The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Bêthberry · 10-25-2003, 09:28 AM

Keeping an eye on Sharkû's cynical eye, I would like to put the discussion under a slightly different lens.

Mr. Underhill, you have quite nicely put your finger on an important aspect of reading: do we read for what we cannot find in our banal, daily lives or for something else? Tolkien's discussion of faerie would be particularly relevent here I think.

But, I will inflame matters. I think any problem in a discussion of morality in LOTR must consider how Tolkien depicts moral and immoral behaviour. And I think we have a sticking point.

The novel depicts the successful refusal of the Ring's power by Gandalf and Galadriel, and the struggle and painful consequences of being Ring-bearer for Bilbo and Frodo.

It could, however, be argued that both Gandalf's and Galadriel's refusals of the Ring are, essentially, a form of telling rather than showing (to use the distinction made in discussion of story writing). By this I mean both scenes concern simply the holding of the Ring itself, with the characters' comments on what the attraction is. At least for Bilbo and Frodo the desire to use the Ring is 'shown' in dramatic action, with clear, direct consequences for the outcome of the plot in LOTR. This puts the question of moral choice in a specific context rather than in the kind of generalizations which to which philosophy is prey.

What LOTR never gives us is the dramatization of Saruman's fall. We are told over and over than he is the bad guy. And we see behaviours which are not estimable. But we are never shown how it was that he succumbed to this evil. If we weren't told he was bad from the outset, would we be able to recognize his turpitude?

Likely this is a consequence of Tolkien's decision (I assume) to attempt to dramatize good rather than evil. But it leaves us, I would argue, with a fuzzy view of evil. A view which tends towards the relatively simple habit of naming things evil without really analyzing what is the perilous attraction of evil. And without demanding from readers an active effort to discriminate who is good and who is evil.

Humbly submitted,
Bêthberry

10-25-2003, 09:28 AM	#40
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	Keeping an eye on Sharkû's cynical eye, I would like to put the discussion under a slightly different lens. Mr. Underhill, you have quite nicely put your finger on an important aspect of reading: do we read for what we cannot find in our banal, daily lives or for something else? Tolkien's discussion of faerie would be particularly relevent here I think. But, I will inflame matters. I think any problem in a discussion of morality in LOTR must consider how Tolkien depicts moral and immoral behaviour. And I think we have a sticking point. The novel depicts the successful refusal of the Ring's power by Gandalf and Galadriel, and the struggle and painful consequences of being Ring-bearer for Bilbo and Frodo. It could, however, be argued that both Gandalf's and Galadriel's refusals of the Ring are, essentially, a form of telling rather than showing (to use the distinction made in discussion of story writing). By this I mean both scenes concern simply the holding of the Ring itself, with the characters' comments on what the attraction is. At least for Bilbo and Frodo the desire to use the Ring is 'shown' in dramatic action, with clear, direct consequences for the outcome of the plot in LOTR. This puts the question of moral choice in a specific context rather than in the kind of generalizations which to which philosophy is prey. What LOTR never gives us is the dramatization of Saruman's fall. We are told over and over than he is the bad guy. And we see behaviours which are not estimable. But we are never shown how it was that he succumbed to this evil. If we weren't told he was bad from the outset, would we be able to recognize his turpitude? Likely this is a consequence of Tolkien's decision (I assume) to attempt to dramatize good rather than evil. But it leaves us, I would argue, with a fuzzy view of evil. A view which tends towards the relatively simple habit of naming things evil without really analyzing what is the perilous attraction of evil. And without demanding from readers an active effort to discriminate who is good and who is evil. Humbly submitted, Bêthberry __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.