[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

So, is evil portrayed differently in the two books? Can we compare the corrupting influence of the Ring & the destructive influence of Morgoth's curse?

Yes. The Ring is the evil lying beside the road that one must go over and pick up - choose - to be affected. Just by walking over and reaching down, you are already giving in to whatever flaws are inside you, and the Ring uses those flaws to, later, bring you down even further. The Curse, if it's really real, is something that you've not specifically chosen. Regardless, the Curse works with the flaws that it finds within the cursed one. And what I mean by real is: Did Morgoth have the power to actively change a person's fate, or was he just so powerful that he could make sure that some misadventures in grand style fall in one's path?

Turin made many bad decisions, and I would say that these were a result of his pride and not so much the curse - though that would provide a very convenient excuse. When exactly was he ever humble or repentant? Seems that he goes from one bad decision to another; kills friends, boasts, brags and repeatedly (from memory) takes what is 'owed' him. He also is a thorn in Morgoth's side; the price of creating the curse? Changing a free agent's fate costs Morgoth many orcs and Glaurung at the least. Turin marries his sister, which is icky, but at the time he did not know that he was doing so, and so cannot be held responsible for that one. And, sick is that is, didn't some dynasties maintain power by having siblings intermarry? And what of Adam and Eve's children?

Of course, the Ring will corrupt one into a new Sauron if one is strong enough, & the Curse is meant merely to destroy & all that, but the question is 'Is there a difference in the nature of evil as portrayed in the two books? Certainly, taken as stand-alone works the stand out difference is that in CoH evil wins & in LotR it loses. What interests me - & I've addressed this before - is that while in terms of (original) composition & of internal chronology CoH came first, in terms of publication it comes last. And its more complicated than that too, because the CoH we have now was written after LotR. In Tolkien's 'final' published M-e novel evil wins.

I would not say that there is a difference in the nature of evil. The stories are different; one ends in catastrophe and the other in eucatastrophe. It's not like the Rocky (boxing) movies where you always know how they'll end.

But what of the Ring & its corrupting influence - when one succumbs to the Ring & thus to evil one has fallen to a physical thing, but can one 'fall' in the same way to a 'curse'? Both Boromir & Turin seek glory - Boromir through the Ring, Turin in spite of the Curse.

Interesting. And if the Curse and Ring are similar, then how much 'good' would have Boromir done (like the Black Sword) before the Ring finally won out?

In LotR we are presented with the moral: 'If you strive hard enough, are prepared to sacrifice enough, evil can be defeated' - the tale ends in hope. In CoH the 'moral' seems to be: 'Whatever you do, evil will win out'

I didn't see in CoH that 'evil wins.' It's a tragedy, surely, but never did I think that Turin had a chance of winning as he's at times a jerk. Frodo is more humble and has Sam; Turin tempts the very gods - "I am the master of fate" - and has a lot of blood on his hands. Such things come at a high price.