The White Council

Perception versus reality (was Re: Ummm . . .)

Tolkien and Inklings Discussion

: snip

: : Perception can never be reality. It can only be the : : framework within which we rationalize how we deal with : : reality. :)

: Well, I really didn't want to get into a debate over this, and : I still don't, but even a concession to perception being a : framework (which I don't agree it is, I believe it to be much : more influential then a simple base) doesn't just color how we : see things but paints the picture for us. The perceptual : filters that we use to view the world, some which we : consciously choose and some which we unconsciously choose, some : which are forced on us and some that we take on out of any : number of reasons, shape the view of the world that we see. : Thus, the world that I see and interpret is very much different : from the world that you see (Deirde even says that because of : this we never hope to communicate at all because understanding : is lost from sender to receiver due to the experiences that : have shaped our filters . . . though, that's another argument : ;)).

[Snip argument of accepting "perception is reality" as a truism]

Neither my perception of the world nor yours are reality.

Example: You come home, find your wife lying in a pool of blood, pick up the knife laying beside her, and in your grief kneel down and cradle her in your arms. Your neighbor, coming over to see why all the cats in the area have converged on your kitchen door, sees you covered in blood, holding your wife's body, and wielding a knife. The neighbor calls the police, you're arrested, and charged with murder.

Another example:

You're taking a class, you and one other student are taking a makeup exam, the instructor passes out a test and says, "I have to run an errand. I'll be back in fifteen minutes." Just as the instructor approaches the classroom a breeze from a nearby open window blows the test paper from the student next to you onto your desk. As you hand the paper back to the student the instructor comes in and sees you.

What is the reality in these examples? All the defense, explanation, and arguing in the world can't change reality. It may change the perception of what happened.

Perception is never reality. It never can be. Perception is a limit upon what we learn about reality. It is the boundary of the facts we gather and assess to determine what reality is.

All the readers in the world could line up together and shout out, "J.R.R. Tolkien's Orcs are inherently evil and his Elves are inherently good" and they would all be wrong. Tolkien disagreed with them. It's his world, they are his Orcs and Elves, and only he determines whether they are inherently evil or good. He determined they were not. End of story, beginning of pointless argument.

: There is, of course, common ground on which we try to stand : (interpretation of Tolkien being one of them) and to that end, : when speaking about the general reader, the unlearned, : unbathed, virgin reader, we might have to take a great many : things into consideration. For example, when they first read : Tolkien in relationship to its publication, whether they saw : the Bakshi movie first or after, if they played D&D or any of : the spawned versions thereof. To that end, when we are : speaking of the virgin reader, I think we can safely say that : the reading does illicit the response that orcs, in general : (kindly note the "in general") are BAD and that elves, again in : general, are GOOD.

I am NOT speaking of the virgin reader, although many virgin readers do see Gandalf's remarks and understand that even the Orcs aren't all bad, and they see the history of the Elves and understand that even the Elves aren't all good.

But we are not all virgin readers. We are readers, we are "modern" readers, and we don't view Tolkien the way Pratchett says we do. I shall have him telling the world that I do view Tolkien in that way.

: You are correct in all the examples and proofs that you show. : But my point is that in a first reading, as clumsy and : unfamiliar (or familiar) as the reader is, he/she is not going : to come to the same conclusion that you, or anyone else has : come to, the orcs are agents of the Enemy.

[snip]

Nor is the first read going to bring someone to conclude the same things you do. You cannot justify a generalization. There are always exceptions. And, again, "the modern reader" doesn't consist only of first-time readers. Nor does it consist only of people who have read LOTR and nothing else. It includes all of us.

Not everyone concludes the Orcs are inherently bad, not everyone concludes the Elves aer inherently evil. Not everyone concludes that Balrogs have wings, not everyone concludes that Balrogs don't have wings.

There is no basis for Pratchett's statements.

: I'm no longer certain what exactly we are arguing over, so I : am going to close with saying that Pratchett's view of Tolkien, : though skewed, misinformed and certainly irresponsible (from : our position) is neither deceitful nor malicious...

I never said Pratchett's view was deceitful or malicious. I said his statements were disrespectful of the author, and they are.

: Nothing that he stated was not within the realm of plausible : debate...

Pratchett wasn't debating anything. He was writing a fluff piece.

: It is not supported based on the greater wealth of Tolkien's : world, but I don't believe that Pratchett has delved into that : world, and neither have the majority of Tolkien readers.

But there is no basis for suggesting that the majority of Tolkien readers share Pratchett's view, either.