Tolkien and the Monsters

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

SaucepanMan, you wrote, in response to Mithalwen:

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

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

That Tolkien was one very smart customer.

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

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