I certainly don't dispute Le Guin's point, and indeed, I've long thought Kurtz's failure to grasp it at the Mythcon panel "Elfland versus Poughkeepsie" (she thought and may well still think that Le Guin was faulting her for not using archaic forms, against the plain evidence of Le Guin's text) was symptomatic of her literary limitations.
On the other hand, Tolkien's speakers are not uttering "ringing words of gay taunt, stern defiance, or Quixotic generosity, interchanged by great warriors with sword in hand." They are assembling evidence and critically assessing it, with the aim of establishing the truth of their situation, in order to choose the best, or at any rate the necessary course of action for addressing it. The emotional attitudes are less important than the rational and prudent judgment of the speakers. And the same is true at the final debate that leads to Aragorn's desperate challenge to Mordor.
Your comparison to a symposium is perfectly valid—though I might also compare it to a discussion among intelligence analysts. But the qualities Lewis discusses don't sound much like those of a symposium. And I can't help feeling that the habits of mind Tolkien portrays have their own nobility, at least equal to the flashier nobility of "great warriors with sword in hand." Indeed, Tolkien himself more or less says as much, through Faramir's contrast of high men such as the best Numenoreans with middle men such as the Rohirrim—or, though Faramir would never say such a thing, of Faramir himself with Eomer. Lewis's words are a lot easier to apply to Eomer, and that's why I find them incomplete.
no subject
On the other hand, Tolkien's speakers are not uttering "ringing words of gay taunt, stern defiance, or Quixotic generosity, interchanged by great warriors with sword in hand." They are assembling evidence and critically assessing it, with the aim of establishing the truth of their situation, in order to choose the best, or at any rate the necessary course of action for addressing it. The emotional attitudes are less important than the rational and prudent judgment of the speakers. And the same is true at the final debate that leads to Aragorn's desperate challenge to Mordor.
Your comparison to a symposium is perfectly valid—though I might also compare it to a discussion among intelligence analysts. But the qualities Lewis discusses don't sound much like those of a symposium. And I can't help feeling that the habits of mind Tolkien portrays have their own nobility, at least equal to the flashier nobility of "great warriors with sword in hand." Indeed, Tolkien himself more or less says as much, through Faramir's contrast of high men such as the best Numenoreans with middle men such as the Rohirrim—or, though Faramir would never say such a thing, of Faramir himself with Eomer. Lewis's words are a lot easier to apply to Eomer, and that's why I find them incomplete.