[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But they are identical. You cannot tell a difference between two identical imaginary processes - by definition.

I can.

It doesn't prove it. It may imply it.

Who do you think cannot pick up this moral and religious elements? If you mean that one spots them but chooses to ignore them, then no problem.

I mean someone who thinks they're just reading a fantasy novel. And if the reader is not religious they may not be aware of the 'religious' elements - all they may be aware of is that some of the characters have a religious belief.

So, what 'truths' could not be hold by a 'perfectly moral' reader, to use your own expression?

Ones that may apply in a secondary world but not necessarily in the Primary world. In the secondary world it is 'true' that balrogs are a threat to life & limb. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it is 'true' that Morgoth has corrupted the very stuff of the material universe. In the primary world it is not. In the secondary world it may be 'true' that torturing an Elf is a bad thing. In the primary world one would have to prove that Elves actually exist here for that to be true. A reader may be reading the book for escape, not for edification.

Of course, the reader is free to decide that torturing an elf is a fine thing, something to be encouraged, & that medals should be handed out for doing so. I won't condemn them for it, or think any less of them. In short, I don't think the reader's response to the characters in a book says anything about their morality. I'm not going to judge someone on their response to a book. I don't believe anything of any value can be learned about a person from their response to fictional characters.