Servant or Master?

[Nerwen]

These are all interesting points people are making... but I wouldn't mind a clarification from the original poster. Lord Halsar, by "better villain", do you mean–

–actually more powerful?
–more evil?
–more successful?
–or just a better character?

[Kuruharan]

Just because the goal is unattainable doesn't make it less evil, in my view.

It also depends on which story Tolkien was referring to. If he was just referring to LOTR it makes a bit of a difference.

[Boromir88]

Just because the goal is unattainable doesn't make it less evil, in my view.~Kuru

Did I give you permission to disagree with me?

Ok, but seriously, is this a debatable topic? Sure is, which is why I look forward to some good discussion, because as you know I am an extremely biased person who will only find the stuff to support my opinion.

It also depends on which story Tolkien was referring to. If he was just referring to LOTR it makes a bit of a difference.

Or myth and story mean the same thing, it's just that Tolkien felt like interchanging the two words. Similar to what he does a lot of times with "orc" and "goblin," switching which one he uses several times in the same paragraph to avoid repetition. It would be extremely annoying to see the same 3 sentences start of with "In my story..." "In my story..." and "In my story..."

So, which one is it? I don't know, but I have found other places where it's questionable as to whether Morgoth was the "#1 evil-man no questions asked." At one time he was at the top, but it's entirely possible for Sauron to leap-frog him.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

In my myth Morgoth fell before Creation of the physical world. In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible

It's certainly possible to parse Tolkien as saying that Sauron was as close to wholly evil as was possible 'in my story' (ie the Lord of the Rings) because that was merely a part of the Myth, one which no longer included Morgoth.

[Kuruharan]

Or myth and story mean the same thing, it's just that Tolkien felt like interchanging the two words.

Ahhh...Balrog wings, run away!!!!!!

I'm mostly pondering over the seeming contradiction of Tolkien's words:

In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any 'rational being' is wholly evil.

and

The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other ’free’ wills

Given the fact that Tolkien stated that Melkor came to desire the annihilation of everything (possibly ultimately including himself)...who's to say if Melkor really answered to the description of being a 'rational being' anymore?

Perhaps we feel a greater affinity for Sauron because Sauron's motives are something that is understandable to most of us, while Melkor's goals seem a bit unreal to our minds.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Given the fact that Tolkien stated that Melkor came to desire the annihilation of everything (possibly ultimately including himself)...who's to say if Melkor really answered to the description of being a 'rational being' anymore?

Given that Tolkien described Melkor's desire as a descent into nihilistic madness, I'd say that he was definitely over the line into "irrational."

[Boromir88]

Kuru, will you hate me if I muddy the waters even more?

How about Tolkien defining a "rational" being as something from Eru? Because, we're not talking about "thinking" rationally we are talking about an individuals own state of being. And since Eru is rational, all beings of Eru are thus considered "rational beings." I can't find the exact quote at the moment, but there is a place where Tolkien does define a "rational being" as one coming from Eru.

So, now the question is in Letter 183, does Tolkien mean "rational being" in the sense of one with the capability of thinking rationally or simply a being from Eru?