Fantasy Morality

[tumhalad2]

I've copped a great deal of flack recently for continuing to forward particular views about The Children of Hurin with respect to the rest of Tolkien's legendarium.

In response, here's an article that really gets at the heart of what I'm saying. It raises similar points to my own, but it explains them in different terms and tends to go even further than I was willing to.

This part is particularly interesting:

When Tolkien is at his best, as he is in Children of Húrin and in parts of The Silmarillion, the fate of men (or elves, or dwarves) remains external from them, but this certainly isn’t the case in The Lord of the Rings, where moral agency shifts onto the individual, making him responsible when measuring himself against an external moral system, in this case Tolkien’s often maligned good and evil. Perhaps the genesis of that problem can be seen in Children of Húrin, in which a reader with some experience with philology wonders why such a cruel fate, usually the whim of fickle gods, can befall Túrin Turambar when Eru Ilúvatar is a benevolent creator.

In his discussion of "slave morality" vs. "noble morality" (please read the piece in order to learn what these terms refer to) I was particularly struck by this passage:

One could also accuse this worldview of what Nietzsche refers to as Amor fati, the love of fate, in which the individual comes to accept the suffering and loss he or she experiences as necessary. Where Túrin railed against his fate, Frodo, Aragon and co. seem to fall in line under some form of deontology, the journey to Mount Doom will be long and hard, but it has to be done and that is that.




On Moral Fantasy Fiction

[Galadriel55]

This essay didn't make any sense to me. And from what did make sense, I highly disagree. I'm especially bothered by the words "When Tolkien is at his best, as he is in Children of Húrin and in parts of The Silmarillion..." - as if he's not good in LOTR, TH, the rest of The Sil, and others?!

Moreover, I don't see anything wrong with switching style. Tolkien's books describe all kinds of situations, so why not the other type as well?

"The fate of men (or elves, or dwarves) remains external from them, but this certainly isn’t the case in The Lord of the Rings, where moral agency shifts onto the individual, making him responsible when measuring himself against an external moral system, in this case Tolkien’s often maligned good and evil." The fate of men/elves/dwarves still remains external to them in LOTR; and in The Sil+COH they still have their 'moral responsibility'.

"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.

"..., in which a reader with some experience with philology wonders why such a cruel fate, usually the whim of fickle gods, can befall Túrin Turambar when Eru Ilúvatar is a benevolent creator." Why doesn't the author actually read COH, then maybe he'll find out why. No, I'm serious! He talks as if COH is supposed to be a fairy-tale with a plot somewhat like Roverandom's (where a real dog is cursed by a wizard to become a toy, and he travels all over the world in order to find the wizard and ask him to change him back). COH is not a light-hearted children's bed-time story. And it's not 'gods', there is only one 'god' involved, and he isn't even a 'god' anymore.

PS: if LOTR is written with a certain style, it doesn't mean that everything has to be.

PPS: Also, I don't think that the style really changes. It's just two different situations, with 2 different characters, and 2 different tasks. The characters act differently, that's all. Are you saying that all characters have to act the same (eg all have to challenge fate, or vice versa)?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

This essay didn't make any sense to me. And from what did make sense, I highly disagree. I'm especially bothered by the words "When Tolkien is at his best, as he is in Children of Húrin and in parts of The Silmarillion..." - as if he's not good in LOTR, TH, the rest of The Sil, and others?!

You're right, Galadriel. What we have here is a stuffed-shirt essayist using dollar words he purchased with an English lit. degree, propounding prolix platitudes that are not germane to Tolkien's corpus. Just another post-modernist wanting to afix his literary values to a book (in this case, LotR) and a mythos (Middle-earth) that he misunderstands completely. The gentleman, in his muddled mix of Nietzschean morality and Greek Hamartia, even fails to comprehend why The Lord of the Rings is Tolkien's greatest achievement, and seems utterly confused as to why the book is so influential (a bitter thought that obviously gives him constipation).

I suggest he should read the books a few more times, and then get back with us.

[Lalaith]

I thought some points of the essay quite interesting, in that the concepts of shame vs guilt culture are quite useful and illuminating when applied to the moralit of both Norse literature and of Tolkien's works. Particularly interesting when you get an author steeped in the essence of both cultures (vis a vis his interest in Norse epic and his own Catholic faith).

As for Nietzsche, I have never read anything he wrote himself, only what others have written about him, so I wouldn't like to comment of the validity of the slave/master morality question. However my general impression of Nietzsche is that his morality was very dodgy and elitist.

[Galadriel55]

I didn't really understand either one of the ideas, but I can't help to disagree with how the author describes JRRT's books and his conclusions/statements about them. It sounds like the most he read was a brief sumary on the cover page of the books...

Edit: x'd with Mnemo

Mnemosyne, I agree with what you said. Just another point to prove that the author didn't read COH, or understand anything that he read in LOTR (if he read it)...

[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.

[Mnemosyne]

I don't buy the idea that Turin's "fate" is external to him at all: as many things go wrong that are the result of his own actions (the sack of Nargothrond, which is a direct result of Turin's more open style of confrontation) as the result of the curse acting through chance (Beleg's knife slipping as he cuts Turin's bonds). The same goes for the rebellious Noldor: it is not the Doom of Mandos which made the Silmarils burn Maedhros and Maglor, but the evil of their own deeds in getting them.

Indeed, part of the beauty of CoH is that you simply don't know how much of the horrible things that happen are due to the curse, and how much of them are due to Turin himself. If you say it's all one or all the other, the work loses its nuance and subtlety. I don't think that the morality in Silm-era works is necessarily incompatible with that in LotR: the only difference between the two eras is the extent to which the gods got involved in others' affairs.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

I don't buy the idea that Turin's "fate" is external to him at all: as many things go wrong that are the result of his own actions (the sack of Nargothrond, which is a direct result of Turin's more open style of confrontation) as the result of the curse acting through chance (Beleg's knife slipping as he cuts Turin's bonds). The same goes for the rebellious Noldor: it is not the Doom of Mandos which made the Silmarils burn Maedhros and Maglor, but the evil of their own deeds in getting them.

Indeed, part of the beauty of CoH is that you simply don't know how much of the horrible things that happen are due to the curse, and how much of them are due to Turin himself. If you say it's all one or all the other, the work loses its nuance and subtlety. I don't think that the morality in Silm-era works is necessarily incompatible with that in LotR: the only difference between the two eras is the extent to which the gods got involved in others' affairs.

On this note, if one gives any credence to the idea that there is a unity in Tolkien's work, I think the final pages of The Hobbit sheds some light on the idea. Doesn't Gandalf say to Bilbo something to the effect of "Surely you'd disbelieve the ancient prophecies just because you had a hand in bringing them about?"

One of the fascinating things about fate/prophecies/doom is the question of whether the one fated/doomed/prophecied is free to end up there or determined... and it's a philosophical question that has been much considered in the western tradition, at least since Christianity got involved with its dual offerings of free will and prophecy.

Obviously, there's a vast difference in mood and outcome between The Hobbit and The Children of Húrin, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to say they have two different takes on fate/prophecy. The difference, as I see it, is chiefly that Bilbo/Dale get a happy prophecy, while Túrin/Nienor/et al get a tragic doom. The philosophical question is whether, the outcomes having been foreseen, those involved had a choice in getting there or not.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Obviously, there's a vast difference in mood and outcome between The Hobbit and The Children of Húrin, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to say they have two different takes on fate/prophecy. The difference, as I see it, is chiefly that Bilbo/Dale get a happy prophecy, while Túrin/Nienor/et al get a tragic doom. The philosophical question is whether, the outcomes having been foreseen, those involved had a choice in getting there or not.

I think it's clear that individual choices have an effect on 'doom'.

Bilbo's "happy prophesy" was made possible by his own actions. What if Bilbo had decided to kill Gollum instead of showing him mercy? What if Bilbo had left the Dwarves to their fate when they were captured by the spiders, or imprisoned in the Elvenking's halls? Would that happy ending have come about?

As Mnemo said, contrast that with Túrin. If he had agreed to face Thingol's judgment in the death of Saeros, he would not have left Doriath, because Nellas would have been present to give the truth of the matter and Túrin would have been pardoned. If Túrin had stayed in Doriath, it is difficult to see how Morgoth's curse could have been fulfilled. Morwen and Nienor would have found him there, and the whole sorry outcome need not have happened.

Also, look at the difference between Boromir and Faramir. The former, through his own pride and desire for power, was easy prey for the Ring. His humbler and wiser brother saw the Ring for what it was, and effectively resisted its temptation.

Perhaps "fate" is merely the natural outcome of choices made, not predestined, but all the same known to the Children's creator.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

When Tolkien is at his best, as he is in Children of Húrin and in parts of The Silmarillion, the fate of men (or elves, or dwarves) remains external from them, but this certainly isn’t the case in The Lord of the Rings, where moral agency shifts onto the individual, making him responsible when measuring himself against an external moral system, in this case Tolkien’s often maligned good and evil. Perhaps the genesis of that problem can be seen in Children of Húrin, in which a reader with some experience with philology wonders why such a cruel fate, usually the whim of fickle gods, can befall Túrin Turambar when Eru Ilúvatar is a benevolent creator.

I think this fellow needs to read Verlyn Fleiger's study of Tolkien, The Splintered Light. The fates of men, elves and dwarves differ. Sorry if you've already covered her work elsewhere, tumhalad2, but this fellow hasn't.

[Galadriel55]

Maybe by 'fate' the author isn't referring to the same thing as Tolkien calls 'fate'. I think the author means the destiny of each individual from these races.

Either way, though, the essay makes me think that the author didn't really read COH, or any other Tolkien books.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Originally Posted by jonpeter001

Crossbreeding and Fantasy Morality

Is it only what's inside that matters?

There was a story in Black Gate magazine a while back. A human thief sneaks into the sacred chambers of a city of spider-obsessed people in order to steal something which will make him rich enough to elope with his sweetheart, one of the local nobility.

He discovers in the course of his adventure that the local nobility hatch out from spider eggs!

Then he runs away and never returns.

Speaking of fantasy crossbreeding: many years ago a TV-series called Quark chronicled the voyages of an intergalactic garbage scow. The crew featured a first officer named Ficus -- half-man/half-plant -- and a set of identical-twin bimbo clones called Betty-1 and Betty-2. In one hilarious episode, Betty-1 (or Betty-2) asked Ficus how his species bred and he offered to demonstrate with the more-than-willing clone. "First we get down on the deck and lay down on our backs," he instructed. This they both did. "Now, we raise our legs and arms up in the air," he continued. This they both did. "Now what do we do?" inquired the luscious Betty-2 (or Betty-1). Replied Ficus in all seriousness: "Now we wait for the bee."

Nothing about morality, but something about crossbreeding. Just what, I have no idea.

[Morthoron]

MTM, just to let you know, I believe you are having an engrossing conversation with a spam-bot. Cleverly disguised, but a spam-bot nonetheless.

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

MTM, just to let you know, I believe you are having an engrossing conversation with a spam-bot. Cleverly disguised, but a spam-bot nonetheless.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep it in mind. I wouldn't have bothered stepping in here, but I temporarily ran out of invective to lavish on the Itaril/Tauriel nonsense.

[Ardent]

These quotes are from the original post of this thread:

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

... wonders why such a cruel fate, usually the whim of fickle gods, can befall Túrin Turambar when Eru Ilúvatar is a benevolent creator.

As other posts have pointed out, this is a question of how one reconciles suffering with a loving creator. But I would go further and ask how can there be love in a world where there is so much evidence of its non-existence?
The same question hangs over other concepts such as 'beauty' and 'freedom'. Like Eu they cannot be quantified or pinned down and neither can they be eliminated from our fantasies. Being in pain may stop me appreciating the sunset, but it doesn't mean the beauty is no longer there. Logic may tell me that suns do not set (the earth spins) and that it is merely a huge, dangerous ball fire. I still say it's also beautiful.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

In his discussion of "slave morality" vs. "noble morality"...:
...Where Túrin railed against his fate, Frodo, Aragon and co. seem to fall in line under some form of deontology, the journey to Mount Doom will be long and hard, but it has to be done and that is that.

Deontology: deont = duty + logic. Why not say "a sense of duty"?

When Sam sees the Scouring of the Shire in the mirror of Galadriel his sense of duty impels him to return and do something about it. Galadriel has to remind him that he was resigned to his duty to Frodo before looking in the mirror, effectively saying "know thyself". If you do not know yourself prophecy is an unreliable guide. Sam has to decide which is 'nobler in the mind'; to go back and take up arms against the Scouring, or to suffer that outrage in favour of the greater purpose.

Personally I find Nietszhe's philosophy flawed. Like Sam we have to choose, not between 'serving' or 'being served' but between different battles, different masters, different things we love.