Fantasy Morality

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Simplicity, particularly in a forum discussion, is divine

Morth, you don't suppose that Occam's razor is doing any sacrificial blood-letting, do you? Dare one suggest that the razor might be of meteorite origin?

Originally Posted by alatar

My point is that when you are moving back into prehistory, please do not forget to consider anthropology and biology.

Yes, and please do not make claims about religion and mythology that are Euro-centric.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I would suggest you provide reasonable proof that J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of the text in question, intended these associations

That's probably an erroneous presupposition getting in the way of first principles, Nerwen. This Cryptic Aura has been warned about hers and so she's going off to meditate upon them.

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

But tell me, what do you have in Buddhism that are the near equivalent of "churches?" (Without going back to the Anglo-Saxon etymology of "God" and "church").

I don't have anything in Buddhism as I've never contributed to any of its texts or oral traditions.

You know folks, I hesitate to say this, but this thread looks like it is turning into another canonical discussion.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

You know folks, I hesitate to say this, but this thread looks like it is turning into another canonical discussion.

Not so much canon as cannon, as in fodder.

[Mnemosyne]

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

~Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

'There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

~Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
-- Inigo Montoya

[leapofberen]

My God, people...I think Tolkien would appreciate this discussion about as much as he appreciated hippies making LOTR into something other then what he originally intended. Granted, Tolkien's work is intellectual, but it is not intellectualism.

One of the biggest tragedies is approaching his works or ending his works in something other than the faerie that birthed it. We all appreciate the in depth discussion (I certainly love the finer points of Tolkien) but some of this is insane. His works were meant to be left somewhat open ended. Tolkien himself said,

"A precise account, with drawings and other aids, of Dwarvish smith-practices, Hobbit-pottery, Numerorean medicine and philosophy, and so on would interfere with the narrative [of the Lord of the Rings], or swell the Appendices. So too, would complete grammars and lexical collection of the languages. Any attempt at bogus 'completeness' would reduce the thing to a 'model', a kind of imaginary dolls house of pseudo-history. Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude..."

There was a never a sequel to the Return of the King or a detailed look into life in the Uttermost West after the Third Age (and only some glimpses in his other works) for good reason: the minute you try to define (or intellectualize too much) eternity, you lose it. Tolkien stayed just on the borders (or beyond for short amounts of time) of faerie or heaven or The West or whatever else you want to call it, because he understood this. It is in the midst of the struggles of life in Middle Earth that we hear rumor of the Light in the West, the Undying Lands, or we encounter briefly those who have dwelt in the Light, that stir our heart for greater and eternal things. Eternity is in our hearts, but we cannot comprehend it. That is the desire that Tolkien awakens in us. The pain of loss, the greatest joys, the deepest longings. His stories are littered with characters that embody these, and we CANNOT trade that in for intellectualism...although it is hard after so many years of being a Tolkien fan and longing for Middle Earth and the West myself...the heart must always remain central in Tolkien, even if it is painful and at other times, joyful beyond words. Intellectualizing is not a substitute. We quickly lose the spirit that Tolkien imparted in his writings. The simplicity of Tolkien is his genius, the ability to cut straight to our hearts.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

"A precise account, with drawings and other aids, of Dwarvish smith-practices, Hobbit-pottery, Numerorean medicine and philosophy, and so on would interfere with the narrative [of the Lord of the Rings], or swell the Appendices. So too, would complete grammars and lexical collection of the languages. Any attempt at bogus 'completeness' would reduce the thing to a 'model', a kind of imaginary dolls house of pseudo-history. Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude..."

I'll second what Leap says above, as well as the quote.

I'd add, though, that different people find enjoyment in different aspects of Tolkien's works. There are a fair number of people posting here who approach things from an intellectual perspective. Me, I'm a role player. In attempting to live in Tolkien's world, I have to fill in the gaps somewhat, but don't any of the filling in seriously.

I'd like to chase the feel, values and culture of a given Tolkien nation, knowing that each culture is different, and different people will have different interpretations. I've worked with others who appreciate realistic interpretations of periods weapons and armor. There are seemingly some who care a lot about getting hair and eye color right.

I'm a bit dubious about taking stuff unpublished in Tolkien's lifetime seriously when it conflicts with or reduces the feel of the published works. His vision for his reality was constantly changing, yet some embrace the unpublished work as canonical.

I'd be dubious about declaring any interpretation as correct, or thinking adversarial debate constructive in finding a best and final canon answer. "Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude." If so, perhaps the hidden and unexhibited was supposed to remain hidden and unexhibited.

I'm tempted to suggest the idea expressed by another famous fictional wizard. 'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.' That takes it to far. Tolkien shouldn't stay entirely behind the curtain. Still, some of the fantasy is done with smoke and mirrors. There is supposed to be smoke and mirrors. Precisely locating the placement of the smoke bombs and mirror placement helps how? Dragging the wizard out from behind the curtain might not be entirely optimal.

Of course, I do it too, spelling out in too much detail why I'll embrace this interpretation of magic or that extrapolation of elven culture. I just don't try to claim mine are the only possible interpretations.

[Pitchwife]

First of all, welcome to the Downs, leapofberen! Enjoy being dead!

Originally Posted by leapofberen

My God, people...I think Tolkien would appreciate this discussion about as much as he appreciated hippies making LOTR into something other then what he originally intended.

Maybe... but I think he would have appreciated the spirited and well-argued defense of his work against esoteric crackpottery made by some of my colleagues here. (And I'm sure he would have been positively delighted at seeing Morth, of all people, stress his catholicism!)

Originally Posted by leapofberen

Eternity is in our hearts, but we cannot comprehend it. That is the desire that Tolkien awakens in us. The pain of loss, the greatest joys, the deepest longings. [...] .the heart must always remain central in Tolkien, even if it is painful and at other times, joyful beyond words. Intellectualizing is not a substitute.

Agreed in so far as I'd say that if Tolkien's work didn't move our hearts, all discussion of it would be an idle (if possibly still amusing) exercise - which, by the way, is true of all great works of art IMO. On the other hand, I don't see why, being so moved, we shouldn't apply our intellect (which is not the same as intellectualism) to discussing how and why it moves us.

Originally Posted by blantyr

I'd add, though, that different people find enjoyment in different aspects of Tolkien's works. [...]
I'd be dubious about declaring any interpretation as correct, or thinking adversarial debate constructive in finding a best and final canon answer.
[...]
Of course, I do it too, spelling out in too much detail why I'll embrace this interpretation of magic or that extrapolation of elven culture. I just don't try to claim mine are the only possible interpretations.

I don't think anybody else here was seriously making that claim. That's the beauty of Tolkien's work world - it appeals to so many people on so many levels, whether they be roleplayers or textual scholars, linguists, theologians or fan-fiction writers or whatsoever. Yet, without you thinking you're right and trying to convince me I'm wrong, what's the point of having a discussion and a forum for it? That's not saying we'll ever arrive at a 'best and final canon answer' - thank Eru, Middle-earth is big enough for all of us to be wrong.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

One of the biggest tragedies is approaching his works or ending his works in something other than the faerie that birthed it. We all appreciate the in depth discussion (I certainly love the finer points of Tolkien) but some of this is insane. His works were meant to be left somewhat open ended. Tolkien himself said,

"A precise account, with drawings and other aids, of Dwarvish smith-practices, Hobbit-pottery, Numerorean medicine and philosophy, and so on would interfere with the narrative [of the Lord of the Rings], or swell the Appendices. So too, would complete grammars and lexical collection of the languages. Any attempt at bogus 'completeness' would reduce the thing to a 'model', a kind of imaginary dolls house of pseudo-history. Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude..."

One thing I've learned in all my years of debating Tolkien cosmology, esthetics, chronology, etc. is never trust a Tolkien comment or take it out of context, because he is often contradictory. Take the Tolkien quote you used above. For an author who supposedly claimed that "Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude" certainly didn't follow his own proviso.

Most authors write a book and move on; Tolkien, however, left enough written background material so that his son, Christopher, could edit and publish The Silmarillion, The Unfinished Tales, the twelve-volume History of Middle-earth and The Children of Húrin. Add to that The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien and various other supplementary publications, and it is quite evident that Tolkien did not blithely rely on "smoke and mirrors" when creating his universe; on the contrary, he expanded, tinkered and continued revising his work until the end of his life. The depth and breadth of his singular, obsessive work leads me to one conclusion: had Tolkien lived another decade, we'd have several other volumes of Elvish minutiae to delve into.

[Nerwen]

Also, leap, I see that in your other posts you have in fact put forward "canon"-based analytical arguments, and have gone so far as to cite HoME in support of them. A double standard, surely?