Absolute Good in Lord of the Rings [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalwendë

01-02-2009, 03:54 PM

I don't think any character embodies 'absolute good' in Lord of the Rings, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, as Tolkien created Eru as creator of his secondary world, and as an Omnipotent god figure, it wouldn't be possible for any other character to be 'better' than Eru in terms of being 'absolute good'. If say Gandalf was an ambodiment of 'absolute good' then this would make him better than Eru and that wouldn't sit well with the existence of Eru.

Secondly, Tolkien states that he does not believe that 'absolute Evil' existed in his creation. While that does not exclude 'absolute Good' (unless you think it is Dualistic or something like that) it does mean that Tolkien created a Creator who could/would allow 'evil' to exist; in the Silmarillion it states that the works of Morgoth ultimately only served to make Eru's works better. What I'm trying to say is that even Eru is not 'absolute Good', he is simply Eru and beyond all of that, beyond the ken of mere Men and Elves and even Valar.

Thirdly, as we've discussed many times, our 'heroes' all have flaws. None of them are 'perfect' - even Gandalf is a grumpy old pipe-smoking hippy (;)), Frodo has his weakness, Tom Bombadil does not 'get involved' but hangs out in his woods singing trippy songs...etc...Lord of the Rings is a tale where there are no perfect saintly or muscle-bound 'heroes', but lots of very interesting people with failings just like us, doing their best. ;)

Gollum the Great

01-02-2009, 05:20 PM

While I agree with most of what you said, Lal, I take issue with this.

What I'm trying to say is that even Eru is not 'absolute Good', he is simply Eru and beyond all of that, beyond the ken of mere Men and Elves and even Valar.

From what I read of Eru (not from the Elves perspective), he was ME's God. Being God meant being "Goodness" itself, as a devout Catholic like Tolkien would hold.

Lalwendë

01-02-2009, 05:45 PM

While I agree with most of what you said, Lal, I take issue with this.

From what I read of Eru (not from the Elves perspective), he was ME's God. Being God meant being "Goodness" itself, as a devout Catholic like Tolkien would hold.

I don't know whether he was 'God' as in the Real World 'God', and if he was then there's a lot of interpretations of that, though he may well have been Tolkien's vision of what God was/is like. But I go from what's in the texts and in the Sil Eru doesn't state he is anything (in terms of good/bad or other judgements) other than he 'is'. And he also strikes me as like the vision of God (real world this time - I should be strict and distinguish them by using/omitting capital letters ;)) we see in the Book of Job, who demonstrates that he is beyond our notions of good/bad by doing some quite horrible things to Job - and thus emphasising both his omnipotence and his mystery.

That's what I mean by the concept of 'Goodness' not really applying to Eru.

Gollum the Great

01-02-2009, 06:32 PM

But I go from what's in the texts and in the Sil Eru doesn't state he is anything (in terms of good/bad or other judgements) other than he 'is'.

He doesn't have to state anything. He (as you so admirably put it) is.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Striking resemblance between Tolkien and St. John.

Tolkien I am positive does not go with Eru being evil, that's impossible. Evil is an absence (Catholic again) or perversion of the good. It's not a principle or substance. A man stands before a light. The result? A shadow. Therefore Eru cannot be evil. Neutral? A neutral supreme being would see no reason to create anything in the first place. Therefore Eru has to be good. He is Goodness itself, for if he were not goodness, where would the good come from? The Void?

we see in the Book of Job, who demonstrates that he (God) is beyond our notions of good/bad by doing some quite horrible things to Job - and thus emphasising both his omnipotence and his mystery.

That's what I mean by the concept of 'Goodness' not really applying to Eru.

If I remember rightly from the Bible, the devil requested permission to tempt Job, thus inducing him to blaspheme or call God unjust (I can't recall what exact sin it was). What did God use this for? A test. As the All-knowing God He already knew the measure of Job's faithfulness, but man with free will (still going Catholic) may make his own decisions and his virtues and vice only incline him to one side or the other. And what was this to Job?

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.

How was he to know what God had in mind? He knew God had his interests at heart, so why worry? He proved himself as true as mithril and ended up rewarded with more than he started with. An "evil" God would not help His servants in such a manner after a test. What happened to the Easterlings after they won the Nirnaeth for Morgoth? They were dumped in Hithlum with almost no booty.

Morthoron

01-02-2009, 08:57 PM

As Tolkien stated there is nothing or no one 'absolutely evil' in his mythos, I would then have to conclude the opposite is also true -- that there is no 'absolute good'.

Free Will precludes Absolutes, and, conversely, the imposition of an Absolute on Free Will eliminates it. The terms are mutually exclusive.

The Might

01-02-2009, 09:19 PM

Well, I don't know.

I mean, the thing is that Eru is the Christian God. He is not a fictional deity, Eru is but a fictional name for the Christian God that Tolkien too worshiped, used although in a fictional context. Tolkien defends his non-orthodox portrayal of God as Eru in his works in letter 154 to Mr. Peter Hastings saying:

We differ entirely about the nature of the relation of sub-creation to Creation. I should have said that liberation "from the channels the creator is known to have used already" is the fundamental function of "sub-creation", a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety [...] I am not a metaphysician; but I should have thought it a curious metaphysic — there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones — that declared the channels known (in such a finite corner as we have any inkling of) to have been used, are the only possible ones, or efficacious, or possibly acceptable to and by Him!

As such, Eru was for Tolkien THE Christian God and the use within the works was to him but a means of exploring the infinite possibilities of God, "a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety".

Now, the question is, is God for Catholics absolute good? To this question I await your answers since I am an agnostic with no idea about the so interesting teachings of the church. Especially in such philosophical matters I need some assistance, I believe Legate could be helpful, he is studying religion as far as I know. I might PM him about this.

Ok, so the thing is, if Catholics regard God as absolute good, then Eru is absolute good, since he is God, simple transitivity. If not, then not.

Beregond

01-03-2009, 12:37 AM

I can't speak for Catholics per se but since the Christian God is a single God, the creator, then all things Good and Evil originated from him. But Evil can be described as that which goes against God, and by that standard you could say God is wholly not Evil - totally Good. Now you could argue semantics and technicalities all day but in the end I think God is beyond such general terms.

And beyond this thread, perhaps. I have the sneaking suspicion Cailín was hoping for more, shall we say, embodied characters?

Unfortunately when you leave out Eru I do not believe there are any absolute Good characters in The Lord of the Rings - plain and simple. If I had to choose the Good-est my gut instinct was Gandalf. Being a Maiar makes him Good no more than it does Sauron; however, he does succeed in his God-given mission when other Istari do not. He does not fall to temptation. Whether is love of Old Toby or his propensity to berate meddlers influence whether he is "Good" or not, who can say? Every single character has flaws - that is basic to life and Tolkien didn't forget it.

Formendacil

01-03-2009, 01:01 AM

Now, the question is, is God for Catholics absolute good? To this question I await your answers since I am an agnostic with no idea about the so interesting teachings of the church. Especially in such philosophical matters I need some assistance, I believe Legate could be helpful, he is studying religion as far as I know. I might PM him about this.

Ok, so the thing is, if Catholics regard God as absolute good, then Eru is absolute good, since he is God, simple transitivity. If not, then not.

I can't claim to speak to what all Catholics believe, but I can speak to what their dogma tells them they ought to. Gollum has it essentially correct to say God is all good, and I quote The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

God is infinitely good and all his works are good.

And, as the footnote there says, this is philosophically traceable back to St. Augustine, although that's standard Catholic (indeed, most Christian, I'd say, that have philosophic traditions) to say that God is all-good, in addition to all-powerful and all-knowing.

But I think this is getting off track somewhat. Certainly, it answers Cailín's question, but it's a very unnuanced and--I suspect--rather unhelpful. Here's her actual question:

Who, if anyone, in Lord of the Rings embodies absolute good?

Eru may be absolute good... but good luck finding a mention of him in the Lord of the Rings. Of course, I'm being bluntly unuseful myself in pointing that out, so let's try a better tack.

Gollum is right, of course, to say that Eru is the only being in Middle-earth who can be said to perfectly good if only because Tolkien isn't writing an allegory... but I think Cailín might settle for someone less perfect--even if it means someone less good. If we're looking for a useful essay example here, we need someone from the Lord of the Rings who epitomises, as best as possible, goodness.

Two characters leapt to my mind in the middle of writing the above.

Firstly, Sam.

Now, I know Sam isn't perfect. If we cease to harp on the perfection bit, I think it's pretty clear that Sam has more good characteristics than most characters in Middle-earth, and not least in his favour is Tolkien's comment that Sam is perhaps the real hero of the epic. More could be said here but it's late and focusing is not something I'm doing so well at at the moment.

Moving on, the other character that leapt to mind was Théoden... and I'll be honest, I'm not sure I OUGHT to be putting him in... but I'll throw it out anyway because it's late, I'm tired, and it'll make for good discussion if it doesn't get buried as a footnote. It seems to me that, AFTER his cure by Gandalf, Théoden is something of an idealised character: he's noble, he's kind, he's just, he's brave... and he dies a heroic death in battle. If there's any case to what my delusional, tired brain has come up with in presenting Théoden, this might have some interesting things to say about the value of self-sacrifice in Middle-earth.

Cailín

01-03-2009, 05:30 AM

Some very interesting answers, thank you. I did not wish to go off-topic, because this is a Tolkien forum, but some of you might still be interested why I pose this question. The question actually arose from an article ("From Elfland to Hogwarts") I read by John Pennington, who finds fault with the Harry Potter series by comparing it to The Lord of the Rings, and some other famous fantasy works which he considers to be at the heart of fantasy (Chronicles of Narnia, for example). His main point is basically that Harry Potter is “fundamentally failed fantasy”. One of the reasons was most intriguing to me:
But the archetypal theme of good versus evil appears to be what the Potter books are about. Harry's education is cemented in this ultimate dichotomy that Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin privilege in their texts. So just what are the Harry Potter books about? (...) All is ripe for the good old-fashioned battle between good and evil. But that tone is quickly undercut--Harry is often more interested in being able to visit Hogsmeade and practice Quidditch than he is in fighting evil.
And later:
Finally, what ultimately is the role of the archetypal good versus evil dichotomy in the series? Voldemort represents the darkest of evil. But what of the good? Is there an overarching figure of good--a supreme being, for example, not necessarily God--whom Harry and his friends follow? They certainly are in a Christian universe, for they celebrate the Christmas season. If there are the Dark Arts, are there the Light or White Arts? Dumbledore is a Merlin and Gandalf figure, but Dumbledore does not achieve any grandeur; his name evokes bumble and bumbling, reminiscent of Tweedledee and Tweedledum, those foolish characters. There seems to be a good in the novel, but that goodness seems individual rather than archetypal. Thus the archetypal evilness in the Potter universe has no real antidote other than Harry and his friends (who do not seem to take that evil too seriously).
Since Rowling’s work is constantly contrasted with The Lord of the Rings, presumably Pennington did find the archetypes he was looking for in Tolkien’s writing. Perhaps he was indeed referring to Eru - though as Formendacil rightly points out, Eru is not really mentioned in The Lord of the Rings. He may be the source of goodness, as he is the source of everything, but like Tom Bombadil, the Ring seems to be beneath his concerns and Sauron’s far lesser evil is sufficiently balanced by characters such as Gandalf, who are not supreme archetypes. The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

P.S. I’m not sure how many Potter fans / readers are present, but of course after the publication of Deathly Hallows it is quite clear that the Potter universe is indeed Christian. The article quoted above is from 2002, and was written before the fifth instalment in the series was published.

Lalwendë

01-03-2009, 12:57 PM

Just a quickie here for now...because I'll have to rummage out a bible in order to answer Gollum about Job ;)

He may be the source of goodness, as he is the source of everything, but like Tom Bombadil, the Ring seems to be beneath his concerns and Sauron’s far lesser evil is sufficiently balanced by characters such as Gandalf, who are not supreme archetypes. The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

I agree. Eru isn't significant in Lord of the Rings, in fact what we're presented with is a world without faith, religion etc and the characters seem to have to decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. In that respect, those who choose to opt for the side of Light seem all the better for it somehow, in the face of all too tempting odds offered by the Dark side.

And that's another thought - maybe it might be better to think of dualities in terms of Light/Dark in Tolkien's work rather than Good/Evil?

Harry is often more interested in being able to visit Hogsmeade and practice Quidditch than he is in fighting evil.

That's a grossly unfair criticism! Harry Potter is a teenage boy, not a saint. The Harry Potter books are as much takes of friendship and boarding school life as they are of 'fighting evil'. :rolleyes:

Boromir88

01-03-2009, 01:56 PM

First off, I want to say it's lovely to have you back Cailin - I hope you can stick around, and I sorely miss you in those WW villages. :D

And also, here's TM again! Maybe in my own absenses I've missed some things, but it seems like it's been forever since I've seen you posting in a thread. As expected a great find!

The one thing I want to caution to answer this question, is using Tolkien letters. That's a great find TM, but I will just point out that Peter Hastings was one of Tolkien's Catholic friends. Peter Hastings was the manager of the Newman Bookshop, a Catholic book store. And what's significant about that? Professor Kilby (one of the leading Silmarillion gurus) has observed (as well as others) that Tolkien had the tendancy to say completely different things to different people. I suggest Tolkien's friend Norman Cantor's view, and that is while Tolkien's letter are interesting to read, they can't always be authorial to the text (The Silm, LOTR...etc). Tolkien was consciously thinking and answering questions from several different people about his books, long after he had written them. Books that had undergone several reworkings, rewritings, and Tolkien even saying parts that were written some 30 years ago, admitting he didn't "know everything."

Basically, Tolkien could give different answers to different people, because of the depth of his books, and the very many different influences that he drew from - religion, Norse myth, war, languages...etc.

The other thing I want to ask is (I think davem, or someone else has asked this before) but particularly for Gollum - does a Christian carmaker create christian cars? Or in this case - does a Christian author necessarily write a Christian book? To deny a Christian influence would be ridiculous, it would be taking away an important part of Tolkien's life - it would be like denying he served in WW1.

However, I must disagree with the statement that since Tolkien was Catholic, he created a Catholic god in Eru, and thus Eru represents absolute good. I want to point out a statement by another author, one who typically gets labelled a writing a Christian story, but it's a very fascinating comment - in Christianity and Literature; "Christian Reflections":

It would be possible, and perhaps edifying, to write a Christian cookery book. Such a book would exclude dishes whose preparation involves unnecessary human labour or animal suffering, and dishes excessively luxurious. That is to say, its choice of dishes would be Christian. But there could be nothing specifically Christian about the actual cooking of the dishes included. Boiling an egg is the same process whether you are a Christian or a Pagan. In the same way, literature written by Christians for Christians would have to avoid mendacity, cruelty, blasphemy, pornography, and the like, and it would aim at edification in so far as edification was proper to the kind of work in hand.
And the person who I'm quoting is....

::drumroll please::

C.S. Lewis

It's interesting how those who are quick to label Lewis as being a Christian writer, Narnia being a Christian allegory overlook some of Lewis' comments. I would argue that Lewis (and Tolkien) were writers who were Christian, and obviously were influenced by their faith. But to say Tolkien created a Christian God in Eru, I think, is taking things a step too far. As Tolkien put it, he doesn't preach, nor does he teach.

So, my answer to you Cailin is, Eru was 100% correct in saying that he "is," and that is - he is what you want to believe he is. :) Is there an absolute good in LOTR? I don't know, my guess is no, because as Morthoron and others have argued there is no absolute evil. But I wouldn't presume to speak for yours, Tolkien's, or anyone else's beliefs - particulary religious ones.

Lalwendë

01-03-2009, 03:16 PM

If I remember rightly from the Bible, the devil requested permission to tempt Job, thus inducing him to blaspheme or call God unjust (I can't recall what exact sin it was). What did God use this for? A test. As the All-knowing God He already knew the measure of Job's faithfulness, but man with free will (still going Catholic) may make his own decisions and his virtues and vice only incline him to one side or the other. And what was this to Job?

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.

God permits Satan to do these things to Job, it is ultimately God's work which was happening to him. Thus, God demonstrates his absolute freedom and omnipotence. And in doing so, finds out that Job's faith is such he accepts these horrible things.

Tolkien I am positive does not go with Eru being evil, that's impossible. Evil is an absence (Catholic again) or perversion of the good.

Of course Eru is not 'evil', but everything stems from him, every possibility, even Morgoth's works stem ultimately from Eru as Eru makes him and makes him so he is able to do these things. But of course even the things we see as 'evil' which happen in Arda are ultimately 'good' as they stem from Eru. And Eru even gives us a little explanation when he says

no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me

and

thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory

The best example to demonstrate how Melkor's works only serve to make Eru seem more glorious is good old snow. It seems odd at first to think that even the bad things stem ultimately from Eru, but they do. And that chimes in with the profound and quite difficult things said in Job.

Like Boro says,
I would argue that Lewis (and Tolkien) were writers who were Christian, and obviously were influenced by their faith. But to say Tolkien created a Christian God in Eru, I think, is taking things a step too far.

Eru may be a reflection of Tolkien's own vision of God, that's something nobody can ever know is true or not, but is he 'the' God? Who knows? That depends on what your own experience or not is and mine is that there isn't just one version ;)

So anyway...I think Cailin is probably right to concentrate on the main characters in Lord of the Rings itself! Even if her answer is a big old "No".

Bêthberry

01-03-2009, 04:18 PM

So anyway...I think Cailin is probably right to concentrate on the main characters in Lord of the Rings itself! Even if her answer is a big old "No".

Interesting that no one here has mentioned Galadriel. After all, we are given her temptation scene, just as we saw Gandalf refuse to be tempted by the Ring. I'm not saying that she's an example of "absolute good", but certainly in her wisdom, insight, tremendous hospitality, and prescient gifts she provides something very positive, helpful, and healing. She's the closest Tolkien gets to giving us a Goddess, verily an emissary of Light.

Morthoron

01-03-2009, 05:35 PM

Interesting that no one here has mentioned Galadriel. After all, we are given her temptation scene, just as we saw Gandalf refuse to be tempted by the Ring. I'm not saying that she's an example of "absolute good", but certainly in her wisdom, insight, tremendous hospitality, and prescient gifts she provides something very positive, helpful, and healing. She's the closest Tolkien gets to giving us a Goddess, verily an emissary of Light.

Yet dear ol' Galady had her faults. She did, after all, ignore the Ban of Mandos, being more interested in personal gain, tempted as she was by the oratory of Feanor (even though she disliked him, she still fell for the bad boy image).

Regarding the circumlocutious debate concerning Eru and his omniscience, to me he/she/it was neither good or bad, and resembled Yahweh of the Torah, who could be quite despicable at times, butchering enemies of Israel wholesale (like Yahweh, Eru did slaughter innocent folks -- the old and the infant -- on Numenor).

Aside from the Eru discussion, I do not believe there was any character exhibiting an absolute goodness, because the definition of 'absolute good' would preclude items like killing (even in battle) and lying (even little white lies); therefore, even Gandalf or Sam, who have been mentioned by others, did have their foibles and faults.
I suppose it is necessary for this dialogue to define what is meant by 'absolute good'. Here are some extracts from our friends at Merriam-Webster:

ABSOLUTE:
free from imperfection
perfect, pure
outright , unmitigated
having no restriction, exception, or qualification
positive , unquestionable
fundamental, ultimate
perfectly embodying the nature of a thing <absolute justice>

GOOD:
virtuous, right , commendable
kind, benevolent
competent , skillful
loyal

There are no characters who match these definors on a consistent basis, and actually the word absolute goes beyond mere consistency, it means, rather, always exhibiting certain characteristics, and free from imperfections.

Groin Redbeard

01-03-2009, 05:48 PM

Regarding the circumlocutious debate concerning Eru and his omniscience, to me he/she/it was neither good or bad, and resembled Yahweh of the Torah, who could be quite despicable at times, butchering enemies of Israel wholesale (like Yahweh, Eru did slaughter innocent folks -- the old and the infant -- on Numenor).Yet for ten righteous soles would God have spared Sadden and Gomorra, the same thing can be seen with Numenor in the flight of the faithful. The Numenorean's, apart from the three houses of the faithful, were under Sauron's influence and worshipped Melkor, sacrificing the him those that were still faithful. Should the seed of that Satanism be allowed to endure? Should Eru have spared Numenor on the fact that women and children still lived there? I doubt that would have been very wise, the pride of man had grown to great to be pardoned. The faithful were spared and the evil worshippers were destroyed. :)

Lalwendë

01-03-2009, 06:09 PM

Morthoron

01-03-2009, 06:18 PM

Yet for ten righteous soles would God have spared Sadden and Gomorra, the same thing can be seen with Numenor in the flight of the faithful. The Numenorean's, apart from the three houses of the faithful, were under Sauron's influence and worshipped Melkor, sacrificing the him those that were still faithful. Should the seed of that Satanism be allowed to endure? Should Eru have spared Numenor on the fact that women and children still lived there? I doubt that would have been very wise, the pride of man had grown to great to be pardoned.

I'm sorry, but since I consider 'original sin' an asinine theological doctrine (and one of the many reasons I parted ways with the Catholic Church and Christianity as well), I would have to define the murder of innocent infants, whose only fault was that their parents may have been on the wrong side of whatever religious imperative you care to name, as a despicable act by God/Yahweh/Allah/Eru.

I find it entertaining and humorous that many Christians will fight tooth and nail for the sacrosanct rights of an innocent human fetus, but will abandon babies outside of the womb to the torments of hell because their parents don't subscribe to a particular religious view. Why bother stopping abortions when these 'seeds of Satan' will only grow up to be carbon copies of their demonic parents? Don't answer, I was only speaking rhetorically.

So, on Numenor, could you tell which newborn infant was Sauronic or one of the Faithful? Were the Sauronic babies given knives so that they could join in on the human sacrifice, making it a family affair, like a picnic? Tell me, Groin, suppose your parents were from some Satanic group (like the Democrats, for instance). Does this guilt by association automatically make you a lifelong Democrat as well? Or is there such a thing as free will, which is a supposed tenet of many major religions? Could it be possible that you have an epiphany later on in life and become a Republican, thus joining the righteous select on the path to conservative Heaven rather than liberal Hell? Oh, sorry, you don't get to make that choice, God just wiped out your family in a thunderstorm of indignation.

Macalaure

01-03-2009, 07:04 PM

Let me see…

For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it. ~ Of Feanor and the Unchaining of Melkor

If somebody is free from evil, he obviously has to be perfectly good, so we do have an absolutely good character in Arda.

But the question was about the LotR, so this doesn’t help an awful much. In LotR, evil is of course embodied by Sauron, with some special aspects manifested in the Nazgul, the Orcs, Saruman, etc. However,

For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so. ~ The Council of Elrond

Of course, just because he wasn’t evil in the beginning, doesn’t mean he was not absolutely evil at the later point we’re looking at. Luckily Tolkien clears it up elsewhere:

[Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. ~ HoMe 10, Myths Transformed VII

So, as others have already stated, there is indeed no absolute evil in LotR. An interesting question is whether it actually matters that he isn’t absolutely evil. Doesn’t it suffice that he’s evil enough, at least to meet the requirements of the author of that article?

Anyway, the thread is about the good (again, is absoluteness really necessary?). I would like to dismiss Bombadil immediately, because even though he could be a good candidate, the fact that he pretty much simply ignores the existence of evil (outside his small realm) disqualifies him. He’s not the “alternative” to Sauron that I think we’re looking for here. The fellowship (apart from Gandalf) are in fact the protagonists that struggle between good and evil. If one of those (Sam has been mentioned) doesn’t do anything wrong on his journey, it only means that his intentions and choices inside the storyline were always right, not that he is free from evil.

The characters that I would consider are Gandalf*, Elrond, and Galadriel. The latter two have important functions, but no more, while Gandalf is clearly the most active, even though, contrary to Sauron on the other side, he does not actually hold any power (apart from taking over the command of the forces of Minas Tirith briefly).

Now that I come to think of it, the fact that Gandalf is never in a real position of power might actually be a very significant difference. Even though very much is made of the position of the King, Gandalf (the White) is clearly on a level above Elessar (Gandalf crowns him, f.ex.). But he does not seem to fit in with the “overarching good figure who the heroes have to follow”. Maybe this exact thing was something Tolkien was uncomfortable with and therefore attributed to his evil overarching figure only.

* esp. Gandalf the White: Gandalf the Grey still has one foot in the category of the fellowship. If I’m right about all the stuff I’m saying, then it’s interesting, I think, that Tolkien chose to let his “overarching good figure” emerge and grow by the circumstances, even replacing an unworthy predecessor, and that he does not simply present him as a given.

Rikae

01-03-2009, 07:14 PM

Sadden and Gomorra
Hence the mortal sin of "Saddeny". :p

I'd like to contradict Mac slightly, and argue for Bombadil. He is the only character who is not even tempted by the ring, a character able to drive away the Barrow Wights with nothing more than song (which, in light of the Ainulindale, is kind of suggestive in itself).

The fact that he does not involve himself in the conflict central to LOTR actually underscores the way in which Tolkien's work differs from the "absolute good vs. absolute evil" model Pennington seems to be looking for. LOTR is driven by the struggle between good and evil within the characters. Sauron, who may be absolute evil insofar as he appears in LOTR, is not actually one of the "players" - he remains offstage. Bombadil appears long enough to depict the strength of "light", "good", or whatever you want to call it, but must remain outside the plot, or else ruin it. I actually see a bit of an echo of Eru's rather passive response to Melkor here - there is the possibility Bombadil has the power to change things, but allows them to unfold - so if Eru is good, Tom is, or rather, Tom is good in the way Eru is.

Eru himself is, of course, off-topic, since the question was on LOTR.

Formendacil

01-03-2009, 07:28 PM

If somebody is free from evil, he obviously has to be perfectly good, so we do have an absolutely good character in Arda.

This does not necessarily follow, even if we are proceeding from an Augustinian view that evil is the perversion or lack of a good.

Absolute good would be the possession of all goodness. Manwë (and any other purely good character you might think exists in Arda) is not perfectly good, because he is not perfect. Although immensely powerful, he is still a limited being, and a limitation of power or knowledge is also a limitation of good, because it would be better (ie. "gooder") to have the power or knowledge that is lacking.

Furthermore, it is possible to lack goods that do not quite constitute evils. For example, I'm diabetic. This is a lack of a good (functioning islets of Langerhan in my pancreas), but it does not make me evil. (It is AN evil, but it does not make me evil...)

Beyond this general philosophic point, I really haven't anything to add... possibly because on the diabetic note, I'm in need of food.

Bêthberry

01-03-2009, 10:18 PM

Yet dear ol' Galady had her faults. She did, after all, ignore the Ban of Mandos, being more interested in personal gain, tempted as she was by the oratory of Feanor (even though she disliked him, she still fell for the bad boy image).

The question here, though, pertains to LotR, and Tolkien went through enough niggling with the Galadriel character that it is possible to argue that the Silm Galadriel is but a distant relative of the Ring Galadriel. It's all a can of worms to try to unify some of the characters, such as Hobbit Gollem and Ring Gollem, even Hobbit Bilbo and Ring Bilbo, to say nothing of the tra la la la lally elves. And, anyway, my reply was not to suggest absolute goodness but . . .

Yes but she's still got a naughty streak, which is what makes her so interesting. If she was just wise and beautiful and healing she'd be a little dull, however she is also power hungry and isolates herself and her people. Plus there are all those adoring male fans...

I don't think being naughty is what makes her interesting; it is her struggle within herself. It isn't evil that is interesting, but the struggle against it.

All of Tolkien's "good" characters struggle: it is this process which allows them to be good, not the complete absence of evil or the complete presence of good. Look at the long and torturous route Frodo follows and what happens to him on Mount Doom. Yet his struggle and sacrifice is what made it possible for events to unfold and thus, his struggle is not lost. Something valuable, life affirming and, well, good, came of his struggle. Something good was created.

Creation is an essential and paramount activity for Tolkien; in OFS, he equates it with the divine act. Actions which create cooperation, fellowship, community, the free will of individuals are what are good in Tolkien's world. So all of the main characters--Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Merry, Pippin, Sam, Frodo, Bombadil--can have flaws and negative characteristics. But what marks them as good is the degree to which they resist things which destroy and break down and dominate. They resist self-satisfaction and their own willfulness, to greater or lesser degrees, for communal good.

They leave Middle-earth a better place.

Morthoron

01-04-2009, 12:35 AM

The question here, though, pertains to LotR, and Tolkien went through enough niggling with the Galadriel character that it is possible to argue that the Silm Galadriel is but a distant relative of the Ring Galadriel. It's all a can of worms to try to unify some of the characters, such as Hobbit Gollem and Ring Gollem, even Hobbit Bilbo and Ring Bilbo, to say nothing of the tra la la la lally elves. And, anyway, my reply was not to suggest absolute goodness but . . .

Ah, but strictly in LotR she does exhibit, even in her eventual acquiescence, the sin of pride. And I do realize your reply was not to "suggest absolute goodness"; this, however, leads me to further commentary:

All of Tolkien's "good" characters struggle: it is this process which allows them to be good, not the complete absence of evil or the complete presence of good. Look at the long and torturous route Frodo follows and what happens to him on Mount Doom. Yet his struggle and sacrifice is what made it possible for events to unfold and thus, his struggle is not lost. Something valuable, life affirming and, well, good, came of his struggle. Something good was created.

Creation is an essential and paramount activity for Tolkien; in OFS, he equates it with the divine act. Actions which create cooperation, fellowship, community, the free will of individuals are what are good in Tolkien's world. So all of the main characters--Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Merry, Pippin, Sam, Frodo, Bombadil--can have flaws and negative characteristics. But what marks them as good is the degree to which they resist things which destroy and break down and dominate. They resist self-satisfaction and their own willfulness, to greater or lesser degrees, for communal good.

They leave Middle-earth a better place.

*Sniffs* Oh, that was beautiful -- very touching. Unfortunately, the original question did not concern characters struggling to be 'good', but of the existence of a character who embodies 'absolute good'; therefore, "the complete absence of evil or the complete presence of good" is the crux of the discussion, and "flaws and negative characteristics" directly negate any 'absolute'.

If you wish to have a discussion of the relative merits of 'good' or 'evil' in characters, that would require a separate thread, or we must abandon the original posit altogether. That would be fine wth me, as I've already inferred that the term 'absolute good' is contentious in itself. For instance, Groin thinks it is in the interest of 'absolute good' that a mythical deity should strike down an entire civilization for a colective sin, even though there are persons in that society who did not directly commit a sin, or are as of yet incapable of sinning (as in the case of an infant); whereas I find that notion deplorable and 'ungood', if not evil in and of itself, because it lacks the elements of mercy and compassion I would determine as essential in any mythical deity which represents 'absolute good'.

Lalwendë

01-04-2009, 07:47 AM

I don't think being naughty is what makes her interesting; it is her struggle within herself. It isn't evil that is interesting, but the struggle against it.

Yet the only real 'struggling' she does is during/after her session at the Mirror - until she is confronted with the One Ring she is quite content to be a powerful Ring Bearer and to bear the perils that brings, as it also brings immense power. It's Galadriel's urge to lead which interests me, along with her attempts to make time stand still in Lothlorien.

Bêthberry

01-04-2009, 08:18 AM

Ah, but strictly in LotR she does exhibit, even in her eventual acquiescence, the sin of pride.

Oh that uppity woman.

*Sniffs* Oh, that was beautiful -- very touching. Unfortunately, the original question did not concern characters struggling to be 'good', but of the existence of a character who embodies 'absolute good'; therefore, "the complete absence of evil or the complete presence of good" is the crux of the discussion, and "flaws and negative characteristics" directly negate any 'absolute'.

If you wish to have a discussion of the relative merits of 'good' or 'evil' in characters, that would require a separate thread, or we must abandon the original posit altogether. That would be fine wth me, as I've already inferred that the term 'absolute good' is contentious in itself.

I was under the impression that most of us agree there is no character in LotR who exhibits "absolute goodness". Yet Cailin's essay cannot consist of the single sentence to that effect. ["An 'F'? 'But Professor, that single sentence is my essay!" "But you have to prove that." "How do I prove that?" "By demonstrating what kind of goodness the characters exhibit and how these kinds are not absolute goodness.") Furthermore, from her subsequent post I gathered that her question concerns a general statement about fantasy, that as a genre it involves questions of good versus evil.

Some very interesting answers, thank you. I did not wish to go off-topic, because this is a Tolkien forum, but some of you might still be interested why I pose this question. The question actually arose from an article ("From Elfland to Hogwarts") I read by John Pennington, who finds fault with the Harry Potter series by comparing it to The Lord of the Rings, and some other famous fantasy works which he considers to be at the heart of fantasy (Chronicles of Narnia, for example). His main point is basically that Harry Potter is “fundamentally failed fantasy”. One of the reasons was most intriguing to me:

Quote:
But the archetypal theme of good versus evil appears to be what the Potter books are about. Harry's education is cemented in this ultimate dichotomy that Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin privilege in their texts. So just what are the Harry Potter books about? (...) All is ripe for the good old-fashioned battle between good and evil. But that tone is quickly undercut--Harry is often more interested in being able to visit Hogsmeade and practice Quidditch than he is in fighting evil.

And later:

Quote:
Finally, what ultimately is the role of the archetypal good versus evil dichotomy in the series? Voldemort represents the darkest of evil. But what of the good? Is there an overarching figure of good--a supreme being, for example, not necessarily God--whom Harry and his friends follow? They certainly are in a Christian universe, for they celebrate the Christmas season. If there are the Dark Arts, are there the Light or White Arts? Dumbledore is a Merlin and Gandalf figure, but Dumbledore does not achieve any grandeur; his name evokes bumble and bumbling, reminiscent of Tweedledee and Tweedledum, those foolish characters. There seems to be a good in the novel, but that goodness seems individual rather than archetypal. Thus the archetypal evilness in the Potter universe has no real antidote other than Harry and his friends (who do not seem to take that evil too seriously).

Since Rowling’s work is constantly contrasted with The Lord of the Rings, presumably Pennington did find the archetypes he was looking for in Tolkien’s writing. Perhaps he was indeed referring to Eru - though as Formendacil rightly points out, Eru is not really mentioned in The Lord of the Rings. He may be the source of goodness, as he is the source of everything, but like Tom Bombadil, the Ring seems to be beneath his concerns and Sauron’s far lesser evil is sufficiently balanced by characters such as Gandalf, who are not supreme archetypes. The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

P.S. I’m not sure how many Potter fans / readers are present, but of course after the publication of Deathly Hallows it is quite clear that the Potter universe is indeed Christian. The article quoted above is from 2002, and was written before the fifth instalment in the series was published.

This is a larger issue than the question she first posed, and I took it that she would not be adverse to expanding the discussion to what is "goodness", particularly with this comment she made, which I repeat here: The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

If I erred, I do apologise.

Lal, I do agree that Galadriel and Celeborn are all draped up in the trapings of leadership. This is the exotic realm in LotR! Galadriel's (and hubby's ;) ) attempts to make time stand still are fascinating. It is an essential quality of the elves, that for them, goodness means unchange. (and, yes, my grammar here is deliberate.)

Rikae

01-04-2009, 08:30 AM

Regarding how to define "absolute good", this makes it pretty clear what the dude is looking for, and likewise clear that we won't find it in Lord of the Rings:

"Is there an overarching figure of good--a supreme being, for example, not necessarily God--whom Harry and his friends follow?"

He's referring to something like Aslan in Narnia - something (mercifully, I would say) absent in LOTR. Sometimes Gandalf approaches an Aslan-like leader role for the other characters, but he remains fallible and "human" (for lack of a better word). Whatever your verdict on Eru, we don't see anyone "following" Eru in any direct sort of way.

My conclusion is: this fellow is reaching a bit in his attempt to define fantasy and lump together Lewis and Tolkien.

The Might

01-04-2009, 08:34 AM

Hmm, I disagree there, Boro.

Whilst I agree with you that Tolkien may have written different things in the letters due to the depth of his works, I believe most of these occasions concerned lore matters, pure information demanded by the inquirers.

What we have here is a very different thing, not a question about some lore thing, but rather directly questioning Tolkien's own belief.

And I doubt that Tolkien was the kind of person to have used a very Catholic devouted tone to just please a Catholic friend and would in such a case not speak his own mind so as to not offend the reader.

I think that when it comes to this question we must treat it as a special and different case as here The Professor is asked about his own beliefs and would surely know what he is talking. So I believe that when Tolkien writes that Eru is but another name for THE Christian God, he really means that Eru is but another name for THE Christian God. Nothing to do with works written 30 years before, revised and changed. Eru stayed the same, he was God.

And as I read above that God is apparently indeed perceived as an entity of absolute good, it means that Eru is absolute good. We have proof to say that based on the words of the Professor, so why challenge his idea? Think that he only wrote what Mr. Hastings wanted to read? I doubt it.

But, moving on to the true topic that I have somewhat missed whilst concetrating on absolute good in all the works, I believe that absolute good in LotR does not exist.

But some characters do appear to come close to it such as Gandalf as emissary of good and the only one of the Istari to continue to obey the will of the Valar.
I also see Arwen as a person fairly close to absolute good. She lacks the megalomaniac thoughts of Galadriel, she is not spoiled by anything in the world, and her love to Aragorn makes her decide to give up immortality.

EDIT: are the whole Narnia and HP comparisons really of interest to the topic at hand? Whilst I find them an interesting read I cannot help but wonder if they bring us closer to finding absolute good in LotR... after all different authors can have different opinions, opinions what have to be respected and can of course be criticised.

davem

01-04-2009, 08:53 AM

whereas I find that notion deplorable and 'ungood', if not evil in and of itself, because it lacks the elements of mercy and compassion I would determine as essential in any mythical deity which represents 'absolute good'.

A bunch of random thoughts.....

But one could define 'good' as 'whatever Eru does' - so, killing (virtually) the whole population of Numenor is a 'good' act because Eru does it. One does have to have some criteria by which to determine what is 'good' after all.

Or one could argue that there is an objective standard of 'good', a set of rules & regulations by which one must live & in accordance with which one must act in order to be considered 'good'. One would then have a standard by which one could judge every 'being' - including Eru. But that would then set something 'above' God/Eru.

Of course, one could argue that everything Eru does actually conforms to that 'objective' standard - that Eru is incapable of doing anything that breaks those rules, because those rules actually reflect His essential nature & to do anything contary to them would be to go against His nature, & leave Him effectively divided against Himself - which is impossible as He is One (Eru is only referred to as The One in the Appendices), & if we take this as a 'theological' statement then we are left with the simple fact that everything Eru does is a reflection of His nature - nothing can be out of character..

Of course, this opens another can of worms, because if we classify whatever a character (& Eru is a character created by Tolkien) does as 'good' (& by extension that that Character him/herself is good) simply because that character does it then we could say the same of any character - Gandalf is absolutely good, because his every act/thought is good, & his every act/thought is good because they are his acts/thoughts. And of course, that argument could be used to claim any character, from Galadriel through to Sauron is 'Good'.

So, for any character to be considered good His acts must conform to some objective standard of goodness. So firstly one has to set out those standards & tick off the various characters behaviour against them. But who determines those standards? Are we to let Eru set those standards - its His creation after all. Maybe - but of course, Eru's set of rules & regs will simply reflect his own nature, & tells us no more than what Eru considers to be good.......

Further, a large number of characters in the book would consider themselves to be 'good' people - according to their own personal standards.

In the end, though, the one who sets the standard of 'good' in LotR is Tolkien, not us. We have to accept that in his world 'good' is whatever Tolkien says it is. For Tolkien the destruction of Numenor was a good act in that it was the act of a good God & done to punish 'evil'.

But we, of course, are not required to accept that - its just that if we don't the whole moral & philosophical underpinning of the Legendarium is undermined.

The Might

01-04-2009, 10:07 AM

So, I guess we must accept that what Tolkien defined as good is good, as davem well points out above. And this goes for all the characters, some better, some worse.

In the case of Eru though I still feel we must make a distinction. Why is Eru to be regarded as a character if Tolkien clearly says he is not? He is the Christian God, absolutely good, meaning that in this case the realms of our real world and Tolkien's Arda intersect with God as the lowest common denominator (sp?). Meaning that all the things that Tolkien believed to be good, as a consequence of his religious upbringing are the same things that would be good in Arda as these rules all come from the same God.

I think that in this case a discussion crossing the barrier of Tolkien's works would again be in order, but unfortunately forbidden. One could wonder now if the rules set by God in real life are good (ok, not directly, but by Jesus and others in his place), and then consider that the same rules apply to Arda as well as coming from the same God.

davem

01-04-2009, 10:46 AM

make a distinction. Why is Eru to be regarded as a character if Tolkien clearly says he is not? He is the Christian God, absolutely good, meaning that in this case the realms of our real world and Tolkien's Arda intersect with God as the lowest common denominator (sp?). Meaning that all the things that Tolkien believed to be good, as a consequence of his religious upbringing are the same things that would be good in Arda as these rules all come from the same God.

Eru cannot be the Christian God - at most he could only be Tolkien's own, personal (though informed by his Church's teaching) understanding of God. Further, what Tolkien is attempting to do is show how 'his' God would behave in the context of events in M-e - which events are Tolkien's own invention. Now, an old school Catholic & a modern day Quaker would both claim to worship God, but would, I suspect, have a completely different view on how that God would respond to the behaviour of the Numenoreans.

Thus, it seems to me too simple to argue that Eru = the Christian God, only that Eru, in his thoughts/acts within Middle-earth, does what Tolkien believed his God would think/do. Hence, Eru can only be considered a 'character' because M-e is not the Primary world. The other thing to keep in mind is that all the characters do what Tolkien 'tells' them to do - the Numenoreans 'sinned' precisely when & how Tolkien made them, & Eru responded to that 'sin' in exactly the way Tolkien chose him to. If God had been running things we may have had a 'Jonah' turn up & bring them all to repentance. The Numenoreans died because Tolkien had them misbehave & didn't give them any real desire to repent. And Tolkien did this for artistic reasons - everyone, from Eru 'down' is a character Tolkien manipulates for artistic reasons. Tolkien could not know what God would do in the situations he created in M-e - one could argue that by having his Numenorean characters so stubbornly commit to such inhuman behaviour he creates a situation where his 'God' character has no option but to zap them to atoms. But this is the point - LotR is not an allegory, let alone a 'parable'. It is a work of art, with no more hidden or underlying 'meaning' than the reader gives it. In the Primary world humans may or may not have free will (I'll avoid the philosophical tangent) but in M-e only Tolkien has free will, & his characters do what he wills them to do (however much he may claim to be attempting to 'discover what really happened' the truth is that 'what really happened' in M-e is what Tolkien decided worked best). He wrote a work of fiction which 'reflected' the primary world in some ways, but it was his world & its inhabitants were his to control.

Of course, if one's own concept of God corresponds to the character Eru one may not see things in that way, but not everyone (religious believer, or merely 'cultural Christian' like myself) will find Eru to be in any way like the God they worship (or like the God concept they have inherited as a result of growing up in a culture shaped & determined by Christianity).

Morthoron

01-04-2009, 11:05 AM

IThis is a larger issue than the question she first posed, and I took it that she would not be adverse to expanding the discussion to what is "goodness", particularly with this comment she made, which I repeat here: The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

If I erred, I do apologise.)

No need to apologize, it's my fault actually. I glanced at Cailin's second post, saw 'Harry Potter' prominently displayed, and immediately ignored the balance of the remarks. I guess it's a negative Pavlovian response to Rowlings (without the drooling, of course).

Of course, one could argue that everything Eru does actually conforms to that 'objective' standard - that Eru is incapable of doing anything that breaks those rules, because those rules actually reflect His essential nature & to do anything contary to them would be to go against His nature, & leave Him effectively divided against Himself - which is impossible as He is One (Eru is only referred to as The One in the Appendices), & if we take this as a 'theological' statement then we are left with the simple fact that everything Eru does is a reflection of His nature - nothing can be out of character.

I guess it depends on how Eru is viewed, as he himself said of Morgoth's continuing destruction of physical Arda that it merely redounded on The One's own plan, thus enhancing it; therefore, the Numenorean's actions, even the sinful ones, could be construed as enhancing Eru's plan. But the destruction of Numenor is an artificial set of circumstances, an arbitrary manuever set in motion by the Valar's inability to handle the situation. How odd that Eru would destroy a human civilization -- and humans prone as they are to sin and mistake -- yet allow the horrific reigns of Morgoth and then Sauron to go utterly unchecked for millenia. To allow one and destroy the other is inconsistent, and removes the very Free Will that is indeed a cornerstone of Tolkien's Catholicity.

Perhaps Tolkien was just too enamored of the obvious parallels between Numenor and both the biblical flood and the Greek Atlantis to be concerned with such notable inconsistency. The story itself and its corollary to 'real world' myth was just too strong, and Tolkien opted for a rousing tale over the internal logic of the story.

Of course, this opens another can of worms, because if we classify whatever a character (& Eru is a character created by Tolkien) does as 'good' (& by extension that that Character him/herself is good) simply because that character does it then we could say the same of any character - Gandalf is absolutely good, because his every act/thought is good, & his every act/thought is good because they are his acts/thoughts. And of course, that argument could be used to claim any character, from Galadriel through to Sauron is 'Good'.

Another can of worms that Tolkien opens is the acceptance of the 'eye-for-an-eye' mentality that differentiates the Old Testamant vengeful Yahwew with the New Testament compassionate Christ. Both Christians and Muslims have used the context of a vengeful god destroying the enemies of the one, true religion to slaughter indiscriminately their enemies in emulation of their god, while ignoring the more christlike aspects that would seem to contradict the earlier, more barbaric aspects of The One.

In the end, though, the one who sets the standard of 'good' in LotR is Tolkien, not us. We have to accept that in his world 'good' is whatever Tolkien says it is. For Tolkien the destruction of Numenor was a good act in that it was the act of a good God & done to punish 'evil'.

And yet Eru punishes the followers and not the fomenters, the actual cause of rebellion and the primary root of all evil in Arda. Isn't that the way it always is with these elitist deities? *shrugs*

Groin Redbeard

01-04-2009, 03:19 PM

I find it entertaining and humorous that many Christians will fight tooth and nail for the sacrosanct rights of an innocent human fetus, but will abandon babies outside of the womb to the torments of hell because their parents don't subscribe to a particular religious view. Why bother stopping abortions when these 'seeds of Satan' will only grow up to be carbon copies of their demonic parents? Don't answer, I was only speaking rhetorically.You cannot make a response like that and not get a response. A child of innocence is in God’s hands, but to kill an unborn child because the parents don’t want what the Bible describes as a blessing from God is no less than murder. I don’t expect you to get that though, life is so cheap in with all the relativism people nowadays.

So, on Numenor, could you tell which newborn infant was Sauronic or one of the Faithful? Were the Sauronic babies given knives so that they could join in on the human sacrifice, making it a family affair, like a picnic? Tell me, Groin, suppose your parents were from some Satanic group (like the Democrats, for instance).Heaven forbid! ;)

Does this guilt by association automatically make you a lifelong Democrat as well? Or is there such a thing as free will, which is a supposed tenet of many major religions? Could it be possible that you have an epiphany later on in life and become a Republican, thus joining the righteous select on the path to conservative Heaven rather than liberal Hell? Oh, sorry, you don't get to make that choice, God just wiped out your family in a thunderstorm of indignation.Well if my parents worshipped a god who allowed human sacrafice, if they believed that they were entitled to the glories of God, if they believed that they could take Valinor by force and took steps to see these plans through, do you really think that that is a good house to live under? It would be far better to have that family destroyed and for the child to be called up to sit at God’s throne. You can argue it both ways Morthoron: is it more merciful to let the infant be raised by a clearly evil family in a clearly evil sociaty until he is old enough to actually take accountability and be damned, or is it more merciful for God to destroy that sociaty and for you, still as a child, to be brought to be in heaven? :) Remember, Sauron twisted the facts about death making it something to be feared while Eru gave it to Man as a blessing. That was pure genious on Tolkien’s part for writing that.

Sorry if I got off topic, I'll join in on the discussion if I think of anything.

Andsigil

01-04-2009, 03:37 PM

Another can of worms that Tolkien opens is the acceptance of the 'eye-for-an-eye' mentality that differentiates the Old Testamant vengeful Yahwew with the New Testament compassionate Christ. Both Christians and Muslims have used the context of a vengeful god destroying the enemies of the one, true religion to slaughter indiscriminately their enemies in emulation of their god, while ignoring the more christlike aspects that would seem to contradict the earlier, more barbaric aspects of The One.

To be fair, the last time Christians did this in the name of Christianity was when, exactly?

If you're looking for heartless slaughter, you'd find more results studying the proclivities of atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries. Under the guise of communism, and with modern weaponry, they've amassed quite a record.

Something about all of it reminds me distinctly of Mordor.

Lalwendë

01-04-2009, 04:21 PM

To be fair, the last time Christians did this in the name of Christianity was when, exactly?

If you're looking for heartless slaughter, you'd find more results studying the proclivities of atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries. Under the guise of communism, and with modern weaponry, they've amassed quite a record.

Something about all of it reminds me distinctly of Mordor.

To likewise be fair, and to stop an argument brewing, Stalin and Mao didn't cause the slaughter of millions because of Atheism, either; Hitler was a Catholic, but his murdering was because of Fascism.

It would be far better to have that family destroyed and for the child to be called up to sit at God’s throne. You can argue it both ways Morthoron: is it more merciful to let the infant be raised by a clearly evil family in a clearly evil sociaty until he is old enough to actually take accountability and be damned, or is it more merciful for God to destroy that sociaty and for you, still as a child, to be brought to be in heaven?

Maybe in Tolkien's creation, but not in our own! Plenty of people have been raised in vile circumstances but must be joyful to grow into adulthood - like Josef Fritzl's children/grandchildren. :(

Though I have to say that whether Eru tipped Numenor on end because the people there were 'evil' is entirely debatable in the light of evidence given in recent threads on here. If he did it would have been the first and only time he interfered - and it seems he opened a rift in the world because of the pleading of the Valar to protect Valinor rather than any other reason. The drowning of innocents was purely incidental. It seems rather that Eru wanted to wipe out this failed experiment that the Valar had indulged in and he didn't much care who, if anyone, got away.

This is another reason why I think Eru is 'beyond' any idea of 'goodness', because he is outside the world, he created it, but isn't concerned with it. That's extremely different to the various Gods in the real world.

Macalaure

01-04-2009, 04:49 PM

Why do threads like these always derail themselves so quickly here.... :rolleyes:

Absolute good would be the possession of all goodness. Manwë (and any other purely good character you might think exists in Arda) is not perfectly good, because he is not perfect. Although immensely powerful, he is still a limited being, and a limitation of power or knowledge is also a limitation of good, because it would be better (ie. "gooder") to have the power or knowledge that is lacking.
Hmm, then you say that in order to be absolutely good, one has to be perfect (in this case, all-knowing)? Of course a good person's actions would be better if he was omniscient, and Manwe certainly made quite a couple of mistakes in his career, but wouldn't this make the threesome of all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful partly redundant? My knowledge of theology is admittedly rather limited, but I always took the meaning of all-good to be only that a person's will and intentions are absolutely good (setting aside whether this is equal to absence of evil here). I don't see why it should be impossible to have a person that is all-good, but not all-knowing and all-powerful. In any case, this was at least my idea when I labelled Manwe absolutely good.

Morthoron

01-04-2009, 05:33 PM

You cannot make a response like that and not get a response. A child of innocence is in God’s hands, but to kill an unborn child because the parents don’t want what the Bible describes as a blessing from God is no less than murder. I don’t expect you to get that though, life is so cheap in with all the relativism people nowadays.

Oh, I understand you more than you know, Groin: life is sacred on the inside, but cheap on the outside (where smug folks wash their hands in self-satisfaction, and say "Our job is done here, they are in God's hands now" -- a very Dickensian workhouse mentality). Perhaps if more folks cared for the latter, there would be less of the former.

Well if my parents worshipped a god who allowed human sacrafice, if they believed that they were entitled to the glories of God, if they believed that they could take Valinor by force and took steps to see these plans through, do you really think that that is a good house to live under? It would be far better to have that family destroyed and for the child to be called up to sit at God’s throne. You can argue it both ways Morthoron: is it more merciful to let the infant be raised by a clearly evil family in a clearly evil sociaty until he is old enough to actually take accountability and be damned, or is it more merciful for God to destroy that sociaty and for you, still as a child, to be brought to be in heaven? :) Remember, Sauron twisted the facts about death making it something to be feared while Eru gave it to Man as a blessing. That was pure genious on Tolkien’s part for writing that.

Wow, just...wow. It is that type of thinking that eventually leads to genocide. I am reminded of Robert of Geneva (nicknamed 'The Butcher', who, not surprisingly later became a pope). When his mercenary forces took the heretical city of Cesena, Robert ordered the butchering of every last man, woman and child. When one of his captains suggested that there were many innocents in the city, Robert shrugged and said, "What belongs to God He will take care of," and the slaughter continued unabated.

With your concept in mind, we should have slaughtered all the infants in Nazi Germany. After all, their country was waist-deep in the blood of human sacrifice. Would it have been merciful to wipe out every blonde-headed, blue-eyed German baby, Groin? Hitler, like Sauron, also twisted the facts quite masterfully.

To be fair, the last time Christians did this in the name of Christianity was when, exactly?

If you're looking for Christian intolerance and the heartless slaughter that follows, one needn't go back to the Crusades to find Christian barbarity, Andsigil. Let's see, there were Christians slaughtering Muslims in Serbia, Christian Hutus committing massacres in Rwanda, Protestants and Catholics slaughtering each other in the name of Christ in Northern Ireland, Christians and Muslims butchering each other in the Lebanese civil war. Would you like me to continue?

If you're looking for hearltess slaughter you'd find more results studying the proclivities of atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries. Under the guise of communism, and with modern weaponry, they've amassed quite a record.

Blind faith in any creed that will not allow mutual respect for another creed inevitably leads to genocide. It is the same among Stalinists and Maoists as with Nazis, Hindus (if you recall, it was because of religious intolerance that Gandhi was assassinated), Muslims, Christians and Jews. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans were just as culpable in the extermination of the Indians and the near elimination of their animistic religions.

I am sorry for the digression, I will not continue it further.

Andsigil

01-04-2009, 05:56 PM

If you're looking for Christian intolerance and the heartless slaughter that follows, one needn't go back to the Crusades to find Christian barbarity, Andsigil. Let's see, there were Christians slaughtering Muslims in Serbia, Christian Hutus committing massacres in Rwanda, Protestants and Catholics slaughtering each other in the name of Christ in Northern Ireland, Christians and Muslims butchering each other in the Lebanese civil war. Would you like me to continue?

Continue all you want. These are drops in the bucket. Besides,

-Hutus didn't slaughter in the name of Christianity. They slaughtered in the name of Hutu.
-Maronites were generally on the receiving end in Lebanon. That's why they're nearly extinct since that trouble began.
-And deconstructing the Balkan conflict into a simple religious conflict is rather oversimplified. One could just as easily argue that it was Christians who came to stop the conflict.

In any event, these are all candles next to the sun. Pol Pot, alone, accounts for more than this. We haven't even discussed China yet. Or the Soviets. I think more people died in Kolymaa and the Lubyanka than did in the Balkans. The atheist communists have indeed worked very hard to set the bar high.

To tie this in with Tolkien, I've already said that that kind of mechanical, systemic slaughter is reminiscent of Mordor to me. Perhaps Tolkien was as much a prophet as Orwell.

I am sorry for the digression, I will not continue it further.

Ahh, good. I got the last word, then. ;) Since I made a Tolkien tie-in, I'll stop as well... just as soon as I get to this other post.

Andsigil

01-04-2009, 06:00 PM

To likewise be fair, and to stop an argument brewing, Stalin and Mao didn't cause the slaughter of millions because of Atheism, either; Hitler was a Catholic, but his murdering was because of Fascism.

Actually, Hitler was an apostate who renounced the religion of his baptism.

I find it rather odd that Christianity is still such a bogeyman to so many overly nervous people. Other, horrible things are happening right now on a far greater scale in the name of other things, and have been for a while. I think it's just fashionable, not to mention politically correct, to rail against Christianity.

It's too bad Tolkien, or his friend CS Lewis, are no longer alive to argue against it. I'm certain they'd be appalled, or indignant at the very least.

Feel free to take the last word, if you feel compelled to do so.

Cailín

01-04-2009, 06:11 PM

I understand that the discussion of good and evil is of considerable interest and many may feel personally involved. However, I have to agree with davem and wish to stress that we are dealing with a fictional world, which is created by the author's voice alone and which is not neccessarily compatible with contemporary ideas of good and evil.

I see that there is some discussion over the term absolute as well. Rikae interprets the quoted article in the same way I did: it seems Pennington is looking for some divine entity. However - and please forgive me Morthoron, for again mentioning Harry Potter: I have no wish to cause psychological trauma - his insistence that Voldemort (who is human and surely not Satan himself) represents the darkest evil would lead me to believe that there is leeway for imperfection here.

My own thoughts were definitely Manwë, if the Silmarillion was included and Gandalf (the White and Improved Version) in Lord of the Rings. It seems sensible to say that Gandalf and Sauron, being equal in the hierarchy of beings, are pitted against each other in this battle. However, I am not too eager to simplify Lord of the Rings and it is difficult to see it as a stand-alone novel, because there are clearly so many other powers at work (the Balrog, Bombadil, Galadriel) to ignore them and focus on Sauron and Gandalf as the two extremes.

I will certainly include a link to this thread in my footnotes. There is a tendency to over-simplify fantasy in discussions on the genre in general. Thanks to all contributors so far.

mark12_30

01-04-2009, 07:37 PM

I'd like to return to Cailin's second post...

. The question actually arose from an article ("From Elfland to Hogwarts") I read by John Pennington.

Harry's education is cemented in this ultimate dichotomy that Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin privilege in their texts. So just what are the Harry Potter books about? (...) All is ripe for the good old-fashioned battle between good and evil. But that tone is quickly undercut--Harry is often more interested in being able to visit Hogsmeade and practice Quidditch than he is in fighting evil.

Interesting, because Frodo would have liked to go back to the inn and drink beer, and reprise his previous hobbitish pastimes, if he could have. He didn't, because he couldn't; he was wearing a homing beacon on a gold chain, and ringwraiths being the sorts of creatures that they are, Frodo didn't take time off til he got to Rivendell. After Rivendell, he accepted his new responsibility, and carried it through.

Finally, what ultimately is the role of the archetypal good versus evil dichotomy in the series? Voldemort represents the darkest of evil. But what of the good? Is there an overarching figure of good--a supreme being, for example, not necessarily God--whom Harry and his friends follow?

Frodo follows (staunchly) their example and their expectation to fight against evil, whether he feels like detouring to an inn for the next three years, or not. Elrond, Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel, Goldberry, and even Arwen are all archetypal, at least they seem so to me; but not absolute good. However the author doesn't seem to be requiring absolute good.

The author implies it below, I think, that Dumbledore should have been more Gandalf-like, in other words, more of a Good. (A Gooder?)

Dumbledore is a Merlin and Gandalf figure, but Dumbledore does not achieve any grandeur;... There seems to be a good in the novel, but that goodness seems individual rather than archetypal. Thus the archetypal evilness in the Potter universe has no real antidote other than Harry and his friends (who do not seem to take that evil too seriously).

In contrast to Gandalf, who does achieve grandeur. Imperfect, to be sure, but grand. Gandalf's goodness is archetypal, whereas Dumbledore's is not. I would agree. There are numerous characeters whose goodness is archetypal in LOTR; not absolute; but archetypal. I would argue here that Frodo 'follows' such personages as Gandalf, Elrond, the elves in general, Aragorn, to a degree Faramir. I would also add, however, that Frodo draws subtle strength from three others: Goldberry, Arwen, and Galadriel; whether from the good-is-beautiful, or from the beautiful-is-good, or from they-happen-to-be-both-good-and-beautiful. Regardless, they are all three, archetypal expressions of "Good".

Edit: Guess I cross-posted with Cailín .
Another Edit: Whoa. Guess I cross posted with several people.

Estelyn Telcontar

01-05-2009, 03:47 AM

As so often when issues bordering on religion and politics are discussed, this thread is veering in a direction that could cause it to be closed. The last couple of posts have returned to the Tolkien topic; please continue the discussion in that vein and avoid direct conflicts and personal accusations. The moderators and administrators are monitoring posts here closely and may edit or delete those which do not comply with forum rules.

Lalwendë

01-05-2009, 03:50 AM

Actually, Hitler was an apostate who renounced the religion of his baptism.

All the evidence points towards him not being an atheist at any rate. But the fact remains, all these dictators did not commit their atrocities in the name of Atheism so it's not really a fair counter argument to the one that various modern day atrocities are committed in the name of Faith. Sorry, had to take that last word :p

My own thoughts were definitely Manwë,

The glaring problem with Manwe of course is that he took part in the creation of Numenor, was there when it was made what it was, a viewing platform for Men to gaze at Valinor - which ultimately led to the deaths of thousands of innocents. I'd say Manwe had a lot of responsibility for his part in this.

Boromir88

01-05-2009, 08:50 AM

What we have here is a very different thing, not a question about some lore thing, but rather directly questioning Tolkien's own belief.~TM
But the conflictions occur when Tolkien repeatedly denies allegory in his story, and he cut out religion from his story. Rather, religion is in symbols and you can say Gandalf is Christ-like, Eru is like the Christian God. But the depth of the characters makes it impossible to say Gandalf is Christ and Eru is the Christian God.

Tolkien wasn't writing to teach, nor was he to preach, he was writing a story for people to enjoy, and not just Christians. In Letter 142 Tolkien believed that critics will find it hard to "pigeon-hole" his story. You can't take one label and slap it on to one of Tolkien's characters. Is there a christian influence? Without a doubt, I say yes. But there's also norse, greek, modern, linguistic influences, and the list can go on from there.

And besides, personal beliefs change overtime. Maybe after writing the story, setting it down, thinking about it, reworking it...etc - through that process his ideas changed. Who knows? But, you don't have to be Christian to believe someone has to die to save something he/she loves. What I mean with that is, there are certain themes, ideals, morals, whatever you want to call them, that are global. Sacrifice, mercy, The Fall, death, Stewardship, these are everywhere, and these ideas are what Tolkien decided to work with, and write into his story.

but I always took the meaning of all-good to be only that a person's will and intentions are absolutely good (setting aside whether this is equal to absence of evil here).~Mac
I personally agree with you there :D, but I would caution that we don't attach our own external beliefs to the characters in the story, or the internal text. Now, to completely detach our beliefs from the text I think would be absolutely (:p) impossible, but we must do so as much as possible.

I will say it's clear that someone intentions do matter, and that is set up right in the story where Saruman justifies his "end" by going through admittingly horrible "means." So, what we have is in Saruman's own delusional mind, his intentions are good, but are they really? And on top of that, he doesn't care what it takes to reach those ends, he doesn't care who he kills, maims, destroys to get there, but he will reach his "good end."

Then we have several letters where Tolkien states, the Ring's destruction (definitely a good thing) is no benefit to Gollum. Gollum's intentions were completely and totally evil. He had planned for a long time to lead the hobbits into a deadly trap, and his actions in the Sammath Naur are anything but good. Eventhough the Ring is destroyed, because Gollum slips in, that does no good for Gollum, his motives were entirely evil.

And on top of that we have Sam, who has good intentions when he mistakes Gollum's "pawing" at Frodo; Sam is only looking after his master. However, his snap and failure to pity Gollum quite possibly leads to Gollum's failure at redemption. Even someone with entirely good motives (not like Saruman who is delusional :D) causes evil to happen. It's unintentional, but Sam could not find Pity for Gollum up until the very end, in the Sammath Naur. This doesn't make Sam evil, but does it make him absolutely good?

Here is another thought, there's been talk about absolute evil, Morgoth, Sauron..etc and Tolkien does say that he doesn't believe in Absolute Evil, but he goes on to talk about the two big villains in his myth (Morgoth and Sauron) - what about objects? What about the Ring? Maybe since Sauron is not absolute evil, it is impossible for him to create something that is. However, the Ring just has this knack to turn every possible light, into dark. It has the ability to twist, and corrupt even the most noble actions. And as Frodo is full of pity, strength, courage, to get the Ring to the place where it was made, Frodo's chance to overcome an object of absolute evil; an object that can do no good and turn the best intentions upside down, fails. Frodo succumbs to the Ring - does it then take an absolute good character to destroy an absolutely evil object?

mark12_30

01-05-2009, 09:47 AM

All the evidence points towards him not being an atheist at any rate. But the fact remains, all these dictators did not commit their atrocities in the name of Atheism so it's not really a fair counter argument to the one that various modern day atrocities are committed in the name of Faith.

Whether someone commits atrocities in the name of their religion, to me, is less of a question than whether their actions obey or disobey the tenets of their faith (or absence thereof.) For a Christian to commit atrocities is fundamentally disobedient to their moral and religious duty, and for a Christian that does so this is the proper criticism: not that your moral and religious code is invalidated by your actions; but that you have been shown to be disobedient to that code. If Hitler claimed to be a Christian, then he showed himself disobedient (to put it mildly.) If someone is striving to love his neighbor and defend the innocent, and fails, then he failed. That doesn't invalidate the directive to love the neighbor and defend the innocent. Meanwhile, if someone else's code is to jail those he does not enjoy, and he consistently does so, we may feel that his customs are better honored in the breach, but we cannot criticize him for being inconsistent with his belief system.

Boromir88 brings up the idea of intent, and I do think that is important. I think it is valuable to take intent into account, and I think Tolkien would have also done so.
To judge a code by its followers is a risky thing (although I understand the tendency to do so.) Saruman had, as the White Council supposed, a code of virtue. Do his actions invalidate that code of virtue? Or do his actions reveal that he was disobedient to that code? Tolkien held, in Middle-earth and presumably in England as well, that Virtue was better than Evil. THe actions of those who profess to be good, but do evil, do not prove that evil is better than good. Their actions simply prove that they are not following the path of virtue.

Stalin, Lenin, and Pol Pot showed themselves obedient to their own code and value system. They acted in a manner consistent to their dogma. In a similar manner, Sauron (once he established himself firmly as a Black sort of fellow) proved obedient to his new code (disobedeint to the old, to be sure.) But that is no suprise. Shelob acted in a manner consistent to her own dogma. So did Gollum (in the end.) Some folk hold that consistency is a good thing, but I would ask "consistency regarding what?" That Sauron and Gollum were consistently evil, does not make them nicer to be around than those who strove to be good and occasionally failed. I would rather live in a society that strove for virtue and failed occasionally, than one that was consistent at being nasty and mean because it was in their belief system. Consistency notwithstanding, Orc-run Moria would not be my choice for a vacation spot.

In the books, Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Faramir, Legolas, Gimli, Sam, and even Merry and Pippin adhered pretty well (consistently!) to their own codes of virtue. Because of this, our modern society at times does not understand them. (I have long complained that PJ was far, far better at painting evil than he was at painting virtue.) Because PJ guessed that a purely noble Aragorn would not sell many tickets, we instead got a confused, hesitant, reluctant, I'm-only-in-this-because-I-have-to kind of Aragorn. I always thought that was too bad. Faramir also, was initially less good in the movie than in the book. But I digress.

Gimli isn't much of an archetype, in my mind; neither are Merry, Pippin, or Sam (some may argue.) But Legolas is. Perhaps that's an odd way of looking at the pair of them. BUt they did not start out as a pair.

The main characters who wanted to be good but strayed from their own code of virtue were, I think, Saruman, Boromir, Denethor, and Frodo himself. This to me is the heartbreak of Frodo's time at Sammath Naur; after struggling so long to adhere to his code of virtue, he fails at the last moment. THis removes him, in his own mind, from the code of virtue, and makes him a has-been. You were virtuous, Frodo, until that last moment. Too bad.

What a heartbreak for him.

IN contrast, Gandalf (wisely) refuses to take the ring knowing it would cause him to violate the code of virtue. Aragorn likewise, Faramir likewise.

Boromir, as we well know, succumbs to the temptation, but redeems himself in the end. Denethor would have snatched it given the chance, with no desire for redeemption.

While Galadriel strayed once, long ago, and has had her own independant streak, still, for the past thousand years she has steadfastly guarded the borders of Lorien against evil: first against Dol Guldor, then against Mordor. I find it difficult to lay much blame at her feet during the timeframe of LOTR. She has earned the title of virtuous, I think, by the time Frodo meets her.

Saruman is the blatantly disobedient one. He is the one who consistently behaved drastically differently from the code of virtue he proclaimed and professed; spoke sweetly while working treachery; consistently decieved many while being supposed to be faithful; butchered the Westfold. So going back to Lalwende's point above: In whose name did he do all this? His own (The White Hand)? Did Saruman commit his atrocities in the name of the White Council? If he had, would that have diminished the rest of the council? WOuld that have made his actions worse, better, or the same? Or do we care in what name he acted? If he had acted in the name of Mordor, would that have made his atrocities less? Only that it would have removed the "treachery" aspect of it; but the Westfold victims would be dead nonetheless. The atrocities Saruman committed proved that he was not, in fact, obeying his code of virtue.

He was, eventually, removed from the White Council and his staff was broken. Amazing that in the midst of it all, after the burning of the Westfol and the assault on Helm's Deep, even Gandalf hoped for his redeemption-- hoped that Saruman would return to real virtue.

Maybe Saruman is an archetypal traitor. I'm not familiar enough with all that to say. But to me, within LOTR, Gandalf is clearly an archetypal good, as are Aragorn, Faramir, Galadriel, Elrond, etc.

(Very interesting question regarding absolute evil, Boromir88; but my reply is already over-long...)

Formendacil

01-05-2009, 10:27 AM

Hmm, then you say that in order to be absolutely good, one has to be perfect (in this case, all-knowing)? Of course a good person's actions would be better if he was omniscient, and Manwe certainly made quite a couple of mistakes in his career, but wouldn't this make the threesome of all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful partly redundant? My knowledge of theology is admittedly rather limited, but I always took the meaning of all-good to be only that a person's will and intentions are absolutely good (setting aside whether this is equal to absence of evil here). I don't see why it should be impossible to have a person that is all-good, but not all-knowing and all-powerful. In any case, this was at least my idea when I labelled Manwe absolutely good.

I'm not so sure it's a theological background that'd be necessary to get where I'm coming from so much as a philosophical one (though where philosophy of God is concerned, the two are obviously intertwined). Pertinent to explaining what I was getting at, however, is the following post from Boro:

Here is another thought, there's been talk about absolute evil, Morgoth, Sauron..etc and Tolkien does say that he doesn't believe in Absolute Evil, but he goes on to talk about the two big villains in his myth (Morgoth and Sauron) - what about objects? What about the Ring? Maybe since Sauron is not absolute evil, it is impossible for him to create something that is. However, the Ring just has this knack to turn every possible light, into dark. It has the ability to twist, and corrupt even the most noble actions. And as Frodo is full of pity, strength, courage, to get the Ring to the place where it was made, Frodo's chance to overcome an object of absolute evil; an object that can do no good and turn the best intentions upside down, fails. Frodo succumbs to the Ring - does it then take an absolute good character to destroy an absolutely evil object?

This is pertinent, however, insofar as I would disagree with Boromir about the Ring being absolutely evil, because it does NOT have the ability to corrupt all actions. Notable as an exception here is Tom Bombadil (seen in the text) and, speculatively, any effect on beings substantially more powerful than Sauron, such as Manwë or Varda (I can see no reason why beings with more power than Sauron could be seduced by the promise of his, lesser, power).

It is not that the Ring lacks in evilness so much as it lacks in capacity to achieve absolute evil. Because I'm a professional nitpicker, I would therefore distinguish between absolute evil and complete evil. The Ring, in my opinion is not absolute evil but rather complete evil. There is nothing good about the Ring*, but it is not absolutely evil because it does not have the capacity to effect that much evil--and not only because it cannot grant power equivalent to that possessed by Manwë or (formerly) Melkor, but because it has to GRANT evil. The Ring is an evil tool, but it is not as evil as it could be because it cannot effect its will alone. Granted, it does seem to have a will of itself, which is why it is substantially more evil than other tools capable of producing evil, but it is not capable of evil action on its own, but requires assistance--assistance in proportion to whoever is wielding it; greater in the case of Galadriel or Gandalf, less in the case of Sam or Gollum.

Likewise, to get back to my explanation regarding Manwë, it is not that I think he is anyway less than completely good, but that he is not absolutely good. Everything that Manwë does is good, but it is not absolutely good because he does not have the foresight to know what is best in every situation, and so cannot do it (the example of Númenor already given is pertinent) in every situation. Though the motivation of Manwë remains good in all situations, he is not absolutely good because he lacks the knowledge or power to be so.

Hopefully, that hairsplitting on my part makes a bit more sense now.

*Unless one takes the Augustinian path and says that, since existence is a good, the Ring, since it exists, is still good at least to that minimal extent.

Morthoron

01-05-2009, 11:03 AM

It is not that the Ring lacks in evilness so much as it lacks in capacity to achieve absolute evil. Because I'm a professional nitpicker, I would therefore distinguish between absolute evil and complete evil. The Ring, in my opinion is not absolute evil but rather complete evil. There is nothing good about the Ring*, but it is not absolutely evil because it does not have the capacity to effect that much evil--and not only because it cannot grant power equivalent to that possessed by Manwë or (formerly) Melkor, but because it has to GRANT evil. The Ring is an evil tool, but it is not as evil as it could be because it cannot effect its will alone. Granted, it does seem to have a will of itself, which is why it is substantially more evil than other tools capable of producing evil, but it is not capable of evil action on its own, but requires assistance--assistance in proportion to whoever is wielding it; greater in the case of Galadriel or Gandalf, less in the case of Sam or Gollum.

I would agree with Formendacil (and the instances he noted) that the One Ring is not an Absolute Evil, particularly since it did effect good consequences in some limited aspects of the story, such as when invisibility saved Bilbo from Gollum, Orcs and spiders, or when Sam appeared as a great warrior Elf. Granted, these instances were merely a by-product of the Ring's power and not its primary function; however, even these limited aspects allowed for 'good' to eventually prevail over 'evil', and therefore there cannot be an 'absolute' appellation attached to it.

In addition, Frodo could still show compassion and mercy while in possession of the Ring; a Ring exhibiting the characteristics of 'absolute evil' would override such virtuous thoughts immediately, or at least confound such feelings on a greater level much sooner.

Boromir88

01-05-2009, 01:12 PM

Formen great stuff. :)

I was more, or less, just speculating on a couple things that came to mind. Because I think the essential question is can someone who is not absolutely evil (as Tolkien clearly states Sauron wasn't) create an object that is? Also, when if you believe in Gandalf's words, that Bilbo's finding of the Ring, was something the Ring had not intended, then can we talk in absolutes?

I agree that to be absolute, you not only have to have pure and absolute intentions (either good or evil), you also have to be all-knowing and all-powerful. The Ring is neither, good things happen beyond it's control, and of course while it does have great power over people, it's not all-powerful.

Granted, these instances were merely a by-product of the Ring's power and not its primary function~Morthoron
I would argue that invisibility isn't an off-shoot of the Ring, but a power that the Ring uses itself. Perhaps this is better left for another thread, but I'll just briefly state my points here...

In A Long Expected Party, Bilbo remarks that he always felt an "Eye" searching for him, and this made him want to put on the Ring and hide. I find it interesting that anyone in trouble, turns to the Ring to hide. Isildur wanted to escape from the ambush, but after he puts on the Ring, it slips off; he's shot and killed. Whenever the Ringwraiths are around, Frodo has this urge to put on the Ring, on Weathertop it costs him severely. On Amon Hen, the entire quest is almost blown-up, as Frodo puts it on to escape Boromir and he's almost discovered by Sauron. Gollum used the Ring to sneak around and steal, when he's in the Misty Mountains Gandalf says that the influence of the Ring began to wear off, because Gollum had no need to hide/use the Ring while under the mountains.

I think the Ring uses invisibility as a mind-game, a trick, a trap, to snare it's bearer. It makes its bearer believe, if you put me on, you'll be invisible, no one can find you, you can get out of danger, but really it's a false sense of security. The Ringwraiths and/or Sauron could spot you, and in Isildur's case it betrayed him. Now, how about Bilbo? My only guess is the Ring wanted to escape the Mountains/get away from Gollum.

Like I said, this is probably better left for a seperate thread, I just wanted to briefly point out, I'm not so sure about invisibility being an off-shoot of the Ring's powers. Rather it's a trick the Ring uses to lull it's bearer into believing his is safe/he is unseen. This is just more speculation on my part, just every instance that I could think of, the Ring uses it's invisibility as a trap.

Lalwendë

01-05-2009, 04:04 PM

The Ring cannot be an 'absolute evil' and there's an excellent reason why - Tom Bombadil. To him, it might as well just be a piece of tat from Ratners.

Used, desired, fought over - in all of these circumstances, the Ring is indeed evil, but lightly flipped up in the air like a two bob coin, it's just a ring. Note that Bilbo never really suffers the terrible consequences that Isildur, Frodo and Gollum all suffer - he doesn't carry the burden of knowing what this thing is nor does he have any desire to do anything sinister; he can also give it up relatively easily - I should imagine Bilbo would have had much more trouble coming off Pipeweed (if Rivendell was the non-smoking house that you suspect it might be ;)) than giving up the Ring ;) This is possibly why Gandalf kept his suspicions quiet for so long, too...

The things which the Ring causes clearly partly depend upon the minds/hearts of those who possess it, so it isn't 'evil' in and of itself.

Likewise, to get back to my explanation regarding Manwë, it is not that I think he is anyway less than completely good, but that he is not absolutely good. Everything that Manwë does is good, but it is not absolutely good because he does not have the foresight to know what is best in every situation, and so cannot do it (the example of Númenor already given is pertinent) in every situation. Though the motivation of Manwë remains good in all situations, he is not absolutely good because he lacks the knowledge or power to be so.

So, does this excuse him from the inevitable results of getting on the big celestial phone to 'sir' and grassing up the Numenoreans? ;) His intentions were good, but was he to know Eru would just rip a huge rift in the sea bed and send innocents to the depths?

It would have irrevocably changed the story of course, but had I been Eru I would have instead chastised the Valar for doing such a stupid thing as creating Numenor as it was in the first place! Though of course they might have spent the rest of their days weeping for the lost children of Numenor after their over-reaching all went wrong!

Pitchwife

01-05-2009, 06:06 PM

One more attempt to turn this back into a Tolkien discussion (and don't think I'm not tempted to join the melee...)

Eru is not the Christian God (however much the Professor may have tried to make him so) but a fictional character based on Tolkien's idea of the Christian God. Proof: Eru did several things which the Christian God (according to the Bible) didn't do: e.g. creating elves as well as men, drowning Numenor, sending Gandalf back after his death (supposing the Valar weren't responsible for that) etc.

An interesting parallel might be Alternate History novels using historical characters. I don't know if any of you are familiar with Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series, but to take a (random) example from that, there's a character in it called Taleswapper who is based on the poet William Blake (his real name is actually mentioned). Now while Taleswapper doesn't really do or say anything that would be completely out of character for the real William Blake, he didn't do quite a lot of things the real William Blake did (e.g. writing/engraving Jerusalem and Milton) and vice versa (e.g. emigrating to America when we know the real Blake spent the whole of his life in Britain).

Likewise, although we wouldn't expect Eru to act entirely unlike the Christian God as Tolkien saw Him, it doesn't necessarily follow that every attribute ascribed to God by Christian theology during the last 2000 years is valid for him (with a lower case 'h' !).

EDIT: Oops, I just realized I hadn't read page 2! I was afraid this was turning into another Christians vs non-Christians thread (like 'Lord of the Bible'), but others took care of it before me; sorry! Nevertheless, I stick to my arguments about Eru.

Morthoron

01-05-2009, 07:14 PM

Eru is not the Christian God (however much the Professor may have tried to make him so) but a fictional character based on Tolkien's idea of the Christian God. Proof: Eru did several things which the Christian God (according to the Bible) didn't do: e.g. creating elves as well as men, drowning Numenor, sending Gandalf back after his death (supposing the Valar weren't responsible for that) etc.

Yahweh had the immortal Nephilim who bred with mortal stock (whence came such giants as Goliath), he flooded the world, and there was a notable ressurrection in the bible as well. The parallels are there.

Oh, and Pitchwife, say hello to Saltheart Foamfollower for me!

Bêthberry

01-06-2009, 10:38 AM

Whether someone commits atrocities in the name of their religion, to me, is less of a question than whether their actions obey or disobey the tenets of their faith (or absence thereof.) For a Christian to commit atrocities is fundamentally disobedient to their moral and religious duty, and for a Christian that does so this is the proper criticism: not that your moral and religious code is invalidated by your actions; but that you have been shown to be disobedient to that code. If Hitler claimed to be a Christian, then he showed himself disobedient (to put it mildly.) If someone is striving to love his neighbor and defend the innocent, and fails, then he failed. That doesn't invalidate the directive to love the neighbor and defend the innocent.

At the risk of inciting further off topic posts, let me compliment Helen for this classic, logical rebuttal. Free will can lead to terrible choices.

Of course, we don't know what choices would be made had there been no revealed code of virtue.

In the books, Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Faramir, Legolas, Gimli, Sam, and even Merry and Pippin adhered pretty well (consistently!) to their own codes of virtue.

From where do these characters get their codes of virtue? Gandalf apparently received his directly from a source, although I cannot recall how much of this is specified in LotR. Elrond and Galadriel apparently have the long memories of elven lore but we not know how much memory (and each has a long, long span of memories) has affected that lore (assuming elves do not have perfect memories) over time. Aragorn would have received his code by virtue of his birthright and teachings from his mother and Elrond. Faramir's code comes from his inheritance. They have no practice of revealed religion, but their codes are learned, taught, instilled in them. For the Gondorians particularly, there is a sense of bloodline of the faithful.

But where or how was the hobbit code of virtue developed? As the Prologue makes clear, hobbits have no preserved knowledge of the vanished time of Elder Days; their records begin with the founding of the Shire and they have only legends and tales of an earlier time. So hobbits no longer have (if they once did) a form of revealed path to goodness or virtue.

Do hobbits represent a natural or innate form of spirituality? Do they demonstrate the actions of natural law? In the absence of a character of "absolute goodness" (who traditionally would inform all the other characters) whence comes the moral sense of Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin, to say nothing of Gaffer or Tom Cotton or Farmer Maggot or even Lobelia (granting of course that their actions do not necessarily come from the same source or motivation)?

Morthoron

01-06-2009, 12:40 PM

mark12_30

01-06-2009, 02:24 PM

But where or how was the hobbit code of virtue developed? As the Prologue makes clear, hobbits have no preserved knowledge of the vanished time of Elder Days; their records begin with the founding of the Shire and they have only legends and tales of an earlier time. So hobbits no longer have (if they once did) a form of revealed path to goodness or virtue.

Another question to toss in with that one: The classic (Western) virtues are listed as, prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude; faith, hope, and charity (agape love, or generosity). Do those virtues have anything to do with hobbits? With rangers? With elves? With the White Council, or some of our aforementioned archetypal candidates?

mark12_30

01-06-2009, 02:32 PM

So hobbits no longer have (if they once did) a form of revealed path to goodness or virtue.

Do hobbits represent a natural or innate form of spirituality?

In a general manner, I shall wave my hands while irresponsibly scattering a few pipe-ashes, and say that Sam, Merry, Pippin, and Frodo all got their sense of The Something Higher from Bilbo's elf-stories. After all, if Sam had three verses of Gil-Galad Was an Elven King memorized, he knew something about elves, and Mordor, too.

Those Tooks who went off on adventures might have known Something Higher, but at this point it is anybody's guess. I shall choose to neglect the un-Tookians.

Lobelia is on her own. Come to it, might she not have had an awakening from her experiences with Sharkey?

Lalwendë

01-06-2009, 03:13 PM

A classic, logical rebuttal, yes; however, when has logic ever been an article of faith? The interesting thing about the Bible or Koran is just how thin a variance there is between peace and genocide. If you want to find a reason to kill or enslave your neighbor, the proper text is there in black and white, right alongside loving thy neighbor. Churches have for centuries used holy scripture to kill their neighbors (the neighbor being branded a heretic or infidel is no longer a neighbor but an enemy of god). Muslims that strap bombs to themselves truly believe they are going to heaven. Atrocity or Act of Faith? Depends on your interpretation. I am sure Hitler, even in his lunacy, could somehow justify the Holocaust from a doctrinal viewpoint as well -- others certainly have throughout history with horrifying success.

Perhaps this is why men of Gondor continued their feud with the Haradrim, and vice versa, for so many millenia: an earnest belief in the other people's inherent evil.

Hmm, that's interesting, Gondor Vs the Haradrim as reflecting the current West Vs East conflicts...

Lately I've been coming round to thinking that so many of the conflicts supposedly down to Faith are actually about other things if you look at them, and religion is just used as a handy excuse: Islamists for example often merely want their land back (Palestinians) or want to establish a new Caliphate empire; the Northern Ireland troubles were definitely about questions of Nationality much more than Faith; Henry VIII's (and the rest of the UK's monarchs) struggles were more about who ruled the Kingdom and owned the wealth and the people's allegiance, the monarch or the Pope.

OT, but not entirely so...because we do both blame religion for a lot and attribute a lot to it when other things are at work. This is what had me thinking:

Aragorn would have received his code by virtue of his birthright and teachings from his mother and Elrond. Faramir's code comes from his inheritance. They have no practice of revealed religion, but their codes are learned, taught, instilled in them. For the Gondorians particularly, there is a sense of bloodline of the faithful.

Our culture can bring to us as many of these good things such as honour, compassion and fairplay as belief can. Plenty of people exist and existed without any faith but still possess that good stuff that the best believers do. Put simply, it's down to how you are raised and what you are taught, the environment you grow up in.

I don't think it's 'bloodline', as generations of people have for example come to live in the UK but quickly become 'British' and acquire our cultural norms and practises - it's not their blood which does this, just their surroundings and what they learn.

This is why I think the Orcs cannot have been 'bad to the bone', that they acquired much of their nature.

Lalaith

01-06-2009, 04:49 PM

Waes hail, Cailín!

In answer to the original question, referring specifically to LotR, I would say Elbereth is your best bet when it comes to absolute good.

She is (I am fairly sure) the only Vala featured in the trilogy, except for a passing reference to Orome. And while we are not told much about her, her name drives away evil, and makes those who call upon her feel wholesome.
I would also say the light of Earendil (via Frodo's phial) has the power of good. If we were to broaden the reference to the Silmarillion, the source of this light, the Silmarils, are so holy that they burn that which is impure. So perhaps they too embody absolute good.

Bêthberry

01-06-2009, 04:57 PM

OT, but not entirely so...because we do both blame religion for a lot and attribute a lot to it when other things are at work.

It's about power and control. I mean, there has been lots of argument over which creed to say and which one takes priority, but who kills over which creed to say, unless the creed opens up avenues of wealth and influence. Religion in Europe became tied with cultural hegemony; the faith of the ruler became the state imposed religion. The tragic fate of the Stuarts is that they remained Catholic in a nation being taken over by Presbyterians, so it worked the reverse for them. But still, little freedom of worship outside the majority group.

Our culture can bring to us as many of these good things such as honour, compassion and fairplay as belief can. Plenty of people exist and existed without any faith but still possess that good stuff that the best believers do. Put simply, it's down to how you are raised and what you are taught, the environment you grow up in.

I don't think it's 'bloodline', as generations of people have for example come to live in the UK but quickly become 'British' and acquire our cultural norms and practises - it's not their blood which does this, just their surroundings and what they learn.

Well, in the case of the Gondorians, it was definitely bloodline that was important, otherwise why would the Stewards have become "Reigning Stewards" and not "Kings" outright--and note that the Stewardship was hereditary? Certainly in their cultural lore, their ancestry back to the Numemorean faithful is important, as it is with Aragorn.

But what you say about the immigrants to the UK is interesting, as apparently there is some pressure or impulse or motivation to become British, rather than to make the UK a multi-cultural country, just as in the US there is overwhelming pressure to become "American." The culture of the immigrant is second rate to the ruling culture I guess. I'm sure there are countless problems within immigrant communities who struggle with their dual cultural experiences.

But to return to my question, I wasn't meaning to imply that goodness comes only from believers. Really, I was ruminating on how the authority of or for goodness takes hold. And what happens when it loses ground to the influence of evil? Really, in your terms, my question would be, how does a culture (as opposed to a faith) determine or decide what is good? What is the basis for saying that killing is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that lying is wrong? What is it that makes that "environment" that you speak of nurture goodness?

After all, we aren't sure what kind of environment nurtured Gollem. Did Smeagol know that killing was wrong or did his hobbit clan pursue a culture of self-centeredness and personal aggrandisement? Did his selfish motives merely overwhelm his better knowledge or were his base motives in fact nurtured by his environment? Eventually he was shunned by his community--rejected, forced out. Was that rejection of "otherness" part of what made him Gollem or was it just the influence of the Ring? Was his tragedy that his clan didn't know any elves as Frodo's clan did?

Lalwendë

01-07-2009, 06:50 AM

Well, in the case of the Gondorians, it was definitely bloodline that was important, otherwise why would the Stewards have become "Reigning Stewards" and not "Kings" outright--and note that the Stewardship was hereditary? Certainly in their cultural lore, their ancestry back to the Numemorean faithful is important, as it is with Aragorn.

I should clarify, I was getting onto the Real World talking about 'bloodline' there. The Numenoreans, as Tolkien's creation, had and were free to have (because as Author, it's Tolkien's call on how characterisation was done) personality characteristics inherited by blood; of course in the Real World this is a much less likely thing, if it happens at all.

But what you say about the immigrants to the UK is interesting, as apparently there is some pressure or impulse or motivation to become British, rather than to make the UK a multi-cultural country, just as in the US there is overwhelming pressure to become "American." The culture of the immigrant is second rate to the ruling culture I guess. I'm sure there are countless problems within immigrant communities who struggle with their dual cultural experiences.

Most immigrants to the UK are easily absorbed into the culture - and don't lose much of their own in the process. The media like to highlight differences as it makes for a far more interesting story to paint people as racists when the truth is that the white working classes have for hundreds of years lived next door to waves of new immigrants and get along remarkably well, given the difficulties both groups face.

OT again, but it's interesting stuff, isn't it? ;)

But to return to my question, I wasn't meaning to imply that goodness comes only from believers. Really, I was ruminating on how the authority of or for goodness takes hold. And what happens when it loses ground to the influence of evil? Really, in your terms, my question would be, how does a culture (as opposed to a faith) determine or decide what is good? What is the basis for saying that killing is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that lying is wrong? What is it that makes that "environment" that you speak of nurture goodness?

After all, we aren't sure what kind of environment nurtured Gollem. Did Smeagol know that killing was wrong or did his hobbit clan pursue a culture of self-centeredness and personal aggrandisement? Did his selfish motives merely overwhelm his better knowledge or were his base motives in fact nurtured by his environment? Eventually he was shunned by his community--rejected, forced out. Was that rejection of "otherness" part of what made him Gollem or was it just the influence of the Ring? Was his tragedy that his clan didn't know any elves as Frodo's clan did?

You often get this question of "Where does morality come from?" when you suggest that it can come from other things than Faith. However, you could also ask who put the moral rules into faith? ;)

If we could answer the question of where moral rules come from we might solve a myriad of ethical dilemmas but the best we can do is make an educated guess and that's that rules stem from the needs of the culture which writes them.

Taking the rules set out in the Bible for example - all of them stemmed from the contemporary culture when those texts were written - this is why alongside thoroughly sensible rules that are still relevant like "Thou shalt not steal" we have anomalies about not eating prawns.

Morthoron

01-07-2009, 12:33 PM

After all, we aren't sure what kind of environment nurtured Gollem. Did Smeagol know that killing was wrong or did his hobbit clan pursue a culture of self-centeredness and personal aggrandisement? Did his selfish motives merely overwhelm his better knowledge or were his base motives in fact nurtured by his environment? Eventually he was shunned by his community--rejected, forced out. Was that rejection of "otherness" part of what made him Gollem or was it just the influence of the Ring? Was his tragedy that his clan didn't know any elves as Frodo's clan did?

As opposed to the more 'advanced' Hobbitish culture in the Shire, the retrograde Stoors (who had left the Angle and had resettled back along the Anduin), were a matriarchal society which seemed to me more gypsyish hunter/gatherers rather than staid farmers (Gollum fondly remembered teaching his grandmother to suck eggses), but they certainly knew right from wrong. Smeagol/Gollum was banished from their society for thievery and suspected murder, not necessarily because of a perceived otherness (although the change that came over him could have been construed as part and parcel of his criminal activity while using the Ring).

Bêthberry

01-07-2009, 09:07 PM

I should clarify, I was getting onto the Real World talking about 'bloodline' there. The Numenoreans, as Tolkien's creation, had and were free to have (because as Author, it's Tolkien's call on how characterisation was done) personality characteristics inherited by blood; of course in the Real World this is a much less likely thing, if it happens at all.

Oh, but we can talk about it, though, just as we talk about the Drowning of Numenor or the presence of Coffee and umbrellas. :)

Most immigrants to the UK are easily absorbed into the culture - and don't lose much of their own in the process. The media like to highlight differences as it makes for a far more interesting story to paint people as racists when the truth is that the white working classes have for hundreds of years lived next door to waves of new immigrants and get along remarkably well, given the difficulties both groups face.

Well, really, I am a bit limited in my ability to watch/read your media. I mean, I do get the BBC World News and Doctor Who but that's about the limit of my exposure to your media. And the only time I read your tabloids online is when they have a juicy scandal about the Royals beating animals or wishing they were some form of sanitary device. I often think of the English as a bit Elvish, if you know what I mean. It must come from reading the likes of Nadeem Aslam's Maps for Lost Lovers (http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2004-02/aslam.htm) or Monica Ali's Brick Lane (http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth03b5n513312634963). I think we could probably have a good discussion about the elves in terms of the mid-twentieth century English thoughts on the loss of the Empire. Still Tolkienish but I suppose not really about absolute good.

Taking the rules set out in the Bible for example - all of them stemmed from the contemporary culture when those texts were written - this is why alongside thoroughly sensible rules that are still relevant like "Thou shalt not steal" we have anomalies about not eating prawns.

I myself often wished that the Levitical injunction against the wearing of mixed fabrics had been more often observed. It would have saved us from the indignity of the polyester leisure suit. ;)

As opposed to the more 'advanced' Hobbitish culture in the Shire, the retrograde Stoors (who had left the Angle and had resettled back along the Anduin), were a matriarchal society which seemed to me more gypsyish hunter/gatherers rather than staid farmers (Gollum fondly remembered teaching his grandmother to suck eggses), but they certainly knew right from wrong. Smeagol/Gollum was banished from their society for thievery and suspected murder, not necessarily because of a perceived otherness (although the change that came over him could have been construed as part and parcel of his criminal activity while using the Ring).

I'm not so sure they did know right from wrong--or rather, I wonder what Tolkien was doing in assigning them those two very intriguing attributes. All faiths--all cultures--have ways of enforcing normative behaviours but not all of them practice that form of extreme control, with its (unintended) damaging, detrimental effects. I've often pondered Tolkien's depiction of Smeagol's clan and what might be called the psychological consequences of Smeagol's shunning.

Lalwendë

01-08-2009, 06:52 AM

Well, really, I am a bit limited in my ability to watch/read your media. I mean, I do get the BBC World News and Doctor Who but that's about the limit of my exposure to your media. And the only time I read your tabloids online is when they have a juicy scandal about the Royals beating animals or wishing they were some form of sanitary device. I often think of the English as a bit Elvish, if you know what I mean. It must come from reading the likes of Nadeem Aslam's Maps for Lost Lovers (http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2004-02/aslam.htm) or Monica Ali's Brick Lane (http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth03b5n513312634963). I think we could probably have a good discussion about the elves in terms of the mid-twentieth century English thoughts on the loss of the Empire. Still Tolkienish but I suppose not really about absolute good.

I think you should start this thread! :cool:

I myself often wished that the Levitical injunction against the wearing of mixed fabrics had been more often observed. It would have saved us from the indignity of the polyester leisure suit. ;)

Would that be what's known on our shores as a Shellsuit?

Though they do serve a purpose because if you see someone wearing one you know to cross the road well in advance so as to avoid them ;)

I'm not so sure they did know right from wrong--or rather, I wonder what Tolkien was doing in assigning them those two very intriguing attributes. All faiths--all cultures--have ways of enforcing normative behaviours but not all of them practice that form of extreme control, with its (unintended) damaging, detrimental effects. I've often pondered Tolkien's depiction of Smeagol's clan and what might be called the psychological consequences of Smeagol's shunning.

I don't think most people would ever think of shunning as a bad thing - I think it's one of those things (like childbirth or depression) that until it happens to you or someone you know, you can never really comprehend. On the surface it just sounds as though someone has been sent away but in reality it means the loss of your identity, friends, loved ones, and maybe even worse. It happened to my grandmother when she married outside her faith and her own mother died.

So if Tolkien included it as something which happened to one of his characters I wouldn't necessarily say that he was equating the shunners with wrong doing. Plus there's the fact that he himself was threatened with punishment if he carried on seeing Edith before he was 21 and he went along with that.

Bêthberry

01-08-2009, 11:37 AM

I think you should start this thread! :cool:

Oh, I've not much time these days for watching a thread so closely--even replying sometimes I'm so tardy that the thread has quite moved on and no one knows quite where I'm coming from--rather hilarious really. Let someone else if it's wanted.

I don't think most people would ever think of shunning as a bad thing - I think it's one of those things (like childbirth or depression) that until it happens to you or someone you know, you can never really comprehend. On the surface it just sounds as though someone has been sent away but in reality it means the loss of your identity, friends, loved ones, and maybe even worse. It happened to my grandmother when she married outside her faith and her own mother died.

So if Tolkien included it as something which happened to one of his characters I wouldn't necessarily say that he was equating the shunners with wrong doing. Plus there's the fact that he himself was threatened with punishment if he carried on seeing Edith before he was 21 and he went along with that.

Sad story, that, about your grandmum. Hmm, different cultures, different strokes. I don't know anyone here who would condone the extreme forms of shunning. There are families who get into a tiff and won't speak, but by and large I think around here people sense that shunning contributes to a worsening of the situation rather than a healing or a true correction. I don't know many who would refuse to speak. 'course, maybe that's the influence of a culture which leans more to therapists than to dogmatics.

Interesting point about the pressure put on Tolkien over his teenage infatuation with Edith. Clearly, the event was formative given their tombstone reads "Beren and Luthien." He "went along with it" but he wasn't in a particularly strong position at the time, and that does not mean he didn't have thoughts about it later in life. (Carpenter did, if I recall the biography correctly.) However, I'm not the one to make direct or uncomplicated links between an author's bio and his life and this isn't the thread to start that topic! Certainly, consider the character Tolkien gave the shunning to--Smeagol/Gollem. It fits so well with psychiatric theories of the abuses of extreme shunning that I can't help but wonder how much Tolkien thought about belonging. Certainly, the theme of the fellowship, the ties of the four hobbits, and Sam and Frodo's friendship all point towards community as being an essential Good in the tale and to put one beyond that is, to put them beyond the pale. so to speak. :D

Tigerlily Gamgee

01-09-2009, 12:20 PM

I haven't had a chance to read all other responses... but for me, the answer would be Samwise Gamgee.

Why?

Samwise seemed to have a knack for "getting people" without really knowing them. He wasn't fooled by Gollum. He protected Frodo even when Frodo shunned him.
He was an all around "good guy."
He wasn't really affected by the Ring (granted, Hobbits in general were not as affected, and had he had it as long as Frodo it's quite possible he would've broken down too) when he took it, at least not to the point of failing on his mission.
He STUCK to his mission... his main goal was to see the Ring destroyed and Frodo home safely. He was kind of like a child in that he tried to remain untainted by everything that was going on.

Granted, this is from the movies, not the book, but I always loved this dialogue exchange, and I think they did an excellent job of writing Sam in the movies (for the most part):

Frodo: I can't do this, Sam.
Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.

Lalwendë

01-09-2009, 05:13 PM

Sad story, that, about your grandmum. Hmm, different cultures, different strokes. I don't know anyone here who would condone the extreme forms of shunning. There are families who get into a tiff and won't speak, but by and large I think around here people sense that shunning contributes to a worsening of the situation rather than a healing or a true correction. I don't know many who would refuse to speak. 'course, maybe that's the influence of a culture which leans more to therapists than to dogmatics.

It's quite dark really, but was incredibly common in the Irish immigrant community in Liverpool and other cities :( My other grandmother also married outside her faith but nobody was bothered much as it wasn't an issue in her community, and nobody also worried about her combining going to a CofE church and adhering to the catholic catachism.

Interesting point about the pressure put on Tolkien over his teenage infatuation with Edith. Clearly, the event was formative given their tombstone reads "Beren and Luthien." He "went along with it" but he wasn't in a particularly strong position at the time, and that does not mean he didn't have thoughts about it later in life. (Carpenter did, if I recall the biography correctly.)

I shall have to read some more on his later thoughts. He must have been a pretty good catch at any rate, for Edith to break off an engagement when he returned as that would have made her look ever so slightly 'loose' in those days!

However, I'm not the one to make direct or uncomplicated links between an author's bio and his life and this isn't the thread to start that topic! Certainly, consider the character Tolkien gave the shunning to--Smeagol/Gollem. It fits so well with psychiatric theories of the abuses of extreme shunning that I can't help but wonder how much Tolkien thought about belonging. Certainly, the theme of the fellowship, the ties of the four hobbits, and Sam and Frodo's friendship all point towards community as being an essential Good in the tale and to put one beyond that is, to put them beyond the pale. so to speak. :D

I actually think there's a lot in the fact that Gollum effectively became a 'lone wolf' - there are few in Middle-earth who live alone in that way (even Tom has Goldberry, and Saruman has the White Council and then Grima). Tolkien doesn't seem to write of characters who live alone as being all that 'good'; most live in communities or partnerships or belong to some greater group - Aragorn and his Rangers for example.