[davem]

But Tolkien didn't draw a distinction between the moral value system of Middle earth & the moral value system of this world. The worlds differed in their inhabitants, geography, etc, but not in their underlying moral value system. There are 'grey areas' in both worlds, but I think this is not because the Good, the True & the Real are different in the two worlds, but because circumstances dictate how closely we can adhere to them.

Middle earth & this world are (in Tolkien's eyes) fallen worlds, & we are fallen inhabitants of those worlds. Therefore we cannot live up to the required standards, but we have to try to the best of our ability. Boromir fails to live up to that required standard, & there are understandable reasons - his background, his experiences, his beliefs - but Tolkien is clear in his attitude to Boromir - Boromir does wrong when he tries to take the Ring, whatever Boromir himself might believe at the time. Its not that 'In Tolkien's universe morality is objective' as Aiwendil puts it, its that from Tolkien's pov morality is objective, in a man's house or in the Golden Wood. The distinction simply doesn't stand for Tolkien. Its like claiming that Jesus sets out one moral value system in his parables, but that the moral value system in this world is different. Tolkien's original intent was to awaken people to an objective moral value system through his stories, by presenting that objective standard to us through an invented mythology.

This is why I don't see Aiwendil's point:

I must say that I'm somewhat confused by the turn the thread has taken. One moment the discussion concerns "canonicity", the question of the author's importance, and the nature of imaginary worlds. Then suddenly I find myself reading a tirade against moral relativism and even a passing discussion of metaphysics

because for me they're two aspects of the same thing. The issue is about what the author is doing & how successfully he does it. Of course, if you believe it is 'art for art's sake' then the two things are totally seperate, if you believe the art had a moral purpose then its different aspects of the same thing, like discussing Shakespeare's intent in Hamlet, his philosophical value system, & asking how well he communicated it to his audience via his 'secondary world' of Elsinore. If Elsinore & its inhabitants had not been believable his message would not have communicated itself as effectively as it did. Or if Elsinore had been believeable as a secondary world, but the 'metaphysics' unconvincing the play would not speak to us. I don't see the seperation. The message must be convincing, & so must the means of comunication. Truth communicated through Art. The Truth must be true & the Art must be artistic or no-one will care, it will not speak to anyone.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

I for one, should hate to think that there is a right and a wrong way to understand a text, as this would reduce the pleasure in reading and re-reading, throughout the many and various stages in my life; each time I go back to reading LOTR I have been through new experiences and the text resonates in many different ways each time. Perhaps I respond to my reading on a deep emotional level to some degree, but to do otherwise would seem clinical to me.

This isn't what I'm saying - my own re-readings of the text bring me new insights & understandings - I learn something new each time, because I'm more open to the truth the older I get & the more experiences I have, but the Truth is constant, & its about coming closer to it.