warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The tragedy here is that everyone's been fooled to accept the overly simplistic "good vs bad" narrative.
Would the Lord Of the Rings been better off is Sauron won?
- Thread starter caketastydelish
- Start date
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Hodor's pretty good-good... but yeah everyone else I can think of is pretty squarely on a spectrum, with maybe Sam as the farthest towards the "pure" good end.
Which is good (pun intended) storywise. I like this new, complex characters things that writers seem to be doing nowadays.
Which is good (pun intended) storywise. I like this new, complex characters things that writers seem to be doing nowadays.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
BenitoChavez
What business is it of yours?
LOTR wasn't completely binary either. The ring brought out the bad in almost everyone around it. Gollum being the prime example but even good old Gandalf had a moment of temptation. Even without the ring Dwarves were greedy, Elves were self interested, Hobbits were xenophobes.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
And men succumb quickly.
J
J
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
"Good vs bad" doesn't mean "simplistic". Tolkien takes the existence of a fairly clear-cut "good" and "bad" for granted, sure, but the tension comes in how this plays out in human life. Goodness, for Tolkien, good Catholic boy that he was, is a process rather than a state of being, something that people do, rather than that they simply are. That's the struggle he wants to examine, that's the story he wants to tell; virtue as practice rather than as an abstract principle, heroism as a challenge that people rise to meet, rather than just a role they slot into. He doesn't spent a lot of time fretting over the inner lives of the villains because that isn't interesting to him, because he wants to derive narrative depth from moral depth, which he takes it for granted is something that villains, by definition, lack.
A morality comprised entirely of grey areas isn't necessarily any more sophisticated, it's just more pessimistic. Tolkien is absolutely coming from a very specific and today very unfashionable set of assumptions, but our own modern (postmodern?) fascination with moral uncertainty doesn't automatically make for better storytelling, and in practice it mostly makes for the same old good-versus-bad tropes just delivered without any conviction. Very few contemporary works actually present us with genuine moral ambiguity, they just present us with heroes who also happen to be dickheads.
Last edited:
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Growing up Catholic, in a place where that could get you injured or dead, clearly influenced the way he dealt with religion in the books. LotR has almost none at all. The Silmarillion has most of it in the creation story, which is very parallel to Genesis up to the point of the creation of elves. The war in heaven does not take place til the end of the 1st age of the world. Instead, we have the High Elves challenging Melkor, who is basically a deity. Sauron is "just" and angel-type, yet he rules Earth for most of the second age. Gandalf and Saruman are also at that level, though their native power is restricted. Tolkien is saying that it is important that great power interact with everyday life, hence Gandalf's fascination with hobbits.
Note that in the 4th age, the human age, there is no angelic presence.
J
Note that in the 4th age, the human age, there is no angelic presence.
J
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
To be fair, I don't think that LotR was meant for adults. Somewhat simplistic morals are understandable there.
Very postmodern indeed. But heroes who also happen to be dickheads are ancient. The heroes of the Iliad most certainly were. Even the gods! Zeus was not above being unfair, and Hercules was a brute. Eneas gives in to anger. Even Odisseus despite his smarts - or because of them - tricks, steals and makes off with whatever he desires. Also the "heroes" of satyricon, and of many plays... I'm sure we'd see many more examples if more ancient literature had survived. There is little new under the Sun...
The one difference I see is that those ancient societies did not had a manichaeist view of good and evil. They had duty and virtue, though some of what they believed virtuous seems not so to us. But they understood and depicted all too human failures to be up to those desired standards. Christianity was perhaps more strongly prescriptive of norms of behavior, and post-modernism a very delayed reaction against it? Which, as common with reactions, overdid it. It seems we're past post-modernism anyway - contemporary works, as you say, avoid real moral ambiguity.
Very postmodern indeed. But heroes who also happen to be dickheads are ancient. The heroes of the Iliad most certainly were. Even the gods! Zeus was not above being unfair, and Hercules was a brute. Eneas gives in to anger. Even Odisseus despite his smarts - or because of them - tricks, steals and makes off with whatever he desires. Also the "heroes" of satyricon, and of many plays... I'm sure we'd see many more examples if more ancient literature had survived. There is little new under the Sun...
The one difference I see is that those ancient societies did not had a manichaeist view of good and evil. They had duty and virtue, though some of what they believed virtuous seems not so to us. But they understood and depicted all too human failures to be up to those desired standards. Christianity was perhaps more strongly prescriptive of norms of behavior, and post-modernism a very delayed reaction against it? Which, as common with reactions, overdid it. It seems we're past post-modernism anyway - contemporary works, as you say, avoid real moral ambiguity.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I was criticizing the peanut gallery and not necessarily the author.
I don't think the "look it's just good vs evil" presentation in the book should be taken at face value. I'm no Tolkien scholar, but to me it always seemed like the books presented "both sides" through various lenses of propaganda. Why are the humans and the elves good and the orcs evil? Why do wizards who wear black do bad things while wizards who wear white do good things? It's either all metaphor or BS, obviously
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
The Elves and Humans aren't constantly "good". The Noldor of Feanor undertook the Kinslayings and the whole episode of the Silmarils and the Sons of Feanor are clear examples of the harm and suffering that pride, greed, and arrogance can cause.
Man likewise aren't necessarily good. Indeed, the books are filled more with Man choosing the wrong decisions for reasons of pride or vanity. Literally the entire plot of the Lord of the Rings and the events of the entire Third Age is because Isildur was unable to destroy the Ring.
Elessar Telcontar said:
Saruman never wore black and I don't believe Tolkien ever described what the Sauron wore.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Society Dame: Mr. Prime Minister, you are inebriated.
Winston Churchill: Madame, I am very, very drunk and you are very, very ugly.
Pause ...
Winston Churchill: In the morning, I shall be sober.
(slightly paraphrased)
J
Winston Churchill: Madame, I am very, very drunk and you are very, very ugly.
Pause ...
Winston Churchill: In the morning, I shall be sober.
(slightly paraphrased)
J
Last edited:
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
The actual quote:
Winston Churchill (when berated for being drunk by MP Bessie Braddock): 'My dear, you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober, and you will still be ugly.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...poll-historys-best-insults.html#ixzz5CHq1PzF1
Jhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...poll-historys-best-insults.html#ixzz5CHq1PzF1
Last edited:
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
no
