Post by Stormrider on Jan 25, 2009 11:01:00 GMT -6
From: Algamesh_of_Arnor (Original Message) Sent: 3/11/2003 1:12 AM
In Book IV, Chapter Eight, we are presented early with very detailed descriptions about Minas Morgul and the surrounding landscape. As with all previous places described by Tolkien that fall under the dominion of Sauron, the surroundings are grim at best. So then, are we to assume that to be Evil is to not desire beauty as seen through the eyes of Good? This seems to be a popular theme in most fantasy epics with the landscape twisting and sickening due to the presence of "Evil".
What are some reasons for this? Are there moral or religious themes in our world that direct these plot devices? Is a tale simply just not as fun if the Enemy isn't perverting his or her surroundings into something that we would find less than desirable?
* * *
From: jerseyshore Sent: 3/16/2003 5:02 PM
I think we often think of "natural" as a synonym for good. Maybe this is a reflection of a tradition that begins with the Biblical idea of the Garden of Eden as a place of great peace and beauty. (Do other religions have a comparable paradise?) When man does evil, he is cast out of this Eden, into a place which must suffer by comparison. Thus we equate evil with a loss of natural beauty. In modern terms we often feel that the farther man gets from unsullied nature, and the more he pollutes or desecrates the natural world, the farther he is from living the "good" life. So it seems reasonable for the presence of such a strong evil force to have a terrible effect on the natural world around it. At least it seems that way to me!
* * *
From: Alaere_Dûnhilien Sent: 3/19/2003 8:55 AM
In very simple words: Evil wants to destroy and eliminate. Nature brings life and is life, so it is the opposite of Evil. The opposite of Evil is Good. So, Nature is Good? I also see it this way: Evil is arrogant, and wants to create its own space and structures, instead of using the ones already present. And probably, Evil wouldn't be Evil if it didn't pervert the surroundings. It is an old archetype, I guess. Like Jerseyshore sais, a reflection of a tradition that begins with the Biblical idea.
Alaere
* * *
From: Storrmrider Sent: 3/19/2003 11:41 AM
It could be that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Melkor created things during the Ainulindale the way he thought was beautiful. Perhaps Sauron's land of shadow is created with his view of what he thinks is beautiful.
Stormrider
* * *
From: Gythia Sent: 3/19/2003 3:21 PM
Tolkien presented evil as environmentally destructive because he didn't like the environmental destruction going on around him during the industrialization of England. It's simple, and doesn't require one to harken back to Eden, only to a Victorian era childhood.
In Book IV, Chapter Eight, we are presented early with very detailed descriptions about Minas Morgul and the surrounding landscape. As with all previous places described by Tolkien that fall under the dominion of Sauron, the surroundings are grim at best. So then, are we to assume that to be Evil is to not desire beauty as seen through the eyes of Good? This seems to be a popular theme in most fantasy epics with the landscape twisting and sickening due to the presence of "Evil".
What are some reasons for this? Are there moral or religious themes in our world that direct these plot devices? Is a tale simply just not as fun if the Enemy isn't perverting his or her surroundings into something that we would find less than desirable?
* * *
From: jerseyshore Sent: 3/16/2003 5:02 PM
I think we often think of "natural" as a synonym for good. Maybe this is a reflection of a tradition that begins with the Biblical idea of the Garden of Eden as a place of great peace and beauty. (Do other religions have a comparable paradise?) When man does evil, he is cast out of this Eden, into a place which must suffer by comparison. Thus we equate evil with a loss of natural beauty. In modern terms we often feel that the farther man gets from unsullied nature, and the more he pollutes or desecrates the natural world, the farther he is from living the "good" life. So it seems reasonable for the presence of such a strong evil force to have a terrible effect on the natural world around it. At least it seems that way to me!
* * *
From: Alaere_Dûnhilien Sent: 3/19/2003 8:55 AM
In very simple words: Evil wants to destroy and eliminate. Nature brings life and is life, so it is the opposite of Evil. The opposite of Evil is Good. So, Nature is Good? I also see it this way: Evil is arrogant, and wants to create its own space and structures, instead of using the ones already present. And probably, Evil wouldn't be Evil if it didn't pervert the surroundings. It is an old archetype, I guess. Like Jerseyshore sais, a reflection of a tradition that begins with the Biblical idea.
Alaere
* * *
From: Storrmrider Sent: 3/19/2003 11:41 AM
It could be that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Melkor created things during the Ainulindale the way he thought was beautiful. Perhaps Sauron's land of shadow is created with his view of what he thinks is beautiful.
Stormrider
* * *
From: Gythia Sent: 3/19/2003 3:21 PM
Tolkien presented evil as environmentally destructive because he didn't like the environmental destruction going on around him during the industrialization of England. It's simple, and doesn't require one to harken back to Eden, only to a Victorian era childhood.