[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

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.

I attempted to address it when I asked whether you believed this was a 'universal' 'truth' or one that only applied to those who believe/accept it - which seems to be. Its a bit difficult to answer such a question - you seem to state 'x' is a fact (ie 'fantasy and imagination are part of one's universe of ideas' or ''x' is the norm') but when I challenge such statements & point out exceptions to your 'universal truths' you simply come back & say 'Well, obviously 'x' doesn't apply to everybody only to those who accept 'x' is the case.'

To attempt an answer I would say that fantasy & imagination are part of one's universe of ideas but that the ability to distinguish between fantasy (torturing an elf or Donald Duck) & reality (torturing your next door neighbour) is the first requirement of a sane human being.

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.

Well, he wouldn't have come out & said he thought Morgoth, Balrogs, Ringwraiths etc were 'cool' would he - I think one can pick that up from the way he uses them.

And I do not think there is any evidence that he considered Melkor to be the manifestation of Satan - he may have used he names Sauron/Satan interchangeably but I think he could distinguish between the two - & if he couldn't then he was a bit weird & should have known better. The point you're missing is that he chose to write about a world of dragons, Balrogs & Orcs.

Now, by quoting:

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.

I suppose your point is that Tolkien would have felt that anyone who had no time for his Elves is simply 'sated with good'. This is hardly an inevitable conclusion - the reader may just find them boring, irritating & want the silly smile knocked off their face - & that wouldn't make the reader a 'bad person' or that they were 'sated with good'- it would just mean the reader was the kind of person who found Tolkien's Elves boring, irritating & in need of being de-silly-smiled'.

Now, back to Dragons:

But the land of Merlin and Arthur was better than these, and best ofall the nameless North of Sigurd of the Volsungs, and the prince of all dragons. Such lands were pre-eminently desirable. I never imagined that the dragon was of the same order as the horse. And that was not solely because I saw horses daily, but never even the footprint of a worm. The dragon had the trade-mark Of Faerie written plain upon him. In whatever world he had his being it was an Other-world. Fantasy, the making or glimpsing of Other-worlds, was the heart of the desire of Faerie. I desired dragons with a profound desire. Of course, I in my timid body did not wish to have them in the neighbourhood, intruding into my relatively safe world, in which it was, for instance, possible to read stories in peace of mind, free from fear. But the world that contained even the imagination of Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril. The dweller in the quiet and fertile plains may hear of the tormented hills and the unharvested sea and long for them in his heart. For the heart is hard though the body be soft. (On Fairy Stories)

You state my position as:

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 stated that was part of it - not the whole thing. If you read the above quote from OFS you can see what I'm talking about -

But the world that contained even the imagination of Fafnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril.

Note- the world that contained the imagination of Fafnir, not Sigurd. And Tolkien is clear that to have a world that contained Fafnir is worth any kind of peril. In short, Dragons are worth having whatever the cost. Worth having around, not worth having around simply to 'elevate' the hero when he kills them. And when we come to the statement:

The dweller in the quiet and fertile plains may hear of the tormented hills and the unharvested sea and long for them in his heart.

Who, in Tolkien's mythology, 'tortures the hills'? Melkor. And yet Tolkien talks of longing for them in his heart. Tolkien wanted the whole of hiss world - not just the 'good' parts. He wanted Balrogs & dragons & Orcs & Trolls. Because that was the world of the 'Nameless North' which inspired him & drove his imagination.

I think the problem here is that you are viewing (& expecting the rest of of us to do the same) the Legendarium as a work of moral didacticism, if not of Christian theology. It is not. It is a work of Art. It is as it is & not something else. It is not a parable, or a re-write of the Bible.

EDIT

Re Turin & Gollum. Turin is hardly just a victim of circumstances - he brings disaster on himself by his attempts to avoid Morgoth's curse. His fate is determined for the most part by his own decisions. This is why his fate is tragic. Gollum is hardly that different.

As to the way you are approaching Tolkien's work - you seem to feel that because a character is said to be 'good' that the reader must agree that that character is good because if he/she doesn't then the reader is 'bad'. Readers have different tastes. Many readers distinguish between fact & fantasy, & wouldn't have a problem with Tom having a piano dropped on his head or Kenny being riddled with bullets & eaten by rats, because they aren't real people. They wouldn't think that the writer who has Kenny being killed in that way is no different from some sick individual who fantasised about doing the same thing to a real child.

One may find Orcs or dragons more interesting & entertaining than Elves. Some readers think Lizzie Bennett one of the most interesting, witty & insightful characters in English literature - others may find her annoying, trivial & self obsessed & wish that someone had dropped a piano on her head. Neither reader is good or bad, moral or immoral.