I like the analysis. Especially the local/systemic distinction.
But WRT your point that society needs both types of morality tale; I've been meaning to give this some thought for a while, my gut feeling is (inasmuch as literature has an effect on society) the wholesale abandonment of the black & white good vs evil message is a negative for society. Especially for youth still forming their moral toolkit. The moral ambiguity is destructive if it comes as the first step ie building the the fundamental moral compass (although it is necessary as a second stage, layered over). I know, this needs elaboration.
Anyway, society is IMO behaving this way as a direct result of the loss in any (strong) belief that the moral absolutes exist. Which is why they're dissatisfied with Tolkien's middle ground; he may include gray areas, but he clearly conveys a sense of the absolute.
typo (if my memory isn't failing me?) - you write <he said in Second Year: he's still "Dumbledore's man."> I think it's Year Six.
Chewing over your post for the last few days, I’ve hit on a point that was niggling at me. I agree with your local/systemic distinction, and it is a very important model for analysis, but I don’t think it would satisfy those who dislike Tolkien et al because of the complaint WRT "black and white" non-ambiguous morality.
I think that non-ambiguity complaint is a (inadvertent ) motte and bailey; there's a fundamental difference between the morality struggle of Tolkien’s writing and these modern "gray" writers: yes, they're both moral choices with shades of gray, but only Tolkien’s has the element of an absolute "Right" that is guiding the choice. This isn't just a detail of the moral framework, it serves the fundamental role as the source/guidance/inspiration for the entire structure, and every moral choice is flavored by it. The typical (liberal, western etc) modernized guy preferring the present-day "ambiguity" isn't just looking for ambiguity per se, he's looking for a morality that's divested of that philosophic encumbrance. (I'd think; not primarily because of discomfort with the idealism and responsibility it'd demand, but more because its alien to his own moral calculus.)
I know this isn't so clear, I'm trying to define what was always a vague idea for me. But if this is a valid point (about different morality frameworks) I’m sure others have already said it before, and better than me. You sound like you’ve put thought into this area, do you agree/familiar with this ?
I like the analysis. Especially the local/systemic distinction.
But WRT your point that society needs both types of morality tale; I've been meaning to give this some thought for a while, my gut feeling is (inasmuch as literature has an effect on society) the wholesale abandonment of the black & white good vs evil message is a negative for society. Especially for youth still forming their moral toolkit. The moral ambiguity is destructive if it comes as the first step ie building the the fundamental moral compass (although it is necessary as a second stage, layered over). I know, this needs elaboration.
Anyway, society is IMO behaving this way as a direct result of the loss in any (strong) belief that the moral absolutes exist. Which is why they're dissatisfied with Tolkien's middle ground; he may include gray areas, but he clearly conveys a sense of the absolute.
typo (if my memory isn't failing me?) - you write <he said in Second Year: he's still "Dumbledore's man."> I think it's Year Six.
Chewing over your post for the last few days, I’ve hit on a point that was niggling at me. I agree with your local/systemic distinction, and it is a very important model for analysis, but I don’t think it would satisfy those who dislike Tolkien et al because of the complaint WRT "black and white" non-ambiguous morality.
I think that non-ambiguity complaint is a (inadvertent ) motte and bailey; there's a fundamental difference between the morality struggle of Tolkien’s writing and these modern "gray" writers: yes, they're both moral choices with shades of gray, but only Tolkien’s has the element of an absolute "Right" that is guiding the choice. This isn't just a detail of the moral framework, it serves the fundamental role as the source/guidance/inspiration for the entire structure, and every moral choice is flavored by it. The typical (liberal, western etc) modernized guy preferring the present-day "ambiguity" isn't just looking for ambiguity per se, he's looking for a morality that's divested of that philosophic encumbrance. (I'd think; not primarily because of discomfort with the idealism and responsibility it'd demand, but more because its alien to his own moral calculus.)
I know this isn't so clear, I'm trying to define what was always a vague idea for me. But if this is a valid point (about different morality frameworks) I’m sure others have already said it before, and better than me. You sound like you’ve put thought into this area, do you agree/familiar with this ?