Quote:
|
I wonder if he felt restricted by the type of story he was telling - a noble enemy (even one or two) would have reflected a faint light of 'nobility' on the enemy's cause - & he couldn't risk such a thing, so the nature of the enemy is dictated by the nature of the tale, but one has to ask whether the tale itself & the heroes it tells of are in some way 'diminished'?
|
It has already been pointed that there are various degrees of evil. We have Sauron who is the closest aproximation of it, as stated in the letters (I would personally put Melkor at least on the same level but whatever). Then there are the nazgul and the balrogs, who are probably unshakeable from their allegiance. Then the orcs who are in large numbers and very close to the edge; true enough, none are lauded. At least for these beings we can say that they are thoroughly corrupted; even if they do achieve something spectacular, is it actually their own abilities which bring about that result, or the force of evil, a very present and powerful one, which drives them forth? I would hold it is the later and that force of evil merits no recognition. Not morally, nor otherwise; why praise Melkor's force at work, which was the most powerful in Arda to begin with (less Eru's)?
However, there are also, as stated, other servants of Sauron, who can make brave last stands. We also have two parties at war
because of Sauron/Melkor - but both parties are "good" and their worth recognized often: Feanor against teleri & Galadriel; Gondorians in the kin-strife; Thingol against the dwarves. These evil guys do receive recognition, but not for their evil deeds.