Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Lalwendë]

The other thing is, these characters are nice and safe in a book so we're able to enjoy the bad guys to the full if we like - they aren't real so we can freely imagine what it would be like to be them, it's fun! Who hasn't dressed up on Halloween or for a fancy dress party as something a bit scary? We like thrills and chills as they're just exciting.

Quite ironic really that when you see kids fighting and causing trouble, it's never the Goths who are fond of 'unwholesome' doomy gloomy stuff, it's the supposedly 'ordinary' lads who like the 'wholesome' things like Football who are busy beating each other up in the pub.

Some people are frightened of things a bit different to the 'norm' whereas others aren't.

[davem]

I think Tolkien kind of 'assumes' the reader will feel more drawn to the 'good' side. In an interview he spoke of the underlying morality of the world he created:

Did this alternative creation worry Tolkien, a lifetime Roman Catholic? It did not seem to. I had remarked to him once that, despite the absence of organised religion in his mythical world - no priests, no temples - his peoples still behaved well. Yes, of course, he said, there was "what theologians call natural morality, natural duties and courtesies - ".

So Tolkien assumes that attitudes which are often held up as part of the 'Christian' underpinning of his creation are in fact anything but - they are the result of 'natural morality, natural duties & courtesies - when a man refuses to strike an enemy when he's down, that sort of thing'.

It is this 'natural morality' that Tolkien plays on - he assumes the reader will be drawn to the good side not because they are made more 'attractive' & exciting, but because whether the reader is 'religious' or not they will be, by their nature, more attracted by the good side - in fact, their behaviour will actually seem more 'natural' to the reader than the behaviour of the bad side.

Hence, anyone who is attracted by the bad side is (according to the theory Tolkien espoused) is going against their own natural inclinations.

Of course, Tolkien could have been wrong.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I think Tolkien kind of 'assumes' the reader will feel more drawn to the 'good' side.
So Tolkien assumes that attitudes which are often held up as part of the 'Christian' underpinning of his creation are in fact anything but - they are the result of 'natural morality, natural duties & courtesies - when a man refuses to strike an enemy when he's down, that sort of thing'.

It is this 'natural morality' that Tolkien plays on - he assumes the reader will be drawn to the good side not because they are made more 'attractive' & exciting, but because whether the reader is 'religious' or not they will be, by their nature, more attracted by the good side - in fact, their behaviour will actually seem more 'natural' to the reader than the behaviour of the bad side.

Hence, anyone who is attracted by the bad side is (according to the theory Tolkien espoused) is going against their own natural inclinations.

Of course, Tolkien could have been wrong.

It's interesting to consider this in relation to Tolkien's attitude towards the "long defeat."

If people have a natural inclination to the good side, as Tolkien assumes, what causes the long defeat--why doesn't this natural inclination result in victory rather than defeat? Is there an inherent fallibility which limits this natural inclination? Or is evil stronger than good? In the mythology, Middle earth is inherently flawed. How does this attitude towards an innate goodness fit in with this idea?

Just pondering these points out of idle curiosity.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It's interesting to consider this in relation to Tolkien's attitude towards the "long defeat."

If people have a natural inclination to the good side, as Tolkien assumes, what causes the long defeat--why doesn't this natural inclination result in victory rather than defeat? Is there an inherent fallibility which limits this natural inclination? Or is evil stronger than good? In the mythology, Middle earth is inherently flawed. How does this attitude towards an innate goodness fit in with this idea?

Just pondering these points out of idle curiosity.

Good point - Tolkien assumes such a 'natural morality' in the reader but not in all the inhabitants of his world - which seems to imply that his secondary world does not operate by the same 'rules' as the primary.

Yet possibly this comes back to the different creation myths - the primary world was created 'good' & fell post creation, while the secondary world was created with Melkor's 'flaws' inherent in it.

So the reader is reading about an 'alien' world in which the 'natural morality' which holds in our world does not hold in that world. The inhabitants of M-e, it seems, do not have such a 'natural morality' - which seems to mean that when they make choices in conformity with our 'natural morality' they are making an unnatural choice. So one could argue that such choices are more difficult for them than they would be for us......

Unless....but... what I mean to say is.....er....

[shieldmaiden4xsword]

But for me, it's kind of sad watching something go down the pit. From the thing it once was, to the creature it became. It's rather saddening, that people are capable of such evil.... not just orcs.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

So the reader is reading about an 'alien' world in which the 'natural morality' which holds in our world does not hold in that world. The inhabitants of M-e, it seems, do not have such a 'natural morality' - which seems to mean that when they make choices in conformity with our 'natural morality' they are making an unnatural choice. So one could argue that such choices are more difficult for them than they would be for us.

The question comes that there were at most two humans who experienced 'natural morality', and they live no more, physically. An argument could also be made that even if they experienced it, they didn't act on it - since they became moral (i.e. able to chose right from evil) only after their Fall, a Fall which corrupts them at least morally (as far as I understand Christianity). In any case, no human currently (or ever) knows natural morality. The same as in Middle Earth. Therefore, I believe that comparing both worlds post-Fall is possible and valid.

Originally Posted by Lal

Even if there are no 'bad guys', then there at least 'bad things' to be dealt with.

You may be right, but I doubt that an evil situations or evil in non-sentient forms could be somehow admired or desired.

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

darkness itself is worshipful.

What do you mean? I doubt you got the right forum .

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Good point - Tolkien assumes such a 'natural morality' in the reader but not in all the inhabitants of his world - which seems to imply that his secondary world does not operate by the same 'rules' as the primary.

Yet possibly this comes back to the different creation myths - the primary world was created 'good' & fell post creation, while the secondary world was created with Melkor's 'flaws' inherent in it.

So the reader is reading about an 'alien' world in which the 'natural morality' which holds in our world does not hold in that world. The inhabitants of M-e, it seems, do not have such a 'natural morality' - which seems to mean that when they make choices in conformity with our 'natural morality' they are making an unnatural choice. So one could argue that such choices are more difficult for them than they would be for us......

Unless....but... what I mean to say is.....er....

Well, judging just from the interview you linked to, I can't see where Tolkien assigns this natural morality to readers but not to his secondary world. Of course, one can never completely rely upon newspaper articles, which are so severely pruned by space limitations and subject to their journalists' decisions of what to highlight and whatnot, but that passage leads one to assume that Tolkien assigns natural morality to his sub-created world.

Did this alternative creation worry Tolkien, a lifetime Roman Catholic? It did not seem to. I had remarked to him once that, despite the absence of organised religion in his mythical world - no priests, no temples - his peoples still behaved well. Yes, of course, he said, there was "what theologians call natural morality, natural duties and courtesies - when a man refuses to strike an enemy when he's down, that sort of thing".

He regarded artistic creativity, including his own, as a gift from God: we are created in the image of our Creator, and our own sub-creations, as he called them, were a pale reflection of that original.

Bolding mine.

Actually, I rather like the idea that Tolkien chose to make goodness dramatically exciting, althought I'm not sure he ever stated this explicitly. He chose to set himself an artistic challenge and not make evil aesthetically attractive--quite a turnaround from most literature! He focussed upon the actions and choices and emotions of his heroes and doesn't in much way make Saruman or Gollem in any way someone we would want to emulate or be. Who of us would like to be in Gollem's shoes--or rather, walk with his bruised and torn and cut bare feet? Not many I wager. (I could of course be wrong about this.)

Did Tolkien learn a lesson from Milton in particular?

[Elmo]

What do you mean? I doubt you got the right forum

Out of darkness the world was made, and the lord of darkness may yet make other worlds to be gifts to those who serve him, so that the increase of their power shall find no end. That is why we should worship Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedom.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Out of darkness the world was made, and the lord of darkness may yet make other worlds to be gifts to those who serve him, so that the increase of their power shall find no end. That is why we should worship Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedom.

Err you do realise that it is a work of fiction?