Humility & Heroes

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think that the second category is particularly important as this is where Tolkien forces his good guys into humility as a requirement of their being 'good'. And that's where, I think, the notion of humility as a desirable character trait in a 'hero' is most important.

So Hobbits, in the main, are not 'humble' - they are as they are. Only when they transcend their nature (as with Frodo, Bilbo, & later with Sam too) are they able to humble themselves - one cannot lower oneself until one has scaled the heights - & as Chesterton said, one sees great things from the valley, only small things from the peak - hence only those Hobbits can pass beyond the Sea. The other Hobbits remain where they were put: "before Saruman, chop wood & carry water; after Saruman, chop wood & carry water" (but by-pass 'Enlightenment' because that's too much like having an adventure.) There is no 'sin' in the world of Fairy story. Sin is of the bigger world - as is Salvation (& Damnation, btw). The great choices are of the greater world - as are the greater consequences (& the greater rewards).

Tolkien's heroes must be humble or they won't win - yet all are humbled in Tolkien's world - some are born humble, like the Hobbits, some attain humility, like Aragorn, Gandalf, et al, & some have humility thrust upon them - like Saruman, Sauron & Wormtongue they are broken & humiliated. But the ones who are so humiliated, brought low, never seem to appreciate the 'gift'. Repentance is never an option. The good guys humble themselves & win. The bad guys are humbled & lose - permanently.

[Boromir88]

Anyone wonder why the arch villain doesn't just shoot the hero right in between the eyes? Instead he always has to lock him in some inescapable (yet somehow escapable) contraption, not take away the hero's handy utility belt, tell the hero he will be leaving for a few hours so outside is a completely inept guard to make sure he doesn't escape? One word - ofermod.

An overmastering pride, an extreme arrogance in your own abilities. You are the super genius, you think you can't be beaten. Though, it's always these guys that get foiled.

I don't want to get into what Tolkien believed ofermod meant, and what it actually does mean (possibly), because I don't think that's important to this discussion. Seeing as we are talking about Tolkien's story here, I think it's quite acceptable to use and apply the word to his characters. (If you disagree - tough. ) As Lalwende brought to my attention many moons ago:

Apparently, Tolkien was preoccupied also with defining the limitations of heroism. His translation of ofermod clearly implies a distinction between the bold and the foolhardy, high spirit and excessive spirit.

For the full essay go here.

Or let me just put it this way...Gandalf doesn't need to talk a big game, he would just do it. If he were to theoretically lay a beatdown on Saruman, he wouldn't brag about how he could kick around Saruman until he's black and blue, he would just do it. The kicker is, if he couldn't he would say so...

"I am Gandalf the White, but Black is mightier still."~The White Rider

What's really interesting is White ends up mightier in the end anyway...or does it really?

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

What's really interesting is White ends up mightier in the end anyway...or does it really?

An interesting thought (as were those in the rest of the post ). But this, I think, is an intriguing indication of Tolkien's notions of humility, in particular humility vs hubris. The proud crow about their achievements; the humble do not. Frodo discounts his own part in destroying the Ring, thinking Sam the true hero. Aragorn does not follow the Numenorean tradition of putting the crown on his own head, but humbly acknowledges that many others, Gandalf in particular, were responsible for this victory. And for Gandalf, while there appears to be satisfaction in what was achieved, he never gives the impression that he feels his White triumphed over Sauron's Black. It was an end achieved by many, and he played a part in it, but he never treats it as a personal victory (not that we see, at any rate). One can just bet that the bad guys would have been quite personal in their moment of triumph, just as we see that Saruman is equally personal in his defeat, carrying grudges and bitterness to the very end. The heroes instead take defeat in a different "personal" sense; they accept that they, personally, failed. They don't push the blame for it off on others, even when others have a lot of share in that blame. Gandalf kicks himself for being foolish enough to fall into Saruman's trap; he pities Saruman for having fallen so far into evil. Saruman, conversely, blames Gandalf for his inability to achieve his goal of getting the Ring, as well as anyone who helped his adversary, so he has to go ruin the Shire just to get even with those he blames for his defeat (not failure; defeat).

Given that I'm in the middle of therapy trying to recover from the post-traumatic shock of being raised by a narcissitic alcoholic mother, I'm finding the narcissism of Tolkien's villains rather intriguing. Thank goodness it was Gandalf I decided to pick as my role model when I was a kid.