Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
I think Tolkien kind of 'assumes' the reader will feel more drawn to the 'good' side.
So Tolkien assumes that attitudes which are often held up as part of the 'Christian' underpinning of his creation are in fact anything but - they are the result of 'natural morality, natural duties & courtesies - when a man refuses to strike an enemy when he's down, that sort of thing'.
It is this 'natural morality' that Tolkien plays on - he assumes the reader will be drawn to the good side not because they are made more 'attractive' & exciting, but because whether the reader is 'religious' or not they will be, by their nature, more attracted by the good side - in fact, their behaviour will actually seem more 'natural' to the reader than the behaviour of the bad side.
Hence, anyone who is attracted by the bad side is (according to the theory Tolkien espoused) is going against their own natural inclinations.
Of course, Tolkien could have been wrong.
|
It's interesting to consider this in relation to Tolkien's attitude towards the "long defeat."
If people have a natural inclination to the good side, as Tolkien assumes, what causes the long defeat--why doesn't this natural inclination result in victory rather than defeat? Is there an inherent fallibility which limits this natural inclination? Or is evil stronger than good? In the mythology, Middle earth is inherently flawed. How does this attitude towards an innate goodness fit in with this idea?
Just pondering these points out of idle curiosity.