Failure and Punishment

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

btw, SpM, I did point out that philosophically 'sin' would fit. However, I still believe that in our primary world the word is freighted with such weight of, as I said, loathesome depravity and disgusting wickedness, that its tone is out of place in the sub-created world.

Actually, I would hold to the opposite view. In Middle-earth, good and evil are pretty well-defined. In almost every situation which Tolkien portrays, the good guys are opposed to the evil guys, and there is generally little difficulty in identifying which side any particular individual falls on. Anything that is done to further the cause of the good guys may be categorised as good, and therefore virtuous. Anything done to further the cause of the evil guys is evil, a transgression of good and so a sin. For the reader, at least, it is generally fairly easy to tell which is which.

Not so in the real world, at least to one such as I with no strong religious conviction. Transgressions, such as theft and even murder, are not necessarily attributable to evil, but have circumstantial causes or contributing factors – poverty, addiction, childhood abuse etc. Although they may be crimes in the legal sense, there may be said to be mitigating factors, from both a legal and a moral perspective. Those who were at one time considered terrorists latterly become labelled as freedom-fighters, world statesman or founding fathers. I therefore, would find it much easier to categorise a transgression as a “sin” in Middle-earth than I would in the real world.

That said, acts do occur in Tolkien’s tales which might be regarded as transgressions, but which are committed with good intentions or have a good outcome. I have in mind, for example, Bilbo’s “theft” of the Arkenstone and Eowyn’s disobedience to Theoden. Both of these acts have good, indeed essential, outcomes, yet they might strictly be regarded as “sins”. Both Bilbo and Eowyn are wounded for their troubles (Eowyn almost fatally so). Does this represent “punishment” for their “sins”? If so, it is fleeting, since ultimately, both are rewarded. Bilbo is forgiven by Thorin and gains his fair share of Smaug’s horde. Eowyn’s feelings for Aragorn are replaced with stronger feelings for Faramir, whom she meets while healing from her wound. I am sure that there are a number of other, similar examples.

Are these transgressions against “absolute moral truths” or exceptions to them? If the former, do they deserve greater punishment or are the outcomes just? If the latter, how are the peoples of Middle-earth to judge what is acceptable and what is not? By the intentions of those committing them? By the outcome? Or does this introduce an element of moral relativity to Middle-earth?

And where does this leave poor old Turin, whose intentions throughout were mostly good, but whose acts generally led only to doom and disaster, both for himself and for any others whose paths he crossed?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I therefore, would find it much easier to categorise a transgression as a “sin” in Middle-earth than I would in the real world.

You obviously do more loyering in Britain-land than watching American televangelists. And it is the appalling, abject, humiliating contemptibleness which they apply to the word 'sin' which is/would be so out of place in Middle-earth, despite as you say the moral universe it entails. Despite his characters' errors and mistakes, Tolkien never denies them dignity. Not even poor old Lobelia. Or, I would even argue, pathetic Wormtongue and Saruman himself.

Originally Posted by SpM

And where does this leave poor old Turin, whose intentions throughout were mostly good, but whose acts generally led only to doom and disaster, both for himself and for any others whose paths he crossed?

Well, where does it leave one of the prime tragic heroes he ressembles, Oedipus?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by SpM

Are these transgressions against “absolute moral truths” or exceptions to them?

I think that the quote I gave previously on post #6 applies in these cases; a deed is not a sin, depending on the intention of the doer. While the case of Eowyn, as depicted in LotR, may seem a little morally ambiguous, or at least more so than Bilbo's, in the HoME XII version of the Tale of Years, credit is given too to her love of her father:

Originally Posted by 3018

She for love of the King rode in disguise with the Rohirrim and was with him when he fell.

Originally Posted by Beth

And it is the appalling, abject, humiliating contemptibleness which they apply to the word 'sin' which is/would be so out of place in Middle-earth, despite as you say the moral universe it entails.

Then again, even in LotR we have Frodo all to eager to deal death to Gollum for his wicked deeds, something which Gandalf thoroughly disapproves. Although Frodo is far more likeable than his real world counterparts, in both realms we find opinions which are extremely ..."unchristian", if I may say so; good enough that there are other points of referrence - Gandalf in the books, and true (as in positive) spiritual teachings, in our world. And may I note that Frodo changed deeply from the time of the "Shadow of the Past "to the time when it became crystal clear that Gollum will rob him (about "Mount Doom"); he spared Gollum's life, against what would seem better judgement, which defines true pity.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by Lal

Note that his characters are usually at some point shown to have failings . . . Gandalf is sarcastic . . .

So sarcasm is a fault? I'd rather see it as a nautral thing, just one type of humour. (Disclaimer: That was not sarcasm... and this is not either... nor this...nor that... and so on... )

I previously thought the word "sin" should not be applied to ME, since it's so strongly tied with Christianity and the Christian God. But, yesterday, while reading, I came across this (and I swear it was pure chance): Sam says: "It's a sin to wake you, Mr Frodo." (The Great River, FotR) Now, there's the tiny chance I'm mistaken since my copy was in Finnish and I forgot to check from the English one, but I don't see why any other word than "sin" should have been translated as "synti" (the Finnish word), since "synti" is as biblical as "sin".

Now, if the characters in the LotR use the word "sin", is there any reason for us not to use it when describing them and their actions? Yet, I interpret Sam's words not as "it's against God/Eru to wake you" but as "it's a horrible deed to wake you" where the word "sin" is used as a synonym of "horrible deed" rather than as a biblical term.

So, what was my point? I'm not sure anymore.

[Raynor]

My english version reads "it's a shame to wake you"; but even if it were sin, I don't think it would have been relevant to our discussion in this context, as you have pointed out.