Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, it is one thing to say <<"I like amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" "and I admit that said evil guys may display them">> and totally another to say <<"I like Melkor because he is evil and that attracts me about him">>. Simply liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong; it is deligthing in evil (as I pointed out several times) that I have a problem with.

Delighting in evil in the sense of having fun killing people? Then yes, I certainly agree.

I am not sure I follow; can you please rephrase?

Sorry! To think I express my thoughts better in writing than in spoken word...pretty scary...

Well, to put it simply: is thinking about killing someone evil, or is it only evil if you actually do it? And, is it evil in the same way? And...there are probably innumerable questions involved in that.

[Raynor]

Delighting in evil in the sense of having fun killing people? Then yes, I certainly agree.

Well, not fun in doing them was my point, but in "witnessing" instances of evil, in and of itself.

is thinking about killing someone evil, or is it only evil if you actually do it?

As I have argued, morality is defined first and foremost by intention.

I would also consider Tolkien's own statements:

Originally Posted by Footnotes to Melkor /Morgoth, Myths Transformed

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

therefore, an good intention defines the morality of the action, almost regardless of consequences [Edit: and this is why I consider that Tolkien stated in letter #246 that "To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve." - good intent saves, but it requires full cooperation/dedication]

Originally Posted by Letter #181

I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.

therefore, an evil intent defines the morality of an action as evil, even if "macrocosmically" it may result in good.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I will point that there is no known conditioning of human nature that necessarily drives a person to action based on a certain liking he has. Simply having a liking does not imply that the liking will translate into intention, which will translate into action.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Simply liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong; it is deligthing in evil (as I pointed out several times) that I consider it raises questions about morality.

You've just killed your argument there. So you agree that liking a bad guy is not necessarily wrong!

Originally Posted by Durelin

Exploring the "dark side" intellectually is fun. You can even see if from a spiritual sort of view and see it as a way to deal with the "evil within us." We (general "we," and not necessarily the collective whole) delve into the mind of someone who we can look at and say is "evil," see their reasons for what they do, look at how they destroy themselves and others...all that jazz. We can understand their desire for power and the like, and considering we all know what anger and hatred is like to some degree, we can even begin to understand their reasons for destroying people, creatures, and things.

Very good point. That's possibly why we do like bad guys and find them thrilling to read about (probably why we enjoy thrillers and horror too). They provide a safe way to explore evil without having to be involved ourselves - in much the same way young girls have posters of 'pretty boy' popbands on their walls as a way of exploring boyfriends without having to have a real one. Even with the writer you can see the exploration taking place - Tolkien was known to write about his own nightmares, his own psyche, with instances such as Numenor's drowning, and he made a drawing of Maddo, his son's own nightmare creature(quite a scary drawing actually); in creating odd beings like Balrogs and Gollum and the Witch King he was able to explore his own concepts of Darkness on the page. His books are filled with marvellous moments of horror, clearly something he relished writing about, and he well knew the power of hints and 'things left unsaid'... No wonder readers thrill to it all.

[Raynor]

You've just killed your argument there. So you agree that liking a bad guy is not necessarily wrong!

So, instead of presenting any proof for your position you resort to distorting my argument? I have said "liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong" - but liking evil for evil is. If we can't agree on these two basic ideas, I don't think we will get anywhere on this part.

That's possibly why we do like bad guys and find them thrilling to read about (probably why we enjoy thrillers and horror too). They provide a safe way to explore evil without having to be involved ourselves

Again, a difference should be made between the utilitarian aspect of using art to exorcise various issues - and liking evil for evil's sake. The first offers no moral justification for the second.

Tolkien was known to write about his own nightmares, his own psyche, with instances such as Numenor's drowning, and he made a drawing of Maddo, his son's own nightmare creature(quite a scary drawing actually); in creating odd beings like Balrogs and Gollum and the Witch King he was able to explore his own concepts of Darkness on the page. His books are filled with marvellous moments of horror, clearly something he relished writing about, and he well knew the power of hints and 'things left unsaid'... No wonder readers thrill to it all.

What do you actually mean? That he enjoyed nightmares (and the likes) for what they were?? I am not aware that he has any 'morbid' propensities, or that, if he has, he is "ok" with them. Please clarify.

[davem]

Perhaps there is some confusing of the primary & secondary worlds here. One cannot simply apply primary world rules & values to a secondary world unthinkingly. There is a dynamic interaction/inter-relationship between both sides in the story, & both sides are, in their way 'attractive'. Overwhelming destructive power touches something deep in us. I remember the old PBS series 'Joseph Cambell & the Power of Myth', where Bill Moyers recalled an account from someone who had witnessed the fire-bombing of Dresden first hand. When asked about his reaction he simply said 'It was sublime'.

Now, he wasn't using the word 'sublime' in in any moral sense, or implying that it was 'good' (Dictionary definition: impressing the mind with a sense of grandeur or power; inspiring awe, veneration, etc.: Switzerland has sublime scenery.
supreme or outstanding;complete; absolute; utter). Hence, in this sense it is perfectly understandable that the 'power' displayed by the Evil side (personified in Morgoth slaying the trees, Sauron bringing Numenor to its spectacular end , Smaug blasting apart Esgaroth, Morgoth's massive armies blitzing Gondolin, etc) will be 'attractive' to some readers - not because they 'admire' the motives of the enemy, but because witnessing such pure & overwhelming power unleashed is awe inspiring. Suddenly order is replaced by chaos & destruction, fire, noise, light, & a sudden silence. One is over-awed & the only word for it is 'sublime'.

But this is not a 'moral' issue. It is a human one. To witness overwhelming, uncontrolled power is to be confronted with one's own smallness & insignificance & at the same time to be opened up to something 'greater'. Morgoth & his minions are, in this sense, sublime figures, & its easy to feel awe at their actions.

Yet, as I stated, it is dangerous to confuse the primary & secondary worlds. One can feel awe for a 'sublime' figure like Morgoth or Smaug but this does not imply that one would feel a similar awe for Hitler. Anyone who thinks one would has little understanding of human psychology.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

One cannot simply apply primary world rules & values to a secondary world unthinkingly.

What limits do you have in mind?

Originally Posted by davem

To witness overwhelming, uncontrolled power is to be confronted with one's own smallness & insignificance & at the same time to be opened up to something 'greater'. Morgoth & his minions are, in this sense, sublime figures, & its easy to feel awe at their actions.

There are few, if any, such instances. We are left to wonder how a certain battle went about; concerning the first one, all that is said of Melkor is in one phrase; while depicting it in more detail might produce the effect you are reffering to, it is not the case. Later on, he avoids battle as much as possible; his confrontation with Fingolfin was forced upon him, to an extent, and his victory was diminutive; by the time of the war of wrath, he hides, "unvaliant".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There are few, if any, such instances. We are left to wonder how a certain battle went about; concerning the first one, all that is said of Melkor is in one phrase; while depicting it in more detail might produce the effect you are reffering to, it is not the case. Later on, he avoids battle as much as possible; his confrontation with Fingolfin was forced upon him, to an extent, and his victory was diminutive; by the time of the war of wrath, he hides, "unvaliant".

Well, I suppose some readers have more powerful imaginations than others....

In the end though we're dealing with a work of fantasy & emotional response over-rides moral judgement - if the story is effective. If a reader can step back & 'analyse' the story in terms of what is 'moral' & 'immoral' the story cannot really be working in the way it should. The reader may feel happiness or sadness, fear, horror, shock, joy, anger etc. but if the reader is so 'detatched' from the events of the story that he/she can undertake a moral & ethical analysis of the story either the story is unengaging or the reader has no imagination.

This is why I think attempting a moral evalutaion of the reader based on their emotional response to the events of the story is a dead end.

[Thenamir]

Originally Posted by Tolkien, letter #246

"To ourselves we must present the absolute ideal without compromise, for we do not know our own limits of natural strength (+grace), and if we do not aim at the highest we shall certainly fall short of the utmost that we could achieve."

I like that quote so much, Raynor, it's becoming my new sig. Thanks!

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

So, instead of presenting any proof for your position you resort to distorting my argument? I have said "liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong" - but liking evil for evil is. If we can't agree on these two basic ideas, I don't think we will get anywhere on this part.

Proof? What proof do I need? Because someone happens to get some fun out of play acting the role of an Orc you simply cannot say "Oh, he is evil." Why? Because the odds are that he is not. Thankfully this world is not full of muderers and perverts. But it is full of people that get a chill or a thrill from reading about bad guys. davem explains it very well. No more 'proof' is needed.

Besides, this is getting boring. I don't come on here to dance on a pinhead as the Downs saying goes. I just came here to defend the many many Tolkien fans and members of this very site who happen to get a kick out of the bad guys and are perfectly harmless and decent people. I need no more 'proof' of their being good people than that I know for a fact that they are,

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

What proof do I need?

Regarding your previous statement:

Think about it logically. That so many people find some fun in reading about or watching bad guys would logically mean said billions of people would also be out slaughtering, raping and thieving if liking a bad guy is immoral.

Originally Posted by Lal

Because someone happens to get some fun out of play acting the role of an Orc you simply cannot say "Oh, he is evil."

You are vague about this; if playing an orc is simple childplay, named that way, then yeah, there is no problem. If it involves theft or unnecessary destruction, as the children in Gondor in the fourth age do (as in the New Shadow), then yeah, it is morally wrong.

Originally Posted by Lal

I just came here to defend the many many Tolkien fans and members of this very site who happen to get a kick out of the bad guys and are perfectly harmless and decent people.

We are in agreement on this; as you see from the begining of this post, I am actually asking you to prove your own statement that people who entertain certain... delights, will necessary behave in any evil way.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Regarding your previous statement:
You are vague about this; if playing an orc is simple childplay, named that way, then yeah, there is no problem. If it involves theft or unnecessary destruction, as the children in Gondor in the fourth age do (as in the New Shadow), then yeah, it is morally wrong.
We are in agreement on this; as you see from the begining of this post, I am actually asking you to prove your own statement that people who entertain certain... delights, will necessary behave in any evil way.

Well I think something has got lost along the way! Because obviously I don't think people will act immorally just because they like a bad guy!

And how many people who play act at loving Orcs are actually thieves or vandals? I'd say the number must be so small as to be able to be counted on the fingers of Frodo's damaged hand!