4 ms·
Well, he said to "not be too eager". I don't believe there were many instances of Gandalf and the crew chosing to seek out death in bloodlust? I guess it's all
by spijdar 6y ago
Well, he said to "not be too eager". I don't believe there were many instances of Gandalf and the crew chosing to seek out death in bloodlust? I guess it's all subjective, since you could argue they could have gone more out of their way to avoid more deaths.
That said, I don't believe Tolkien was ever totally comfortable with his treatment of orcs, he just never reconciled his morals and personal narratives with his desire to tell faerie tales and myths, where "evil goblins" are just part of the landscape. No sources for that, though, I just recall reading it somewhere, perhaps in his son's writings...
- lurquer 6y agoIn all seriousness, it’s an odd feeling one gets when writing fiction. Is the author morally responsible for the actions of his characters? In reality, Gandalf isn’t killing orcs... there are no orcs and there is no Gandalf and it’s just a bunch of ink on a piece of paper. I write fiction occasionally. When wondering if it’s ‘moral’ or ‘ethical’ for a character to do something repugnant, I often have to remind myself that none of it is real! The ‘moral’ issue — if there is one — I suppose pertains to the author deliberately holding an immoral character up as an example of good behavior in the ‘real’ world. Maybe even then there is no real moral issue...
- dudul 6y agoThis has nothing to do with being real or not. An author should write consistent characters. Characters who follow their own morale and ethic. An author is not their characters. Considering that an author is responsible for the morale of their characters is how we end up with boring Marie sues in media.
- lurquer 6y agoYou may have missed my point... I was simply observing that it is difficult, as an author, not to feel queasy about writing a character who commits immoral acts.