Fantasy Morality

[Lalaith]

Perhaps the genesis of that problem can be seen in Children of Húrin..." What problem? What genesis? It's saying that COH is spreading some awful thing in JRRT's books! I don't see a problem in COH, but I see one with the author.

I think the author (of the article) is talking about a 'problem' in the moral/philosophical sense, not in the sense of being critical of Tolkien's work.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I think the author (of the article) is talking about a 'problem' in the moral/philosophical sense, not in the sense of being critical of Tolkien's work.

I don't really understand how that would work. The way I understood the article was that the change of style is a problem, with COH as the center of it. This wouldn't make sense even if there really was a problem.

In this case the problem is 'Tolkien is being inconsistenet'. I don't see COH as an inconsistency, and I don't see any problem.

Sorry Lalaith, but I also don't see what you're saying either. Can you please elaborate?

[Lalaith]

The author talks about a 'shift' which he says he finds fascinating. I agree that the essay is complex - perhaps, as Morthoron argues, unnecessarily and pretentiously so. But I followed it pretty well as far as the Nietzsche stuff. Certainlly, the author clearly admires Tolkien, so I don't think that fans need to get defensive about it.
I think that the style and tone of Sil and CoH is different to LotR, particularly the Fellowship part of trilogy. This writer seems to prefer the tone of the Sil, that is his right.
Another thing - these are works of literature, not religious tracts, so to discuss conflict/shift/discrepancy within the books is to highlight what is interesting about them, and to praise the range and skill of the author - it is not to attack them. For example, I could write an essay about the shift in tone between the brutal/gothic opening and domestic/romantic ending of Wuthering Heights. This shift in tone makes WH in my opinion a more, not less, interesting novel.

[Mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I think that the style and tone of Sil and CoH is different to LotR, particularly the Fellowship part of trilogy. This writer seems to prefer the tone of the Sil, that is his right.
Another thing - these are works of literature, not religious tracts, so to discuss conflict/shift/discrepancy within the books is to highlight what is interesting about them, and to praise the range and skill of the author - it is not to attack them. For example, I could write an essay about the shift in tone between the brutal/gothic opening and domestic/romantic ending of Wuthering Heights. This shift in tone makes WH in my opinion a more, not less, interesting novel.

I agree--but I don't think it necessarily follows that, accompanying the stylistic shift, there's a philosophical one.

Or, if it is, I don't think that the philosophical one is the one that the essayist argues for. LotR to my mind is basically the Silm with hobbits. Seeing Middle-earth through their eyes rather than those of the tragically doomed elves gives the whole world and its passing into mundanity a completely different context--not necessarily a different morality.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

The author talks about a 'shift' which he says he finds fascinating.

But he calls it a problem.

Certainlly, the author clearly admires Tolkien, so I don't think that fans need to get defensive about it.

He might admire Tolkien, but he doesn't sound like he knows what he's speaking about.

I think that the style and tone of Sil and CoH is different to LotR, particularly the Fellowship part of trilogy. This writer seems to prefer the tone of the Sil, that is his right.

The tone is definitely different, but in my opinion the author doesn't prefer the tone of The Sil and COH, but calls it inconsistent.

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

I agree--but I don't think it necessarily follows that, accompanying the stylistic shift, there's a philosophical one.
Or, if it is, I don't think that the philosophical one is the one that the essayist argues for. LotR to my mind is basically the Silm with hobbits. Seeing Middle-earth through their eyes rather than those of the tragically doomed elves gives the whole world and its passing into mundanity a completely different context--not necessarily a different morality.

This makes more sense to me.