[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I also worry that we are on the point of seeing a claim like "if you disagree with Tolkien's moral philosophy then you don't fully appreciate his work". If such is in fact your claim, then there's no more to be said. And if such is not, then I don't see how anyone's opinion about real moral philosophy enters into the discussion, provided that one "suspends moral disbelief" as it were, when dealing with Middle-earth.

Well, as you say, you have to accept it within Middle earth if you are to appreciate his work, because it will not make sense unless you do. But then why would you not accept it outside Middle earth? What I mean is, why would you consider it invalid in the context of this world? Is it that while 'in' Middle earth you 'force' yourself to think in a way that is naturally alien to you, or that is in conflict with the way you normally see things? Tolkien's position is that that approach is invalid, & I think if we are to engage with an artist we can't just say 'I think you're wrong' & leave it at that. What is 'wrong', or 'incorrect', or 'invalid' in Tolkien's philosophy? Why does it only apply within Middle earth?

I can't say that my understanding of Tolkien's Art is superior (or inferior) to yours, or anyone else's. I would say that I don't change my moral stance when I enter into Middle earth, so I find I'm not required to deliberately alter my perspective, to think myself into the secondary world. I find the idea strange - that one would have to stop for a moment before beginning to read & think 'Right, now I have to adopt a different moral value system, in order to understand & orientate myself to this otherworld.

Now, I say that not as a Christian, because I don't think its necessary to be a Christian to orientate oneself into Middle earth. I don't think the moral value system is specifically Christian - & this is where to an extent I can see where you're coming from, because there are somethings within the stories which require one to 'suspend disbelief' & accept Christian symbolism, because that will enable you to understand some of the significance of the story more easily, or in greater depth - for instance if you hold in mind the idea of Mary, & the Host, you'll get more out of the figures of Galadriel & Elbereth, & of Lembas - you're experience will be enhanced - but that is not the same as adopting a wholly different moral value system or metaphysics.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

So, davem's experience reading examplifies my point that the reader's own stand is part of how he or she is able to understand the text. I suppose another way of saying this is that some of us want to define the issue by the destination while others of us wish to say that it is the journey itself which is our interest.

But what is this 'destination' - is it a 'place/state' which exists already, towards which we are moving - does the 'Road' lead somewhere specific, or are we making the road as we travel - is this 'destination' a place that is waiting for us, or is it simply wherever we end up?

My favourite poem (anonymous, prob. originally Middle English)

The Key of the Kingdom.

This is the Key of the Kingdom;
In that Kingdom is a City;
In that City is a Town;
In that Town is a Street;
In that Street there winds a Lane;
In that Lane there is a Yard;
In that Yard there is a House;
In that House there waits a Room;
In that Room there is a Bed,
And on that Bed a basket;
A basket of sweet Flowers;
Of Flowers, of Flowers,
A basket of sweet Flowers.

Flowers in a basket;
Basket on the bed;
Bed in the Room;
Room in the House;
House in the Yard;
Yard in the Winding lane;
Lane in the Street;
Street in the Town;
Town in the City;
City in the Kingdom.
This is the Key of the Kingdom,
Of the Kingdom this is the Key.

And, for me, that's the end of the 'Road'.

(Actually, it kind of is, 'cos I'm off to Oxonmoot tomorrow, & won't be back till late Sunday.)