I am here through various internet wanderings: I read THIS (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin/2011/02/19/sanity-and-sanctity-the-ennobling-fantasy-of-j-r-r-tolkien-part-1/) article and either here or in Part 2, someone in the comments mentioned 'The Last Ring-bearer'. I was interested, Googled it, and here I am.
I just wanted to comment on one portion of the essay and its assumptions. (And I realize you are the translator, not the original writer.)
And if the world of Middle Earth is real, then so are its people. If all those Aragorns and Faramirs are not “dramatis personae” but real people ...
then there can be a variety of opinions concerning their deeds.
The final bit of sentence is what I'm focusing on.
This is what troubles me about this entire endeavor. While there certainly may be a 'variety of opinions' concerning the deeds of the characters in LOTR, those opinions do not determine whether those deeds are morally right or morally wrong.
Some deeds are objectively right and others are objectively wrong, regardless of what anyone's opinion about them may be.
***
Tolkien adheres to this rule perfectly, which is why for many readers, especially older ones, LOTR has forever remained a kind of an American action movie – a bunch of good guys goes to wipe out a bunch of bad guys, who are bad if only because they are on the other side.
This bit is especially troubling, since it's a mangling of Tolkien's story and intent. Characters weren't determined good or bad only because of what side they are on. They are determined to be good or bad according to their actions.
***
While I take issue with the content, I do appreciate your efforts in translating the article.
no subject
I just wanted to comment on one portion of the essay and its assumptions. (And I realize you are the translator, not the original writer.)
And if the world of Middle Earth is real, then so are its people. If all those Aragorns and Faramirs are not “dramatis personae” but real people ...
then there can be a variety of opinions concerning their deeds.
The final bit of sentence is what I'm focusing on.
This is what troubles me about this entire endeavor. While there certainly may be a 'variety of opinions' concerning the deeds of the characters in LOTR, those opinions do not determine whether those deeds are morally right or morally wrong.
Some deeds are objectively right and others are objectively wrong, regardless of what anyone's opinion about them may be.
***
Tolkien adheres to this rule perfectly, which is why for many readers, especially older ones, LOTR has forever remained a kind of an American action movie – a bunch of good guys goes to wipe out a bunch of bad guys, who are bad if only because they are on the other side.
This bit is especially troubling, since it's a mangling of Tolkien's story and intent. Characters weren't determined good or bad only because of what side they are on. They are determined to be good or bad according to their actions.
***
While I take issue with the content, I do appreciate your efforts in translating the article.
Thank you.