![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerThe current Partially Clips strip poses the question "can a story about orcs tell us anything valid about evil?"
I'd say so, if he means Lord Of The Rings. I'm not talking about the apparent misconceptions such as "evil beings do not speak educated English" (but then neither do most of the hobbits). The orcs as given in LOTR (minus the son Todd and the stroller and so on; sorry, Rob) represent evil's ideal of its subjects: void of motivations except for greed and fear, easily controlled when necessary and at other times glad to be ignored, and above all not bright enough to make judgment calls or see reasons not to do as they're told. I'm sure we can think of a few people in positions of power who would very much like us to be like that, and it doesn't take much looking around to see the mechanisms by which they try to induce that state in us.
I do not believe that Tolkien ever said or implied that killing orcs was, or should be, a thing easily done. True, we have Legolas and Gimli's counting game, but they are in battle at the time, for a specific purpose which the orcs are bound to prevent if they can. Not a thing easily done, but a thing necessary, and therefore best done quickly and with a whole heart. I don't think he saw orcs in the real world, either, in the sense of people whose deaths didn't matter. And he saw unerringly that the real evil lies always at the top, in the hands of the entities who try to make orcs out of people.
It's very easy to decry the simplistic view of evil, to say that there is no black or white*, only shades of grey, very nuanced. But to deny that there is black or white is to deny that there can be grey, because black and white are what grey is made of. Tolkien gave us unrelieved black and very greyish white, and the stark pessimism of this view goes unnoticed by an amazing number of people who think he wrote twee little fairy stories about frolicking elves. Tolkien showed us that even in the whitest of us there is a little touch of black, and how easily the white can be overpowered and extinguished by our own choices. I'd say that was valid.
*And of course when I say "white" and "black" I am not talking about mucky pink and various shades of brown, nor am I implying any moral equivalence or disparity between any two colours whatsoever. There's always someone.
I'd say so, if he means Lord Of The Rings. I'm not talking about the apparent misconceptions such as "evil beings do not speak educated English" (but then neither do most of the hobbits). The orcs as given in LOTR (minus the son Todd and the stroller and so on; sorry, Rob) represent evil's ideal of its subjects: void of motivations except for greed and fear, easily controlled when necessary and at other times glad to be ignored, and above all not bright enough to make judgment calls or see reasons not to do as they're told. I'm sure we can think of a few people in positions of power who would very much like us to be like that, and it doesn't take much looking around to see the mechanisms by which they try to induce that state in us.
I do not believe that Tolkien ever said or implied that killing orcs was, or should be, a thing easily done. True, we have Legolas and Gimli's counting game, but they are in battle at the time, for a specific purpose which the orcs are bound to prevent if they can. Not a thing easily done, but a thing necessary, and therefore best done quickly and with a whole heart. I don't think he saw orcs in the real world, either, in the sense of people whose deaths didn't matter. And he saw unerringly that the real evil lies always at the top, in the hands of the entities who try to make orcs out of people.
It's very easy to decry the simplistic view of evil, to say that there is no black or white*, only shades of grey, very nuanced. But to deny that there is black or white is to deny that there can be grey, because black and white are what grey is made of. Tolkien gave us unrelieved black and very greyish white, and the stark pessimism of this view goes unnoticed by an amazing number of people who think he wrote twee little fairy stories about frolicking elves. Tolkien showed us that even in the whitest of us there is a little touch of black, and how easily the white can be overpowered and extinguished by our own choices. I'd say that was valid.
*And of course when I say "white" and "black" I am not talking about mucky pink and various shades of brown, nor am I implying any moral equivalence or disparity between any two colours whatsoever. There's always someone.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 08:45 pm (UTC)I think what you say is very interesting, and in terms of a black/grey moral universe such as LOTR, bears comparison also with something like King Lear - a very bleak play for the very reason that it explores a universe without redemption, withoutthe possibility that there is some white there to draw people out of the mire.
Hey - I'm finally watching NuWho series 4 (still waiting for 3 - will arrive for my birthday). Does it make me an imbecile or traitor that although I can see it's not perfect, I love it, love it?! Donna is wonderful, and although Tennant's gurning is getting rather ott, I do think he makes a good Doctor, and despite the fact that some of the stories have been rather thin, too silly even for this medium, I still find a lot to enjoy in them. Okay - I'll admit it - I'm an unciritcal audience, an easy sell, when it comes to this sort of thing!
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 10:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 10:08 am (UTC)I wasn't trying to accuse you of arrogance. I suppose the reason why I don't really feel the differences between Who and nuWho is that it had been such a very long time for me between watching Who and the arrival of the new series. I think I basically gave up some time before Peter Davidson did. I never found him convincing - "my" doctors were Pertwee and Baker, and the others never cut the mustard. And then Ecclestone exploded into the part - BAM! I do regret that he only did the one series. I also find Rose and Donna to be very strong as the Companions. Really, I think Who belongs to my childhood and those feelings and memories, and nuWho to my adult existence. I'm reluctant to revisit Who for that reason, I think.
By the way, while thinking about SF&F (books this time), I'd like to recommend Tad Williams - if you haven't already read him everal times through! I'm reading one of his I hadn't seen before visiting a bookshop in Dallas, and enjoying it very much, though it's not quite up to his epic sets.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 02:22 am (UTC)I don't know why I love that so much, but I do.