I will point to some watermarks where we can see the tide of moral men change. But first, I will say that we can measure the morality of a society by the works put forth from its artists.

The most recent watermark of change in my mind is 1968. Sure, most folks recognize this as the peak of the hippie era and the assassinations in America–but the most striking point for me about 1968 was the Second Vatican Council, when the Mass became watered down. It was at that point that we saw the numbers of Mass attendance begin to dwindle due to the new age concepts being introduced into the Church. Before this period, Catholics were more devout.

Another watermark I can think of is the so-called “Enlightenment.” During the Reign of Terror, we see people being torn apart in the streets of France, and degredation of the Church was underway. Yet, shortly before here in America (early 18th Century) we see that before this “Enlightenment” that there is piety in the colonies of America, both before and after the Revolution. Ever read the speeched of George Washington?

I’d also point to the piety of the so-called Middle Ages, a time in which people were not haughty in their thought. I recommend Regine Pernoud’s “Those Terrible Middle Ages!”

I doubt I’ll convince anyone here that there was a time when people were better. Everyone’s mind is made up, I feel. I’ll just conclude and say that if you go into a Church, and you see little old people praying the rosary, that you are witnessing the older generation carrying the humble spirit of a past age with them. When they go, so goes many of the humble values that our generation treads on. I’d point to those folks as evidence.

When you say ‘before,’ when exactly do you mean? When in history can you point to where all men, or even a majority of men, were more moral than they are now?

Perhaps, because of prevailing publishing standards in bygone times, certain things were not discussed in books, but if you think those same things were not happening in society at the same time that the books were published, you are deliberately closing your eyes.

Ignoring these core questions will end up in posts and comments that go nowhere.

And discussing all this, without the mention of God (Who either inspires you or infuriates you) is the equivalent to talking about a vortex while only discussing a small space on the event horizon.

With these mentions of Tolkien, I’m surprised no one’s mentioned his essay: “On Fairie Stories.”

Matthew David Surridge brings up 4 questions in this new post.

1. Do Robert E. Howard and J.R.R. Tolkien share a common moral ground?

2. If they share a common ground, then do they truly represent the era they wrote in?

3. Has there been “a change between their times and ours, is the change real and perceptible across all or most of contemporary fantasy writing?”

4. If there’s been a change since those days and ours, how does it relate to Western Civilization.

Surridge’s answers are as follows:

1. Common moral ground? No.

I would say, though, that the sense of right and wrong was more pervasive in society back in early 20th Centtury, and that although the ultimate realization and culmination of right would be the Christian Universal Church, Howard at least knew what direction “the moral river was flowing” –even if he did not owe complete fealty to the Almighty. I blame the original posts of Leo Grim (who started this large discussion more than a week ago) for mentioning Howard as someone on the same plane as Tolkien.

2. No, there were plenty of atheistic establishment-hating writers long ago.

Yes, Surridge, but these people are forgotten. I contest that it is those who latch on to at least a part of the Holy Spirit who maintain favor in the hearts of readers through the rest of time. And although Howard’s characters had faults and were in morally dark environments, at least the stories flowed toward the right ending. Again, the essence of what was right flowed more freely in people then.

3. Have times changed from then until now? Surridge says: “But it seems to me that in any narrative form there’s a general sense among readers and writers of what is to be considered real, and how that reality is to be depicted.”

Surridge, you are switching the argument. In points One and Two, we were discussing the morality of Tolkien and Howard. Now, you are talking about style. Your question was vague. You should have asked either “has there been a change in morality” or “has there been a change in literary style.” The answer to both is yes. Immorality as defined by God is widespread among people now. And yes, style has changed too, but style is a tool that can be used by either the good or evil.

4. How has this change related to Western Civilization? He says it’s getting more realistic. He states: “Does this process have any great significance? Is there an ideological component to it, as suggested by Grin and elaborated by Theo? Personally, I don’t see it.”

Stylistically speaking, fantasy literature is getting to be more realistic. Moralistically speaking, fantasy is becoming more “modernist” and more immoral–also defined by God. And if we read fantasy as a symptom or a pulse of the health of Mankind, I’d say we are worse off than a century ago–which is Theo’s point. But, of course you “don’t see it.” Why would you? Go do what thou wilt!

To dahayden: Yes, times change, but morality does not. So far in history, the works that have been remembered by more than three generations are the works that contain Ultimate Morality in some form. Works that do not are weak and are forgotten.

AlexG said: “What is it about new takes on traditional tropes that makes certain people so venomously livid? And what makes those bits traditional anyway?” Well, it’s not a “realistic style” that betrays the author’s immorality and faithlessness. It is the “realistic style” being used to comprise a world of crap to tell the reader that…the world is crap. THAT is what tells us of the author’s moral decline, and hints at society’s decline.

The author named Davide, who wrote about this ongoing BlackGate discussion (in his post, titled La contrazione degli utili) says it best:

[translated from the Italian] The message seems to be “the world sucks, and then our story will talk about characters who do horrible horrible things for petty and selfish reasons, then they’re doing because you know you too well that goes, right?” This does not suit me - because it is the basis of pornography, of course, because it’s easy. Appeal to the worst of it is always easy. I have no problem with a morally ambiguous story, with heroic characters unless moved by motives less than clear - but claim that the author appeals to my best part, however, and will stimulate discussion, not a simple thrill of the forbidden.

To Nathan Long: You say that things have always been the same and have never changed. I beg to differ. People are much more immoral now than they were before. And this is reflected in the literature that people produce. You ask for a definition of moral standards. The best definition of a moral standard in Western Civilization comes from what the Catholic Church has put out. Not the staff of the Church, mind you. But the “paperwork” is plain enough. And I think it’s obvious to everyone what the moral standard should be–it’s just that no one wants to acknowledge it.

I think the more “modernist” any genre of literature becomes, we have that much more an indication of our lost society. Then again, they weren’t called the Lost Generation for nothing!

-Laramie Hirsch