The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Refugees and Victims of War-- something that's not been mentioned.

Bêthberry · 12-23-2002, 11:57 AM

There are many interesting points here, in response to my inarticulate ramblings. *curtsies to your time and effort and thought*Taure Leafsilver, I do mean to deny the importance of empathy in art. I indeed understand what you are saying about preparing for a role, for once, long ago, I accepted the role of a character for whom I had no sympathy and that blindness taught me much about acting, and, ultimately, led me back to the character again. I cannot say that was my greatest performance.Diamond18, in my fumbling way I am trying to consider how the movie, and this widening of empathetic vision, enacts the heroic ideal which Tolkien discussed very briefly in the section Ofermod in The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth "the doctrine of uttermost endurance in the service of indomitable will," which for Tolkien (and myself as well) are epitomized in these lines from the Old English poem, The Battle of Maldon: "Hige sceal pe heardra, heorte pe centre,/ modsceal pe mare pe ure mægen lythlad." ['Will shall be the sterner, heart the bolder, spirit the greater as our strength lessens.']. Perhaps my question should more apropriately be asked by considering what might be the similarities between victims and heroes, and the differences.greyhavener, you are, of course, correct in your point about who Tolkien chose to humanize and who not. My point is confused and for that I apologize. I am trying to step back from that recognition and ask something about how such a choice works and what it might say about Tolkien's depiction of good and evil. I think Tolkien wanted to make the defense of good dramatic, something which Milton in Paradise Lost did not do. Milton's Satan is more attractive than his Adam, his Eve, his Archangels. How did Tolkien go about doing this? And what might his artistic choices tell us?How is evil being depicted? The main standard bearers for Saruman are creatures who are not, cannot be humanized even though Tolkien goes to great lengths to show pity and mercy to Gollem and Saruman himself. When the "Other" is depicted this way, what conclusions can we draw? Is it possible that, in trying to make Gandalf's and Frodo's quest dramatically attractive, Tolkien limited the depiction of evil? Does expanding our pity for the victims help us understand the nature of evil any better or is it a bath of emotion for emotion's sake? Perhaps what I am trying to ask is, are the refugees there for sentimental reasons only?Bethberry

12-23-2002, 11:57 AM	#18
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	There are many interesting points here, in response to my inarticulate ramblings. curtsies to your time and effort and thought<P><B>Taure Leafsilver</B>, I do mean to deny the importance of empathy in art. I indeed understand what you are saying about preparing for a role, for once, long ago, I accepted the role of a character for whom I had no sympathy and that blindness taught me much about acting, and, ultimately, led me back to the character again. I cannot say that was my greatest performance.<P><B>Diamond18</B>, in my fumbling way I am trying to consider how the movie, and this widening of empathetic vision, enacts the heroic ideal which Tolkien discussed very briefly in the section <I>Ofermod</I> in <I>The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth</I> "the doctrine of uttermost endurance in the service of indomitable will," which for Tolkien (and myself as well) are epitomized in these lines from the Old English poem, <I>The Battle of Maldon</I>: "Hige sceal pe heardra, heorte pe centre,/ modsceal pe mare pe ure mægen lythlad." ['Will shall be the sterner, heart the bolder, spirit the greater as our strength lessens.']. Perhaps my question should more apropriately be asked by considering what might be the similarities between victims and heroes, and the differences.<P><B>greyhavener</B>, you are, of course, correct in your point about who Tolkien chose to humanize and who not. My point is confused and for that I apologize. I am trying to step back from that recognition and ask something about how such a choice works and what it might say about Tolkien's depiction of good and evil. I think Tolkien wanted to make the defense of good dramatic, something which Milton in <B>Paradise Lost</B> did not do. Milton's Satan is more attractive than his Adam, his Eve, his Archangels. How did Tolkien go about doing this? And what might his artistic choices tell us?<P>How is evil being depicted? The main standard bearers for Saruman are creatures who are not, cannot be humanized even though Tolkien goes to great lengths to show pity and mercy to Gollem and Saruman himself. When the "Other" is depicted this way, what conclusions can we draw? Is it possible that, in trying to make Gandalf's and Frodo's quest dramatically attractive, Tolkien limited the depiction of evil? Does expanding our pity for the victims help us understand the nature of evil any better or is it a bath of emotion for emotion's sake? Perhaps what I am trying to ask is, are the refugees there for sentimental reasons only?<P>Bethberry __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.