(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

Lee Berman wrote:

> Wow, Dan'l. Outstanding post, both for content and eloquence.

Thank you.

> Also, I agree with all you say about Tolkien and Lewis and Wolfe in your earlier post. I
> might only debate one issue, that being the implication that Tolkein's moral lessons are
> not explicit. I would agree with you in regard to religious morality.

You are absolutely correct, I meant "religious morality" and should
have said so explicitly.


> But there is a social-cultural morality Tolkien displays which I find not so very hard to
> catch, including the intrinsic value of hearth and home and the unquestioned assumption
> that blood (genetics) runs true and determines the worth of a man. Not a shocking moral
> stance for an Englishman of the early 20th century but still, it is there.
>
> I think, by todays standards, Tolkien's geo-social biases might not be considered so
> policially correct. I mostly mean his implication that those dark-skinned types from the
> south and east are evil and not to be trusted. Conversely that north and west are the "good"
> directions, not to mention those wonderful (american) eagles who always fly in at the last
> crucial moment to save the day. If he'd used falcons it just wouldn't have worked the same,
> I think. (not that I'm being really critical of Tolkien; I"m sure he was a good and honorable
> man but also a product of his times. And aren't we all?)

I can't argue with this. I like to think Tolkien was in real life a
bit more nuanced than this -- his letters seem to say so -- but, yes,
he was a product of his times. In a late essay Tolkien seems to worry
about whether orcs _can_ be redeemed. (I note that Lewis seems to have
come out better on that scale: he at least makes clear that
Calormenes, the brown-skinned people to the South of Narnia, have the
potential to be saved if they worship their idol in a wholesome and
righteous manner.)

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes