Ah, many thanks,
Mister Underhill! I must say, however, that
Bethberry's post was the one that got me up to posting velocity, so perhaps she gets the laurels for "Mover and Shaker," all simplicity aside! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
And in that vein, I must add more! I just can't help it! Quoting
Bethberry again:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Certainly the POV is one-sided, but I'd say this view is probably coincident with the views of many of the foot soldiers who head off to fight the wars of one country against another, or in the name of religion, etc. I think the redeeming aspect in Tolkien's work is the individual internalization of good, rather than the external, idealistic, tacked-on view that seems to be the result of the propaganda inflicted in modern wars and in modern peacetime. The intrinsic good nature of the Hobbits illustrates this for me, but even this must be indoctrinated to an extent, and by experience, the views of each hobbit is tempered. At the beginning of the story, we see Frodo expressing his views that Gollum should have been killed outright and his distaste at Gandalf mentioning that there could have been any relationship between Gollum and the race of Hobbits. His views are provincial, but, as his name subtly implies (Frodo-wise by experience), he learns better. He, more than any, learns the virtue of not merely discerning the good from the evil, but also reacting to it in a way that is inherently good in itself, i.e., with mercy. So, far from simply trotting off to fight Evil with his trusty friends, Frodo becomes a case in point, a testament to the possibilities for good in mortal beings, not because he blindly defends the good without understanding evil, but because he does not stoop to the level of the evil of which he learns more than he ever wished.
Perhaps I hold these views because Frodo is one of the characters I internalize and identify with above most of the others in the book. Maybe I hold these views because, in my later years I have come to focus on questions such as this in daily life, whereas they were not in the forefront 12 years ago when I first read LOTR. Evolution in thought IMO is a good thing, and I am always willing to be convinced of the merit of an idea.
Cheers!
Lyta