This is to pick up on a point raised by NastyBoy on Broc's hyper reality thread. I thought it was really interesting and well made, but nobody had replied to it and it's perhaps been overlooked.
NastyBoy's basic point (and correct me if I'm wrong, NastyBoy) was that what causes Tolkien to strike such a resonant chord in each of us was its essential simplicity. Good is good, bad is bad and we know where all of the characters stand. This is in contrast to our own world, where everything is merely shades of gray. Thus:
We recognise the simplicity and openness of Tolkien's world and yearn to be part of it, where everyone knows exactly where they stand, rather than live in our own, which is full of constant uncertainty.
On an instinctive level, that point makes a lot of sense to me. I'd like to agree with it, and think that I essentially do. However, there are a couple of thoughts that spring to mind when reflecting on it. Two questions, then, and an observation on which I'd love to hear people's thoughts.
Firstly, do you think that the Silmarillion and the works of Tolkien other than LOTR introduce more "shades of gray"? I'm thinking specifically of Feanor, maker of the Silmarils. He was an elf, usually good in Tolkien's world, but some very evil events seemed to flow from him as well - the slaying of the kindered. How do you see him?
Secondly, I was also thinking about this point in relation to the movies. It seems that Jackson has gone to some lengths to introduce more internal conflict, more shades of gray, in some of the characters. I think that Faramir is an example of this. Do you think that the adverse reaction of many to these characters is because it interferes with the simplicity of Tolkien's world and characters?
And lastly, an observation. Perhaps the shades of gray in Tolkien’s world exist not so much in the characters or settings, but in the nature of victory of good over evil. There are two sides, starkly opposed, but the victory of good over evil never seems assured. Even when good does ultimately win out, it is not without price: the destruction of the One Ring means the loss of much that was wrought with the Three, the innocence of characters like Frodo is forever destroyed and the world is changed. And, in the case of both Morgoth and Sauron, their lies and deceits, and the effect of them, linger on.
These complexities we recognise in ourselves – there is both good and bad, ever in conflict, and this is never wholly resolved without some shades of gray. We are indeed drawn to Tolkien’s world by its simplicity, but we also recognise that complexity and shades of gray exist there as they do in ourselves. Anybody else have thoughts on this?
Forgive me, NastyBoy, it's not my intention to hijack a point of yours. I just found it really interesting and thought it deserved a bit more prominence.
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
I haven't really read the other thread in a while, nor have I read the Silmarillion. But that was a very interesting point.
I for one am not thrilled with black and white storylines. It may be particularly appealing in certain environments (i.e. during wars, poverty, etc., when everything is uncertain), but I tend to prefer the complex. In fact I read a review of the movie that complained about that: except for Gollum, everyone was either extremely stalwart or extremely evil (it's a problem in the Potter books too). I think that's what Gollum speaks to, and I think that's why he's considered by many to be Tolkien's greatest character. He represents the grey area you were talking about. Perhaps that was Tolkien's hommage to the middle ground. Everything else was so black and white, but Gollum was the personification of the yin yang element.
I think Frodo followed that (as a potential Gollum). The ring was absolute evil. Many of the people who got ahold of it were purely good. The result was the mix--the grey area. Frodo is the clearest example of this. Boromir is the next, and in the film, Faramir follows it too. So even if Tolkien made a lot of his characters purely good or purely bad, he also gave a lot of them a mixed element--the conflict that arises within when you're faced with difficult decisions. Maybe the rest of the story is so black-and-white to highlight this grey area. Or maybe he chose to focus on a few characters and make other principals (such as Aragorn) less complex to serve the story they were in. Maybe it's because even in the "grey" characters, it's a very black-and-white struggle: it's their nature against an outside force, not their muddled nature against themselves. Only Gollum has internalized his struggle to the extent that it consumes him even when he's not in the ring's presence--it's become a personality trait. So perhaps more of Tolkien's world is very black and white, because none of these characters would be conflicted without the outside element acting on them.
I think the argument with Faramir was more a response to the change of a formerly beloved character--someone who people had trusted as good and was suddenly on the edge. A lot of people had an emotional connection to him (or were purists and just didn't like such a drastic change regardless of what it was). I don't think it particularly was anger about PJ adding uncertainty. But there may be other, non-Faramir examples that I'm not thinking of. Certainly PJ would have trouble making any good character have evil tendencies, or vice versa, but as I said, that may be more a reaction to a change of a beloved character (or villan) than anything else.
We'll never survive!
Nonsense! You're only saying that because no one ever has.
|
|
|
Gollum! Wonderful point! How could I have left him out? Yes, I agree, he's an excellent example of internalised conflict. I can't think of one better. This is what makes Tolkien so fascinating for me: just when you think you've got a handle on what makes it so appealing, other elements and layers of complexity come to the fore. Always something new to discover, and remember (even after 15 years of reading him).
As for Faramir and the other characters, I'm still not sure about how they're going to be dealt with in ROTK and that may yet have quite an effect on how we view PJ's ultimate interpretation of them. Will it be shown to be just tampering or trying to add dimensions of complexity? We'll have to wait and see, I guess.
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I have read the LOTR book(s) a few times - most recently about a hundred years ago. The only other Tolkien works I have read are bits and bobs of the Father Christmas letters - but again, that was before the advent of hot and cold running water, so my memory for details is vague. Actually my memory of what I had for breakfast is vague so maybe there's a larger problem. However: I never saw the ring as absolute evil. I saw the ring as an instrument which can be used according to the desire of it's possessor - or not used at all. Rather like a chemical reaction; two harmless substances mixed together in the right quantities can make a cake, two similarly harmless substances mixed together in the wrong proportions can create a deadly product. Despite possessing the ring for many years, Bilbo was not an evil being, nor was he driven to create evil with it. Gollum is not evil, in fact he is so weak he allowed himself to be possessed by the ring, and his need for it is now physical, hence his withdrawal symptoms. He is definitely conflicted, by having lost the ring, and particularly since Frodo awakened memories of his prior existence as Smeagol. In his brilliantly portrayed soliloquy we see traces of Smeagol fighting back. Perhaps there is hope for his salvation...? I saw the ring being to Gollum what the carrot is to the donkey. Being Godless as I am, I don't generally like to quote the bible, but one well known sentence is often misquoted. In full it is "the LUST FOR money is the root of all evil". I saw the LUST for the ring being the fertile ground where the evil thoughts/deeds could take root - any resultant action or inaction being a choice.
Re: Internalised conflict: Isn't all personal conflict internal? Isn't that why, when we tell our friends our problems and options, they almost always have already picked the option THEY would take - because they don't SEE the conflict? To them the answer is obvious. Yet to the sufferer it's an endless, often unbearable see-sawing, our actions often prescribed by our fear of what other people will think of us.
As for the allure of the story as a whole, I can tell you where that was for me. It was definitely the combination of the language style; a mixture of a kind of high English as spoken by the wizards and elves, and 'aww shucks' humility (Sam et al). The other captivating feature for me was the descriptive detail of places, objects, people and customs - the skill that caused that "it's-just-as-I-imagined-it" reaction in so many of us who have read the books and seen the movies.
Now, I must go have breakfast... or have I done that already?
My road shall be the road I made
|
|
|
I wouldn't worry about remembering breakfast - it can always just be second breakfast!
Interesting ideas about the ring, hokianga. Are you saying that it will simply bring out the most essential characteristics of the bearer? And is it something more neutral (like money, nice example) which could be used for good or bad, or is it something more like a gun, which would tend to being used only for destruction?
I'm not sure that it is completely neutral, because it is so bound up with the power of Sauron - the two seem to be intrinsically linked. That being so, I've never been quite sure how it would completely "pass" to another bearer. Wouldn't there always be something of Sauron bound up in it?
I'm glad someone else also points to language as the allure of the story. That's definitely been a huge attraction for me as well.
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
Perhaps in having not read other works involving the ring I'm missing crucial information, but (with a few hypotheticals):
Maybe the ring is incomplete without the strength of will that Sauron had. Perhaps drawing together the other rings (read: powers/factions) the possessor of the one ring then has immeasurable power to do his will. Certainly Sauron was evil (it's a pity that there was never a megalomaniac who wasn't) But perhaps evil per se was not the catalyst. Maybe strength of will was the catalyst and if there had been a "good" character whose strength of will matched that of Sauron things may have been different: an eternal Middle Earth Woodstock perhaps!?! With the ring Sauron would not do the greatest good for the greatest number even if it were within his or the ring's power to do so. Without it, he rules by tyranny and fear. Could the famous inscription on the one ring carry a simpler message? The cultures of ME are indeed entering a darkness, and the existence of the ring DOES bind them all in a common cause. Previously Elves and Dwarves were adversaries, hobbits lived in isolation, Aragorn and Boromir were fractious amongst themselves, yet better be it that either one of their houses should rule, than the obvious dreaded alternative. The one ring is binding already. Differences are put aside in order to conquer a greater threat.
While I never saw the ring as absolute evil, neither did I see it as totally neutral; hence the reluctance of 'good' characters (ie: Gandalf) to handle it. I don't see it as the gun-like object mentioned earlier either. Perhaps Gandalf in his wisdom knew that even he himself was not of strong enough (or pure enough?)character to contain the ring. The propensity for evil is there. Did Gandalf know that being bad is easy and to take an easy option would deny him the passage to greater wisdom.
While LOTR is not rife with gray areas, we are comforted by the existence of Gollum. He is the mirror that reflects where we each might be if faced with similar options. He makes us feel better about ourselves. He will be good if that serves his purpose, bad if badness achieves instant gratification. Is he the most 'normal' of all the characters? Gray areas are a writer's tool and serve on multiple levels. Firstly they allow the writer the freedom to manipulate outcomes. Secondly they draw the viewer in and engage us with 'what ifs'. Modern humans generally do not like gray areas until faced with an issue of law, then we tend to bend them to support our own argument. We like to know right from wrong, it helps define our place in the order of things. It may be described as pecking order or it may be related to the 'doing', 'thinking' and 'feeling' doors that psychologists and psychiatrists love so much. (If I know what you are, I can then decide how to deal with you) It helps us to identify people and tailor our behaviour accordingly. I see the delineation of good and evil in LOTR reflecting something we all strive for in our own world. And the striving in itself is what keeps us going.
I'm pooped!
My road shall be the road I made
|
|
|
 by -
Aule
(Sun Mar 16 19:18:51)
|
|
Great post, amidst a sea of drivel. Thanks so much for your intelligent response.
|
|
|
Interesting thought Hokianga, but I don't think I agree. You say:
But perhaps evil per se was not the catalyst. Maybe strength of will was the catalyst and if there had been a "good" character whose strength of will matched that of Sauron things may have been different
I would say the palantir are neutral. Aragorn proved his strength of will equal to Sauron's in the contest with the seeing stones. He showed Sauron what he (Aragorn) wanted him to see rather than what Sauron wanted. But he cannot and will not wield the ring. I should read the book again myself, but I'm pretty sure it says the ring cannot be used for good. Maybe when I get home tonight, I'll try to flip through.
I do like your point about how the ring has already bound the races together, rather than the other sense of 'bind' as tie up.
If by my life or death I can protect you, I will.
|
|
|
Thanks for your well thought out reply, hokianga.
I agree with you that the ring needed a certain strength of will to be complete. That point is, I think, made in several instances in the book. It's illustrated by the fact that Gollum (who, at the very least, seems to be portrayed as a weak character) could hold the ring for so many hundreds of years and yet not achieve any mastery over it. Perhaps that is also why characters such as Gandalf and Galadriel refuse to take it on at all: they know that they already possess that strength of will and so would make the ring "complete" almost immediately.
I must say that I'd always thought of the ring as evil in the sense that every character that knows of its nature seems to imply that, whatever the wearer's original intentions, all that is done with the ring would ultimately turn to evil. This seems to me to be consistent with the fact that Sauron poured so much of himself into it at its making. But you offer an intriguing thought: do the characters I've mentioned refuse to accept it because they know that that evil resides within them and that it is that aspect of their nature that the ring will ultimately bring out? Maybe, in this way, the ring is not so much evil as focused in a particular direction and unable to change that focus. Not evil by intent of its own but by design of its maker. And without that "intent", can we describe it as evil?
Against this, though, I must set the various references to the ring actually acting with some kind of intent. The books refer to it as betraying its wearer in some places - to the way that it would slip off Isildur's hand, for instance, or to the way that it "decided" to leave Gollum. And when Gollum swears upon his Precious after being captured by Frodo and Sam, Frodo refers to the implications of that as though the ring were acting with an independent will. I must admit that I hadn't previously given this much thought - the ring is a supposedly inanimate object, after all - but I now can't avoid thinking that the ring is given some degree of independence.
So I guess I ultimately differ as to the nature of the ring. I think it is imbued with sufficient "intent" to classify it as evil, in the end. But I take your point that the speed or manner in which the ring is wielded will definitely depend on the nature of the wearer.
I like the point about the drawing together of the races. Idly, I wonder what their relations would have been like in the absence of the ring and the threat of Sauron?
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
Hello veethree,
Goodness! people devote a lot of brain power to this story don't they? I wonder if there's another story that has inspired such conversations. Concerning your last para re: the fate of the races. I see them eventually dying out without this ring struggle. Each of the races and realms seemed to live in isolation, connected only by the the odd bit of news delivered in occasional fleeting visits from the wise but kindly old wizard. Even then I get the feeling he was economical with what he told to whom. Without the threat of Sauron forcing their hand and the unifying effect of the ring dilemma, (with all its adverse effects and collateral damage) I could see each of the realms falling victim to in-fighting and petty yet damaging and divisive power struggles until they each slowly caved in upon themselves and whatever was left disbanded, as individuals went their separate ways. A diluting of bloodlines as well as allegiances. Rather like the way the Neanderthals are heading in Jean M. Auel's Earth's Children series. Something to do with an inability or reluctance to acquire new knowledge. I guess we might describe it in modern terms as xenophobia-driven insularity. In the case of the hobbits' very isolated community a firm (but incorrect belief) that nothing else but hobbit life exists - or inacapability to concieve of anything else than that which they know. I'll reiterate that I've only read LOTR and bits of the Father Christmas Letters (all several years ago now) but several of the story's events serve as a type of 'coming of age' for the respective races. A sign saying 'wake up and look what surrounds you'. Because it aint always goodness and light. In other words, if you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got.
My road shall be the road I made
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Thu Mar 13 21:53:22)
|
|
Your views on the Ring are intriguing. Might I suggest that it would make a good thread?
|
|
|
Interesting thoughts. It had always seemed to me that a) no one could truly wield the ring except Sauron. So it it's purest form, it could only be actively used for evil (even if in intermediate acts it's used for good). If the ring was only as good or evil as its possessor, then why couldn't a good being (i.e. Gandalf) take it and use it for good? My impression was that the answer to that was because the ring itself was intrinsically tied to evil. b) possession, or even proximity to the ring causes a lust for it. That in and of itself is portrayed as evil. You describe the lust as a breeding ground that the bearer could choose their path along. But it seemed to me that Tolkien intended for the lust itself to be negative, evil, if you will. It's the process of becoming a slave to something (witness Gollum, who is all lust and, while not necessarily all negative, also not exactly positive either). Since slavery to the ring was portrayed as a negative, that led me to the ring itself being a negative, since slavery to it seemed to be one of its instrinsic characteristics.
My memories of the books are hazy too. I need to re-read them, but haven't found the time yet. Hope my points make sense regardless.
We'll never survive!
Nonsense! You're only saying that because no one ever has.
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Sun Mar 16 20:44:17)
|
|
Hi veethree;
"Tolkien to strike such a resonant chord in each of us was its essential simplicity. Good is good, bad is bad and we know where all of the characters stand. This is in contrast to our own world, where everything is merely shades of gray."
I will only comment on good, evil & in between concerning LOTR which I believe NastyBoy would be referring to.
IMHO one part of the LOTR's great popularity is that it can mean different things to different people. It has some very good and very evil characters and so for those who are looking for a story with those stark contrasts, LOTR can be seen in that way.
But for those looking for characters who have a combination of good and evil in them, LOTR can be seen as having those types of characters too. Here is my list.
1. Boromir; While he has noble intentions of protecting his people and helping his father, he is definitely a very flawed character. He was quite willing to use evil means (the Ring) in what he hoped would be good. At Rivendell he was unwilling to listen and understand that using the Ring would either turn him or his father into a servant of Sauron like the other Ring Wraiths.
2. Saruman; While this is not well explained in the movie, in the book he says to Gandalf;
"our time is at hand: the world of Men, which We must rule. But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see...
We can bide our time ...deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish"
This shows that Saruman thinks his goal is to do good. It is just that he wants (like Boromir) to use evil tools to accomplish it.
3. Gollum/Smeagol; He enters the story by killing his cousin Deagol to get the Ring. With Frodo he is truly conflicted. On the one hand trying to do good and on the other he was treacherous with no regard for anyone’s life except his and possessing the Ring.
4. (Spoilers) Denethor; In the book Denethor like Boromir (against Gandalf’s judgement) believed the Ring could be controlled and that Boromir would have been able to bring the Ring to his father. As Gandalf says to Denethor;
"I do not trust you…And now hearing you speak I trust you less, no more than Boromir"
Later Denethor slips into madness due to his addiction to the Palantir and his many troubles including the illness of Faramir. He tries to burn Faramir alive and fails but succeeds in burning himself alive.
5. Lotho Sackville-Baggins; He at first partnered with the "Chief’s Men" from Isengard. Later he was imprisoned by them. As Frodo says in the Scouring of the Shire;
"Lotho never meant things to come to this pass. He has been a wicked fool, but he’s caught now…We ought to try and rescue him."
Have a good one, BB ;-)
|
|
|
In every one of the examples you quote, a clear black and white "good" character is influenced by external evil.
Boromir is not as you say willing to use evil means to do good. He wants to do good and sees the ring as merely a means to that end, and has to have the evil nature of the ring explained to him. After that he is influenced by the ring, not an evil part of his character.
Saruman is directly influened by Sauron through the Palantir
Denethor is directly influened by Sauron through the Palantir
Gollum is consumed with lust for the ring, before he'd ever seen it. Smeagol was not an evil character.
Lotho, while not likable, is also not evil, but influenced by Saruman.
All of these characters are good, but are victims of an evil with power greater than theirs. Their "evil" actions are all attributable to the will of either the ring or of Sauron, essentially the same thing. These characters gained nothing from their bad deeds, there was never any gain in it for them. Their actions are clearly as victimes of the evil of another character, therefore I don't agree that these characters are grey, or even black.
_____________________________________
I don't hold with wearing ironmongery
|
|
|
Nasty, we meet again! Same topic different thread.
Your points, as I understand them:
a. If the source of corruption is external, then the character is not evil.
b. If the character has good intentions, he is not evil.
Following that argument, then there is no evil. Orcs are not evil because they are just good elves who have been corrupted by Sauron. The ringwraiths aren't evil either because they too were corrupted by Sauron through their rings. Sauron is not evil because he was corrupted by Melkor. Melkor is not evil because he was trying to make pretty music of his own when he rebelled against Eru's melody.
I would say if you can be corrupted by an external source, then you have the potential for evil within you. This is all rather complex and goes back to the various Nature of Evil threads. The choices one makes and the actions one takes are what make one evil, and who or what "made" you do it is not an excuse.
To trot out a cliche, we've all heard the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
If by my life or death I can protect you, I will.
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Mon Mar 17 13:21:46)
|
|
 UPDATED Mon Mar 17 23:09:19 |
Hi NastyBoy;
As I said
"IMHO one part of the LOTR's great popularity is that it can mean different things to different people.
1. Your conclusion is a very modern one;
"All of these characters are good, but are victims of an evil with power greater than theirs."
Every defense lawyer has this type point of view. Every questionable action tries to be explained by; the wrong friends, poor parenting, drugs, alcohol, mental illness, a personality disorder, being in the heat of passion, being brain washed by some ideology, etc.
What this explanation of evil says is that there is no personal responsibility. "The devil made me do it." This type of conclusion is a popular point of view and I am not trying to change your mind if you interpret LOTR in that way.
2. My point of view: IMHO the Ring is a temptation to the characters. It is like an addictive drug, like a poison, like a tool for power and control. These dangers are all around us in our own modern world. The key is what we do about them. Do we submit to these things and then do harmful things to ourselves and others or do we resist temptation. For me that is part of what the Ring is about, the personal challenges that everyone has in their lives.
About evil Tolkien seems to be saying, anyone can become evil because to become evil involves yielding to temptation. What separates the person who is evil or good is their personal action, their choices which is their responsibility.
IMHO Tolkien's characters are only clearly good and evil on the surface. Every being called evil (Sauron, the Nazgul) who is not a robotic slave (Orcs, Trolls) made a decision at one time to not resist some temptation. This is a the second modern view of the origin of evil, that it is a result of our choices. This discussion is evidence of this debate of these two ideas 1. the environment causes us to be evil or 2. we choose to be evil by giving in to temptations.
So, we are debating whether; Saruman, Boromir, Gollum, Denethor or Lotho were either good and were forced to be evil or could not resist evil and therefore do evil things. The discussion is due to the complexity of the Tolkien myth and that it is not a simple story of right and wrong.
TO SUM IT UP; Your point of view about Tolkien is certainly a common one. I respect it. Thank you for the reply, BB ;-)
|
|
|
Hi BB
I like that list if characters, but I must admit that I continue to be unsure about Boromir. What was the nature of his flaw? In the case of characters like Saruman and Gollum, they clearly had intentions to appropriate the ring for themselves, to use it to order the world as they saw fit. This focus on selfish desire seems to me to be the same original "sin" as Melkor's deviation from the themes of Eru in the beginning of the Silmarillion.
In the case of Boromir, though, didn't he simply desire to see the ring used to defeat Sauron, without a real desire (except perhaps to realise this) to use it himself? I'm not sure if I'm missing something here - I used to think I knew a good bit about Tolkien before I came onto this board. But from that perspective, Boromir's only flaw was wanting to take a different path from his companions to achieve the destruction of Sauron. So perhaps he is not quite the flawed character we've always thought him to be, not as weak as Saruman and Gollum, for instance.
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
| by -
Lightningbug
(Sun Mar 16 21:01:52)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Mar 16 21:03:35 |
Ah this is a bit of a hobby horse of mine. I just had a little rant in the Providence thread about it on Friday. Here is what was there:
LOTR was very simple, black and white , whereas our world is all shades of grey and complicated. Evil was easy to identify, as was good, and the characters are one or the other, rarely both,
I've seen this sentiment from a number of people writing about LotR, and I disagree. For me one of the points of the book is that everyone is corruptible. Saruman was good, but turned bad, although Gandalf had hopes he could be brought back again. Galadriel could have been an evil queen had she accepted the ring. Bilbo turns nasty on both Gandalf and Frodo. Frodo becomes very unpleasant at times. Isildur was both good and bad. Gollum was baddish, but might have been turned to good. Boromir is an obvious example of one who was both. Even Gandalf could have turned bad.
I definitely don't think any of Tolkien's works are black and white. Even The Hobbit - Bilbo, was a *burglar*, not a classic hero. Now I'll read the rest of the thread so I can respond more intelligently.
If by my life or death I can protect you, I will.
|
|
|
| by -
Aule
(Sun Mar 16 21:28:52)
|
|
Good points.
|
|
|
| by -
Uberdriver
(Sun Mar 16 21:41:36)
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Mar 16 21:44:16 |
I agree in that Tolkien's world has much more shades of grey than would first appear. Consider Galadriel's full history in the Silmarillion. She was one of the most valiant of the Noldorin princesses, so much so that she was willing to be one of the leaders in their self-imposed exile. In fact, she was the very last Elf of full Noldorin lineage to depart Middle-earth. Though Galadriel herself took no oaths to follow the Fëanorians, her hands aren't exactly clean, are they?
She, along with many of her people, was an accomplice in the First Kinslaying at the Teleri havens in Aqualondë. Many Teleri died in that incident. Though she herself may not have killed anyone, she certainly did not try to stop her fellow Noldor either. It says clearly in the Silmarillion that she declared intentions of wanting realms to rule under her own dominion. Middle-earth would certainly have given her an opportunity to make that ambition a reality.
With all of this history, Galadriel's test with the One Ring proves even more important. She wanted power to begin with, but she was able to resist the One Ring. Thus, she would be able to escape the Doom of the Noldor and return to the West. To me, she's in as much as grey area as Saruman. Unlike Saruman, though, she didn't give in to her ambitions.
|
|
|
Thanks for bringing in the Silmarillion, Uberdriver. The fuller picture it gives adds much to this debate. Any other examples spring to mind?
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
The foremost example that I can think of in the Silmarillion is Túrin Turambar. Though he is considered a hero in the sense that he was opposing Morgoth, he was also responsible for a number of truly unfortunate tragedies. The one that is most striking for me is killing his companion Beleg. Beleg, an elf, was the epitome of what a true friend should be. When Túrin was captured by Morgoth's orcs, Beleg came to his aid with another elf named Gwindor. They both tried to cut the chains that the orcs bound Túrin with. Beleg accidentally cut Túrin's foot in the process. Túrin, who was asleep at the time, thought that the orcs were waking him up to torture him. He struggled with Beleg. As the night was dark and Beleg was cloaked, Túrin couldn't see who he was fighting with. Beleg was eventually overpowered and Túrin impaled him with the very knife that was trying to set him free.
Túrin's wrath was also responsible for the death of two other people. Anybody who knows the tale well might also consider Túrin indirectly responsible for his sister Nienor's death.
It's true that much of this sorrow can be laid at Morgoth's feet, as he put a curse on Túrin's family. However, I think that Tolkien would be the first to agree that Túrin wasn't completely blameless in these incidents.
Another interesting example of moral grey area in the Silmarillion was the whole situation with Sauron and the Númenoreans. Near the end of the Second Age, Sauron had corrupted nearly all of Númenor, including King Ar-Pharazôn. Amandil and his son Elendil were the leaders of the few remaining people who were still faithful to Eru and the Valar. What do they do? Do they oppose the king, who was their rightful ruler, or oppose him because of their allegiance to the Powers? Elendil himself posed this question to his father. Amandil told his son, after much thinking, that he would betray the king since Sauron corrupted him and all his followers. Elendil was not so willing to act openly at that point. This dilemma, needless to say, left the Faithful Númenoreans in some serious guano.
So Tolkien's world is not so black and white as it seems. Sauron himself was able to take on a form that was beautiful to behold and deceive even the smiths of Eregion and ensare the Dwarves. The Dwarves themselves are grey area. Though they are valiant fighters and the most noble of their people sided with the nominally right side in the tides of destiny, by nature the Dwarves are acquisitive. This is why the Elves hold them in such high suspicion. Then again, as I said before, the Elves don't exactly have clean hands either--the Noldor rebellion against the Valar.
|
|
|
| by -
BB-15
(Mon Mar 17 23:19:57)
|
|
Hi Uberdriver; As you point out the Silmarillion is full of characters that are pulled in both good and evil directions. It is very modern in all the conflicts that it explores.
Adding to your list (and there are more) of these types of characters besides Turin from the Silmarillion;
Feanor and his sons
Hurin
Eol
Maeglin
Have a good one, BB ;-)
|
|
|
Nice additions to the list, BB, especially Maeglin. Going back to my question in my original post, the Silmarillion does offer more "shades of grey" for me. When I first read the LOTR, I was captivated by the language and the story. When I read the Silmarillion, I was captivated by the world of Middle Earth, a deeper dimension. And it was the added complexity that played no small part in that.
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
Hi Lightningbug
The more I think about the various characters in the LOTR, the more instances I find of the corruptible and incorruptible. For the latter, I can't get away from Faramir and Aragorn. Where do you think they show the potential for corruption? It seems to me that there are characters in the LOTR that were unquestionably evil, like Sauron and the Orcs, and that Tolkien needed, if only as a dramatic device, to have counterpoints to these. A character like Sam also springs to mind - even though he bore the ring, and even wore it, he did not seems to be corrupted by lust for it. Was this because he was, though simple, also incorrruptible?
And I would hazard that, like any point, we can't take NastyBoy's "shades of grey" argument to ultimate ends without it breaking down. It is, I think, more of general impression that most people see an appealing simplicty about its representations of how easy it is to recognise good and evil and how you know where you stand when you meet each of the characters.
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
Faramir and Aragorn are a rather pale shade of grey, granted. (BTW veethree, what's a South African doing spelling grey with an 'a' in your header! ) The point is if they were uncorruptible, they could have wielded the ring. They stayed good because they resisted the ring so entirely, rather than the other way around. If they had held it, it could have begun to corrupt them too. Sam too, after bearing the ring for just a few hours, feels "strangely reluctant to give it up". Hobbits are more resistant than most races. Bilbo and Frodo show their corruption after having the ring for years rather than hours, but even after a few hours it has begun to work on Sam.
I do see the impression of simplicity, but I think it is somewhat deceptive.
Do you really know where you stand when you meet each of the characters??
Did you know Strider could be trusted from the first page you met him? The Hobbits didn't. And Faramir? It took Frodo a longish time to decide he wasn't like his brother. And Theoden? Did you know he could be extracted from Wormtongue's corruptive influence from the start? I could find more examples.
Ah, but once you knew them, you knew where they stood. Well, yes and no... Did you not feel that Aragorn had perhaps gone a bridge too far in attempting to use the palantir? Did you like me (and Gandalf IIRC) entertain the possibility that Sauron could have got to him when he did that, and bent his will ever so slightly off plumb (as you see later he did with Denethor to tragic effect)? When Aragorn was "fey" afterwards and went against advice into the Paths of the Dead, did you not wonder if this was the effect of his encounter with Sauron?
If by my life or death I can protect you, I will.
|
|
|
Ack! Grey, grey, grey. I was hoping people wouldn't comment on that - saw that I'd done it but didn't feel like editing the post because of it. Oh well. *runs off to write "Grey not gray" 100 times, but uses cut and paste to speed things up*
As for the other comments, I'll have to give them a bit more thought.....
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
LOL!  You've been spending too much time in Cyberspace with people who spell funny! No offence to you people who spell funny - you're just different, not wrong! <uncross fingers>
If by my life or death I can protect you, I will.
|
|
|
Ok, this prompted a bit of thought.
I take your point about the corruptibility and the influence of the ring. However, are you then equating "good" with "incorruptible"? Then no-one would be good, because I agree that Tolkien doesn't intend to portray any of the characters as having no potential for evil (would make rather a boring story in the end). For me, good would come in overcoming the potential corruption of the ring, in resisting the temptation to wield it to enact a personal agenda. This Aragorn and Faramir clearly do, and the "simplicity" comes for me in the fact that we aren't given a clear picture of any internal struggle on their part to achieve this.
Taking the simplicity point a bit further, I think that one of the things that rang true about NastyBoy's point is that there doesn't seem to be any duplicity about the evil nature of Sauron and the Orcs. Because they are obviously evil, the counterpoint is also generally easier to identify: where do the "good" characters stand in relation to this evil - are they in league with it or not. You then know who to fight and so so without continuing question of whether it is right to do so or not. There may be an initial hesitation, but I'd pick up on your point of not knowing enough about them.
That said, I'd also concede that the situation is not exclusively so with relation to all Sauron's allies. I'm busy re-reading TTT and came across the passage where Sam witnesses Faramir's attack on a host joining Sauron and wonders about the soldier he sees slain, whether he was forced or not etc. It comes back to what I was saying about the appeal of simplicity being a general impression.
As for your last paragraph, I didn't wonder about any of those things: I did question the wisdom of his actions, but not his motivations. Could be because I was more shallow in reading it than you (quite possible!), but I'd hope to think it was more because each of us reads it from a different perspective. Isn't it wonderful that the works can have such depth as to allow for all these differing interpretations?
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
Hi veethree
I like your sig by the way. I think I can guess who 'them' are and why you are weeping (me too). Where does the quote come from?
No, I'm not equating good with incorruptible. I don't think I am, anyway...
Corruptible implies a potential for evil. I was supporting my original point that everyone is corruptible, and aswering your question about their potential for corruption. Aragorn and Faramir consistently choose good over evil, but having seen other characters make mistakes, although a trust is built up, one cannot be completely sure that they will not make a mistake and begin to fall prey to corruption. So yes, they are good (metaphorically  ) but their goodness is not necessarily assured, and therefore not necessarily comfortable.
I take your point that the evil is undoubtedly evil. You knew your cause was just, kind of like in WW2. But as you point out, on an individual level (as with the killing of the Southron) fighting that evil was a little less definitive, um- kind of like WW2. But with orcs and wraiths and Sauron himself the fight does become more "righteous". I suppose because they are more like demons in our frame of reference. There's not much grey in spiritual warfare. Orcs and trolls are coporeal beings, strictly speaking, but they are irredeemable as far as we know. There is definite metaphorical black.
There's also lots of shades of grey between those two. 
If by my life or death I can protect you, I will.
|
|
|
My sig is, I think, my own creation. I'm glad you liked it. But I'm an avid lover of collections of quotes, so I can't guarantee it hasn't actually been said before.
The "redeemability" of the bad characters in LOTR would make for an interesting discussion. Just to throw something else into the mix, I seem to rememebr a quote from somewhere to the effect that not even Sauron was initially bad. More shades of grey? Could just be my memory failing, though.
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
An interesting discussion, perhaps, but also a completely hypothetical one. I don't know that it was ever tried in the books. Elves adopt a freshly spawned orc and try to raise him right...hmmm. The mind boggles. Don't see it happening. The only example I can think of off the top of my head was Gandalf trying unsuccessfully with Saruman.
Even Melkor was not initially bad, never mind Sauron. I referred to that in my post to Nastyboy on this thread. Melkor was a beautiful Valar who made a bad choice. Sauron was a good Maia of Aule who was corrupted by Melkor. So yes, they are charcoal grey I suppose. But there is little possibility of the redemption of those two. I don't know why I think so though. Perhaps because the music had already been sung by them.
If by my life or death I can protect you, I will.
|
|
|
"How can I not love them, and weep?"
|
|
|
This is a great post! Really interesting thoughts.
As for me, I see no black and white in LOTR, but many beautiful shades of grey. Even the all-out evil characters, like Sauron, have been created by Iluvatar who thus combines good and evil, or stands above it. Melkor was one of the Ainur, and when he starts playing "evil" music (creation myth, Silmarillion), Iluvatar tells him: "And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory." I've quoted this before, sorry for the repetition, but to me it shows the depth of Tolkien's myth: there is no light without darkness, no darkness without light. Ying and yang, if you will!
The orcs are another example, since they were abducted by Melkor and tortured until they became evil: "And deep in their dark hearts the Orcs loathed the Master whom they served in fear, the maker only of their misery." Tolkien touched upon very profound psychological truths here.
Again, I am sorry to repeat myself, but an excellent read on the topic of good and evil, and shades of grey, is Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita". In this book, the Soviet administration is so convinced by its own "goodness" that the devil himself has to come to Moscow to set things straight (great parallels to Faust here, too). You end up really liking the devil! It's a fantastic read. The book was forbidden under Soviet rule. A perfect example of the saying "good intentions pave the way to hell".
|
|
|
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
The road may pass, but they shall not! Not while Faramir is Captain.
|
|
|
"I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..."
|
|
|
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
|
|
|
"There goes a lord who tamed a wild shieldmaiden of the North!"
|
|
|
...the angels had guitars even before they had wings...
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
 You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
|
|
A friendly bump from Sponsor #11593: Lady Éowyn
You are a daughter of kings. A shieldmaiden of Rohan.
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.
