Tolkien and the Monsters

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

As usual, I have done a good search of the forum for similar topics, but not found one. If one exists, my apologies in advance and I await reprimand.

This thread is an ougrowth of a post I just put up in the Chapter by Chapter discussion (please, everyone who might come acros this post/thread, join the CbC discussion :) ) At any event. . .

There's been a lot of discussion in the forum about the different kinds or types of heroism and heroic virtue that are developed in The Lord of the Rings, but I'm wondering if there isn't a similar conversation possible about the monsters of LotR and the nature of evil. I've seen the threads asking "are orcs evil" or "is Gollum evil" and even "is Sauron evil". The commonality amongst all these threads is the idea of evil -- that is, the only question seems to be, "which characters fall into category E" (E being evil).

But what is evil in LotR? Again, there are a number of threads devoted to discussions like this, but they are all focussed (quite understandably) on the Ring, on Sauron, on Gollum and on Saruman. But what about the monsters that define the structure of the book? The journeys of the heroes are marked by a cyclical movement from danger to safety, so that there are along the course of all their journeys a number of safe havens (Farmer Maggot's, Tom Bombadil, Rivendell, Lorien, Ithilien), but in between these are the other part of the pattern -- the monsters:

The Black Riders
Old Man Willow
The Barrow Wights
The Black Riders (again at Weathertop)
The Watcher in the Water
Moria orcs
The Balrog
Gollum
lots and lots of orcs (and Uruks)
The Fell Beasts
Shelob
The ghosts of the unfaithful
The Mouth of Sauron
Sauron
(others I've missed?)

So I suppose there are a number of questions I want to ask about these monsters:

How are they alike? In what ways are they all similar?

How are they different?

Are they all 'evil' in the same way, or is the book presenting different kinds or forms of 'evil'?

What kind of pattern is being developed here (if there is a pattern)?

Different heroes are used to defeat different monsters: does this mean that there are different kinds or modes of goodness that are appropriate for different kinds or modes of evil? Or is this series of monsters simply a repeated pattern of Good defeating Evil?

For What It's Worth: My instinctive reaction is that there is a pattern here, and one that moves from relatively 'simple' forms of monstrosity (that is, things that are unnatural/perversions of nature: beasts) toward moral corruption (perversions of unnatural will or spirit). The Black Riders are the best demonstration of this -- they begin the book appearing as eerie Men who are frightening, but they end it as terrifying manifestations of the Ring's power and Sauron's domination: they 'grow' and become Nazgul.

The other pattern I see is one charted by the Barrow Wights, the Balrog and the Mouth of Sauron. Each of them is doing Sauron's work, but as we move through the novel each one is successively more and more aware of how he/it is doing Sauron's work. That is, the 'evil' of the Barrow Wights is unconscious and confined (they are just being Wights); the Balrog is working sort of with and for Sauron, although not as part of his conscious plan (its not 'there' to destroy Gandalf or hinder the Fellowship; I'm not even sure that it's a servant of Sauron); the Mouth of Sauron is so aware of his place in Sauron's works that he doesn't even know who he is anymore, beyond the fact that he's a cog in the machine.

What this pattern means about evil I'm not sure yet (hence this new thread), but it does seem to me that there is a pattern, and that it is doing something about the nature of evil as expressed by the monsters. . .

[Mithalwen]

My instinctive reaction is that choice is a significant factor....... most of the evil things you list are things that have been corrupted or have chosen a course through weakness ... orcs are corrupted elves in origin, Sauron and the Balrog corrupted Maia..... I know Tolkien had a bit of a problem with orcs ... because of the issue of creation and redemption .....

But The Nazgul, Gollum, Saruman etc were not born evil but fell from grace through greed for power or possession ....... they did not pass the test as Galadriel did......

[Imladris]

The Black Riders
Gollum
The Mouth of Sauron
Sauron

These evil characters in my opinion are all part of the Same Evil Clique because they all fell by greed. Sauron in the greed for power. Gollum the greed for the Ring. And the Black Riders (the Nine Kings of Men) the greed for power as well. Not sure how the Mouth of Sauron plays into this but I'm sure he does somehow just for the mere fact that he is a man and he seemed a wee bit anxious to take the place of Saruman.

Old Man Willow
The Barrow Wights
The Watcher in the Water

I find these characters not to be evil. Just...unpleasant in general and creatures that cause delays (often deadly delays). The reason that the Fellowship was put in danger was because it cossed their paths. I believe that the Watcher in the Water could be compared to your local shark. Whether it was driven by the power of the Ring to attack Frodo I don't know. It could have been an unfortunately coincidence.

Orcs and Fell Beasts

I believe that they are merely corrupted slaves. Rather like the Gwythaints in the Prydain chronicles.

Shelob
Balrog

I believe that these creatures associated themselves with Sauron, though they could be good if they wanted to. Though...I am not sure about the Balrog as I am not that good at the first and second ages of ME.

I think that Tolkien was showing that there is more than just one kind of evil...which is nice since this world is a lot more complicated than merely black and white. There are a few grey creatures here as well.

Cheers,
Imladris

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Imladris:

Shelob
Balrog

I believe that these creatures associated themselves with Sauron, though they could be good if they wanted to.

The interesting thing about Shelob (to me) has always been that she most emphatically did not associate herself with Sauron at all. I am working away from my books *sob* but as I can recall, we hear that Shelob "cared not for towers or rings" and that she did not acknowledge or care about Sauron's claims to sovereignty (which makes her a lot like the good guys, now that I come to think of it).

They are both of them rather "independent" operators in that they don't take orders from Sauron or do his will, unlike the first group you have:

The Black Riders
Gollum
The Mouth of Sauron
Sauron

with, of course, the notable exception of Gollum, who not only doesn't do what Sauron wants, but (like Shelob, with whom he forms an alliance) works to thwart Sauron's plans (again, like the good guys).

So within this framework you're developing we actually have at least two differnt and opposed 'camps' within the monolithic Evil grouping with Sauron and his servants on the one side, and Gollum and Shelob on the other. To pick up on the idea of greed, each group is greedy, but for different things. Sauron for the power to mock and mar Middle-Earth, Gollum and Shelob to 'eat' Middle-Earth; Sauron wants to rule over M-E, Gollum and Shelob wish to consume it (?).

In this respect, Shelob and the Balrog are a lot like the way you describe this group of nasties:

Old Man Willow
The Barrow Wights
The Watcher in the Water

I find these characters not to be evil. Just...unpleasant in general and creatures that cause delays (often deadly delays). The reason that the Fellowship was put in danger was because it cossed their paths. I believe that the Watcher in the Water could be compared to your local shark. Whether it was driven by the power of the Ring to attack Frodo I don't know. It could have been an unfortunately coincidence.

Mithalwen, you make a very interesting point about choice and corruption, but there is a wrinkle there: Gollum was corrupted by the Ring, which is Sauron -- so, what corrupted Saruon? Himself? Some other evil power? (Morgoth?) In which case what corrupted that evil power? Where does this end? If there is a trickle-down kind of evil here, what is the source or well-spring of the corruption you see afflicting those who make bad choices?

The other possibility in your idea is that they are all 'equally' evil in that they all corrupted themselves by making bad choices -- I can go along with this, but then did they all make the same choice? If so, what is this choice and why is that choice evil? Or did they make different choices (and this is what I would think is the case -- see above), in which case are they following different roads to the same Evil, or are there different kinds or versions of Evil? (a bunch of different evils?)

[Gorwingel]

Well in one way all these "monsters" are related because in the books Tolkien does not give a very good discription of any of them. We kind of are left to imagine them for ourselves (this is a connection in response to the method of writing Tolkien used in the books).

In my opinion Shelob wasn't really evil. She was just doing what needed to do to survive, and it seemed like the Balrog was just protecting his territory.

The Black Riders, and Gollum were both corrupted by the ring (or rings). So in my opinion they kind of end up evil by accident. Gollum does what he does because he wants the ring. The Black Riders do what they do because they were attracted by the rings that were given to them, and so thus they were brought under the dominion of Sauron, and are thus controlled by them, making them evil.

I will come back to this later

[Mariska Greenleaf]

The interesting thing about Shelob (to me) has always been that she most emphatically did not associate herself with Sauron at all. I am working away from my books *sob* but as I can recall, we hear that Shelob "cared not for towers or rings" and that she did not acknowledge or care about Sauron's claims to sovereignty (which makes her a lot like the good guys, now that I come to think of it).

In my opinion Shelob wasn't really evil. She was just doing what needed to do to survive, and it seemed like the Balrog was just protecting his territory.

I agree. In my opinion, Shelob stands outside any category of evil monsters, for one, because she didn't feel related to Sauron, and she was not only feared by the good guys, but also by the orcs, which she had for dinner... Just doing what was needed to survive, is very well put.

The other pattern I see is one charted by the Barrow Wights, the Balrog and the Mouth of Sauron. Each of them is doing Sauron's work, but as we move through the novel each one is successively more and more aware of how he/it is doing Sauron's work.

Good point. I believe that it symbolises the distance between the evil creatures and Sauron. The closer they are to Sauron's dwelling, the more they are aware of who they are "working" for.

[HerenIstarion]

In Shelob's case, the defining aspect of her 'evilness' is her hatred. She does not merely kill for survival - she hates all that is not herself. In this respect, she is even more Evil than Sauron himself, who (in the beginning, at least) does all the things he does for a purpose other than himself

[Lalaith]

Nonetheless, Shelob was extremely evil. Remember, her 'mother' Ungoliant, the ally of Morgoth. That alliance was based on their determination to destroy light and beauty. But it was only a temporary alliance as their aims were quite different. Morgoth, like Sauron, was a positive, proactive evil - he corrupts life but continues it - how else would he wield power? Shelob is like her mother before her a negative evil, a kind of black hole that aims to obliterate everything into nothingness.

edit: whoops, cross-post with HerenIstarion, who is clearly of a similar opinion...

[Osse]

Exactly! Shelob (and Ungoliant's) evil, centres around pure, complete and utter consumption. Especially Ungoliant, who craved power and nourishment so much that she devoured the Trees, as well as everything else in her path. It's a self preservatory evil perhaps, but still a great evil nonetheless. The spiders unlike the Dark Lords, didn't want to control others, they just wanted to consume others - a very different, yet equally malicious evil.

I always half-pitied the orcs - a revolting form of life spurred on by evil masters to do their bidding. Though repulsive, and rather nasty themselves, they always seemed to me to be the small-time-crims of Arda. As we can see in a few conversations, namely the one Sam overhears on the pass of Cirith Ungol, the orcs would rather get away from war, and make a 'quiet' life for themselves somewhere far from the whips and orders. Of course, this life would probably still consist of a fair amount of murder, pillaging and robbery, like we witness in the case of the Goblin colonies of the north, but that is largely due to the hateful nature of the creatures. I do not believe that they are altogether evil, but are built to live off killing and raiding - largely due to no fault of their own. Still they are of course somewhat evil, it's just a rather mild evil. (as far as murdering, burning and robbing is compared to say, taking over the whole of arda or killing the Trees...)

Balrogs, are rather hard to understand, as is the Watcher. One can assume one of two things - they are completely and magniliantly evil and are forever burning with hate and the desire to destroy life. OR that they are benignly evil and were just protecting a patch of their long-held territory, though of course stirred by the great evil of the East. One would be safe assuming either.


Evil itself (as this discussion is meant to outline) is very hard to define in itself. Evil or 'bad' takes many manifestations and personas, that can be percieved differently from person to person... one man's evil is another's... um?

[HerenIstarion]

Evil itself (as this discussion is meant to outline) is very hard to define in itself

um-m, let me doubt that maxim :)

Even without mentioning Eru and sin of pride (=root of all evil), evil may be defined simply as:

Something achieving its ends (even if ends are good at some point) on the expense of others:

To use the list provided by Fordim, it can be cast down to:

The Black Riders - (end - service to their master/ means - slavery of all the rest of the world)
Old Man Willow - (end - protection of the wood (?) / means - death of the hobbits)
The Barrow Wights (end - revival of itself ~ preservation of memory (?) / means death/loss of own personality for the hobbits)
The Watcher in the Water (end - protection of the gate/ means - death of all who pass by)
The Balrog (end - unclear / means - burn them all)
Gollum (end - freedom and being his own master~eat some fresh fish/ means - s-s-s-sstrangle nass-sty thieves-s-s-s)
The ghosts of the unfaithful (end - keep the secret~find rest/ means - kill/drive mad anyone going in)
The Mouth of Sauron (end - domination/means - kill 'em all)
Sauron (end - order/ means - slave 'em all)

Only the Fell Beasts seem to behave like mere animals (and probably Watcher should be modified to fit the description) = (end - live on/ means - kill anything fit to eat)


Shelob is left quite apart from the list:

end - destroy everything but herself/ means - destroy everything but herself

But it is stated that nothing is originally bad - Good is the real thing, and Bad its' parasite, so even Shelob's paradigm can be modified to stand for:

end - exist in herself/ means - stop everything else form existing

[Osse]

Rather than hard to define, which of course if you take a bloody dictionary it is NOT... think of it as hard to compare, especially to itself. One person's sense of evil or wrong, is often warped by their beliefs, upbringing and values, as well as personal experiences. If you are going to be that blatant and word-abiding, HerenIstarion, one could say that anyone is EVIL... Aragorn is evil, he achieves his goals at the expense of all the forces of Darkness. Eru himself is evil, he achieves his goals at the expense of most if not all of Arda's inhabitants.... in fact, every single character in all of every writen work is Evil... I am evil, you are evil... even my cat is evil.


Also, your theory has a flaw: What about those creatures that are 'purely' evil...

Taking your simplistic formula:

Utterly Evil Character - end: death to all other life / means / death to all other life


Without trying to sound insincere, i do not believe that Evil is a word that should be thrown around lightly, nor does the definition you so kindly provided, outline it's real meaning... Evil is something far more sinister and intentional than just achieving something at the expense of others...

Evil is intense, it's often deliberate or at least self-observing if not intentional! Evil is a word thrown around too much in the world today... but i am not here to rant about things, I just vehemently resent the simplicity in which you have replied to my quite serious remark, a remark that I felt held truth and deeper meaning. Rather than play Devil's Advocate, as you perhaps are, maybe you should have looked at the meaning behind what I was trying to say?

I have great respect for you HerenIstarion, and your posts are always filled with insight and general freshness, I can only assume you were taking this in a humourous light, or picking up on an opportunity i myself might, yet I cannot understand why you would simplify something so intensly complex - over simplification itself dare I say it is... EVIL! :D

My regards nevertheless still go out to you HerenIstarion, and all you read this post, i am highly interested in hearing what you have to say on this superbly thought-out topic!!

Ossë

[Lalaith]

Perhaps the problem lies in trying to compare Tolkien's evil with real life evil.
I believe (although I know that probably others on the board do not) that there are no Saurons in our world.
In Middle Earth, thera are beings who are entirely evil and the only dilemma is how best to defeat them. In our world, no individual being is entirely evil in this sense, and our moral dilemmas are considerably more complicated as a result.

[HerenIstarion]

Also, your theory has a flaw: What about those creatures that are 'purely' evil..

But there is no ‘pure evil’ as such. That's (or, rather, it's opposite), what I've tried to bring across with simplified Shelob, for what is put down to as:

end: death to all other life / means / death to all other life

may be rendered as:

end: preserve own life/ means: death to all other life

And life preservation is the thing good in itself. Evilness of action is expressed by ‘death to all other life’ part of the fork. So, the origin of evil (death to all life) is good (preservation of own life)

I am evil, you are evil... even my cat is evil.

For one, cats are evil :) (I know it – as I do own two cats), it is just style they’ve got to them that masks their ultimate brutality and ‘bastardness’. For another (and you did lure me out into the deep, the thing which I tried to avoid with alleged ‘simplification’) – it is arguable that whole animal ‘strife for survival’ kind of life is as it is due to the Fall of Man

Let me confess that in watering the concept down, I rather hoped to work out definition to work for everybody, regardless their faith. I must admit the essay was not very succesful, as, I’m sure, you imply with the quote (I'm evil, you are evil) above, it is impossible to make moral choice – which action on what time is evil, and which not

But before rewriting the maxim of ‘on the expense of the others’ (let it be labelled as ‘maxim A’) let me explore the following:

One person's sense of evil or wrong, is often warped by their beliefs, upbringing and values, as well as personal experience

Verily so. But deviations are very minor. Generally, virtues are always the same, as vices are always the same. It is form they take that is different from culture to culture. To have an analogue – in all societies throughout the world courage was praised, not cowardice. But expressions of courage might be different. Similarly, ‘love for thy neighbour’ is praised everywhere, not only in Christianity, , the definition of ‘neighbour’ being different only. For Christianity, it is everybody, for Islam, Muslims only (though Jews and Christians are tolerated as opposed to Pagans), for some obscene tribe lost in the mountains it may be only members of the tribe who are considered ‘neighbours’, and than all the strangers get killed. But the main fact – that man should love his pairs, is one and the same for everybody.

Now, am I allowed to rewrite the ‘simplistic maxim A’? It may stand thus:

Something achieving its ends (even if ends are good at some point) by means of harming others (Let it be labelled ‘maxim A1’)

It says pretty much the same, but harm done to ‘others’ may be more explicit this way.

I’m aware what may pop up to anyone’s mind following such a maxim. “what about hunting tiger – is it evil?” In a way I render the issue down to this point, I have no answer to that question.

But if I were to let Eru into it, than I’d say – ‘tis for the Fall of Man only’ And, as ‘Fall of Man’ is not seen from LoTR in an explicit way, so the initial question was dealt with.

Final form, following the last paragraph, would sound like:

Evil’s is anything to put itself forward, to prefer its own will to the Will of its Creator

(Let me label it as maxim B (nailing it down in one word, it’d be Pride, and so the Fall of Man came about to pass))

Maxim B contains in itself, though is not filled up by, the A and A1 maxims

If you are ready to accept ‘maxim B’ as a whole, fine. If not, than I can contrive no better than maxims A and A1

So, having written all of the above without much consideration and in a hurry, I hope that it is moderately articulate, and fly off to meet pressing requirements of RL, with the promise to come back to the issue later on

PS. osse, I’m really flattered by your just revealed attitude to my musings on the fora. My gratitude and compliments in return :)

[The Saucepan Man]

Another classic thread from Fordim. :cool:


I’m aware what may pop up to anyone’s mind following such a maxim. “what about hunting tiger – is it evil?”I think that we have to make a distinction between mere beasts and creatures of evil. Regardless of how one defines evil, I would say that a creature can only be evil if it acts intentionally with a motive other than simple self-preservation. A hunting tiger is not evil because it is doing what it needs to do for no other purpose than to survive. And I am sure that there are a variety of creatures in Middle-earth that fall into this category. The fox, for example, that wonders upon Frodo, Sam and Pippin sleeping under the stars in the Shire no doubt needs to kill to survive. We would not, however, class it as evil.

There are also creatures within this “beast” category which are employed in the service of evil, but which, since they have no choice but to do so, I would not class as intrinsically evil. Oliphaunts, for example, and the beasts that drew Grond to the Gate of Minas Tirith. Perhaps the Ringwraiths’ horses and fell-beasts fall within this category too. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to suggest that they were “independently evil”, as opposed to simply being employed as steeds by evil creatures.

Some might say that Orcs fall within this category too, since one theory has it that they have no will of their own but are simply pawns used by the forces of evil. I don’t personally hold with that theory, although one does then get into difficult questions of whether Orcs are inherently evil, whether redemption is available to them etc. I will steer clear of that topic since, as Fordim noted, there are enough threads that address it already.

And what about Wargs? Are they simply overgrown wolves that are pressed into service by Orcs and the like. Or are they in fact creatures with an evil will? The fact that they are made out in The Hobbit to be sentient creatures that have willingly formed an alliance with the Goblins, plus the fact that they seem deliberately to target the Fellowship in LotR, would strongly suggest the latter. Indeed, the fact that Gandalf refers to them as “Hounds of Sauron” is probably a fairly big clue.

The Watcher in the Water I find interesting in this context. Superficially, it would appear to be a simple beast. One that is simply protecting its territory, or perhaps looking for a tasty Hobbit snack. Yet, as Imladris has mentioned, there is a suggestion that there is something more than coincidence in the fact that it targets Frodo, the Ringbearer. If this is more than coincidence, is its attraction to the Ring internal or external? In other words, does the Ring attract it or is it innately attracted to the Ring? If the former, then it may indeed simply be a beast: one that the Ring is using to escape. If the latter, however, then this might suggest that it is itself a creature of evil.

Finally Shelob and her predecessor, Ungoliant. As others have suggested, the fact that their motive for destruction and consumption is more than simple self-preservation, but rather destruction for destruction’s sake, would suggest that they are in themselves evil creatures (even though neither are loyal to the Dark Lords that they associate themselves with). Their sentience adds to this impression, as it does with Shelob’s “spawn”, ie the spiders that Bilbo encounters in Mirkwood. Although the Mirkwood spiders no doubt capture the Dwarves so as to feed themselves, the delight which they appear to take in doing so tends to indicate that there is more to their actions than simple self-preservation.

(Off topic:


For Christianity, it is everybody, for Islam, Muslims only (though Jews and Christians are tolerated as opposed to Pagans)I would not agree with this statement. Islam, of course, can take different forms. But, in its purest form, I understand it to be extremely accepting of other faiths, at least as much so as Chrisitanity.)

[Mithalwen]

Oh well I did say it was an instant instinctive answer.... I hadn't really established in my own mind a hierachy of evil........ I think evil is meant to be a consequence of the marring of Arda so the root cause would be Morgoth......and enough seeds of evil were sown to mean evil would continue even when Morgoth and Sauron were vanquished ..... largely in the hearts of men who saw the gift of men as a curse .... To answer other issues raises the issue of evil in the wider world - Nazi Germany and many more recent and current tyrannies....... does "the only following orders" defence have any validity ........ and evil as a religious concept ..... Gollum is so hard....... and part of the problem I have with him is part of the problem I have with Christianity - there is teh impression that Gollum is redeemable but in the end he "fails" but by his failure the world is saved...... similarly without Judas' failure the expiating sacrifice of Christ doesn't happen... sorry rambling now.....

[The Saucepan Man]

does "the only following orders" defence have any validityIt does when we are considering creatures without the capacity for independent thought, such as Oliphaunts. Whether it applies to Orcs is a matter of some debate. Otherwise, no it does not (in moral terms at least).

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

SaucepanMan, you wrote, in response to Mithalwen:

"does "the only following orders" defence have any validity" -- It does when we are considering creatures without the capacity for independent thought, such as Oliphaunts

Or the Nazgul? They at one time did have the capacity to think for themselves (when they were still Men), but they forsook that (willingly?) when they gave in to the temptation/seduction/possession of the rings of power. But this goes right to the enigmatic heart of the evil-question I am trying to work through: are they evil Men who chose Sauron (in which case, evil is defined by what one does rather than by what one is -- let's call this Option A) or were they Men who were made Evil when they were enslaved by Sauron (in which case, Evil is what one is -- Option B). I don't think that there's any way to really settle this enigma through the books -- that's kind of the point, I feel, for it forces us to come at the nature of evil in LotR from the perspective of the age-old nature/nurture (genetics/environment) debate.

That Tolkien was one very smart customer.

If we go with Option A, then the orcs, the Balrog, the Watcher in the Water, trolls, and all the nasties who oppose the Fellowship (that is, who do evil) are indistinguishable from one another in that evil -- they perform evil acts, in which case evil is defined by that which opposed good for whatever reason.

If we go with Option B, then the only 'truly' evil characters would be figures like Sauron and Shelob (in fact, I think I would confine the list to them alone, for this option) -- they are the only ones whose sole purpose in life is to defined by their evil intent, and their evil acts are only the putting into action of their evil natures. In this case, evil is not defined solely by its opposition to good, but as a more active and conscious presence.

[Bombadil]

Perhaps what defines what creatures are truly evil by nature and which ones are not could further be explored by observing their aggressiveness. What I mean is the Balrog doesn't stir from Moria, but when the fellowship disturbed it, it attacked them. So for every creature:

The Black Riders - Aggresive, leaving Minas Morgul to find the ring by any means.
Old Man Willow- Well since he can't physically move you could call him aggressive for going out of his way to mess with the hobbits.
The Barrow Wights- The Hobbits came into their land, so once again cold be disputed, but they aggressively took the party captive.
The Watcher in the Water- Minding his own business was disturbed by Boromir throwing a rock i his pool.
Moria orcs- Fellowship entered their domain.
The Balrog- As I said above, they disturbed it
Gollum- Aggressive, going out of his way to re take the ring.
lots and lots of orcs (and Uruks)- Aggressive, in terms of Parth galen and Helm's Deep.
The Fell Beasts- I suppose you would call them aggressive, as they bore the ringwraiths.
Shelob- Was disturbed in her domain
The ghosts of the unfaithful- disturbed
The Mouth of Sauron - at black gate he was called forth, but Lieutenant of aggressive army
Sauron- Very Aggressive

Now at this point you're probably wondering what my point is, after reaidng all those "aggressives." When an Orc strolls into Rohan, it's killed. When the group of (Aggressive) Uruks ran through the Ridder-Mark with Merry and Pippin, they were on the land of the horse people, and they killed the orcs for that reason. The Rohirrim were even hostile towards Legolas Gimli and Aragorn. So why label creatures as evil if they are only defending themselves from unknown creatures, or ones known to be their enemies in the past? My point may be a little far fetched but I'll throw it out there.

[Firefoot]

So why label creatures as evil if they are only defending themselves from unknown creatures, or ones known to be their enemies in the past? I think the problem I have with that statement is the word "defend". In cases such as Moria, Parth Galen, etc, and in events including most of the examples of evil, they are not merely defending themselves. They are launching an out-and-out attack on the unknown creatures/ known enemies. In Rohan, the Orcs were killed because they had made battles with the Rohirrim in several occaisions, and recently, and lauched raids on their farms etc.

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim

I was thinking of "capacity for independent thought" in terms of sentience. Oliphaunts are not sentient, but simply beasts pressed into evil service. To my mind, therefore, they cannot be classed as "evil". The same might apply with regard to the Fell Beasts.

I take your point with regard to the Nazgul, however. They are sentient. Yet, having been enslaved by Sauron, they have no choice but to carry out his will. In one sense, therefore, they are no longer independent creatures at all, but simply extensions of Sauron's will. Conceivably, it might also be said of Gollum that he had no choice in his evil conduct - at least while his will was subservient to the Ring. Perhaps the difference is that they had a choice at the outset whether or not to take the path that led to evil. However difficult, Gollum could have resisited the lure of the Ring when he first set eyes on it, but he gave in to temptation. Similarly, the Nine Kings of Men could have rejected the Rings offered to them by Sauron but gave in to their pride and lust for power. I am not sure off the top of my head whether they were aware of exactly who it was who offered them the Nine Rings. But, even if they were not, they succumbed to vices which, ultimately, led them onto the path of evil.

With Orcs, we come back to the eternal question: are they inherently evil, or do they have a choice?

Although they are not "monsters" as such, I would add Saruman and Wormtongue to your list of those who freely chose to commit evil acts.

[Noxomanus]

I do wonder,can a creature be called evil if it doesn't know that it's doing wrong? Fact is,the Watcher would be called evil though I suppose it wouldn't think so itself.

[davem]

Isn't Tolkien showing the effect of evil choices on the individual - The Nazgul are Kings who in all probability (as Shippey points out) took the Rings Sauron offered to them not because they wanted to be slaves, but because they wanted power, to have some degree of control over their lives & the lives of others. That desire could have originally been motivated by a wish to do good. But this very desire for control leads in the end to a loss of control. They become in the end nothing but manifestations of Sauron's will. Wraiths/wreaths (Shippey again) -twisted things. So Tolkien's concern is showing the consequence of our choices - because we can become 'wraiths' also. 'The end justifies the means' - if I can make things better for all concerned in the long run, then its ok if I cut a few corners now. If I have to 'remove' certain individuals to make the world a 'safer' place that's acceptable, etc, etc. But the end result is I become a wraith of 'Sauron' - of the state, of that single all encompassing vision. Tolkien's skill, though, is that, rather than going into a long philosophical discussion about such things, he just shows us the consequence. He doesn't try to argue us out of making such choices, which will just lead to long convoluted arguments on whether wraiths (or orcs, or giant spiders, etc ) are really evil or just misunderstood, or just a 'bunch of guys' trying to get on with their lives. He shows us - 'Frodo, if you claim the Ring you'll become a wraith. Do you want to become like them? Slaves with no will, no freedom? Ok, so don't claim the Ring'.

There's a real danger, as Tolkien pointed out, in 'studying the arts of the Enemy'. The difference between 'good' & 'evil'? Why choose Good over evil? Well, look at the consequences of the choice.

Or the Barrow Wight, who spends ages brooding on death, nothingness, till in the end it becomes simply a 'will to nothingness' it desires only the void which is what it gets in the end - I'm struck by the fact the the Barrow wight's great nemesis is Tom Bombadil, who symbolises its opposite - light, joy, life, being. The wight is another form of Shelob/Ungoliant to my mind.

Or Old Man Willow - 'evil' because he wants 'revenge' against all who go on two legs, not justice against those hobbits who hacked their way into the Old Forest & destroyed his trees. He has become obsessed with destroying all those not like himself, & so has turned himself into a monster.

In short, The characters in Tolkien's world who symbolise/manifest true evil have two things in common - they have all made the moral choice to become evil, & they are all ugly, deformed & cruel. Something in us is repelled by them - we know they are wrong - truly 'wrong', not just 'incorrect'.

[The Saucepan Man]

So Tolkien's concern is showing the consequence of our choices - because we can become 'wraiths' also. (davem)

But how does this tie in with the Christian idea of forgiveness? The Nine kings of Men made some pretty terrible decisions, yes. Their pride, greed and ambition led them to become instruments of Sauron’s evil will. But, being enslaved by Sauron, they were then wholly unable (during their “lifetime” at least) to repent. Doesn’t Christian doctrine hold that God will accept anyone who truly repents, whatever sins they have committed in their past? The Ringwraiths never got that opportunity.

The same may be said of Orcs (and I am veering into well-trodden territory here). From the moment that they become (or are born as) Orcs, they have no opportunity of redemption during their lifetime. They are condemned to commit evil.

It seems to me therefore that, by creating irredeemably evil creatures in order to avoid a philosophical debate, Tolkien just created more problems for himself. From what I know of what is said in the HoME series, Tolkien recognised this, since he began to rethink his ideas on the origin of Orcs. Logically, the only solution to the dilemma of having creatures which are born irredeemably and unchangeably evil is to portray them as mindless pawns, and this, I believe, is the direction in which Tolkien was heading. But it doesn’t sit well with the characterisation of the likes of Shagrat and Gorbag in LotR.

[HerenIstarion]

I’ve tried to deal with the issue in more, so to say, brief way, but eventually came to the conclusion that it should be taken as seriously as possible. In doing so, I will pass beyond boundaries set by the Lord of the Rings, but so be it. Some issues were dealt with separately in different threads across the Downs, as it is but, again, my goal here is to have as full a picture as I’m able of contriving. It may take quite a run to reach titular ‘monsters’ of the thread, but the journey is unavoidable, I believe. Any comments/corrections are welcome.

List of abbreviations to be used:

AT – Absence Theory
BT – Battlefield Theory
S77 – Silmarillion published in 1977
OK – Osanwe-Kenta
AFaA – Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth
MT – Myths Transformed


Concepts

It seems logical, before proceeding to individual cases, as listed above in Fordim’s initial post, to look into concepts of Evil as employed by Tolkien in his works. Ultimately, Tolkien draws on official Christian view on the subject. The whole concept of Evil with Tolkien originates with the concept of the whole world and its origins. So, the concept is simple enough – the world is created by ultimately potent, omniscient and benevolent God – Eru, for the benefit of his creatures – Ainur and Children (Men and Elves).

The Evil originates as corruption brought into the scheme by one of the Ainur, Melkor (later – Morgoth). So, the facts of cosmology support the main idea:

Only Good is original, Evil is its perversion or lack thereof.

And,

Good is eternal, Evil – temporary

And

Good does not need Evil to exist, but Evil can not be if there were no Good to start with

Furthermore, to avoid confusion with any ‘real-world’ concepts (i.e. Boethian, or Dionisis Areopagitus or whatever and whoever), I shall call it Absence Theory (AT for short)

In other words, as it is stated throughout Tolkien’s works, Evil can not create, it can only mock, and it barely exists – i.e. being an opposite of Good, it has its qualities in negative, and as existence is aspect of Good, the longer Evil exists, the less it exists. It maybe termed as shadow (and so it is done throughout LoTR), in a sense ‘thing not existent’, ‘lack of light’, or ‘thing caused by absence of something’.

Hence such a quotation as:

Silm77

But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.

It illustrates the principle so very acutely – whatever done, Evils is destined to ‘walk the ruinous path down’ into the Void (that is, nothingness)

But, if followed to its extreme, such a concept may lead to a conclusion that, as Evil is non-existent, and destined to eventually extinguish itself, each individual creature is free ‘to stand aside’, and entrust all to the general line of development (i.e. ultimately to Eru)

Not to let such a concept develop into opinion, there is opposite dualistic concept at work, which maybe put down as:

Evil has its own being, it is Force outside man’s [elf’s, dwarf’s, etc] mind and should be fought against
(To be labeled Battlefield Theory further on (BT for short))

Such a concept is never voiced directly throughout JRRT’s works, but hinted at here and there, as for the ‘should be fought against’ part of the maxim, it is self obvious – the whole bulk of the legendarium and LoTR is a history of such a fight.

Before I proceed on to embodiment of these two concepts, it should be noted that always, always, always the Absence Theory has the upper hand, though there are not paragons of Evil with Tolkien who would be pure expressions of one of the concepts.

Embodiment

The merging of these two concepts gave us what images of Evil we have with Tolkien. I call it merging for a reason – that being, that in no instance, in no piece of text, one is not channeled through without at least a bit of another there.

Per instance – the Evil itself in Arda is brought about by Melkor.

What conclusions may one draw when evaluating his actions from 2 concepts of evil point of view, would be the following:

1. Morgoth is perverting the Music of Iluvatar, but not creating his own (Absence Theory)
2. Morgoth is a person (Battlefield Theory)
3. Morgoth is able to put forth part of his own being (!) into Arda, tainting it and thus making it ‘Arda Marred’ (Battlefield Theory)
4. In doing so, Morgoth looses his being eventually, weakens himself to an extent of near annihilation (Absence Theory)

Both concepts are at work, though Absence Theory is predominant. (Even if he is a person, he is not able to create anything of his own, only mock)

Morgoth is furthermore viewed as Prime Evil – i.e. the cause of all Evil hereafter

Free People

Under free people, I, rather daringly, have united more that it is usually meant. In this particular post, the term means not only Children - Men, Elves and Dwarves, but spirits - Maiar, Valar and others too, i.e. all that have gift of Free Will granted by Eru. But there is categorization to be made, nevertheless. In Category A spirits are grouped, i.e. those ‘bodiless’, or bodily clad following their own choice, in Category B, spirits clad in bodily form not out of their own choice, but by their nature, i.e. Incarnates.

In both categories both concepts are at work.

For Category A, though spirits be free to choose (AT), some of them:

S77

that sang nigh him grew despondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered; but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which they had at first

I.e., are liable to outside impact (BT), the sheer force of Melkor’s disturbance makes them change their own music

Category B has it still more complicated. For one, their bodies come from the matter of Arda, and that is already ‘tainted’, ‘marred’ by Melkor. So, as it is stated that hröa and fëa influence each other (OK, AFaA), they have drawback to them from the start (BT), but their spirits are of Eru, so when the go bad, the do it ‘on the inside (AT)

The paragons of such a combined impact are a-plenty throughout the books. Per instance, Ringwraiths – they are overcome due to their own vices (i.e. power-greed etc), and becoming Evil, they by and by loose qualities inherent to Good – i.e. their life is less life but mere ‘going on’, they loose or almost loose their bodies and so forth, so the evil at work here falls under AT concept, but, and very grave but at that, they are overcome by the outside impact too – their rings (BT)

Frodo and the Ring, with all instances of ‘his own urge to put on the Ring’ and ‘there was no answer in his will any more, some outside force was moving his hand’ instances, and, especially, Frodo in the Sammath Naur, is one of the best channelings of both concepts Tolkien had written. If you look at the wording of his claim to the Ring, it is quite unclear ‘who doth quoteth’ – he, or the Ring itself.

Barrow-Wights are focus of two concepts again. There are theories that it is King of Angmar to blame that they are there, in the first place (BT), but, then again, Tom Bombadil sings quite a song to reveal a hint at the AT final to all the issue:

Lost and forgotten be, darker than the darkness,
Where gates stand for ever shut, till the world is mended


A-ha! one may utter – the world is to be mended, and than BW would be set to original plan, too! (AT)

But the most interesting is the issue of the Fall of Men, as dealt with in AFaA. Again, both AT and BT concepts are at work – The Fall is achieved with personal intervention of Morgoth (BT), but happens as Men cease to listen to the Voice-Eru (AT). It is lasting as it is hereditary and goes down the generations (BT), but can be repented off and set right (AT), and will be eternally set right in the End (AT)

And again, though both are at work, AT is predominant


Beasts/puppets

Under category of beasts fall all living creatures that haven’t got Free Will/Soul, that is, animals, orks (majority of them, as investigated here (http://www.barrowdowns.com/articles_orcs.php?=) (All About Orks), balrogs with small b (see here (http://69.51.5.41/showpost.php?p=207732&postcount=33) (One Hand Tied Behind Their Backs), fell beasts, horses of the Nazgul etc.

The beast issue forms quite a difficulty. We have Arda Marred to deal with, and, as all matter is tainted by Melkor, all beasts have a drawback to them of being (at least partially) made of what has Morgoth’s will in it (BT)

But beasts do not have souls. Therefore, what is done by them for self-preservation, even killing of other beast, can not be surely put to their blame?

This situation is ascribed to Morgoth again:

S77

Forests grew dark and perilous, the haunts of fear; and beasts became monsters of horn and ivory and dyed the earth with blood. Then the Valar knew indeed that Melkor was at work again

I.e. the whole ‘strife for survival’ issue is designed by Morgoth, and is another expression of Evil as outside Force (BT). So, it may be said that no beast is personally to blame for killing (so hunting tiger is quite a fellow, unless it is the author of this post to be hunted ;)), but the order of animal strife is not ‘natural’ – in a sense not in accordance with the natural plan, therefore – evil.

But, as the original plan was perverted, so it is promised to be set right, when Arda is Remade (AT)

Monster

Monsters proper may be enlisted as – spirits abiding in bodily forms of their own choice, not like to housing of Children of Eru. That gives us Balrogs (capital B), dragons, Ungoliant and Shelob.

Balrogs and Dragons Evilness is like to that of Free Peoples. That is, they make their choice (AT), but may be influenced by Melkor’s disturbance of the Music too (BT)

Ungoliant and Shelob are ‘baddies’ apart. Though Melkor be Prime Evil, it is said that she does not acknowledge Him. Neither does Shelob in case of Sauron. But!

S77

and there in Avathar, secret and unknown, Ungoliant had made her abode. The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwë, and that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service. But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust, taking all things to herself to feed her emptiness; and she fled to the south, escaping the assaults of the Valar and the hunters of Oromë

Again, both concepts at work – BT – for she was corrupted by Morgoth, but AT, for, even thoough she (or they) may seem ‘in love’ with Evil for the sake of Evil, another glance reveals it is not so. For what do they both desire – to preserve own existence. But existence is the quality of Good, so her Evilness, as all other evilness, has its root in Good, so is absence of one

Evil – where it comes from

Now, what is the root of Evil? The answer, throughout the works, rings the same bell always – pride. I.e. putting something less than Eru in His place.

I think, for the time being, this brief note suffices. It can be elaborated at will, if the need arises


Evil – what is it needed for at all

Returning to one of my first maxims of the post:

The world is created by ultimately potent, omniscient and benevolent God – Eru, for the benefit of his creatures

Why than, does such benevolent Creator tolerate Evil at all? (‘I’m evil, you’re evil, Eru’s evil’ quote of osse’s in one of the preceding post) More can be found here ( http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=10705) (Was Eru A Sadist). With the brief note, though, it may be said that Evil, originates out of Pride. But pride is possible only were freedom is. So, one can not have Free Peoples without letting in the possibility of Pride. But pride in itself is AT concept in its ultimate expression


This can also be (and have been) elaborated to the great length, but what is said is sufficient for the time being

With the hope I haven’t tired you overmuch

My regards

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Now davem, Heren Istarion and SaucepanMan, you just stop what you're doing right now. . .I mean it! davem put down that Bible. And you, H-I drop your copies of the HoME, I mean it! Do it right now.

Oh Saucie, please take that copy of the Letters out of your mouth.

Heavens to Besty, but you lot are such a handful. Don't you remember what happened when you three started like this on the Canonicity thread? Do you want that to happen again?

I didn't think so.

So now -- just get away from those windows and let's concentrate on the question at hand, shall we? Those are all very interesting points that you are making, and I would like to thank you all for them very much, but let's not get sidetracked into the "What Is The Nature Of Evil In Middle-Earth" debate again.

I know! My topic is what started this, and I have begun it all, but please try to move back to the issue of the monsters in LotR, and how they help us to think about the nature of evil in the book.

Now I don't want to have to say this again. If you can't focus on the assignment I'll have to send you down to Principal Estelyn's office where you can explain to her why you always want to talk about books and matters that aren't under discussion.

(Saucie, will you please stop making that noise with your armpit? It's disgusting.)

[HerenIstarion]

* sobs and tries to sound as plaintive as it may be

But, Mr. Hedgethistle, sir, I did mention Shelob there somewhere, did not I? If she's not a monster out of LoTR, who is?

*more sobbings

But, seriously, there were certain accusations of dealing with the issue in a light-hearted ways, so...

Well, promise, promise, not a word outside LoTR hereafter!

[The Saucepan Man]

My topic is what started this, and I have begun it all, but please try to move back to the issue of the monsters in LotR, and how they help us to think about the nature of evil in the book.*Puts hand in the air* Sir! Sir! Please Sir! Isn't that what we are doing? Considering what the portrayal of the likes of Orcs and Ringwraiths tells us about the nature of evil in Middle-earth? if you take my meaning, sir. :p ;)


Saucie, will you please stop making that noise with your armpit? It's disgusting.Terribly sorry, sir. But these here pans can get awful uncomfortable, and that's a fact.

*Looks about for Mistress Bêthberry to enter and commence a lecture on the proper term of address for a thread-starter on a forum that is devoted to a book which is, at the same time, both Edwardian and Mediaeval in style.* :D

[Legolas]

Why do orcs present a problem with redemption? Tolkien said orcs and anyone else could be redeemed - even Morgoth, though he wouldn't.

Sauron and the Balrog are corrupted Maiar, but not "born" evil just like Saruman, Gollum, and the Nazgul weren't - they all fell to evil after desiring power. They all fall in the same boat.

The Barrow Wights are evil; they weren't just creatures that protected their ground. They were soldiers manning their post, as instructed several hundred years ago.

Old Man Willow isn't what I'd call evil. He's just grumpy and overprotective - for good reasion, I think. Look at the dwindling forests now. The Watcher of the Water is somewhat similar, but I don't think of it as a person or character with the sort of thought processes the others have.

and that she did not acknowledge or care about Sauron's claims to sovereignty (which makes her a lot like the good guys, now that I come to think of it).

This definitely doesn't make her good, though (not that you implied such). She isn't necessarily upset with Sauron and looking to destroy his empire. She just wants to eat. Remind you of someone? (; It's exactly the same case with her ancestor, Ungoliant, that did not care for Morgoth's power. She just wanted to keep her stomach full.

[davem]

But Fordim its difficult to think about the nature of evil as personified in the monsters in the book without asking what form the evil they personify takes. I'd say Tolkien is exploring different kinds of evil. Evil doesn't have a specific form, as Evil is not a 'force' coequal with good, it is, as others have pointed out, a corruption of good, & corruption takes different forms. There is not a single source of pure EVIL in Midddle Earth, so we can't analyse it as if there is - all the monsters manifesting some aspect of that source. The Barrow Wight, as I said, is for me a manifestation of a desire towards nothingness.

Shippey quotes from Lewis's Screwtape Letters:

Screwtape makes the transition neatly at the end of Letter 12 when he remarks that Christians describe God as the One 'without whom Nothing is strong'. They speak truer than they know, he declares:

Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man's best years not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what & knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them ... or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish.

I can see the long slow horror of the Barrow Wight's existence, & the nature of its evil spelled out right there. It is similar to the evil manifested by Shelob. The Wraiths manifest a different kind of perversion of good - desire to control the world. They are like beaurocrats, lost in simply 'doing their jobs' - I always imagnine them speaking in a flat monotone, just going through the motions:

'Ah, you are Eowyn, you say. I'll just make a note of that if I may. Right, I must inform you that if you attempt to hinder me I will have to have you removed from here & placed in the Houses of Lamentation where officials will devour your flesh & your mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye. Is that clear to you, or would you like someone to explain it to you? Now please sign here, in triplicate. You may keep a copy of the form.'

In other words, I see an absence of 'malice', of a relishing in cruelty. Its about control & order. And this is what drew them to take the rings in the first place. The most chilling thing (almost enough to inspire pity - almost) for the Lord of the Nazgul, are his words to Gandalf:

'Do you not know death when you see it?'

He's talking about himself! That's all he is. Death. He was once a King, a ruler, making laws, organising his realm, ruling others - perhaps in the beginning for their good. Now he's just this thing, this 'robot' that does as its commanded. He cannot see the world, living things - they just 'cast shadows in his mind'. What can he see, in his world? Others like him - pale, ugly, undead things. Living things can't look on his face, see him as a fellow creature, empathise with him, care about him. And the greatest tragedy is that he can no longer care that they can't. He is simply death, & all he can do is make other things dead - either literally dead or so enslaved & controlled, so without a will of their own that they will be as good as dead.

But that's the end of the road he chose to take. As the end of the road Morgoth chose to take was to become so absorbed in what he desired - Arda - that there was almost nothing of him left when the forces of the Valar came to take him. He became what he desired, & lost himself. Ungoliant, in the end became hunger, as did Shelob, & in the end devoured herself.

So, at the end of the road of the choice evil makes for itself is its own desire, waiting for it. What began as the individual's greatest desire becomes in the end its greatest horror, it becomes what it most desired to be, obtains what it most desired to have, & realises, too late, that it has made the most terrible mistake. But by then perhaps it doesn't really care, & the pain isn't really all that bad - who knows? Both Saruman & Sauron do make a half hearted attempt at repentance, but they're so far gone by then they probably don't much care either way.

Orcs, in the end, are most like us. They drift along, obeying orders, & enjoying the suffering they cause, because they can justify it by blaming the victims. We're all capable of orcish behaviour - & how many of us truly repent of it, even when we have the chance?

As Tadeusz Andrej Olszanski puts it in 'Evil & the Evil one in Tolkien's Theology' (essay in the Tolkien Centenary conference collection):

Evil results from resisting the Creator, from a desire for independence from Him, & especially from laying down one's own laws for ruling the world, & so from conceit. Evil is always the result of a choice or a giving in to temptation, which is also a choice'

[The Saucepan Man]

Why do orcs present a problem with redemption? Tolkien said orcs and anyone else could be redeemed - even Morgoth, though he wouldn't. (Legolas)But can they repent during their lifetime? There is no example of one ever having done so, as far as I am aware. Even if they could in theory repent, it is unlikely that an Orc born and bred in brutal Orcish society would ever in practice do so. During their lifetime, they are effectively denied any shot at redemption. Perhaps they have the opportunity after death, but why should they not have that opportunity during life?


So, at the end of the road of the choice evil makes for itself is its own desire, waiting for it. What began as the individual's greatest desire becomes in the end its greatest horror, it becomes what it most desired to be, obtains what it most desired to have, & realises, too late, that it has made the most terrible mistake. But by then perhaps it doesn't really care, & the pain isn't really all that bad - who knows? Both Saruman & Sauron do make a half hearted attempt at repentance, but they're so far gone by then they probably don't much care either way. (davem)But if Sauron and Saruman, having committed the most heinous of deeds, have the opportunity to repent, why should the Ringwraiths (and indeed Orcs) be denied that same opportunity?

[Bêthberry]

Well, I am late to the debate here. And I promise, Saucy, that I shan't engage in a formal lecture on literary definitions. :p

I think it is very tempting to constantly refer to the entire panoply of Tolkien's works. However, what interests me is a more limited question, the one which Fordim sets out initially: what is evil in LOTR?.

To draw in a literary allusion which I am sure will tickle Sauce no end, I want to throw out a comment from a fellow student back in the day when I was studying John Milton's [i]Paradise Lost[/b]:

Well, really a remembered paraphrase: God's problem is that everything He creates has a flaw. He cannot reproduce His perfection so that what he creates is perfect. He always fails and somehow evil comes into His creation. How can he allow this evil in his creation which is supposed to reflect Himself?

Now, in LOTR, as opposed to The Silm, we aren't given an original creation myth, so we have to rely on what the text actually leads us to understand about evil. In this context, I would suggest that it is intriguing to follow first Gandalf's warning about the Ring to Frodo and then the actual appearance of the Black Riders in The Shire, close on Frodo's heels.

The Black Riders are the best demonstration of this -- they begin the book appearing as eerie Men who are frightening, but they end it as terrifying manifestations of the Ring's power and Sauron's domination: they 'grow' and become Nazgul.


I would suggest that this is not quite what happens. We don't see their growth as Nazgul in LOTR at all. What we have is the growing awareness or recognition of the danger they represent. They are always Nazgul in the book; readers--and Frodo--simply are not initially aware of what that all entails. In fact, we don't know what the process was that brought them under the control of Sauron. Elsewhere, we learn that they succumbed through their desire for power, to control others, but we don't really experience their fall and we don't know what it was that motivated or prompted them to accepting the Rings.

I'd say that what we have in LOTr is Frodo's growing awareness of the influence of this very attractive desire. Except that for Frodo, I am not sure it is depicted as a desire to dominate others. Rather, in Chapter 3 at least, it is suggested that the Ring will provide safety, security for Frodo. This is the second appearance of the Black Riders at least.

A sudden unreasoning fear of discovery laid hold of Frodo, and he thought of the Ring. He hardly dared to breathe, and yet the desire to get it out of his pocket became so strong that he began slowly to move his hand. He felt had he had only to slip it on, and then he would be safe.

Now, Sir, may I be excused while I go answer some other assignments elsewhere? I promise to return before the bell rings.

[Legolas]

But can they repent during their lifetime? There is no example of one ever having done so, as far as I am aware. Even if they could in theory repent, it is unlikely that an Orc born and bred in brutal Orcish society would ever in practice do so. During their lifetime, they are effectively denied any shot at redemption. Perhaps they have the opportunity after death, but why should they not have that opportunity during life?

There's no account of one having done so, but we aren't really given much at all in the way of stories of orcs, especially outside of direct influence on the journey of the Fellowship. The point was just that they could repent, in theory and in practice. Redemption was available to all - no one could be denied his or her part in Eru's design. I posted this quote from Osanwe-kenta in one of your threads (over a year and a half ago, titled 'Is there any hope for redemption ...?').

Melkor had the right to exist, and the right to act and use his powers. Manwe had the authority to rule and to order the world, so far as he could, for the well-being of the Eruhíni; but if Melkor would repent and return to the allegiance of Eru, he must be given his freedom again. He could not be enslaved, or denied his part. The office of the Elder King was to retain all his subjects in the allegiance of Eru, or to bring them back to it, and in that allegiance to leave them free.

[davem]

Do Orcs have free will?

Ainulindale:

There [God] willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to fashion their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else.

(see also Damien Casey's essay, 'The Gift of Illuvatar: Tolkien's Theological Vision'
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/aejt_2/Casey.htm#_ftnref38)

Humanity is uniquely free. If then the Elves are oriented towards immanence, mortal humanity is oriented towards transcendence. The natural limits of humanity are closely related to the very possibility of transcendence and freedom. But they are also the source of our weakness. Men are easily seduced because it is our nature to look and go beyond. The gift of God to Humanity is also the root of our fall, our restlessness, our jealously. The full meaning and significance of that gift however is yet to be realised.


Point being, if orcs were originally Elves, aren't they 'destined' to do what they do? Isn't it set out in the Music that they will become orcs - aren't orcs destined to be orcs? How much freedom do they have to act outside the confines of the Music?If they have no such freedom, they can't be held accountable for their choices, & so have no need to repent.

I'll leave it at that, as H-I have done that particulartopic to death in the Evil Things thread!

[The Saucepan Man]

I posted this quote from Osanwe-kenta in one of your threads (over a year and a half ago, titled 'Is there any hope for redemption ...?').Hehe! I had forgotten about that thread. Preoccupied with the idea of redemption? Me? Nah! :D

Although that thread came to be more concerned with the idea of whether characters who act "wrongly" redeem themselves in the eyes of the reader, there are some points discussed there which touch upon this discussion. Here is the link, if anyone is interested: Is there any hope for redemption ...? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1647&highlight=redemption)


The point was just that they could repent, in theory and in practice.It's all very well Tolkien saying this, but my point is that some beings appear to have had less opportunity to do so than others. Surely, an Orc who has been brought up to behave in a brutal and hateful manner has far less opportunity to repent of a wrongful deed than say a Hobbit who has been brought up with a firm moral grounding. Indeed, the Hobbit is infinately less likely to commit the wrongful act in the first place. They are not starting off on an equal footing. Is it fair to blame an Orc for not repenting when to do so is wholly alien to his culture?


aren't orcs destined to be orcs? How much freedom do they have to act outside the confines of the Music?If they have no such freedom, they can't be held accountable for their choices, & so have no need to repent.But, assuming that Orcs have fea, isn't this again an indication that they are not starting out on a level playing field? Why should their spirits be denied the opportunity to repent simply because they happen to be born as Orcs?

(Sorry for labouring the point, Mr Fordim sir, but it does seem to me to be relevant to the portrayal of evil in Middle-earth by reference to Tolkien's "Monsters". Why should some creatures be born, or created, or become, in effect, irredeemably evil? What is it, in the context of "good v evil", that makes this "fair"?)

[HerenIstarion]

Assuming the role of the librarian (an not to stray off 'monsters' one time too many, so placing my head under closer inspection by mentioned principals), I suggest to your consideration following old, but worthy discussions:

Of Evil, Free will, and Fate (from 'Gollum') (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1525) (thread author - Legolas (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=246))

The role of Fate in ME (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=1172) (thread author - Mithadan (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=4))

immortality (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=725) (thread author - Matthew2754 (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=1007))

The Downfall of Numenor (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=2405) (thread author - Mithadan (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=4))

Frodo or the Ring (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=577) (thread author - Mithadan (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=4))

Orcish fëar (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=4437) (thread author - HerenIstarion (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=66))

Already mentioned Evil Things (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=10346&page=3) (thread author - Nirvana II (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=3623))

also All About Orks (http://www.barrowdowns.com/articles_orcs.asp?Size=) article may come in useful (having its origins in Orcish Fëar thread, but in a somewhat more refined, final, form)

There are loads of other threads dealing with the subject, I'm sure, I just can't remember them all :)

regards

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Sorry for labouring the point, Mr Fordim sir

That’s Professor Fordim, if you please. :D

It seems to me that we’re not going to get very far if we keep focusing our discussion on the extremely problematic figures of the Nazgûl and the orcs. As H-I’s rather impressive list of threads shows, there’s been plenty of back-and-forth on these points already, and we’re no closer to really understanding these issues. That, I would humbly suggest, is a good thing, in a way, insofar as Tolkien is not oversimplifying a complex issue in his presentation of evil.

That having been said… In reading through the posts to this thread, I’ve begun to think that of all the ‘monsters’ we can look at, the most illuminating might well be the Mouth of Sauron: not, strictly speaking, a monster, I know, but he certainly is monstrous. The reason I think we should single out this character is that the one thing we don’t know about the Nazgûl or the orcs – how did they become Sauron’s servants? – is the one thing that we are told about the Mouth:

The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale: for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: “I am the Mouth of Sauron.” But it is told that he was a renegade, who came of the race of those that are named the Black Númenóreans; for they established their dwellings in Middle-earth during the years of Sauron's domination, and they worshipped him, being enamoured of evil knowledge. And he entered into the service of the Dark Tower when it first rose again, and because of his cunning he grew ever higher in the Lord's favour; and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron; and he was more cruel than any orc.

His motivation for joining with Sauron is pretty clearly laid out here: he was “enamoured of evil knowledge.” It is this desire to be evil that makes him the ally of Sauron willingly. The other thing we learn about him is that he is a “renegade,” but a renegade from what or whom is interestingly left unclear. I suppose at the most literal level he is a renegade Númenórean, but perhaps there is the sense also that he is a renegade from Good? (Dare I say, Eru?) In this respect I think we can pretty clearly put him ‘beside’ the Balrog. Interestingly, however, he is not like Shelob (the book’s other ‘renegade’ maiar), who doesn’t care a jot for “knowledge” be it evil or not: she just wants to devour. In this sense, I guess, she provides a useful foil to the Mouth, for he is Man whose own identity has been devoured by Sauron.

It’s in this respect that he is like the Nazgûl. Like them, he has no identity anymore. Even he doesn’t remember it and all he can say about himself is that he is “the Mouth of Sauron.” He is, however (I think) ‘worse’ than the Nazgûl (perhaps even, more evil?) in that he didn’t even need the power or excuse of a Ring to enter into the service of Sauron. He’s apparently of higher ‘rank’ in Mordor than even the Witch-King, since he is the “Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr”.

Where things really start to get interesting is, I think, the final line of this description when we learn that “he was more cruel than any orc.” His cruelty is here being presented not as the ‘source’ of his evil (that is, he does cruel things, therefore he is evil) but as the result of his evil (he knows “much of the mind of Sauron” and therefore is “more cruel than any orc”).

I would therefore like to float a tentative suggestion about monsters and how they develop the nature of evil in The Lord of the Rings *takes a deep breath*

The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” (this is still a bit ambiguous: what makes certain knowledge “evil”?). The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge". The consequence of this evil choice is two-fold. First, one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer. Second, one becomes cruel and bestial.

And from this, I think I can develop a ‘hierarchy’ of sorts of the monsters (bear with me):

“The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge”" – The most evil monsters in the book, then, would be Sauron, the Balrog, and Shelob(?).

“one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer.” – The next ‘order’ of evil monsters would be, according to this, the Nazgûl, Gollum(?), the Mouth of Sauron and perhaps Saruman.

“one becomes cruel and bestial” – The ‘least’ evil characters are the cruel “beasts”: orcs, the Watcher in the Water, wargs, etc.

Of course, I still don’t know what this “evil knowledge” might be that starts off the whole process! I think if we can figure that out, we’ll get a lot further than arguing about the potential for repentance upon the part of orcs…

[davem]

A few random thoughts:

The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” (this is still a bit ambiguous: what makes certain knowledge “evil”?). The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge". The consequence of this evil choice is two-fold. First, one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer. Second, one becomes cruel and bestial.

Can we say that: 'The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” '?

Perhaps 'the root (cause)of evil actions is the desire for evil knowledge' would be more accurate?
'Evil' knowledge is merely knowledge of evil, & someone must have practised/produced evil in order for knowledge of it to come into being, so 'evil' must have pre-existed evil knowledge. Yet if evil is not a thing in itself, but a myriad forms of corruption of something else - 'good', how can we speak about a desire for 'evil' knowledge as if it was a desire for knowledge of some specific subject - knowledge of 'evil' is not the same as knowledge of physics, or biology, or even of Quenya, say.

So, we could speculate that what the Mouth originally wanted was the knowledge of how to corrupt good. But why would anyone desire a corrupt form of something over its pure form- its like desiring a broken-down car more than one in working order.

So, we could speculate instead that the Mouth began under the delusion that there was such a thing as pure evil, equal & opposite of good. Probably, given he is described as a Black Numenorean, he was part of a group that had followed Sauron's worship of Melkor. In other words, he was the Middle Earth equivalent of a 'Satanist'. We could further speculate that the evil knowledge he desired was power over others, & over the matter of Arda - this is basically what Melkor desired, & Sauron also. We know worship practices instigated by Sauron in Numenor included human sacrifice. If the Mouth was crueller than any orc, perhaps we are talking not just about practices involving torture, burning alive, etc, but the kind of thing the Lord of the Nazgul threatens Eowyn with

"He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."

To be able to keep a victim's mind captive after their flesh has been devoured would be beyond the capacity of any orc. I suppose we could speculate that the Mouth rules the Houses of Lamentation, & has the capacity to destroy the Hroa & keep the Fea to torture (or should that be destroy the Hroa and the Fea & keep the sana to torture - I'm not up on Middle Earth metaphysics). This would come under the general heading of 'control over the matter & inhabitants of Arda', having the capacity to manipulate the physical & metaphysical dimensions, which would offer the possibility of overcoming death - which seems to have been the Black Numenorean's obsession.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course, I still don’t know what this “evil knowledge” might be that starts off the whole process! I think if we can figure that out, we’ll get a lot further than arguing about the potential for repentance upon the part of orcs…OK. I'll try one more time to explain the point that I am trying to make.

Fordim, you place Orcs, Wargs and the like furthest down on your "heirarchy of evil". These creatures are not interested in seeking "evil knowledge" as you put it. They act in a cruel and wicked manner because that is their nature. So how can they truly be described as evil at all if they have no choice but to act in the way that they do? In other words, it might be said that these creatures are not in fact evil, but simply "beasts" pressed into evil service in the same way that Oliphaunts are.

Conceivably, the same could be said of Shelob. Did she ever have any choice in her insistent desire to devour, or is it simply part of her nature? I would suspect the latter, in which case perhaps she too is not really evil. (Incidentally, what makes you think that she is a maia? I appreciate that there is an argument for Ungoliant being one of the maiar although it is not clear, but I am not aware of any suggestion that her spawn were of that nature.)

To sum up, however, the point that I am trying to make is that, to my mind, evil requires some degree of choice. If a creature does not have that choice, can it truly be evil? And doesn't this question go to the very heart of the nature of evil in Middle-earth?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

To sum up, however, the point that I am trying to make is that, to my mind, evil requires some degree of choice. If a creature does not have that choice, can it truly be evil? And doesn't this question go to the very heart of the nature of evil in Middle-earth?

Couldn't agree with you more. But I think we can refine that by saying that evil is defined not just by any choice (i.e. an 'evil' choice) but by choosing to seek or take up "evil knowledge."

As to the whole Shelob v Sauron evil thing, it can be answered in two ways. First, the way you would appear to be answering it: Shelob is not truly evil, just doing her thing (that is, she is not Sauron-evil, which is real evil).

The other way to answer it is the way I prefer: she is evil but in a different way than Sauron is evil. Sauron does evil for the sake of the evil knowledge that he seeks/wants in his desire to overthrow the created world; Shelob is evil because of her desire to consume the created world. So closely allied, but not quite the same thing. The common element, I suppose, would be that they each put the fulfilment of their individual desires ahead of creation.

As to Shelob-Maiar: I admit, I don't really know this for a 'fact': but she sure isn't just some overgrown spider either! ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

Just a quick point on the following:


Shelob is evil because of her desire to consume the created world.I accept that it is said of Ungoliant that she had an all-consuming desire to consume. But is this actually said of Shelob too, or are we imputing it to her by virtue of her ancestry? Isn't Shelob simply hiding away in a mountain lair, keeping herself to herself and consuming only what she needs to survive? The again, she is a sentient being and has the capacity to choose who/what she consumes and who/what she does not. Perhaps that counts against her. Maybe the question depends upon what was agreed between her and Gollum. Did she know that Frodo and Sam were two good little Hobbits, or did she simply view them as small Orcs?

[davem]

Shagrat on Shelob:

Anyway my lads reported that Her Ladyship was having some
fun, and that seemed good enough for me, until the message came. I thought
her Sneak had brought her a toy. or that you'd perhaps sent her a present, a
prisoner of war or something. I don't interfere when she's playing. Nothing
gets by Shelob when she's on the hunt.'

[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks for the quote, davem. :)

I suppose that could just be an Orcish way of referring to the manner of her hunting her prey. But his words do seem to tie in with the delight taken by the Spiders of Mirkwood in capturing Thorin and co for later consumption. :eek:

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Little she knew of or cared for towers, or rings, or anything devised by mind or hand, who only desired death for all others, mind and body, and for herself a glut of life, alone, swollen till the mountains could no longer hold her up and the darkness could not contain her.

I would suggest that Shelob is far more that just a hungry 'beast'! Shelob's hunger is more than just the pangs of a being that needs sustenance. So great is her "lust" to consume "all others" that she is very much on par with Sauron:

So they both lived, delighting in their own devices, and feared no assault, nor wrath, nor any end to their wickedness.

The more I look at Shelob, the more I see her as Sauron's equal in evil -- she is just another form of evil. And now I am going to take a flier: Shelob is the manifestation of feminine (note: not female) evil, and Sauron of masculine. Shelob is the complete perversion of femininity and the 'ideals' of the feminine (as embodied by Arwen?): she consumes and feeds and gluts rather than nourishes. Sauron is the perversion of masculinity and the 'ideals' of the masculine (as embodied by Aragorn?): he seeks dominion and control rather than inspiring love through his willingness to sacrifice himself.

[Legolas]

Point being, if orcs were originally Elves, aren't they 'destined' to do what they do? Isn't it set out in the Music that they will become orcs - aren't orcs destined to be orcs? How much freedom do they have to act outside the confines of the Music?If they have no such freedom, they can't be held accountable for their choices, & so have no need to repent.

No...this "destiny" you talk about seems to exclude freewill. Freewill is entirely the point here. Certainly people aren't destined to be bad or good - their good and/or bad decisions are what destine them. The Music isn't Predestination. Orientation and Predestination aren't the same thing.


The Saucepan Man - I'm afraid you're posing the age-old, kind of answerless question: Are those that don't know held accountable? I have an "answer," but I'm going to have to hold off until I've had more sleep to verbalize it comprehensibly.

[davem]

No...this "destiny" you talk about seems to exclude freewill. Freewill is entirely the point here. Certainly people aren't destined to be bad or good - their good and/or bad decisions are what destine them. The Music isn't Predestination. Orientation and Predestination aren't the same thing.


So, we would then have to assume that Orcs could be good - yet, being orcs they are corrupt - their Hroa is corrupt, Fea & Hroa are one, so are they not, in their essence, corrupt beings? Certainly, they're not 'robots', they are sentient beings, with fea & hroa:

] Gorbag:'Those Nazgûl give me the creeps. And they skin the body
off you as soon as look at you, and leave you all cold in the dark on the
other side.

Which shows that they have some 'religious'/metaphysical understanding of their own nature - they concieve of themselves as 'spiritual' beings, whose body can can be 'skinned' off them & they themselves left 'cold in the dark on the other side'. They also seem to have a belief in some kind of after life - they can continue to exist after the death of their physical body. Can we infer some kind of reward/punishment scenario from this - offend the Nazgul (or the Mouth? - this seems to be a practiced 'technique' - not simply a nasty, groundless threat made by the Lord of the Nazgul to intimidate Eowyn) & you are punished by having the body skinned off you & left in the dark. Be a 'good' orc & you'll get some kind of reward?

Are we seeing some glimpse of Sauron the 'god-king' here, with a developed religion handed down to his 'subjects/worshippers'? If so, to what extent is their 'wickedness' based on 'religious' tenets/commandments?

[Bêthberry]

The more I look at Shelob, the more I see her as Sauron's equal in evil -- she is just another form of evil. And now I am going to take a flier: Shelob is the manifestation of feminine (note: not female) evil, and Sauron of masculine. Shelob is the complete perversion of femininity and the 'ideals' of the feminine (as embodied by Arwen?): she consumes and feeds and gluts rather than nourishes. Sauron is the perversion of masculinity and the 'ideals' of the masculine (as embodied by Aragorn?): he seeks dominion and control rather than inspiring love through his willingness to sacrifice himself.


Oh, I don't think this is a flier at all, Fordim. There is a reason why so many of the descriptions of Shelob refer to her gender--constantly and continuously is the pronoun 'she' repeated, even, of course, in her very name, Shelob. The female glutton whose appetites are so deadly and whose body is so foul and putrid. Even the orcs' mockery of "Her ladyship" is significant.

However, the text sets her up against Galadriel, rather than Arwen, don't you think? It is Galadriel's star glass which Sam recalls and which lights his and Frodo's way, the light of the pure feminine figure.

[davem]

There is a reason why so many of the descriptions of Shelob refer to her gender--constantly and continuously is the pronoun 'she' repeated, even, of course, in her very name, Shelob. The female glutton whose appetites are so deadly and whose body is so foul and putrid. Even the orcs' mockery of "Her ladyship" is significant.

(adopts Vienese accent): 'Sometimes a psychopathic giant spider is just a psychopathic giant spider'

[Bêthberry]

Now davem, I had expected it would be Sauce or Aiwendil who took that approach, not you. First of all, it was Fordim's idea first, so go tease him too. :p

More seriously, many ancient mythologies have figures of disgust similar to Shelob, perhaps not in spider-form, but certainly carrying all the imageries of loathesome appetite and revolting physicality and this gender attribute. Shelob is simply another example of how Tolkien extends old mythologies in very well done ways. After all, consider the Lilith--Eve distinction.

It's another literary reference, davem, not Freudian overkill. :D

[davem]

More seriously, many ancient mythologies have figures of disgust similar to Shelob, perhaps not in spider-form, but certainly carrying all the imageries of loathesome appetite and revolting physicality and this gender attribute. Shelob is simply another example of how Tolkien extends old mythologies in very well done ways. After all, consider the Lilith--Eve distinction.

Yet Tolkien's stories are full of monstrous spiders - from Hobbit, through Roverandom through to monsters like Ungoliant & Shelob. I think its in the notes to Roverandom that its mentioned that its one of Tolkien's sons - Michael?? who was terrified of spiders, so Tolkien put them in & described them with especial relish.

I do see the 'Loathly Lady'/Kundrie/Ceridwen/Morrighan symbolism - the 'Black screaming Hag'/'Sow who eats her own farrow. Its very common, as you say. The Goddess has a 'dark' aspect. In fact, in the Irish myths Sovereignty, the Goddess of the Land first appears as a Hag, etc. I can see this symbolism in Shelob, certainly, & there is a 'Twin-Goddess' thing going on with her & Galadriel But Tolkien does what he often does - whereas in the original myths these were two aspects of the same deity, he splits them off into separate figures - he does the same with the figure of Odin, whose 'positive' aspects are given to Gandalf, & whose 'negative' ones are split between Sauron & Saruman - there's an interesting essay on this in the Tolkien's Legendarium collection.

So, yes, mythologically Shelob/Galadriel are both aspects of the primal Goddess - Shelob as the Crone, Galadriel as the Mother (with Arwen as the Maiden) - confirmed in the fact that they are all 'weavers', which also ties them in with the Fates/Norns. The Spider was a creature associated with the Goddess as weaver - links to Arianrhod ('Silver Wheel') in the Mabinogion, & Ariadne in Greek myth.

Whether this is deliberate on Tolkien's part is the question - maybe it came through unconsciously (maybe he was part of some Christian conspiracy to 'twist' Pagan sacred symbols :eek: ).

To me all this is part of a deep undercurrent to the Legendarium - I'm just not sure that in the case of Shelob (as opposed to Lembas, for instance, which I think is a deliberate reference to the Host) that its intentional, or even conscious on Tolkien's part. I suspect that he just wanted something really terrifying, & being stuck in a pitch black tunnel with a giant spider is pretty terrifying. Plus there's the whole 'Spider in the Starlight' symbolism of the light of Earendel overcoming the last child of Ungoliant.

And I wonder how many people have followed all that! (And how many still think I'm a 'bible basher'!)

[HerenIstarion]

The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” (this is still a bit ambiguous: what makes certain knowledge “evil”?). The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge".

Professor Hedgethistle, sir, I would rather say (repeat) it's pride, but I can not back myself up unless you let me pick up the copies of HoME I so prompty hid under my desk when requested. The short summary of my argument may be stated thus:

*H-I mumbles quickly unless he's stopped by Severus Hedgethistle

Melkor's corruption starts with his seek for the Fire, but it is not knowledge he is after. The rest of the baddies* as I argued in my previous but one, take after him.

Whether this is deliberate on Tolkien's part is the question - maybe it came through unconsciously (maybe he was part of some Christian conspiracy to 'twist' Pagan sacred symbols

Have you been reading much of Dan Brown lately? :p

(ultimate speculation warning alert (USWA) running red at this point):

Um, um, Mother Goddess, you say? May well be the case - after all, Tolkien was going to some pains to reconcile pre-Crhistian world of 'good pagans' with his own faith. Ungoliant/Morgoth pair** (besides Morgoth (by himself) being analogy to Lucifer) were opposed to Manwe/Varda. Latter may be representations of Earth Mother and Sky Father (not that direct, for Varda was "Queen of Heaven" too). That'd be in accordance with ancient mythology.

And than, moving on with the times (as in our world too it replaced ancient mythology), we transfer to Maiden/Mother/Crone. But if you go for MMC triple Goddess, you'll need another Mother, for Galadriel seems more into Crone business, as Shelob is way too horrible to fit in. May it be Celebrían to fill the vacancy? Than there will be direct line to fill all of the aspects, and Shelob would oppose all three.

But, as USWA indicates, we may be reading too much into it. And yet again, maybe not. I would not be surprised to learn that all of what we muse over in our 'symbolism' discussions is just an upper level of Tolkien as onion (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=187&page=1&highlight=Onion) (to use Child's wonderfull expression)

___________________________

*(Ungoliant and her spawn included)
** (I wonder what Freud would have rumbled out concerning the black spear and killing of the trees (and sun and moon born as a result of it)***
*** Not that I believe a word out of Freud****
**** Except some few

[davem]

Have you been reading much of Dan Brown lately?

Haven't heard of him - my 'inspiration' here is RJ Stewart & Caitlin & John Matthews.

But if you go for MMC triple Goddess, you'll need another Mother, for Galadriel seems more into Crone business, as Shelob is way too horrible to fit in. May it be Celebrían to fill the vacancy? Than there will be direct line to fill all of the aspects, and Shelob would oppose all three.

Without wanting to pursue this too far, there isn't really an 'opposition' of Goddesses in the ancient mysteries. There is an interesting old 'romance' of Thomas the Rhymer, where Thomas, lying under a tree, is met by the Fairy Queen, riding on a white horse. When she first appears she is incredibly beautiful (he mistakes her for the Queen of Heaven at first). When she tells him she is 'The Queen of fair Elfland', he asks to lay with her. She is transformed into a monstrous hag, & takes him off to fairyland to serve her for seven years. On the journey, they stop at a tree, & thomas offers to pick an apple for her to eat. She warns him off, telling him 'All the plagues that are in Hell light on the fruit of this country'. She then offers him bread & wine, which they share, & she transforms back to her beautiful self. But she is both the queen & the hag. Similar thing in the Wife of Bath's tale, where Gawain marries a terribly ugly, deformed hag, but when they retire to his room on the wedding night, she appears to him as a beautiful young maiden. Gawain is amazed, & asks her what's happened. She tells him that he can choose to have her ugly by day & beautiful by night, or the other way about. He says it will be up to her. At that point the 'spell' she was under is broken, & she is beautiful all the time from that point. Also, as I mentioned, in the Irish Goddess figure of Sovereignty - she appears to the potential king as a foul hag who, if kissed, is suddenly transformed into a beautiful maiden who confers the Kingship on him.

(Back to the plot) Shelob is not 'way too horrible' to symbolise the 'Dark' Goddess - actually she's perfect for the role. Its the whole Anabolism/Catabolism, 'building up/breaking down' thing. The Goddess was creator & destroyer, weaver & unweaver of all creation. In the 'Prophecies of Merlin' (included in Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'History of the Kings of Britain - the medieval bestseller which introduced Arthur to Europe) it is the Goddess Ariadne who unravels the worlds & draws everything back into the Void from which it arose. If you check out figures like Morrighan & Ceridwen (mother of Taliesin, the Shining Brow) you find that many ancient Goddesses have a 'horrible aspect', simply because in the Pagan world there wasn't the Christian opposition - creation/destruction, beauty/ugliness = Good/Evil. It was more like a Yin/Yang view.

But that is way off topic.

I did wonder if anyone was going to pick up on my earlier speculations about Orcish metaphysics - but maybe that's been dealt with in another thread?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Actually Bêthberry, I don’t think that Galadriel is Shelob’s ‘opposite’ in the manner that I think you are suggesting, although she is certainly the primary opponent of Shelob, through her ‘champion’ Sam. I think that this is because Galadriel is not wholly defined as a ‘feminised’ figure in the text, insofar as she is tempted by the Ring. She overcomes this ‘masculine’ desire (please note, I am not saying that this is a desire of men, but a desire that is directed toward the masculine desire for rule that is expressed negatively by Sauron and positively by Aragorn), but she still does possess it. Arwen, on the other hand, has no such desire and is instead possessed by her ‘feminised’ desire to nourish and support those who are pursuing the quest to overthrow Sauron (it is telling, I think, that Arwen is who provides the happy ending for both Aragorn and Frodo, who goes to Elvenhome because Arwen gives up her place to him). This is the opposite of Shelob, whose only desire is to consume the world and take it into herself, not rule over it.

But on another tack…

I’m beginning to think that another way of working through monsters and evil might be to focus on their lasting effects. I come to this after thinking about Arwen and how she tries to give the heroes their relief after their struggles (she gives Aragorn the green stone that announces his kingship and his bond to her; she gives Frodo the white stone that he clutches in his moments of despair back in the Shire). Frodo says at the end of his journey that he is “wounded with knife, sting and tooth, and a long burden.” I think that this statement tells us a lot about the nature of evil in the book. The other dangers of the journey, once over and done with, are revealed to be just that – dangers, or obstacles toward the goal. The only real and lasting damage that has been done has been inflicted by the Nazûl, Shelob, Gollum and Sauron (the Ring). This is a nice shorlist of the evil beings who might help us to understand what that evil is. Without being too programmatic it might be possible to use each wound as a sign of a different ‘type’ of evil:

The Nazgûl, are the faceless and banal doers of evil; people who have willingly forsaken the obligation of men to think morally and make decisions of their own. They have made the evil choice to let the logic of power and domination determine what is right for them, rather than exercise their own consciences and engage with the difficult and disturbing issues of what is right. (I love davem’s image of them as soulless bureaucrats in an authoritarian state – it was Shippey who likened the Wraiths to the Nazis, wasn’t it?).

Shelob is the ‘feminised’ form of evil: she devours and wants to consume all life and creation. She is the feminised form of pride that puts her desire for self-fulfilment before all other considerations.

Sauron is the ‘masculinised’ form of evil: he seeks to dominate and control all life and creation. He is the masculinised form of pride that puts his desire for self above all others.

Gollum is the evil that comes when the self is corrupted by evil choices, and by the desire to do evil. He is the flip-side to the Nazgûl insofar as he has not given up his right and duty to choose, he has just chosen to continue to make the same evil choice over and over again. He isn’t the suspension or loss of conscience, but the corrupted conscience. This is why, I think, he bows down to Shelob and becomes kind of her Nazgûl (her servant who brings Frodo to her); just as the Wraiths have given over their sense of self to the power of Sauron (they have submitted to his desire for control), Gollum has allowed his-self to be consumed (as Shelob wants to do to the world).

[Bêthberry]

davem,

Whether this is deliberate on Tolkien's part is the question - maybe it came through unconsciously ...

To me all this is part of a deep undercurrent to the Legendarium - I'm just not sure that in the case of Shelob (as opposed to Lembas, for instance, which I think is a deliberate reference to the Host) that its intentional, or even conscious on Tolkien's part. I suspect that he just wanted something really terrifying, & being stuck in a pitch black tunnel with a giant spider is pretty terrifying.

Well, here we are back on some unresolved Canonicity issues, I think. Just what constitutes evidence for authorial 'intentionality'. What is authorial intentionality? Must it always be conscious and deliberate? What kinds of things in the text would persuade you that Shelob is supposed to represent one of these ancient wicked female figures? or archetypes? Is it just happenstance that the gender attribute given to this terror is female? And happenstance that the terror is given such intense physical traits of appetite?

(Aside: Doesn't Carpenter tell a story of Tolkien being bitten by a tarantula while a child i South Africa?)
Would you need to see a long line of literary references to decay, rot, corruption and how they are linked to females? Medieval literature fairly reeks with such descriptions and attributes. A initial line about Shelob capitalises 'she':

But other potencies there are in Middle-earth, powers of night, and they are old and strong. And She tht walked int he darkness had heard the Elves cry that cry far back int he deeps of time, and she had not heeded it, and it did not haunt her now.

And is it just happenstance that Shelob is given disgusting details of parturition?

and she served none but herself, drinking the blood of Elves and Men, bloated and grown fat with endless brooding on her feasts, weaving webs of shadow; for all living things were her food, and her vomit darkness. Far and wide her lesser broods, bastards of the miserable mates, her own offspring, that she slew, spread from glen to glen, ...But her lust was not his lust. Little she knew of or caref for towers, or rings, or aything devised by mind or hand, who only desired death for all others, mind and body, and for herself a glut of life, alone, swollen till the mountains could no longer hold her up and the darkness could not contain her.

Does Tolkien ever use 'lust' in any other context in LotR?
Fordim,

Well, there certainly is a contrast between Shelob and Galadriel in terms of who gives in to her appetite and who does not, who luxuriates in it and who is so distanced from her mate that he stays behind when she sails West.

In terms of your opposition between consuming and controlling, where would you put a figure like Goldberry, who controls the weather but who certainly sustains and supports others? Or are you suggesting that this consuming and controlling are merely flips sides (ying/yang) of those who lack self-control?

[HerenIstarion]

Without wanting to pursue this too far, there isn't really an 'opposition' of Goddesses in the ancient mysteries

That's precisely the reason to suggest Celebrian as a Mother. For, if Shelob be Crone, than there would be inside oppositiong between Crone on one hand and Mother and Maiden on another. But if Galadriel be Crone - i.e. the most proud and most 'mindy' of the three, than all three as one would oppose Shelob - focus and image of Feminine perverted.

cheers

[davem]

What is authorial intentionality? Must it always be conscious and deliberate? What kinds of things in the text would persuade you that Shelob is supposed to represent one of these ancient wicked female figures? or archetypes? Is it just happenstance that the gender attribute given to this terror is female? And happenstance that the terror is given such intense physical traits of appetite?

I would tend to speak of 'authorial intentionality' only when it is conscious & deliberate - otherwise we're speaking of what Tolkien called 'the author of the story, by which I do not mean myself'. I wouldn't say that 'Shelob is supposed to represent one of these ancient wicked female figures? or archetypes?' - I wouldn't say those archtypes were 'wicked' - they were the 'dark' face of the Goddess, who was the source of all things to the ancient mind. Yes, in the medieval view that 'negative' view of the feminine was commonplace, but that was due to the 'demonisation' of Eve, & the Christian tendency towards dualism, which misunderstood the Goddess had both dark & light aspects, & split her in two - Virgin Mary & Eve/Mary Magdalen. Perhaps Tolkien's 'worship' of Mary, manifested in Galadriel/Varda, caused the 'Dark Mother' aspect to be split off into Shelob. But I don't think that symbolism was put in there deliberately. Certainly Tolkien idealised women, put them on a pedestal, & probably repressed anything that didn't fit. And repressed contents tend to become twisted & perverted, swallowed up into the 'Shadow'. But I don't think that was in Tolkien's conciousness when he wrote, I don't think he would have recognised it, simply because it had been repressed. I do think though, that even if Lembas had popped into his head as he was writing, he would immediatley have recognised that as a form of the Host, & recognising it, he would have made a concious decision to keep it in.

Would you need to see a long line of literary references to decay, rot, corruption and how they are linked to females? Medieval literature fairly reeks with such descriptions and attributes. A initial line about Shelob capitalises 'she':

And couldn't you also provide an equally long list of literary references linking females to birth, nurturing, compassion. The mediaval period was also the time of the Troubadours & Trouvieres, of Courtly Love & the idealisation of the female. Woemn were personified in extreme ways, both bad & good. And so were men - we see men lionised & denigrated in the literature of the time. I think there's a danger in focussing on Ecclesiastical sources, which is mainly where we find the really venomous attacks on woman. Its rarer to find anything of that kind in vernacular literature.

Is it just happenstance that the gender attribute given to this terror is female? And happenstance that the terror is given such intense physical traits of appetite?

No, probably not, but Shelob is far from the worst villain in the book, or the most monstrous. I think a case can be put for Tolkien, conciously at least, simply trying to create the most extreme sensation of horror & fear in the reader at this point. And she is the only female baddy (unless we count Lobelia). Yes, we have lust, gluttony, cruelty, a whole list of 'sins' walking around in female form, but draw together all the male villains of the book into one figure, & I think you'd have a worse & more monstrous villain. The Male comes off far worse than the female.

Well, there certainly is a contrast between Shelob and Galadriel in terms of who gives in to her appetite and who does not, who luxuriates in it and who is so distanced from her mate that he stays behind when she sails West.

I think a case could be made for Galadriel giving in to her appetites - using Nenya to make for herself a realm, where she can halt time, prevent death, rule uncontested - different appetites, but she gives in to them nonetheless.

And can't we have one female bad guy, just so we men don't feel we're completely at fault - its not like we're dealing with the real world ;)

But if Galadriel be Crone - i.e. the most proud and most 'mindy' of the three, than all three as one would oppose Shelob - focus and image of Feminine perverted.

No, because the Crone is an ugly, deformed, destructive, cruel, foul, etc, etc 'witch' who eats liitle children all up :eek: . And that's because the Crone is not a seperate figure, but an aspect of the Goddess, who is also Maiden & Mother. Its only when you seperate the aspects that you fall into the trap of either seeing it as a male conspiracy to denigrate women, or into presenting the Crone as a wise, kindly old lady. The Crone symbolises death, & its attendant horrors. As Mother she gave life, as Crone she takes it away. All things spring from her womb, & all things, in the end, are swallowed up by her gaping maw. Galadriel & Shelob are perfect symbols of her two faces, & it only becomes a problem if you view them as seperate figures, unconnected to each other. Brigid & Morrighan are the same Goddess. All the positivity which Bethberry finds missing in Shelob is manifest in Galadriel & Arwen & (Goldberry) - whether Tolkien intended that or not.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, I admit I'm stretching things a bit all the way, but Galadriel is going away she is oldest lady present, and she takes away (death) all things she has given (or gave birth to). I.e birth = time preservation/stainless Lorien, taking away = 'I will diminish and go into the West. But with this "I will go" she takes Lorien away not from her only, but from those she had given it to in its time - from elves living there. Was there general referendum? No, the whole of the choice lies with Galadriel only. She is like Goddes to her own people, forming their fate to its ultimate end, she decides for them would they fade here or go to Aman.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Or are you suggesting that this consuming and controlling are merely flips sides (ying/yang) of those who lack self-control?

Uhhh. . .sure. . .yes. . .that was precisely what I was suggesting. (Yeah, that's it, this was my idea!)

There is a tweak I would suggest to this however: that Sauron and Shelob do not lack self-control, but wish to control others according to the desires of the self. For them, there is no other except insofar as the other exists for the self.

Goldberry is an interesting character in this regard, I admit (and how surprising of you to introduce her here ;) ). The control she weilds is not for the purposes of domination, however, but -- as you say -- to nourish and protect (which is what makes her 'magical' and not 'monstrous'). The ying/yang (I prefer to stick to the feminine/masculine terminology or, picking up on Renaissance formulations of this -- as I am hip deep in Shakespeare at the moment -- Mars and Venus; not as divisions between men and women, but as the two forms or modes of living for all people) at any rate, this interdependent relation of Sauron and Shelob is mirrored by Tom Bombadil and Goldberry on the mystical plane, and by Arwen and Aragorn on the historical plane (and by Sam and Rosie on the domestic?).

Hmmmm. . .it occurs to me that perhaps one possible definition of evil we might apply is that in LotR, the more a being is out of balance with this essential kind of interdependence, the more evil that being becomes. . .?

[davem]

Of course, we have Goldberry & her mother, the River Woman - aspects of a primal nature goddess? Goldberry is the maiden aspect, & the River woman the crone. Does Goldberry love her 'mother'. Whether Old Man Willow is in a similar relationship to Tom is something I think has been mentioned before.

Its almost like Tolkien is creating 'mirrored images' - Tom/OMW, Goldberry/RW, Galadriel/Shelob, Frodo/Gollum, Gandalf/Saruman,Aragorn/Boromir- showing the outcome of moral choices. So its not simply good guys vs bad guys, Good vs Evil, its a depiction of the consequence of moral choices. And those who make the wrong moral choice become 'monsters' - physically as well as pyschologically. Its not a case of 'well, he makes all the good guys handsome so we can identify with/admire them & all the villains ugly so we'll hate them. Its that he's saying evil choices make us ugly - in this world only on the inside, but in Middle Earth on the outside too. His evil characters have made themselves ugly & foul ...

(Bang!! Davem's argument slams into the 'orc question' - ouch!)

Perhaps this is the reason Tolkien agonised so much in later writings about the origin of orcs. All the other villains are self made monsters, ugly & cruel because they've chosen to be. Orcs, however, are made into monsters by an external force. But I suppose this is what happens when you start out writing fairy tales & & end up writing high mythology. Faerie contains monsters, who are just 'monsters'. In Faerie Goblins, Trolls & Ogres simply exist, & have as much right to exist as Elves, Gnomes, & talking foxes! There's no 'moral' dimension as such. Ogres simply exist there & always have. They aren't explained, because they don't need to be. An ogre in a fairystory is just 'there'. He has as much 'right' to be there as the most beautiful Fay.

But in Middle Earth the moral dimension is a force, it affects individuals. There, all were once good, but some chose to become monsters - except the Orcs & by extension the Trolls. So, they must be 'robots', mustn't they? Yet, they have a metaphysics of their own - the Nazgul can strip them of their bodies & leave them (their 'spirit') naked in the 'dark' on the 'other side', so how can they be 'robots'?

Could it be possible that the Elves originally corrupted into Orcs made a moral choice to serve Morgoth - without realising the ultimate consequence? Who knows.

I think SpM's problem with Orcs' moral status still stands unresolved.

[The Saucepan Man]

But I suppose this is what happens when you start out writing fairy tales & & end up writing high mythology. Faerie contains monsters, who are just 'monsters'. In Faerie Goblins, Trolls & Ogres simply exist, & have as much right to exist as Elves, Gnomes, & talking foxes! There's no 'moral' dimension as such.Spot on, davem. That, I think, summarises the problem of the existence of Orcs (and also Trolls) in Middle-earth in a nutshell. As you say, in "Faerie", these creatures have a right to exist as much as any other. Evil is just another "way of life". A rather banal, but nevertheless illustrative, example from my own (alas now historical) experience is the concept of alignment in role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons. Every creature has its own alignment which is a combination of opposing concepts: Good v Evil, Lawful v Chaotic. Races are ascribed their own generic alignment. For example, Orcs are lawful Evil (living within an ordered but inherently evil society). No one alignment is, objectively, the "correct" way to behave.

In this kind of a world (similar to the world of "Faerie"?), evil is an end in itself. Evil creatures have their own Gods and pursue their own evil ends. Neither their Gods nor the Gods of the creatures of good alignment were responsible for the creation of the world, but are vying for control of it. In contrast, however, evil in Middle-earth is objectively "wrong", a corruption of the plan set in motion by the being responsible for the world's creation. But, if evil is objectively wrong, it seems inherently unfair that creatures such as Orcs have no choice but to be evil.

As you say, davem, I think that it is the tension inherent in combining the world of "Faerie" with a Christian world-view that give rise to the difficulties that we have with the moral status of Orcs. And it is this, I think, that led to Tolkien revisiting his ideas on the origins of Orcs in his later years. Portraying them as simple "beasts" or automatons resolves these problems, but does not sit well with the characterisation of the likes of Shagrat and Gorbag in LotR (nor, indeed the quasi-independent Goblins of The Hobbit).

[davem]

Portraying them as simple "beasts" or automatons resolves these problems, but does not sit well with the characterisation of the likes of Shagrat and Gorbag in LotR (nor, indeed the quasi-independent Goblins of The Hobbit).

Indeed. In the later writings, he tries mightily to extricate himself from this dilemna, & ends up with orcs produced from men, elves, Maiar & animals, as 'robots' with no will of their own, driven by the will of Morgoth. But it doesn't work. I suspect that its a problem which he faced in his own psychological lfe - he was a committed Catholic, yet he loved Pagan myths. He wanted (needed?) to create a mythology, but it had to conform to Catholicism. Catholicism demanded a moral universe, in conformity with the tenets of his faith. Myth required that universe to have its roots in Faerie. This lead him to 'split' Pagan gods in two - Odin cannot be translated into Middle Earth simply by giving him an Elvish name. Odin's 'good' side manifests as Gandalf, his 'dark' (I won't say evil) side as Saruman. The Pagan Great Goddess is split into Galadriel & Shelob, & instead of balance & complementarity you have conflict & antagonism. And the 'good' tends towards perfect GOODNESS, & the bad towards absolute EVIL. This, I feel, is the reason for the 'Manichaeanism', which he struggles with. He doesn't believe in it (its heresy from the Catholic viewpoint), yet it comes across - especially to readers unfamiliar with the rest of the Legendarium - as the way Middle Earth works.

The Pagan worldview is more like the D&D one, yet ultimately there is no 'moral' dimension in the Christian sense. Life & death are seen as part of a cycle, not as opposites in conflict. And, again, Death is the great theme of LotR - the love of the world in those doomed to leave it, & the wearness & yearning for escape in those destined to remain within it. Yet the Pagan view was that the two worlds, this one & the Otherworld, intermingled & anyone could pass from one to the other.

And the orcs, as you say, are the great problem - the great problem. They are born orcs, but they are, as Tolkien admits, moral beings. They have souls, & when they die (this is a later thought of Tolkien's) their souls go to Mandos. Yet the Halls of Mandos are a place for reflection & judgement. If they can reflect on their lives, & be judged for their actions, they must have had the capacity for moral decisions. Yet they don't. Indeed, the Mythology would lose its impact if we were always uncertain about the orcs' behaviour. If we felt that any orc that appeared might decide to help the heroes, or could be won over to the good side, they wouldn't be so powerful & frightening. Its the very fact that we know they are irredemebly 'evil' that makes them the terrifying beings they are. Its also what justifies our easiness with their slaughter. We don't feel sorry for the orcs because we know they are heartless, cruel & beyond 'salvation'. Our 'heroes' remain heroes in our minds no matter how many orcs they slaughter, because we know that 'the only good orc is a dead orc'. Ths can only be if we feel they are evil incarnate. While the Dunlendings who attack Helm's Deep are spared, the orcs aren't - & we agree that that is a correct policy. But 'Nothing is evil in the beginning' Tolkien tells us through Elrond. But he must be wrong, mustn't he - maybe the first Elves, twisted & corrupted into orcs, weren't evil, but those born orcs were bad from the start - from the moment they were born. They cannot be 'saved', cannot 'repent' - or if they can, our 'heroes' are not heroes when they slaughter them without compunction. Unless its a case of 'Kill them all, Eru will know his own'.

You're right. Orcs are the problem. The Nazgul chose to take the Rings. Saruman chose to pursue power. Even Shelob, while she must eat, chooses to 'play' & 'make sport' of her captives. But orcs don't choose to be orcs. They've been brought into Middle Earth from Faerie, taken from a world where they were evil simply because that's what goblins in Faerie are like, & placed in a moral universe, where salvation or damnation are, for everyone else, the consequence of a moral choice, a choice which they are denied.

[The Saucepan Man]

Its also what justifies our easiness with their slaughter. We don't feel sorry for the orcs because we know they are heartless, cruel & beyond 'salvation'. Our 'heroes' remain heroes in our minds no matter how many orcs they slaughter, because we know that 'the only good orc is a dead orc'. Ths can only be if we feel they are evil incarnate.That is a very good point. And it differentiates the Orcs from the Men amongst the "forces of evil". The Haradrim made a choice to join forces with Suaron's army (although some were no doubt deceived into to doing so, while yet others were "only following orders"). Yet we can see from Sam's reflections on the dead Haradrim soldier that perhaps not all of them made that choice. Further, we receive the impression that they are capable of repentance (and thus redeemable), just as the Dunlendings repent and are redeemed following the Battle of the Hornburg. No such suggestion is ever made with regard to Orcs. Even such "compassion" as they show (such as Shagrat providing Merry with Orc Draught) is simply directed towards furthering their ends (in Shagrat's case, bringing the captive Hobbits alive to Isengard). And, although Shagrat and Gorbag express a desire to be away from the War, the alternative lifestyle that they see for themselves is no less morally reprehensible than that which they are bound (by duty and fear) to pursue.

I suppose that the only way to resolve the issue satisfactorily would be to have the Orcish commanders as fallen Maia or corrupted Men and/or Elves who originally had a choice and have long since chosen evil and brutality, while the vast bulk of Orc-kind are simple "robotic beats" with no fea of their own. Yet the quasi-independent Orcish communities of the Misty Mountains, including those led by Bolg, Azog and the Great Goblin, would still perhaps stand out as anomalies. These communities seem to have some kind of culture (shown, for example, in their capacity to create songs) which would suggest that they are more than mere automatons. Although that, I suppose, could be explained as an instinctive, or "pre-programmed" aspect of their robotic nature.

[HerenIstarion]

That is a very good point. And it differentiates the Orcs from the Men amongst the "forces of evil".

The most interesting in this respect, to my eye, was a question of Saruman's half-orks. If the orks he used were of beast origin, would it be that crossing those with men brought about fertile specimen? And would uruk-hai produced (usage of the verb intentional) out of such breeding posess fëar?

May it be that he used orks of human origin? Than the question is settled, and uruk-hai are more men than orks, so posses fëar, so are moral beings, so are sinners.

May it be that he used orks of elven (if such ever existed) origin? Assuming Saruman might have gone to some ends to find for his service not mere automaton orks, but those with fëar, and, assuming that some of them were of elven origin, would the co-breeding of those with men bring into being creatures similar to half-elven? Those who would have to choose which side their fate would fall? For properties of fëa can not be withdrawn save by Eru, so, fëa of Ugluk, per instance, may have found itself summoned to Mandos and than, maybe, set to make a choice - repent, rebuild hroa and remain, or go beyond the circles of the world?

But these are all [speculative] questions no one has answers to.

[Mithalwen]

Err having read a kind comment on my CP (which I visited for the first time since registering recently) I have returned to this thread, despite feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the erudition displayed by other contributors :( . As to my theory about choice it relates to the higher life forms mainly - Galadriel is clearly aware of the consequences of her making a different choice and of her own vulnerability to the desire for power ....... Saruman's choice was exposed by Gandalf...... The Balrogs were Maia but were erhaps corrupted so early to be relatively ignorant of the consequences..... they seem reduced to being spirits of absolute fury, hatred and destruction incapable of choice ......it is impossible to imagine a Balrog redeemed where it is possible to imagine Saruman being redeemed even at the end. Orc seem to be merely acting according to their brutish nature as Osse said...... I am not sure this is really very useful ......

But the question of acting according to "nature" is interesting in relation to evil ..... I did a course on Criminal psychology a couple of years ago and it was fascinating and 2 cases are particularly pertinent here I think.. There are people who have extra chromosomes which have various consequences. As you no doubt all know the genetic difference between men and women is that men have an XY pair of chromosome and women have XX. Some women are XXX - they tend to be super girly girls who on no account be allowed to drive your car....... men who are XYY (ie extra male men) have incredible likelihood of being psychopathic killers.......I will resist the temptation here toi make flip comments... (ssoo hard)
and there is a theory that the chromasome makes them freakishly tall and a bit wierd looking which may lead them to become isolated and alienated .... but it does raise the question of how responsible their are for their crime if they are the victims of their biology? They also had tehse children who were absolutely and remorselessly violent with no sense of wrong, who had been shown to have abnormal brain waves .......it was really terrifying....

[wilwarin538]

Id like to say something about one of Bethberry`s first quotes. God doesnt make mistakes, he makes us with free will, to do as we please, we make are selves evil. Perhaps it is the same in middle-earth, orcs are made with a free will to be evil or good, which ever they please. Perhaps they are raised to be evil and thats all they know how to be. Im sure everything on that list could be good but just choosed to be evil, maybe because of how they were raised or just by the way they wish to live there life.

I`m sure most of this was said but I just wanted to give my own opinnion on this matter.

thanks for reading,
Wilwarin

[Osse]

I would like to bring another factor into the fray here, after i've sat back and watched for a while...

That being the upbringing of those who 'choose' to become evil. Let us take orcs as an example...

Reared for a soul purpose, they are dealed with with an 'iron hand'... beaten into submission from conception, indeed concieved for the purpose of hate, death and suffering... their lives mean nothing to those above them, around them and below them... they hate themselves, their comrades and their lot. They become spiteful, hateful beings almost immediately. What then can this person do. One orc who refuses to fight is beaten, then if it continues, is killed. Die fighting, or just die in pain!

It's a vicous cycle... they cannot escape, they cannot live for themselves, and they cannot refuse. This cycle, so cunningly percieved by Morgoth, has enthralled the race completely - there is no hope for the orcs i fear.

[Evisse the Blue]

Mithalwen and Osse brought up the role that genetics and upbringing might have in determining one's goodness/badness. Sadly this question is not solved in your world, let alone in Middle Earth. The 'super males' and 'super females' have a lower IQ, therfore a tendency to solve problems using physical violence and a short attention span. That makes them prone to relatively minor crimes like robbery and assault. A good upbringing will guarantee that desirable behaviours will be enacted if as long as they are reinforced. In other words, I'll have nice table manners because daddy promised me a pony ride. That does not exclude the latent existance of undesirable behaviours that will rear their ugly head when opportunity knocks.
Alright, enough of that. After all, this is only a story and real life can be much more complicated. The bottom line is - if one can prove, based on Tolkien's own assumptions, that, if a kindly Elf had reared Shelon since she was an teeny weeny baby spider, she would not have become the 'Dark Goddess of gluttony', than the question's settled: she's not a monster, the true monster is society. :D Same with orcs.

As an afterthought, I always get the impression, based on absolutely no cannonical sources at all, that Tolkien was feeling more kindly towards orcs than he let show, and similarly, more pessimistic towards men.

[davem]

As an afterthought, I always get the impression, based on absolutely no cannonical sources at all, that Tolkien was feeling more kindly towards orcs than he let show, and similarly, more pessimistic towards men.

They are necessary - within the story as Sauron's 'dog soldiers', the 'poor bloody infantry' that has to do the dirty work - & for Tolkien himself as a writer. He needs the threat that they represent. They must be a stupid, cruel, & obedient 'force'. Yet, they have to be explained. And he can't ever quite do it. They simply don't belong, as they are, in a moral universe, & he is never able to explain, within the 'laws' of that universe, how they came to be there. He struggles in the same way with trolls, & to an extent with dragons. In oreder for them to exist in his proto Christian moral universe they have to be explained in a way that corresponds with Christian moral values - ie, everything must originally be good, as proceeding from the mind of a Good creator, & evil must be something which is external to the creator, but it must not require another force, because that would be dualism, & dualism is heresy. So, evil can only be corrupted good, & the evil individual must have made the moral choice to seek 'evil knowledge'. Even a monotheistic creation with a dualistic-seeming world is not acceptable, so no-one can be forced into choosing evil. They must make a free choice - accept the Rings, bow down to Sauron willingly.

But the orcs don't fit. They don't choose to be orcs. Even if Osse is right:
Reared for a soul purpose, they are dealed with with an 'iron hand'... beaten into submission from conception, indeed concieved for the purpose of hate, death and suffering... their lives mean nothing to those above them, around them and below them... they hate themselves, their comrades and their lot. They become spiteful, hateful beings almost immediately. What then can this person do. One orc who refuses to fight is beaten, then if it continues, is killed. Die fighting, or just die in pain!

This can hardly constitute true freedom of choice. Its interesting that Tolkien himself never proposed this as an explanation for orcs - bred from Elves, or Men, or animals, Maiar, robots, etc, but he never attempts 'blaming society' for their evil nature. In fact, he never uses that explanation for any of the other evil creatures/individuals in Middle earth. Evil is always a moral choice, made by an individual, & the individual is always fully responsible for that choice. Individuals can (obviously in Tolkien's view should ) always chooose the good, even if it means their death. But it doesn't account for them being born as orcs in the first place.

[Evisse the Blue]

I understand your point, davem. So this means there's a flaw, a crack in this otherwise brilliantly crafted structure that is Tolkien's world.
So if I understand correctly so far - there are three categories of 'monsters':
- the 'fairy story' beasts, for whom there is no good and evil, only the wild nature's ways - like Old man willow.
- those who have chosen evil (they could have chosen to be good only they didn't), like Bill Ferny, Smeagol
- and that indistinct category that was - shall we say - predisposed to be evil? - ; born in a society where evil is the accepted norm, but still, according to Tolkien's moral sense, could have still chosen to be good. The logic being the same In the same way that good guys, with every opportunity to be good, turn bad, like Saruman. Only of course, it's much easier to fall than to rise.
Please let me know if I don't understand correctly so far.

[davem]

Please let me know if I don't understand correctly so far.

Yes, & I think you sum it up better than me!

Question is whether the 'fairy tale' monsters are truly 'at home' in Middle earth. They certainly are in the Hobbit. The goblins & wargs are inhabitants of the world of fairy story, perectly at home there, because Bilbo has wandered into their world. They are 'monsters' pure & simple - as is Gollum - in the first edition particularly. Bilbo is a typical Edwardian gentleman who strays into Faerie, & meets people & creatures, good & bad, but we aren't really given an account of why they're good or bad. Its simply assumed - goblins & trolls are bad, because they are bad in all the fairy stories. Dwarves are basically good, but greedy. Elves are good but potentially dangerous, etc.

Then, as we begin the 'sequel' things start to change, because Tolkien decides to tie LotR into the Sil, eventually to make it the culmination of the Legendarium. At that point it all changes & explanations are required for good & evil. Tom Bombadil is basically a (brilliantly realised) fairy story character.* If he appeared in a stand alone fairy tale (as he does in the two Bombadil poems) we would simply accept him, & not require an explanation, because characters like that inhabit Faerie - if Smith had found him in faerie, dancing with the Fairy Queen, we'd have taken him as one of the inhabitants of that land. Put him into Middle Earth, make him a character in LotR, & we suddenly need to account for him, explain what he is. He must be a) a Maiar, b) one of the Valar, c) Illuvatar Himself, d) something else, a 'unique' one-off (but even then we try & analyse his nature & powers, & why he's not affected by the Ring.

In short, while any character in Faerie is accepted for the most part at face value, characters in Middle earth, existing in a 'moral' universe, must be explained, or we can't accept them. Tom doesn't fit into Middle earth precisely enough (even though many of us feel that he absolutely belongs there, because we can't fit him into the 'good' vs 'bad' scenario. So, for some people he's an insurmountable problem, & they won't even read that section of the book, jumping from leaving Crickhollow straight to Bree. The orcs of the Hobbit are the same kind of thing, & Tolkien gives us different orcs in LotR, more intelligent, more psychopathic, but he can't explain them, make them fit in to a proto-Christian Middle earth, any more than he can explain Tom - ironically, because he created Tom, & you'd expect him to be able to give an account of him that made him fit. With the orcs, its the other way around - he can't properly account for them, because he didn't invent them, he imported them. They're evil, because they're evil, because they're evil,.... But 'nothing was evil in the beginning'.

Faerie is a moral universe, only in the sense that some of its inhabitants are good & some evil. Its not a moral universe in the sense that good & evil are moral choices made by its inhabitants - the moral choices in Faerie are the choices made by those humans who stray in there. The orcs in Middle earth simply can't be 'explained' to fit into Middle earth, any more than Tom can, because they're inhabitants of an 'older', other, world.

Its like the Arthurian legends - wizards, fays, ogres, have all strayed into the courtly world of medieval Europe, but by the end, with Arthur's death, the magic. good & evil, goes away - same with Middle earth after the destruction of the Ring. Its the end of magic. The faerie world, into which the heroes have strayed, is eitehr ending, or 'splitting off' & going its own way. As the Fellowship leave Lorien they are unsure whether they are moving away from it, or whether the forest is drifting away from them, & they are standing still. At the end of the LotR, Sam watches the Grey Ship move away down the long grey firth, but perhaps the Elven ship, the elven world is staying there, & the Middle earth of the fourth age is drifting away from it.

If there is a flaw, a crack in this otherwise brilliantly crafted structure that is Tolkien's world. its perhaps Tolkien's need to make Middle earth a moral universe, with evil 'accounted' for by its moral choices. In a fairy story the moral choices would have been the sole prerogative of those who stray into that world: men & hobbits.

* same applies to Beorn.

[Encaitare]

Goodness me, this thread is getting long!

I'm just going to offer my personal opinions here. I think that there is evil, and there is malevolence, evil being the greater of the two. Evil is actively working to destroy and overthrow solely for the sake of it, just out of greed, jealousy, and spite. Malevolence is doing, essentially, "Other bad stuff." ;) But then there are different levels of malevolence (M):

M1. in which someone is doing something bad for a justifiable reason (ie: survival, personal freedom, etc -- gain of power not included).
M2. in which someone is doing something bad because he/she cannot help it (ie: loss of free will)
M3. in the case of someone, as Evisse said, "for whom there is no good and evil."
M4. in which someone does bad things, but without a goal of ultimate destruction and enslavement.
M5. in which someone acts wrongly because he/she cannot/will not resist a stronger power delivering orders. This is not to say that he/she is acting unwillingly, but is still just doing what he/she is told.

To be truly evil requires a great amount of personal power, which most of Middle-earth's baddies lack.

I shall now classify! (Using Fordim's original list with a few more thrown in)

1. The Black Riders-- I would put these in category M2, because they have lost their free will.
2. Old Man Willow-- M3, because he's a tree. A nasty tree, but hardly something that is going to take over the world anytime soon.
3. The Barrow Wights-- M3, because they're rather undead and cannot be responsible for what they do.
4. The Watcher in the Water-- a tricky one. M4, I think, because its motivations are never really explained.
5. Orcs-- M5. They are dark creatures but do have the potential to be redeemed, although it is doubtful that they would use this potential.
6. The Balrog-- I would say that the Balrog is evil, simply because it and its kind were used for evil for so long. The Balrog can think for itself, and is so powerful that even the Moria Orcs flee from it.
7. Gollum-- M2, because the Ring has destroyed him so much that all hope of redemption is gone.
8. The Fell Beasts-- big and ugly, but basically like the Oliphaunts or Trolls (even though Trolls like to eat people on their own time!). They are put to evil uses by Sauron, and who can tell what they would have done on their own? They probably wouldn't be wreaking so much havoc, so I'd say M5.
9. Shelob-- I think that Shelob is indeed evil, because while she does eat to survive, she also eats out of hatred. She almost fits into the "above good or evil" category because it seems that she simply *must* eat, and she is not concerned with Sauron's personal motivations. However, the topic of Ungoliant was raised, and Ungoliant was definitely evil.
10. The ghosts of the unfaithful-- perhaps they were bad in their own time, cowardly at the very least, but as ghosts they're not that big of a threat. It's played up more in the movie so I won't go into them.
11. The Mouth of Sauron-- M2. He cannot recall his own name; he has no purpose other than to serve Sauron.
12. Sauron-- Evil all the way, but not as evil as...
13. Morgoth-- The original baddie, who is totally more badass than Sauron! ;) Yup, he's evil, though.
14. Uruk-hai-- M4 in my opinion. They *are* just doing what they're told, but their also a lot more aggressive than regular orcs.
15. Saruman-- he definitely became evil, though he was not always so.

and....

16. Grima-- my poor favorite minor character, always neglected! And always an enigma, too. I could say M1, because he was promised Eowyn if he worked for Saruman, but that is a rather sleazy motive. So perhaps we could also say M5, because he's a pretty weak person by nature and probably fell victim to Saruman's voice quite easily.

I conclude with...
"For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." ~Elrond

Thoughts?

~Encaitare

[The Saucepan Man]

M25. in which someone does something bad because they have been stuck in a 20 mile traffic tailback for 5 hours.

:D

[Osse]

Well summed up! Your points of manevolence and true even are justified, and I believe quite true. :D

But now (mwa ha ha)...

Are those manevolent beings manevolent because they are born that way, or because they choose to be? Can something be manevolent from birth?? (Forget Evil, lets just say it comes from general manevolence) And, how does Evil develop from manevolence, or can something be truly evil from birth rather than just midly manevolent?

[Mithalwen]

While I alas, have very "little Latin and less Greek", and apologise to any Classicists I would say that malevolence meant "ill will" or "wrong/evil intention" - so I would say that malevolence required mens rea...... so a psychopath may be evil and do evil things without being malevolent - it requires a degree of rationality and awareness that I would say preclude something from being born malevolent - I think it is something that one becomes. There may be a predispositon but wheter it is developed would depend on environment. However I think it is possible for something to be born evil - but then I may be allowing the fact that I think of "Village of the Damned/Midwych Cuckoos" every time I see my god-son warp my judgement on this one....

[Encaitare]

Response time!

To The Saucepan Man-- But of course! That's quite excusable. ;)

To Osse-- Oh, you devil's-advocate-playing-Maia-spirit, you! Let me reread your tongue-twisting response and see what I get out of it... Okay. I have come up with some coherent thoughts! So, what I personally believe is that we have choices, and that no one is born "malevolant." It's the experiences we have which shape us, and after a while there is a point of no return which is Evil. When someone becomes so apathetic that they figure they've got nothing to lose and everything to gain by destruction, then malevolance changes to evil. So I'm gonna go with the "Tabula rasa" or "clean slate" theory and say that at birth, evil and good do not exist. They're just abstract concepts anyway... ::clutches skull at thought overload::

To Mithalwen-- I most certainly agree with you on this: There may be a predispositon but wheter it is developed would depend on environment.

Hooray for people actually listening to my ramblings!

[Mithalwen]

I feel I may turn into a Wonga-Wonga bird imminently but I am not sure that there is an absolute clean slate because it disregards nature and leaves everything to nurture and we are slaves to our genes as much as our environment - I mean you are never going to teach a cow to sing even if you play it Mozart in utero and send it to Julliard...... Of course to an extent good and evil are socially defined concepts ... I think genes are important and they are selfish ...... there is usually an ulterior motive to social behaviour..... all in all we take as much as we can get away with ..... So in a way maybe we are born "evil" and trained (or not) to be good..... :(