Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
Glaurung unquestionably did the will of Morgoth, whereas Smaug was pretty much his own master. Since Morgoth was the prime Evil of Arda, Glaurung would work Evil, and be no more likely to do good than he.
Smaug's evil was more self-centered, though Gandalf was greatly concerned that a resurgent Sauron could have "used" him. Since Smaug's behaviour would seem to be more autonomous, I would almost say he was more evil than Glaurung.
Whether dragons in general were irredeemable, I think, is contingent on the possibility of their ever repenting and making a conscious effort to do good. I think that is highly improbable.
|
I was interested in what you had to say there,
Inziladun. I agree completely with what you said about Glaurung. Regarding Smaug, it's more difficult to say. Certainly he can fend for himself. Just because a being is evil, doesn't mean he or she is controlled by Sauron, Shelob being the best example of this.
When Gandalf spoke about Sauron being able to use Smaug, is it the case that he could, if he was interested, control the latter, or could at least
persuade him to do things?
You rightly said,
Inziladun, that Smaug's behaviour '
would seem to be more autonomous'; but there's also the fact that Morgoth appeared to let Glaurung do his own thing, allowing him to stay in Nargothrond. Was his attack on Brethil, when he was killed by Túrin Turambar, on his own initiative, or due to Morgoth telling him to get a move on?
As you said, '
Whether dragons in general were irredeemable, I think, is contingent on the possibility of their ever repenting and making a conscious effort to do good. I think that is highly improbable'. There's not, in my opinion, enough information to say conclusively one way or the other.
I'm sure this issue about whether dragons, orcs or other creatures were irredeemable was discussed by elves, men and hobbits. The poem
Perry-the-Winkle, said to be written by Sam Gamgee, has a hobbit considering the
possibility, at least in comic form, that a troll might choose to be good, as seen in the lament given to the latter:
'I steal no gold, I drink no beer,
I eat no kind of meat;
but People slam their doors in fear,
whenever they hear my feet.
O how I wish that they were neat,
and my hands were not so rough!
Yet my heart is soft, my smile is sweet,
and my cooking good enough.'
The proof that he is good comes when he feeds and teaches Perry-the-Winkle to become a baker. But even in the context of that poem, it's clear that trolls have a bad reputation, which Bilbo Baggins' account can't have helped:
He looked around, and who did he meet
but old Mrs. Bunce and all
with umbrella and basket walking the street;
and he smiled and stopped to call:
'Good morning, ma'am! Good day to you!
I hope I find you well?'
But she dropped umbrella and basket too,
and yelled a frightful yell.
Old Pott the Mayor was strolling near;
when he heard that awful sound,
he turned all purple and pink with fear,
and dived down underground.
The Lonely Troll was hurt and sad:
'Don't go!' he gently said,
but old Mrs. Bunce ran home like mad
and hid beneath her bed.
The Troll went on to the market-place
and peeped above the stalls;
the sheep went wild when they saw his face,
and the geese flew over the walls.
Old Farmer Hogg he spilled his ale,
Bill Butcher threw a knife,
and Grip his dog, he turned his tail
and ran to save his life.
In reality, I wonder if a troll in those circumstances might not have ended up dead very quickly, or at serious risk of being so.
