Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[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?

[Elmo]

What???? You mean I built this sacrificial temple in my back garden for nothing! Don't worry, I only burned a few twigs and PE teachers in it...

Anyway to go back to the topic at hand, I find it more interesting and 3D if you read the books as the Morgoth's advocate. I mean he was the only one showing a bit of independence and free thinking in the music of Arda, usually things people are praised for.

On a side note, is it true that some Russian guy rewrote Lord of the Rings from the 'enemies' view point. If so I'd be interested in reading this...

[The 1,000 Reader]

Hey, you do understand that Morgoth was a selfish jerk who only cared for himself, wanted everybody dead, and was the creator of oppression, torture, and the places he created were proof that he had nobody's best interests in mind, right?

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Hey, you do understand that Morgoth was a selfish jerk who only cared for himself, wanted everybody dead, and was the creator of oppression, torture, and the places he created were proof that he had nobody's best interests in mind, right?

So what if Morgoth was selfish? Does it really matter that much to you that people may actually, genuinely like him?

Now, I do understand that Morgoth is all of the above. But he is also the most individual of all the Valar. He rebelled wanting to be his own "person", to create beings all his own. Who hasn't wanted something like that at some point in their lives? You can relate to Morgoth's desires to a degree. He just happens to be the very extreme of the spectrum.

At least, that's my take on Morgoth.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Yes, I admit that he can be related to, but in the end he is a sick man. I have no problem with people finding some relation in Morgoth or thinking that Nazgul on Fell Beasts look awesome, but when people do not ultimately accept or see the forces of darkness as the horrors they are when all is said and done, that is what confuses me. Sure, an army of trolls or a eye of fire can seem cool, but when you totally lose the point of the book and see the evil as the way to live, that's rather messed up, and that's what the thread's about.