[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

To imagine torturing an Elf is not the same thing as imagining torturing your next door neighbour.
...
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.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Can a moral person not delight in fictional immorality?

If a person defines torture and derriving pleasure from torture or recount of it as immoral, then: the instance in which <<the description of torture (to oneself or to others)>> is correlated with <<adherence to the idea of torture and of derriving pleasure from torture or recount of it>> is immoral. No matter the context, real, imaginary, hypothetical.

Davem, you have yet to address my point that fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas, where any intention is subject to moral evaluation, regardless of whether it becomes enacted or not.

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.

Really? From do you derrive this necessity?? Show me one such instance of an rpg in the Downs where a character describes how he torments elves and humans as Morgoth did.

Originally Posted by Lal

Going down that road leads us to state or authoritarian control over culture.

I disagree; in my argument at least, the problem does not rest with the content, but with what sort of satisfaction one derrives from that content. Immoral feelings can be cultivated from practically anything, if imagination serves.

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

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)

I know far too little about this subject to make comments. I will take your point that this is not a conclusive evidence.

Originally Posted by the guy who be short

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

I don't think I follow, can you please rephrase?

Originally Posted by davem

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 he explains there why: because they are by definition other-wordly and therefore have the trademark of Faerie. He finds them a fascinating product of the imagination, which enlarges the status of the hero. He is definitely able to differentiate between draco and draconitas. He talks in M&C about the perfect resistance of the northern heroes: perfect because it has no escape or hope for victory. The might of this terrible foe, "more evil than any human enemy" gives "lofty tone and high serioussness". As you stated yourself, the literary role of the dragon is to give more valour. Tolkien talks about the author of Beowulf as liking dragons as a poet for a good reason, since they are "essential both to the machinery and the ideas of a poem or tale". I certainly doubt that he considers that the writer of Beowulf adhered to the moral values of malice, greed, destruction" which describe his dragon. "He has victory but no honour" - the honour belongs rightly to the moral side.

Originally Posted by davem

The idea that he viewed them with as much hatred as his good characters is, to my mind, a misunderstanding.

I find this idea horribly misrepresentative of Tolkien, since he considered Melkor & co to be the manifestations of evil/Satan. There is no single shred of evidence in the letters or anywhere that he has any afinity with it, with the moral values that it represents. Neither in imagination, nor in matters relating to real life.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Are ANY characters really so seductive as Smaug or Glaurung?

Mark Luthien for me. I'll give quotes anytime you want, although I guess it is quite pointless, no matter how superb she is portrayed, if our tastes vastly differ.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I was attempting to raise, with a deliberate pointness, the question that if one is going to censure the reader then one ought to censure the author. After all, in condemning those who view pornography, do we not normally reserve even greater condemnation for those who provide the pornography?

The intent of 99.999% of pornography in the movie is clear; they want to promote pornography, it is an end, not a means to an end. They don't do this stuff to transmit any other message. To say that the presence of evil characters in Tolkien's work equates promotion of evil characters, is, well, beyond false comparison.

Originally Posted by davem

It may simply be that they find the 'good' side so bland & uninteresting that they side with anyone who is out to give them a good kicking.

I am sure you know what Tolkien thought of this, emphasis added

Originally Posted by Letter #256

Since we are dealing with Men it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good.

Originally Posted by davem

Turin is classed among the good guys, but Gollum, an equally tragic victim of circumstances, tends to be classed among the 'bad guys'.

False analogy; Turin was fighting, to the best of his knowledge, the good fight - unlike Gollum. Yet it is clear that Gollum knows the differences between right and evil and still persists in wickedness. Turin was forced by a greater power to do evil too; Gollum refused his chances of repentance.