How Would it Be?

[Lalwendë]

This is an interesting thread. I have to say that I am indeed interested in the reasoning behind the behaviour of the 'bad guys' and I do have an unhealthy interest in Saruman and what he got up to.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

One of the points about LotR which fascinates me is this very idea of trying to make Good dramatically interesting and to touch only in the most indirect way upon the thoughts of the 'baddies'. I'm sure Tolkien was aware of the pitfall Milton made in Paradise Lost of making Satan more interesting than Adam and Eve and the other Angels. It is almost a truism among some sets that Good does not make good dramatic potential. I suppose this was one of the reasons for the changes made to Faramir's character for the movie trilogies.

This is interesting, as Tolkien's work does seem to lack any kind of Miltonic figure. There are those of us who take an interest in Saruman or the Witch-King and those who have a fondness for the idea of 'dark elves'. Many of us love Gollum, and get a thrill from reading about Dragons and Balrogs. But do any of them even closely match up to the idea of a Miltonic figure? None of them are seductive in any way, it is their 'badness' which is interesting, especially in contrast to the sheer 'goody-two-shoes' aspects shown by some characters. The only figure who I would wager does come close is Feanor. But even here Tolkien must clearly show how Feanor is wrong. There isn't much room for ambiguity.

Originally Posted by Child

Isn't it interesting how many of us (including me) love to play the baddies in RPG's? Is it our own human nature that lures us to an ivestigation of the dark side or a desire to fill in what Tolkien left out?

Who doesn't like to explore being a bad guy? I'm not sure it's a case of filling in what Tolkien left out, it's more getting another perspective on the story and on the secondary world. My own fascination with Saruman stems from the need to know what he was doing. The story as it is only gives me Gandalf's perspective on 'breaking the Light' and I have this itchy feeling that under the surface I can somehow find out exactly what he was doing and why it was so wrong.

I think that perhaps this comes from our modern freedom to question, to ask why and how, and not to have to accept what we are told. Where this leaves the storyteller I don't know.