[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Davem, what is the significant difference between imagining torturing your neighbour and imagining torturing a neighbour who is in every detail similar to the "real" one, in a world where the only difference from the "real" one is that your town's name ends with an extra "t" (or put any trivial difference, or no difference at all)?

The difference is that one is a real person & the other a fantasy being that only exists in your imagination.

However, there is a distinction to be made between the literary value and moral values of an evil character. Working to enhance the value of a literary work by presenting a properly powerful enemy does not amount to adhering to that evil character's values.

No it doesn't. But I still reckon he feels Smaug is awesome.

Why do you say I miss this point? I already acknowledged, at least in my second to last post the literary value, giving high tone and lofty serioussness. Again, literary, not moral, value.

He could have acheived the same effect by writing a novel about WWII. He chose to write a novel based in Northern Myth & people it with monsters.

No, I was addressing what I understood from your post that dislike of the boredom of good characters somehow implies or allows for siding with immoral characters in their evil. This is a false dilemma, a reader is not forced to side with the opposite side in the performing of their immoral acts, if the good side is somehow boring.

I was merely pointing out that a reader may take such a dislike to good characters that he or she would like to do to them what the enemy does. Or they may just find the good guys no more convincing & 'real' than Tom or Kenny & think Fingolfin getting 'maced' just as funny as Kenny getting skewered with a girder.

I am not aware that being a work of Art negates all the stated intentions concerning the moral and religious truths in the Legendarium. This is a false dilemma.

And I'm not aware that Art has to include an element of moral didacticism - or that even if it does the reader has to pay any attention to them.

Do you deny the importance of Melkor's curse or of how Glaurung messed his mind?

Nope. But Turin brought 90% of his disasters on himself by attempting to escape from Morgoth's curse rather than being a direct result of it. Its quite likely that Morgoth's curse actually consisted of just making Turin a cocky so-&-so & let him destroy himself.

Oh, the irony of that in the context of our discussion .

Nope. I honestly think that if someone had dropped a piano on Lizzie Bennett's head Pride & Prejudice would have been a much better novel. I wouldn't have wished anyone to drop a piano on Jane Austen's head though.