Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Villains can be more attractive than heroes, especially perhaps to adolescents who are going through a rebellious phase anyway.

I know, yet the fans in question are hateful of the lively, peaceful hobbits. It's as if they were reading a completely different book. They see Frodo as garbage and Sam as an idiot, not to mention a horrid hate for Gandalf. They are not rebellious teens: a good deal of them are middle-aged folk.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

While I think rooting for Sauron would be a bit sinister, there are lots of Sarumans in the modern world - he would have fitted in quite nicely with the "Greed is Good" culture of the 80's. In fact he may well have been reincarnated as Gordon Gekko.

Saruman was in fact a good villain, as well as Gollum, yet the fans the thread is referring to seem to forget that these fellows, despite their dynamics, were evil in the end. Yes, they can be liked as characters, but when Tolkien fans start treating them like the Messiah, that's not right.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Also, Middle Earth isn't so black and white (and is a lot more interesting when it is not so). The LOTR is the closest to being black and white and even there those who are good often have to break the rules to "do the right thing" (Faramir, Eomer, Eowyn, Beregond...), Boromir and Denethor are not faultless but they are not evil.

Yes, the good guys aren't perfect, but in a way that makes the arguement stronger. The good guys of Middle-Earth are not the typical one-dimensional characters: they are like real people. On the other hand, the orcs and their ilk are just bland, hateful monsters. It is also diversity that makes Saruman and Gollum stand-out villains.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

The Silmarillion is packed with characters who fought Morgoth but were not "pure white". Feanor for a start is hardly a gentle and respectful elf.... yet noone could have hated Morgoth more. He like Thingol and Turgon could be accused of selfishness. Personally I find Luthien incredibly selfish since she is only does anything when motivated by her own interest....

That is true as well, but only goes to show that the good forces of Middle-Earth are realistic and not the standard "goody-two-shoes". Not only are they trying to preserve all that is good and happy in the world, they're real people in a sense.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Basically a character who is all white is as interesting as a blank piece of paper...

I am of that same mindset, yet the heroes of Middle-Earth are not all white or in a similar catagory. That is why I don't understand why anybody supports the evil side to such a major degree: the better motive, the development and emotion, all of that is with the side of good.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Saruman was in fact a good villain, as well as Gollum, yet the fans the thread is referring to seem to forget that these fellows, despite their dynamics, were evil in the end. Yes, they can be liked as characters, but when Tolkien fans start treating them like the Messiah, that's not right.

Seriously, why isn't it 'right'? Right and wrong don't come into it when thinking about a book as you're free to enjoy the characters in whatever way you like. Remember Tolkien's work is not scripture, it's literature, it's Art. Even if it were scripture (which I think some people think it is for some reason) you're still free to treat it in any way you like.

There are some Downers who happen to love Orcs, think Melkor is ace and have crushes on Grima. So what? They aren't wrong, but it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Seriously, why isn't it 'right'? Right and wrong don't come into it when thinking about a book as you're free to enjoy the characters in whatever way you like. Remember Tolkien's work is not scripture, it's literature, it's Art. Even if it were scripture (which I think some people think it is for some reason) you're still free to treat it in any way you like.

I meant to a nearly-cultist point. Letting fiction have such a grand effect on your life like that is what's messed up.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

There are some Downers who happen to love Orcs, think Melkor is ace and have crushes on Grima. So what? They aren't wrong, but it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice.

They aren't hated, but their reasoning is not very fleshed out. In the end, orcs are just rude and brutal animals.

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

They aren't hated, but their reasoning is not very fleshed out. In the end, orcs are just rude and brutal animals.

One could say the same of humans.

In any case, I feel (as a card-carrying member of the "I Heart the Witch-King" Fan Club) that I can at least speak for myself, and just maybe, some of the "evil-lovers" out there. Or not.

Evil is an exciting element. It allows one to be put into a mindset that is apart from, and yet similar to, that of Good. It can be quite enthralling. And so, to cheer for the vile is to cheer for the hopelessly doomed to defeat. It's fun to watch that downfall. There's not much suspense (as you may be able to guess quite well how the Enemy always causes its own end), but you can still sit back and watch the fireworks. Looking at things from the side of Good, the "miraculous" nature of every victory is always a bother.

There are, of course, more reasons. But I feel this one is enough.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

I meant to a nearly-cultist point. Letting fiction have such a grand effect on your life like that is what's messed up.

Well I'd agree with that! You could say I'm obsessed, in fact if someone who wasn't a fan of Tolkien walked into our house they would start rolling their eyes and muttering about "weird nerds..." or something like that. But there are degrees of obsession. What can be charming and eccentric can quickly become disturbing - such as the woman I used to know who lived as a Klingon (had a Klingon wedding and spoke Klingon at home) who did indeed prove to be delusional as she locked herself and her husband in the cellar with survival supplies (and little hats made of tinfoil) over the Millennium eve...

But do you really know anyone who follows the dark forces of Tolkien's work to that extent? I don't, and I've been a fan since the early 80s - any Orcs fans I know treat is purely as fun. Most of the borderline obsessives are fans of Elves or Hobbits.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't think that literature dealing with overcoming one's shortcomings, fears, or with finding purpose or inspiration, or actualising an ideal is worthless. And such subjects don't require bad guys.

Is there any though? Even if there are no 'bad guys', then there at least 'bad things' to be dealt with. The only literature which approaches that (that I can think of) is some descriptive poetry, e.g. some of Keats' Odes, and this is not lengthy stuff, suggesting it cannot be stomached at great length by the reader or indeed the writer!

[Elmo]

We must all bow down and worship Melkor, Lord of All, Giver of Freedom, because remember, darkness itself is worshipful.

[the guy who be short]

To those who says Middle-Earth isn't black and white - look at orcs. Do they have any chance of repentance? They're an entire race doomed to evil.

I find this unfair. When I was younger, I set about writing a story that basically mirrored LotR, with a few changes. One of these was the repentance of those created by evil.

Though I've never supported the evil side, it's interesting - not weird, to me - that people do. Remember that good and evil are relative concepts. The elves were doomed to hate orcs and try to wipe them out. The orcs were doomed to hate elves and try to wipe them out. To the orcs, the Elves must have appeared as evil aggressors. Supporting them is entirely fair.

On a character basis, we have some grey. But on a racial basis, we have white and black in the Elves and Orcs. All you have to do is press a button to invert the colours.

[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?