go out & force a young woman to dance until she bleeds to death?

If an idea/feeling/propensity is defined as immoral in itself, then any instance of it, regardless the condition, is immoral. One cannot say one considers the idea of derriving pleasure from tales of rape as immoral, and then delight from the idea hinted in Myths Transformed that Men were forced to mate with beasts - and then one still claims moral integrity.

That depends on whether you judge people on what they do or on what they think. I think your position would lead us to the kind of situation we see in Minority Report - where people are incarcerated for crimes they intend to commit - or worse - for fantasising about shooting the guy who cuts them up on the freeway, or punching the boss out for balling them out. This kind of fantasy is a release. By indulging in such fantasises we deal with them without acting them out - that's the function of fantasy - we fantasise about doing 'x' so that we don't actually do 'x'. In fact, if we didn't fantasise about doing bad things every so often there would be a whole lot more bad things happening.

One can't say one considers derriving pleasure from tales of tortures, killings and unncessary destructions as evil in itself, and then delight when Gondolin is destroyed or when people are tortured in Numenor - and still consider oneself as moral.

So, 'deriving pleasure' from such tales is no different from committing such acts? There's no difference between fantasising about punching the idiot who walks out in front of your car, forcing you to slam on the brakes & actually getting out of your car & actually punching him? Well, I'd say there's a world of difference as far as he's concerned - cos in the first instance he crosses the road & carries on with his day & in the second he spends most of the day in casualty with a broken nose.

And you're still avoiding the central point - some readers may think Gondolin was filled with annoying self satisfied idiots & deserved what it got - you're attempting to impose your moral value system on other readers & condemning them for not living up to your standards.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

No, because you're assuming that what one reader considers good (& evil) is the same as what another reader does.

You are misrepresenting my argument - I am not talking about my ideas. In the very paragraph you quoted, I said (emphasis added):

If for the whole there is a norm: "certain ideas/feelings/propensities are immoral", then this rule exists also for the parts of it.

This assumes that the person in question has the above mentioned moral norm. If he has that norm, then yeah, any instance of it crossing it is immoral, regardless the circumstance. If somehow this was unclear, I apologise.

Originally Posted by davem

How many of us do not feel a thrill of excitement when we read about the fate of the young woman at the hands of the Fairy Host

I'll be frank, I consider fascination with vampires and the likes as wrong.

Originally Posted by davem

So, 'deriving pleasure' from such tales is no different from committing such acts?

How could you possibly derrive that from my statement? Anyway, my answer is that there is a whole world of a difference between the two.

In fact, if we didn't fantasise about doing bad things every so often there would be a whole lot more bad things happening.

You seem quite sure of this idea. How can you back it? How can you prove that thinking about an evil thing necessarily drives us away from doing it?

Originally Posted by davem

some readers may think Gondolin was filled with annoying self satisfied idiots & deserved what it got

Do these readers believe that slaughter of civilians, plunder & co are justified?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

This assumes that the person in question has the above mentioned moral norm. If he has that norm, then yeah, any instance of it crossing it is immoral, regardless the circumstance. If somehow this was unclear, I apologise.

And this idea of a 'norm' isn't perjorative? You are taking your moral value system & attempting to present it as the norm, thereby implying that anyone who doesn't share it is immoral.

I'll be frank, I consider fascination with vampires and the likes as wrong.

Okay...... in the sense of incorrect or immoral? So, Dracula, Anne Rice, Buffy, Angel, all immoral works? Because all of them are based on this 'fascination with Vampires'. Personally, being that Vampires are no more real than Tolkien's Elves, Orcs or Balrogs (or his Vampires come to that) in what sense is this fascination with none existent creatures 'wrong'? The idea that fascination with 'good' non existent creatures is 'right' & that fascination with 'bad' non existent creatures is 'wrong' is not one I can get my head around TBH.

You seem quite sure of this idea. How can you back it? How can you prove that thinking about an evil thing necessarily drives us away from doing it?

I didn't say it necessarily does, only that, based on a study of Freud & Jung it is fairly apparent.

Do these readers believe that slaughter of civilians, plunder & co are justified?

They may just realise that these 'civilians' never actually existed. Gondolin never actually existed. The Orcs who destroyed it never actually existed. I can't see where condemning such readers for their 'immorality' is justified?

[Raynor]

And this idea of a 'norm' isn't perjorative?

Why? Norm is a standard notion in ethics and morality.

You are taking your moral value system & attempting to present it as the norm, thereby implying that anyone who doesn't share it is immoral.

For the second time, I am talking about a case in which the person adopts said moral principles, that certain ideas/feelings/propensities are wrong/evil/immoral.

in the sense of incorrect or immoral?

Immoral.

So, Dracula, Anne Rice, Buffy, Angel, all immoral works?

If they try to present vampires as role-models, then, to me, the answer is yes. However, I am not aware this is the case with these works.

Personally, being that Vampires are no more real than Tolkien's Elves, Orcs or Balrogs (or his Vampires come to that) in what sense is this fascination with none existent creatures 'wrong'?

For me, it relates to a personal conviction, that being fascinated with vampires enstrages one from his soul.

fascination with 'good' non existent creatures is 'right'

It is right because it is consistent with morality; quite a truism I might say. I find pleasure and satisfaction in such a fascination, because it fulfills and helps, in its own way, a desire to come closer to what I believe is my ideal.

I didn't say it necessarily does, only that, based on a study of Freud & Jung it is fairly apparent.

Can you give those quotes?

They may just realise that these 'civilians' never actually existed.

You still haven't answered my question.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why? Norm is a standard notion in ethics and morality.
For the second time, I am talking about a case in which the person adopts said moral principles, that certain ideas/feelings/propensities are wrong/evil/immoral.

Once its established & agreed upon, not when one simply assumes that which is to be proved.

If they try to present vampires as role-models, then, to me, the answer is yes. However, I am not aware this is the case with these works.

But you didn't mention anything about presenting them as role models - you talked about having a 'fascination with them'.

For me, it relates to a personal conviction, that being fascinated with vampires enstrages one from his soul.

I think 'personal convictions' are all well & good, but to simply throw one into a discussion (one in which, I might add, you have repeatedly demanded that other posters supply 'evidence' & justify each single point they make) is hardly likely to further the discussion. I have a 'personal conviction' that celery is the work of the devil, but I don't see that it contributes to the discussion either.

[quote[It is right because it is consistent with morality; quite a truism I might say. I find pleasure and satisfaction in such a fascination, because it fulfills and helps, in its own way, a desire to come closer to what I believe is my ideal.[/QUOTE]

No, you see, what you're doing is making all encompassing statements ('x' is a truism) & when the statement is challenged you respond to the effect that 'I was only referring to situations where said person accepts this to be the case.'

[Raynor]

Once its established & agreed upon, not when one simply assumes that which is to be proved.

Ok, let me ask you again: if a person considers that rape, torture unnecessary killings and destructions, & co are immoral, then isn't it a contradiction in terms between <<to derrive pleasure from tales of rape, torture, etc>> and <<claiming to be moral>>?

But you didn't mention anything about presenting them as role models - you talked about having a 'fascination with them'.

The first question was about fascination with vampires, the second was about books on vampires. I don't see the problem with my answers, perhaps you could clarify your comment.

I think 'personal convictions' are all well & good, but to simply throw one into a discussion (one in which, I might add, you have repeatedly demanded that other posters supply 'evidence' & justify each single point they make) is hardly likely to further the discussion

I didn't throw this conviction; you requested that I present it.

No, you see, what you're doing is making all encompassing statements ('x' is a truism) & when the statement is challenged you respond to the effect that 'I was only referring to situations where said person accepts this to be the case.'

First of all, I mentioned truism in my very last post. Second of all, which of my posts can be interpreted as to mean that I was not in fact reffering to a person who already accepts these moral values (i.e. that ideas/feelings/propensities of torture,rape, kilings are immoral)?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Ok, let me ask you again: if a person considers that rape, torture unnecessary killings and destructions, & co are immoral, then isn't it a contradiction in terms between <<to derrive pleasure from tales of rape, torture, etc>> and <<claiming to be moral>>?

Well, let me ask you, just because you do not distinguish between reality & fantasy do you expect everyone to be bound by the same condition?

First of all, I mentioned truism in my very last post. Second of all, which of my posts can be interpreted as to mean that I was not in fact reffering to a person who already accepts these moral values (i.e. that ideas/feelings/propensities of torture,rape, kilings are immoral)?

And I was referring to a person who can distinguish between events in a fantasy world & events in real life.

So, back to the Vampire thing - is playing the Witch-king or Sauron in a M-e role-playing or strategy game (a computer or board game of which there are a few around) & throwing oneself into the game with gusto 'immoral'? Is choosing to play such a character an immoral act? Or do you think the player is capable of thinking 'Its only a game'? In the same way is a reader who chooses to side with Morgoth actually 'immoral'?

TBH, I think this is going around in circles - as it must, I suppose, in a debate where whenever one backs ones opponent into a corner he simply responds by denying he was ever in the room...

I therefore, am happy to leave things at this impasse......

[Raynor]

Well, let me ask you, just because you do not distinguish between reality & fantasy do you expect everyone to be bound by the same condition?

First of all, you are not answering my question. Second of all, you are ignoring my post where I argued about fantasy and fairy tales and imaginations being part of one person's universe of ideas; if a certain idea/feeling/propensity is wrong/moral/evil, then this applies for all parts, including fantasy.

So, back to the Vampire thing - is playing the Witch-king or Sauron in a M-e role-playing or strategy game (a computer or board game of which there are a few around) & throwing oneself into the game with gusto 'immoral'? Is choosing to play such a character an immoral act? Or do you think the player is capable of thinking 'Its only a game'? In the same way is a reader who chooses to side with Morgoth actually 'immoral'?

It is one thing to enact a character, it is another to adhere to the character's system of values. I hope that answers your questions.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Durelin

I think a part of a person can almost "agree with" some things about some really bad dudes, because we all know there's a part to us that just wants to kick some butt. In both good guys and bad guys, we like the tough guys. We like the guy that can slaughter his enemies, whether they are "good" or "bad," because he's a mean, tough-a, killing machine...and a lot of people find that pretty *cool*. We can very much understand a selfish desire to live, we can empathize with even very nasty and bloody revenge, we can agree to living by one's "own rules" without adhering to rules like "slaughter all Hobbits, because they smell" or better yet, "because it's fun."

You've been ignored a bit I think Durelin and you're bringing up some interesting things. I think in many ways the actions of bad guys sometimes appeal to our basic instincts - to survive. This is something you see in war films (I'm quite a fan of war films) where the bad guy as shown to us is of course the enemy, but in terms of killing people being wrong, the 'good' side are bad guys too; we cheer when the 'good' side win, even if this does mean laying waste to the enemy in horrible ways. Think about Dambusters - in reality, we know it's not exactly a good thing to drown a lot of innocent people! But when we watch the film we are taken out of that and all we want is to see the crews get home. Good and bad all blur in a war film - as they do in Tolkien's work if we sit and consider what he tells us about war, which is to put it basically, that war is A Very Bad Thing.

Of course where bad guys are more clear cut, often we like them because they provide a safe space for us to explore our own dark sides (which we all have, as uncomfortable as it is to confront that!). We are given the space to imagine and to experience another aspect of life without ever having to go out snd do those things ourselves. One of the most valuable functions of dystopian fiction is to serve to remind us all of where we can go very wrong, often from good intentions; bad guys serve a similar purpose, they allow us to explore possibilities in a safe way. Like davem says, we fantasise about wreaking horrible revenge on people who do us wrong and in doing this we actually stop ourselves from acting in that way. Fantasy's inherent element of escape provides that and it's why fantasy, crime, thrillers, horror and 'adult' novels always have done and always will sell very well indeed.

Interestingly, Tolkien gives us the privilege of watching Galadriel's very own moment of megalomaniac fantasising, and then Sam's. His characters do just what we do when confronted with difficult situations (or dark characters!). And there are yet more characters. The Ring in so many ways is symbolic of the Shadow (the repressed side of us all, in Jungian psychology) within us all; for those who it does not trap it provides a release from that Shadow, in the same way that imagining the vampire or the Dragon or Magneto or Saruman can provide release for our own repressed Shadows.

Originally Posted by Hookbill

In Tolkien's work one does grow curious about why characters fell into evil, like Saruman, for example, if he just became evil and no explanation was given, wouldn't you want to know what the reason was? Is this curiosity to know the reasons a delight in evil? I do not think so.

Tolkien leaves us the space to imagine. This is not the only way to handle horror, as many writers handle it graphically. Tolkien instead gives us the monster under the bed who we can only imagine - in this way he positively invites us to utilise the images within our own heads to picture his monsters. This is in fact very healthy for us, as we are encouraged to picture our demons and fears rather than repress them - and we know that Tolkien himself worked out his own lifelong incubus (not the right word, but I can't think of the precise term here) about an all-encompassing, apocalyptic wave in the shape of Numenor's drowning. So many works of literature and Art come from the same kind of source - way too many to list!

Originally Posted by Formendacil

The thought occurs to me that if one is going to take readers to task for a certain fascination with the evil characters, then one should perhaps berate Tolkien himself for the same reason. After all, if he could invent such compelling evil characters (instead of just the bare minimum of evil bad guy needed for some conflict), then perhaps he deserves as much censure as those who have readerly interest in those characters. After all, Tolkien very often portrays the "good guys" in a poor light, and occasionally gives reasons to sympathise with utterly abhorrent characters.

Form, you're probably the very guy to answer this one actually. I've been reading a lot about gothic architecture and art lately, and the thing which strikes me is how Catholicism is a huge influence on these architects. Obviously the old Gothic cathedrals (York Minster, Westminster Abbey etc) were built when Catholicism was the only brand of Christianity around, but as for Gothic from the Victorian period onwards, it existed in a multi-sect world - the interesting thing is that the architects were almost all Catholics. And if you look at Gothic architecture it positively delights in the grotesque - gargoyles, dragons, snakes, demons. In York Minster Chapter House are carvings of people having their eyes gouged out, and in other places I've seen carvings of people merrily engaging in torture, quite smutty designs, all kinds of very irreligious, non pious work.

Then many of our most fantastical writers and artists also turn out to be Catholics - Tolkien's work is especially noted for it's vivid description and wild creations. So in a long-winded way (the spiel was necessary to frame this ) is it a particularly Catholic 'thing' to have a vivid, and even at times quite bloodthirsty imagination? Some of the Catholic rites are very colourful, for example the traditional Catholic crucifix is the only one with an actual depiction of Jesus, I'm sure I don't need to chuck out any more examples of the vivid rites observed and images used!

I can't help thinking that Tolkien's pre-occupation with monsters and bad guys and so on stems at least in part from his religion?

Course, it could also be to do with his status as an ex-serviceman! His near contemporary Mervyn Peake was inspired to write Gormenghast partly due to his experiences in liberating the Death camps.

I've not even started on the ramifications of the men dreamed up by the Bronte sisters yet, and of course of the heaving passions they provoke in women the world over.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

we fantasise about wreaking horrible revenge on people who do us wrong and in doing this we actually stop ourselves from acting in that way.

Can you give a proof of this less vague than the one davem presented?

Originally Posted by Formendacil

The thought occurs to me that if one is going to take readers to task for a certain fascination with the evil characters, then one should perhaps berate Tolkien himself for the same reason.

For the same reason?? In what manner can you say that Tolkien delighted in evil? I am really curious.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

After all, if he could invent such compelling evil characters (instead of just the bare minimum of evil bad guy needed for some conflict)

This subject has been raised previously; if we check the Silmarillion, there is little said of Melkor, even at the height of his power. The most compelling part is one phrase. The same goes for LotR, as Sauron never takes the center stage; there isn't even a single instance where he is directly addressed in the second person.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

After all, Tolkien very often portrays the "good guys" in a poor light, and occasionally gives reasons to sympathise with utterly abhorrent characters.

Should I presume you are reffering to mercy towards evil characters?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

There's no difference between fantasising about punching the idiot who walks out in front of your car, forcing you to slam on the brakes & actually getting out of your car & actually punching him? Well, I'd say there's a world of difference as far as he's concerned - cos in the first instance he crosses the road & carries on with his day & in the second he spends most of the day in casualty with a broken nose.

Of course there's a world of difference. That's why, while some of us might experience an impulse to punch someone's lights out when they cut us up, most of us wouldn't do it. Why? Because we know that it would be wrong. No, it does not make one an immoral person to think about it, but surely we recognise it as a momentary lapse?

And I might add that there is also a world of difference between fantasising about punching said person and fantasising about torturing and killing them.

Finding Sauron or an Orc or Smaug interesting literary creations is one thing. But sympathising with and supporting their (fictional) purposes is surely quite another.

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Lal

I can't help thinking that Tolkien's pre-occupation with monsters and bad guys and so on stems at least in part from his religion?

We're back to your "Nightmare World of Tolkien" thread. And I think the following reply should go on that thread, but since it was sparked here...

I was trying to think of a more precise approach to why the heck Catholicism is so rooted in this idea of humans having a tendency towards sin, and original sin and damnation and all that being inescapable except through this God guy who is...well, we don't know you have to believe, and being born into it...loss of innocence, temptation, Old Testament striking down-ness... But it just goes way too far back. And that's not where I wanted to go, perhaps because anthropology is something I like to think about but never would even think of really drawing conclusions from... And we're talking more about more modern Catholicism, rather than Judaism and early Christianity, I suppose. Well, we can try and limit it to that, anyway, to help my little brain...

Anyway... Then I remembered Augustine. Where does Catholicism get a ton of its more "modern" philosophy? Who wrote a proof for the existence of God? From a guy who had a "concubine" for over fifteen years before his conversion. Then we have Paul. He supposedly was persecuting Christians before he started writing his epistles. Whether or not he really was doesn't really matter, because it's Christian (or at least Catholic) tradition that says he did. Whether or not he was a really nasty jerk, or whether or not Augustine was a sordid man is very debatable, but Catholicism isn't about denying all sorts of nasty stuff.

Catholicism, in its aspects that still reflect early Christianity, is still a lot about conversion - conversion of the sinner, even though people typically only consider that the sort of "born again" fundamentalist-type thing. But, Christianity has always been attractive to people in bad situations.

But what does that have to do with all the blood and gore and dark stuff? Maybe it's meant to be self-reflective? Or maybe it wasn't meant to be, but the darkness of the human heart manifests itself in strange ways? Admonishment through figures and symbols and even architecture? It's always been: look at Jesus, the blood, the pain, the suffering, the death...that's God. The ultimate being. That's like the ultimate admonishment. And not necessarily in a negative way...nor in a parent scolding a child sort of way. I think it's more of a personal admonishment.

Those are my thoughts on it, anyway (and there's a lot missing there I wanted to express, but I'm getting bogged down). Basically just part of my own personal philosophy, I guess. Or my own personal philosophy of the moment... Yep, after almost seven years of Catholic school that's all I've got.

Apologies for how my mind likes to bounce all over the place...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

First of all, you are not answering my question. Second of all, you are ignoring my post where I argued about fantasy and fairy tales and imaginations being part of one person's universe of ideas; if a certain idea/feeling/propensity is wrong/moral/evil, then this applies for all parts, including fantasy.

Sorry, does this apply to 'everybody' or just to those who hold to your 'norm' - you do seem to keep jumping about on this one. You cannot simply translate events in a secondary world to the primary world & make such sweeping judgements. The reader knows M-e is a fantasy, hence the reader feels free to 'sympathise' with any character - either permanently or temporarily. You seem to wish to place moral sanctions on the reader's imagination - 'If you imagine 'x' you are being immoral.' My position is that the reader's imagination is sacrosanct & I have no right to judge another person on what they choose to imagine or fantasise about. I can judge another person on what they do, but not on what they imagine - particularly where they are imagining doing 'x' in a fantasy world. To imagine torturing an Elf is not the same thing as imagining torturing your next door neighbour. Or in the words of Elizabeth I 'I will not make windows into men's souls.'

It is one thing to enact a character, it is another to adhere to the character's system of values. I hope that answers your questions.

And how does one 'enact a character' without at least temporarilly adhering to that character's system of values? To portray Morgoth in a game requires the player to wipe out & torment the Elven & Human characters in the same way Morgoth did in the story.

Again, you seem to be rejecting the idea that the reader/player can distinguish between fantasy & reality & understands that Morgoth torturing Hurin is absolutely different from Mengele torturing a Jewish child.

No, it does not make one an immoral person to think about it, but surely we recognise it as a momentary lapse? And I might add that there is also a world of difference between fantasising about punching said person and fantasising about torturing and killing them.

Yes - because we recognise that person is a human being, not a literary creation. Fantasising about torturing Mickey Mouse or Barbie is not immoral & doesn't require repentance on the reader's part - though it may be a singularly odd thing to fantasise about. And that's the point - it may be odd to side with Morgoth or the Orcs & cheer them on, but it cannot be called 'immoral' & the idea that it is a symptom of some kind of psychological or spiritual 'flaw'' cannot be taken seriously.

Finding Sauron or an Orc or Smaug interesting literary creations is one thing. But sympathising with and supporting their (fictional) purposes is surely quite another.

Sauron, an Orc or Smaug are not real. They are made up characters doing made up things to other made up characters. I simply cannot see how this can become a 'moral' question. Its a book. More, its a fantasy book. Can we actually imagine non Tolkien, or non fantasy fans generally, taking seriously the idea that someone who sides with Orcs over Elves is 'immoral'?

Look, while I'm 'in' the world of M-e (ie when I'm reading the books) I take the Elves' part & see Morgoth & his hordes as the enemy - because the story wouldn't work (for me) if I didn't. I would find the story made little sense if I didn't take that appproach. But if another reader sides with Morgoth & thinks Ringwraiths are cool, Orcs are sexy, Hobbits deserve all they get & that the average Elf would benefit from a couple of hours on the rack that's not a problem for me. I don't consider such a reader 'immoral' or think they are putting their immortal soul at risk.

EDIT

Raynor - your position seems to me equivalent to two people watching a Tom & Jerry cartoon. One laughs when Jerry drops a piano on Tom's head. The other reacts angrily & demands 'Would you laugh if that happened in real life?' Because finding it funny when a cartoon piano is dropped on a cartoon cat is no different to finding it funny when a real piano is dropped onto a real cat - the thought processes of the person who laughed are exactly the same.

[Macalaure]

I’ve been hesitating to post on this thread, though I’ve been following it closely. Here now are my two cent, for what they might be worth.


The first question which arises is: What is evil? Was Melkor’s discord in the Ainulindalë evil already? Debatable, I think. But if we follow Melkor on his path then we will sooner or later hit on some things which are undebatably evil. This suffices for my purposes here.

I think there are many different stages of ‘liking evil’ which I feel have sometimes been mixed up in this thread. I’ll try to spell them out. The following probably isn’t complete – it’s just the things that have accumulated in my mind.


Empathy – I would take this as the first stage. One develops a certain understanding for the baddies’ situation and his motives. The baddie is pitied, in the most positive sense. This empathy does not include the approval of their deeds or intentions. Is it immoral? On the contrary, I think. In fact, I would go so far to call somebody who is unable of it immoral, because it means absence of pity.

Sympathy – This is more or less a natural consequence of empathy, though many people won’t go this far from there. Still, just because we sympathise with a character does not imply the approval of his deeds and intentions and therefore no immorality.

Fascination – I find it difficult to explain this properly. A kind of increase of sympathy. It includes a partial identification with the character. Partial is important, as, for example, a person who detests elves still knows that slaughtering them isn’t right. I'm aware this is a vague item.

Delight – This seems to be the point most fought over. Somebody recognises evil and delights in it and adopts it for reasons of entertainment. But, in order to be able to recognise it, one needs to be able to perceive something as evil, so the moral system of the person is ‘intact’ and the delight in evil will not affect the every-day behaviour. For these reasons, I see no immorality in it, since the persons real actions and intentions are unaffected. Can a moral person not delight in fictional immorality? I see no reason why.

Identification – Couldn’t find a better word for what I mean. At this stage, somebody identifies with a villain, completely or nearly completely, as opposed to the identification mentioned under fascination. The morals connected with the villain are adopted into the own moral system, or they were already equal beforehand. This is the big difference to what I said under delight. Of course, people like this delight in the portrayed evil, too, but for different reasons. Since the majority of them (I hope!) is not able to act according to their beliefs in their every-day life, they might seek delight in literature or play. But since the deeds portrayed are not evil in their mindset (though they might still call them evil) it is not the same. I would say that this is the item where the mark to immorality has been, at last, stepped over.
Sure, one could argue that these people just have a different moral system, and that one is as good as the other, but I think one has to stop at some point. Though I know it contradicts itself, I would say that there are some moral systems which are immoral. I’ll leave the solution to philosophers...

Of course, these categories overlap and have blurry edges.


The second question: Why? I admit I don’t know what to explain for most of the items (all except identification, in fact), because I think this is quite normal behaviour for a human being. Sorry.
Concerning identification, I can hardly imagine that Tolkien's works influenced a person in a way as to turn him into an immoral person. Therefore I would say that the views they hold already were like this before they read the books. Under this circumstance, it is no problem to find characters to identify with. What made these people hold their views in the first place? That's another question, and probably beyond the scope of this thread.


PS: Do examples for real-world evil-doers always have to come from German history? Yes, Hitler was bad, really and earnestly bad. But history offers so many other bad people. Be more imaginative!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Durelin

But what does that have to do with all the blood and gore and dark stuff? Maybe it's meant to be self-reflective? Or maybe it wasn't meant to be, but the darkness of the human heart manifests itself in strange ways? Admonishment through figures and symbols and even architecture? It's always been: look at Jesus, the blood, the pain, the suffering, the death...that's God. The ultimate being. That's like the ultimate admonishment. And not necessarily in a negative way...nor in a parent scolding a child sort of way. I think it's more of a personal admonishment.

Some of the stuff I hear from Catholics about all the demons and angels and other odd characters amazes me actually, it's like some kind of supremely Gothic fantasy what with Nephilim and Seraphim and all that. It can also be a little bit scary and frightening. There's also so much emphasis on blood, for example the whole story of the crucifixion strikes me as very violent in the Catholic version, as opposed to being quite sanitised in the CofE version!

Of course, this could be to do with the age of the religion, which was created in an age when we were all so much closer to Death and had a very real relationship with it; people's life expectancy was not as it is today, disease was common, as was the likelihood of being killed in battle or in a violent manner. People have only recently given over the job of raising and then slaughtering animals for food; there's a series on the BBC right now called Kill It, Cook It, Eat It which takes a stark look at killing animals for food, or so I hear as I cannot stomach the thought of it, but my father had no qualms about taking a gun out and killing a bird to be eaten later. What I'm saying is that basically we are all isolated nowadays from Death and from violence and those who created Catholicism were not. That's why I think the gore is there. If you look at examples of non-Christian myth that too is also bloody and displays a relish for violence.

What I think is that writers such as Tolkien acknowledge the inevitability of the potential for extreme violence within us all, the animal aspects of us, The Shadow. That's why I've picked up on this that SpM says:

Originally Posted by SpM

Of course there's a world of difference. That's why, while some of us might experience an impulse to punch someone's lights out when they cut us up, most of us wouldn't do it. Why? Because we know that it would be wrong. No, it does not make one an immoral person to think about it, but surely we recognise it as a momentary lapse?

And I might add that there is also a world of difference between fantasising about punching said person and fantasising about torturing and killing them.

There is indeed a difference, but nevertheless people put into extreme situations do imagine doing such things. If your life was ever threatened or that of someone close to you (and I sincerely hope it is not!) you may be driven to thinking about what you'd like to do to someone which may indeed involve killing them. I'm sure I don't have to spell out the kind of circumstance, you know what I mean! Of course few of those in such horrible circumstances ever act on their imaginations but nevertheless the potential is there in all of us. A difficult thing to acknowledge perhaps, but never say never until you are in their shoes...What fantasy (and this is encompassing sci-fi, horror and crime fiction) allows us to do is to explore this darkness safely and in many ways to actually prevent us from acting in extreme ways.

[davem]

Macalaure I could accept your points in relation to evil people in this world - someone who sympathises with a suicide bomber, or an axe murderer come to that, would have serious issues. I just don't see that it applies to a reader who sympathises with a figure in a fantasy novel.

There does seem almost to be a kind of equivalence implied between, say, the destruction of Gondolin & the bombing of Hiroshima - so that a reader who was to say 'I think the destruction of Gondolin was cool - those Orcs showed those smug Elves what for!' was to get the response 'Well, I suppose you think it was fine for terrorists to destroy the Twin Towers then, huh?' The two events have no connection - well, I'd like to see anyone provide a one-to-one correlation between the events.

It seems to me that anyone who did respond to such a reader by accusing them of supporting the destruction of the Twin Towers is confusing fantasy & reality, & worse, demanding that others do the same thing. There is no primary world equivalent of Gondolin, of Morgoth, of Smaug, of the Ring - setting aside 'applicability' which an entirely personal response - so how one can relate secondary world events & characters to the primary world in a way that a) elicits general agreement & b) makes any kind of logical sense is beyond me.

In the same way the idea that 'the thought behind the events (torturing a real human being & torturing an Elf - or a pixie) is the 'same' because both involve the thought of torture is completely illogical (not to say irrational).

Last night i watched a couple of episodes of South Park. In both Kenny was killed - in the first he had his head split in half by a boomerang which Wendy had thrown from the top of a stockade which the girls had built to stop the boys infecting them with STD's. In the second he died when a girder broke off Cartman's Roller Coaster & skewered him. And it was funny in both cases - because Kenny is a cartoon character. If I'd seen a news report about such things happening to a real 8 year old I wouldn't have thought it was funny, because I can distinguish between fantasy/imagination & reality. I don't find real children being killed funny but I find a cartoon character being killed in spectacular & inventive ways to be funny. And no matter how many times I saw Kenny being killed I would never become immunised against feeling horror & sadness when I heard of a real child being killed. Why? Because a fantasy character is not a real person. Because the thought of killing a fantasy character is not the same as the thought of killing a real person. To claim any similarities between the two makes no logical sense.

[Lalwendë]

And just to add to what davem says, it's not only silly to get fantasy and reality mixed up, but it's also dangerous. Going down that road leads us to state or authoritarian control over culture. It's not a big step from banning a violent video game, to banning Boxing, to banning heavy metal and rap, to banning fantasy literature altogether. We all have the freedom to decide for ourselves what's made up and what's real. Kids today get a seriously bum deal - they get blamed for just about everything and all the adults seem to think they are somehow 'dangerous' (news - it's been like that for ever, that's the nature of the generation gap). Kids play Grand Theft Auto and listen to Marilyn Manson and think these things are seriously cool, and we say it's going to make them go out and kill. No it isn't. 99.9% of kids are perfectly capable of distinguishing between reality and dreams.

What about Tolkien, "desiring Dragons with a profound desire"?

I know exactly where he's coming from. Despite what they do, Dragons are just The Coolest Thing Ever. They are Awesome.

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

we fantasise about wreaking horrible revenge on people who do us wrong and in doing this we actually stop ourselves from acting in that way.

Interesting you should mention this, Lal. Freud's theory on dreaming is that dreams act out our fantasies - violent or sexual in nature - that we know are not acceptable in real-life society. By allowing these bestial urges to let off steam in a dream world, we stop ourselves from committing such acts in real life. Perhaps fantasy does the same.

The Ring as the "repressed side" - interesting. Something I've never thought about before, but it fits well. Perhaps we need a thread to discuss the psychology of Tolkien.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Can you give a proof of this [above theory of repression] less vague than the one davem presented?

Can anybody prove Freud's theory conclusively? No, because it is so difficult to falsify. However here is some supporting evidence for his ideas about dreams:

PET scans indicate that the rational part of the brain (which includes the superego, which imposes morality) are inactive during dreaming. By contrast, the forebrain, concerned with motivation (the id is Freudian terms, the primitive urges) are very active. Why is it necessary to hand the body over to the primal urges during dreaming? Freud's theory - that it is necessary to allow them some expression so that they do not interfere with real life - fits. (Solms, 2000)

Raynor, can you reconcile these statements:

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.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Norm is a standard notion in ethics and morality.

Morality is defined by the norm, and yet defining morality by the norm is wrong?

[davem]

Lal brings up an interesting point re Tolkien's 'profound' desire for dragons. I think its clear that there are dragons in Tolkien's mythology not because he wanted 'an evil creature' but because he desired them to be there. And interestingly, he did not meake his dragons good (a la Anne McCaffrey) or morally neutral (a la Ursula Le Guin) but evil. The dragons he 'desired' were the powerful, destructive 'immoral' dragons of traditional Western myth.

Which opens a wider question - to what extent did he 'desire' the other 'evil' creatures of myth - Goblins, Trolls (& by extension Nazgul riding Fell Beasts & Balrogs)? I think it would be difficult to argue that he did not desire the 'evil' creatures as much as the 'good'. Why else would he choose to write a mythology based so strongly in Northern myth? In Northern myth the monsters are as important as the 'heroes'. What would Beowulf be without Grendel & the Dragon? Tolkien tells us in M&C - not very much. The monsters are essential, because of what they symbolise - which is not so much 'evil' as the archetypal forces Man must confront.

Tolkien chooses to create a world where mythological creatures of good & evil (Dragons in particular) can live, move & have their being. Morgoth, Sauron, Ungoliante, Durin's Bane, all live because Tolkien chooses to give them life. They exist because he desired them to exist - & not simply as 'enemies' but because he desired them to exist as they are. They fascinated him - as much if not more than his 'good' creations. The amount of time he spent analysing them, the overwhelming nature & effect of their very presence, speaks to this fact. The idea that he viewed them with as much hatred as his good characters is, to my mind, a misunderstanding. Good & Evil balance each other in his creation. No one who reads The Hobbit can doubt that Tolkien relished writing the Smaug scenes - one can tell he loved writing Smaug's dialogue, & the description of Smaug's power, launching himself from the Mountain to devastate Lake Town could only have been written by someone in awe of dragons & whose desire for them was indeed 'profound'. In contrast the events which follow Smaug's death are 'mundane' because we have in effect seen the end of the mythological world symbolised by the Dragon.

And Balrogs - well, if Tolkien isn't in awe of his own creation here! The Balrog exudes power & menace. This is not simply a 'demon' , but rather a creature of Power, a fallen angel. Tolkien is justly proud of what his imagination has brought forth.

This is where the whole idea that what one thinks about reflects one's morality - if so then either Tolkien should only have written about beautiful Elves singing beneath trees in Valinor if he was a 'good' person' or he wasn't such a 'good' person after all - it was his imagination that gave birth to Morgoth, Sauron, Ungoliante, Smaug & Durin's Bane & they exist because he desired they exist.

Or maybe the human mind (& particularly the mind of the Artist) is a more complex thing than some will credit. In the end it was Tolkien himself who destroyed Gondolin - he created it, gave it being, & he also created & gave being to the hordes who destroyed it. If Orcs tortured & murdered Elves & Men it was because Tolkien invented all three & had them do what they did. The idea that Tolkien only thought about (& only desired) Elves, Valar & good Men & that the 'evil' creatures somehow intruded themselves from 'outside' his imagination, to despoil his beautiful Arda is ridiculous. Tolkien created the good & the evil, the creators & the destroyers, because that's the kind of world he wanted to write about. Those creatures, the good & the evil, existed because he desired them - 'with a profound desire'.