Unorthodox Heroes?

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Feanor was a jerk, plain and simple. I spit upon his grave. OK, that's disrespectful, I apologize.

I also like Boromir. Actually, I think I like him better now that I've seen the movies, because Sean Bean's performance is incredible. He finishes well, of course, and that seems to be a chief Tolkien criterion for determining one's moral nature.

Gollum, on the other hand, finishes in evil, and even though his fall saves Middle-earth, he is in the end an evil character. I think it is however fascinating to watch the changes that come over his character in Book Four.

This is one of the things I don't like about the movie TTT: They oversimplify and somewhat change Gollum's character. As they portray it, Smeagol orders his Gollum side out, then he lets "Stinker" back in after his "betrayal" by "wicked tricksy Master." After the departure from Osgiliath, Stinker takes over completely.

The book is, to my mind, more complex than this. It's a matter of opinion as to whether Gollum is quote unquote "schizophrenic". Also, Stinker doesn't take over completely until just before Shelob's lair, when Gollum returns from his visit to Shelob and nearly has a complete change of heart, only to be met by rough words from Sam. Tolkien wrote that he saw that moment as the supreme tragedy of that story.

Well, this post has turned into a discussion of Gollum, and for that I apologize. Hopefully someone else can come along and steer the topic back in the right direction.

[The 1,000 Reader]

In my opinion, Turin was more of a villian than Sauron. At times, however, his good personality shone through and we could imagine what he would be like if he wasn't cursed by Morgoth. Also, Denethor was already a broken man by the time he contested Sauron, and if he was not withered he might have proven a formidable adversary to the second Dark Lord.

[Firefoot]

In my opinion, Turin was more of a villian than Sauron.

Hm... could you explain that a little bit more? Turin made some bad decisions and listened to some of the wrong people, but he was cursed, and generally I'd say he acted according to his best judgment. Sauron's goal was domination of Middle-earth. I'm having trouble balancing the scale in the other way.

I must say that Fëanor could possibly be my favorite character in the Sil, and is almost certainly my favorite Elf of all time. He really fascinates me as a character, even if he isn't exactly 'nice;' indeed, sometimes "you're an idiot" would best describe his actions. His whole story is rather tragic, and I can't say whether he ultimately brought about more bad or good. But that's the best part: like Ang said, Tolkien doesn't tell us characters are "good" or "bad;" the Reader ( ) has a choice in that. Fëanor is a classic example of a basically good character whose faults and bad choices lead to his down-fall.

I've always rather liked Shagrat and Gorbag. Yes, they're Orcs, and yes, they're prone to the same, ah, flaws that tend to run in the race (e.g. killing each other...), but in they're conversation we can see a more human side to them. What they really want is to get away from it all and set up a place from themselves with a few trusty lads. They don't want to fight this war; they feel no loyalty towards Sauron. It isn't hard for me to feel sympathetic for them. The initial human reaction is to say "Orcs=evil," but they aren't wholly so. They do have some more human qualities to them, and exploring these qualities is what makes Orkish characters interesting to RPG. It's what makes all baddies fun to RPG, in fact, is that they do have good traits. It seems like the tendency in many fantasy books is to paint the bad guy as all evil without redeeming qualities. But in Tolkien's books (and several others, I'm not generalizing the genre completely), the bad guys have depth and motives and good qualities. It's what makes Saruman or Grima more interesting to analyze than Aragorn or Faramir.

Posted by Ang
I would prefer to call it another kind of power; power to create a crossroads but let us pick the path.

Exactly. I love that image.

[The 1,000 Reader]

To me Sauron was more of a cliche, average villian in The Silmarillion and after reading it I thought of him being far less intelligent and powerful than he was said to be(if you pay close attention, you'll realize that Sauron made many stupid mistakes.) The unfortunate deeds of Turin seemed far more sinister and tragic( a bad thing happened to them and they died.) Also, Turin killed people left and right when many of them were undeserving of it and some were trying to help him.

I also liked Gorbag and Shagrat, though I was slightly confused about why they killed each other. I know orcs are greedy, but if Sauron had horded so much mithril, wouldn't there be a inflation of sorts rendering it near worthless, thus making their greed be in vain? Of course if they wanted it for a promotion of sorts then that makes sense.

[mormegil]

In this thread there has already been a good amount of discussion on Turin and Feanor. I would like to discuss a little of both and give my opinions.

First I must say I disagree whole-heartedly with Gurthang and TGWBS about their view of Feanor. He is no hero. He was a great and mighty elf. I would agree that he was one of the greatest, if not the single greatest elf in Middle-earth. But greatness doesn't equate to being a hero. I have always thought of him more as a villain.

It is true that he was great in art and craft, so much so that he made the silmarils; however couldn't one argue that Sauron was also great in craft. Being on the 'good' (elf) side doesn't make a character good. Firefoot brings up a good point about characterizing different races automatically. We assume all orcs to be evil and it seems that they stereotype is for elves to be wholesome and pure. This is not a completely accurate stereotype.

Some of Feanors actions will illustrate my point. He threatened Fingolfin at sword point with his life merely because Fingolfin spoke to their father and gave his council. This was done while in Aman. This act helped to give a window, in which evil could enter Aman which name means free from evil or blessed. The kin slaying! What a nefarious act of cowardice that was! I know what will be used as a rebuttal: that Feanor didn't act alone. That is true but Feanor had a great power of influence and he used that to stir up his people into open rebellion of the Valar and the slaying of the Teleri for not allowing them to use their ships. Ironic, isn't it that Feanor won't give the silmarils to help save the trees, yet he would take by force the objects the Teleri hold as dear to them as he holds his Silmarils. This is the last example I will currently use, though not the last that could be used. Leaving his kindred near Helcaraxe to either perish or return in shame. Again what great cowardice is demonstrated.

Turin on the other hand was cursed, as has been said. But what evil did he actually do? He slew Beleg; that of course was unintentional and caused him great grief. He fled Doriath, but under what he perceived was injustice and would bring him death. He built the bridge in Nagrathond and wouldn't listen to Ulmo. This is one that is a bit more difficult to reconcile, however he did have the desire to rid the region of orcs and thought open warfare was the solution. Not a great remedy but again he is not perfect.

I think the greatest difference between Turin and Feanor is their motives. Seemingly, at least to me, Feanor did everything he did driven simply by egotistical motives. He truly didn't care about his wife or her grief. He persuaded his sons into taking an oath that would destroy them in the end. He brought a great downfall upon his people and killed innocents for reclamation of his creation. Basically his motives were self-centered and he lived his live and manipulated others to do his will and to serve him. Turin wasn't as self-centered. He truly thought that he was doing the best and attempted to work for others benefit and not merely his own. Also Turin had the curse of Morgoth on him and Feanor was free from such a taint.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Also Turin had the curse of Morgoth on him and Feanor was free from such a taint.

Although I agree entirely with your opinion that Turin is a tragic hero, and Feanor a more villainnous figure, this last sentence of yours intrigues me...

After all, Feanor was under the Curse of the Valar, and if any one Noldo had that Curse on their shoulders, it was Feanor. And notice that the predictions of their curse came true almost instantly once he arrived in Middle-Earth. No sooner had he burnt the ships than he started to loose his edge. In Aman, although his actions were even more evil than anywhere else, he had the luck, skill, or combination of both to accomplish all of his goals. Once in Middle-Earth, although equally self-important in his goals, he fails rather miserably, and indeed dies remarkably soon.

So, now I'm wondering, and this may send the thread on a different tangent, but was the Curse of the Valar more potent than the Curse of Morgoth?

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

After all, Feanor was under the Curse of the Valar, and if any one Noldo had that Curse on their shoulders, it was Feanor. And notice that the predictions of their curse came true almost instantly once he arrived in Middle-Earth.

The major difference that I see is what brought the curse on and the very nature of the curse. Turin's curse was not brought on by himself but the heroic act of his father. Feanor's curse contrarily was brought on upon himself by and evil act and was given by the just in consequence of his actions. What I am saying is that by slaying the Teleri and rebelling against the Valar, Feanor brought the curse upon himself. It wasn't really a curse given to him. More of a consequence of his own actions and Mandos essentially told him what would come of his actions.

[Thinlómien]

My most unorthodox heroes are Boromir and Maedhros. But they're not really "bad persons" they're just "good persons" that do evil deeds under pressure/ blinded by something (=the ring/lust for the ring and power, feeling of doing good/doing a necessary thing for the sake of one's people and an oath sworn in fury). So they don't maybe count.
I have also a strange sympathy for orcs (especially Shagrat, Gorbag, Grishnakh and the two quarreling orcs who Frodo and Sam meet in Mordor). That's maybe for the fact that though they are disgusting, cruel and greedy, they're also funny in a way...

[Angry Hill Troll]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Turin had the curse of Morgoth on him and Feanor was free from such a taint.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this point. In Morgoth's Ring, as the Valar are discussing the matter of Míriel's death and its cause and significance, prior to proclaiming "The Statute of Finwë and Míriel", they generally come to the consensus that Míriel's death was "unnatural" and ultimately due to Melkor's taint on Arda.

Ulmo, for instance, says the following:

The coming of Feänáro must proceed certainly from the will of Eru, but I hold that the marring of his birth comes from the Shadow, and is a portent of evils to come.

Melkor of course particularly targets Fëanor and Fingolfin, as the rather awkward family situation resulting from Míriel's death and Finwë's remarriage makes tem particularly susceptible to Melkor's lies

[mormegil]

All quotes are by TGWBS unless otherwise noted.

Feanor cannot be held accountable for being poisoned by a god

Were others not equally poisoned, so to speak. Did not Finarfin have the same potential to believe the lies? No temptation to evil is a constant to all, it's how one handles said temptation that determines the strength of character. Feanor failed.

if he halted and turned back then, he would look like an idiot. The text actually claims that the Teleri began the fighting:

See again my point is here, Feanor is egotistical and prideful. His pride will not allow him to turn back and face the justice of judgment. Well, the fact is he couldn't turn back because of his evil oath.

Pg 94 in the Silmarillion

When he judged that his strength was enough, he went to the Haven of the Swans and began to man the ships that were anchored there and to take them away by force. But the Teleri withstood him, and cast many of the Noldor into the sea. Then swords were drawn...

I see some interesting points here. Feanor waited until his strength was sufficient? Why? He foresaw violence and the need for his people to attack. My impression of the passage is that the Noldor marched in and began to take the ships after the Teleri forbade it. The Teleri grappled with the Noldor merely casting them into the sea to defend their property. When this began the Noldor drew their swords. It is also said that for the most part the Teleri only had slender bows. Tolkien didn't say they drew weapons, he singled swords. Feanor caused his host to attack first.

Pg 94 again

Thus at last the Teleri were overcome, and a great part of their mariners that dwelt in Alqualonde were wickedly slain. For the Noldor were become fierce and desperate...

Tolkien even calls the slaying wicked.

However, it was the Teleri throwing the Noldor into the sea that actually began the violence.

I would disagree and call wrestling to protect ones property as simply that, protection of property and not violence.

This is where the romance comes in. The words Feanor uses are so beautiful, so moving. Such hurt at the least will I do to the Foe of the Valar that even the mighty in the Ring of Doom shall wonder to hear it. If that doesn't stir something in you, there's seriously something wrong.

I agree with you in part here. His words do move me. They are very powerful and influential, and yet the motive and desire he uses them for is rebellion and for his own motives. Not for good purposes.

I do not view Feanor as a tragic hero. He has free-will and was able to decide for himself which course of action to take. Remember that all elves in Aman were subject to the same lies and deceits of Morgoth; yet not all choose the path of evil that Feanor took.

Posted by Angry Hill Troll
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this point. In Morgoth's Ring, as the Valar are discussing the matter of Míriel's death and its cause and significance, prior to proclaiming "The Statute of Finwë and Míriel", they generally come to the consensus that Míriel's death was "unnatural" and ultimately due to Melkor's taint on Arda.

Ulmo, for instance, says the following:

I haven't yet read Morgoth's Ring, however what I read from this is simply that Ulmo is saying that evil has entered into Aman. The taint was on Arda itself not Feanor.

The major difference between the two, Turin and Feanor, is that Turin was directly cursed so that any action he performed would turn to evil in the end. Turin could have had, and did have, very good intentions and yet anything done by him would turn for ill. Feanor never had such a curse and choose his own path. Feanor had agency and free choice and Turin had that but the outcome was directed to ill no matter what. Does that make Turin evil? No, of course not, he didn't have the level of control over the outcome of his actions that would be needed to declare him evil. Feanor did.

Sorry that this has become a Feanor thread but getting back on topic a bit more, I think Samwise is an unorthodox hero. He has very few of the typical characteristics of a hero. He isn't strong, skillful at much, besides gardening and cooking, he is slow of wit and all in all not overly intelligent. Yet he has common hobbit sense and undying loyalty. Sam becomes, to me anyway, the true hero in the whole history of the ring.

[Anguirel]

I wouldn't define Sam as an unorthodox hero. In fact, I'm rather annoyed by him because he's as orthodox as they get, according to the Tolkien creed. Tolkien is almost always straining his muscles to make us like Sam.

"Oh, look at the solid, decent, rural type, fond of his gardens and his saucepans, a loyal servant, humble, all that is finest about the British peasantry, indefatigable courage, fondness for Elven lore, go on, like him, he even provides light relief in Mordor, like him, you know you want to."

Thankfully, as I say the twofold historical and literary way LOTR can be interpreted allows me to say "No thanks, actually I prefer, say, Celeborn." (!)