Enemies

[Bêthberry]

Orcs are not the only enemies in LotR. There is one small, very brief use of former enemies (victims?)--"noble foe"--which comes close to this sense of honourable opponent: Ghân-buri-Ghân and the Woses.

As a condition of aiding the battle against the orcs, Ghân-buri-Ghân asks the Rohirrim not to hunt the Wild Men any more as if they were beasts. Certainly the depiction of their language suggests that these people lack the beauty and eloquence (and hence, purity and goodness, as these qualities are most often related in Tolkien) of the elves and Men. Yet there is granted to the Woses a grudging respect because of the aid they deliver in the battle against the Dark Side.

The attitude towards the Woses' language skips along the edge of patronising linguistic patronage superiority--one could almost see similarities between Tolkien's attitude and that most often ascribed to Kipling in his linguistic depictions--but it is rather intriguing that Tolkien works this situation into the larger battle scheme. The Woses are a very small aside but this incident seems to reflect Tolkien's way of making his depiction more complex and less absolute than the larger "big picture" of the battle suggests. It's as if he cedes that the "noble and honourable" side have their own errors, faults and failings while granting to those who have suffered under the terror of Men the dignity and worth and valour which Men and elves are supposed to uphold.

[Raynor]

The Woses are a very small aside but this incident seems to reflect Tolkien's way of making his depiction more complex and less absolute than the larger "big picture" of the battle suggests. It's as if he cedes that the "noble and honourable" side have their own errors, faults and failings while granting to those who have suffered under the terror of Men the dignity and worth and valour which Men and elves are supposed to uphold.

Well put! I would also note that the situation is more tragic as the Woses were on the good side in the war of wrath and were eligible to become Numenoreans themselves. Instead, they preserved their status, and perhaps their goodness moreso. A speculation I made a while ago is that they too were enhanced by Eonwe for their deeds, as it may seem from their use of magic.

[Nogrod]

Very interesting indeed!

There would have been the tradition for Tolkien to follow...

I remember reading from somewhere a long time ago that Caesar (in his De Bello Gallico) used to overexaggerate not only the numbers of the Gauls he fought but also their fiercness and bravery in battle to make his own victories look better.

If one looks at the medieval hero-stories like the Song of Roland or the stories of the crusades (Salahadin especially!), there also seems to be this opponent worth of opposing who really tests the hero's bravery and makes his glory ever greater. And in the case of Salahadin the enemy is even given some due renown of actually beating the heroes.

So what is different with Tolkien then?

Originally Posted by Davem

But the question remains – what effect does the absence of a noble enemy have on Tolkien's heroes? Why did Tolkien omit the noble foe, the 'fellow brave', & if such figures had existed would we have had a different, more complex tale?
-----
Its ok to kill the enemy en masse, because the enemy is not noble or courageous. The hero never has to question the morality of what he is doing. Does this prevent his moral growth?

The most straightforward answer - and thence probably not the best or most fruitful - might allude to his experiences in WW1. Sir Kohran had a few really good points on this. But as I said I'm not quite happy with that even if killing of unknown "units of the faceless enemy" would have been the great shock of that war for those who were forced to participate in it.

Somehow it looks like numbness in front of violence, a denial for any dignity given to those on the "other side". Getting numb is possibly the only way to survive terrible enough experiences. But such a romantic and not giving any gallant enemies for our heroes to beat? It would have been the tradition, it would have made the heroes more valiant and their cause & morals somehow more intricate and still he did not go for it.

The nameless and numerous pawns of evil (corrupted or forced) it then is that the prof saw the last heroes fighting their ungallant battle until the great times ended and the time of men began - with no valour or virtues but just numbers and non-identity. So the WW1 is still lurking here?

And if it is, it sounds pretty sad and depressing world that was the one he was looking at.

[davem]

Ok, I take Bb's point re the Woses - yet the Woses are never really seen as 'foes' by the Rohirrim. Up till the War of the Ring they are seen as little better than animals to be hunted, & after they offer their service they become allies. At no point are they 'noble foes' (one would have to class them as 'noble savages').

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Somehow it looks like numbness in front of violence, a denial for any dignity given to those on the "other side". Getting numb is possibly the only way to survive terrible enough experiences. But such a romantic and not giving any gallant enemies for our heroes to beat? It would have been the tradition, it would have made the heroes more valiant and their cause & morals somehow more intricate and still he did not go for it.

This is the point I've been struggling to get across. Of course the question is begged as to whether the enemies (or some of them at least) were noble warrors, deserving of respect, but this was denied by the victors. Of course, that would be too difficult to accept, as it would basically make the heroes liars. So we are left with the simpler explanation - those on the other side are all cowards, cruel, vicious & deserving only of death. And yet

Aragorn pardons his (human) foes & accepts (or conscripts) them into the Commonwealth of Gondor. Why does he do this? Is it simply because they are Humans, & he feels (in Kipling's phrase) the 'White Man's Burden' & that it is his obligation to 'civilise' the 'savages' - or could it be that they are deemed worthy in some way to be included - they actually did display courage, albeit in a wrong cause, & Aragorn deemed them worthy of respect for their actions not simply for their genetics?

Yet if so, why is this not mentioned anywhere in the text? So Tolkien, writing an 'Epic Romance' excludes one of the central themes in Romance literature. One could cite Palomedes, the Saracen Knight in Malory - he is Tristan's rival for Iseult, & comes up against most of the Round Table Knights, yet he is a 'noble enemy'.

Nogrod makes a very interesting point - a noble foe ennobles a hero (is ennobles a word? Perhaps 'embiggens' .... ).

It is interesting to ponder what, if anything, is lost by this absence. Would Aragorn be a greater hero (or at the least a greater Man) if he had fought against a foe as honourable as he himself?

And yet, that would have been impossible given the kind of tale Tolkien was telling - but that brings up another question - what kind of tale was he telling? He denies it is an allegory, & 'prefers history, real or feigned', yet can we think of any historical conflict where one side was made up entirely of vicious cowards with no moral value system - doesn't this actually conflict with what we know of human nature? One cannot hold up the Nazis as heroes, yet there were individual German soldiers who performed acts of bravery, & commanders like Rommel were highly respected for their tactical skill & personal courage. In fact, we often see German soldiers at British commemorations of WWII. The leaders of Nazi Germany are obviously condemned, yet the ordinary troops are accepted as 'fellow braves'.

Now, none of this requires the heroes to like their enemy, it is about respect for the foe, because in a sense warriors share experiences that non combatants cannot know anything of - they have both suffered hardship & loss of comrades & 'speak a common language'. Yet Tolkien, the veteran, who must have known this very 'respect' for the foe, omits it entirely from his work. In various of the Letters he states that there are good & bad men on both sides in war - yet not in any of the wars he depicts.

I wonder if he felt restricted by the type of story he was telling - a noble enemy (even one or two) would have reflected a faint light of 'nobility' on the enemy's cause - & he couldn't risk such a thing, so the nature of the enemy is dictated by the nature of the tale, but one has to ask whether the tale itself & the heroes it tells of are in some way 'diminished'?

[Raynor]

I wonder if he felt restricted by the type of story he was telling - a noble enemy (even one or two) would have reflected a faint light of 'nobility' on the enemy's cause - & he couldn't risk such a thing, so the nature of the enemy is dictated by the nature of the tale, but one has to ask whether the tale itself & the heroes it tells of are in some way 'diminished'?

It has already been pointed that there are various degrees of evil. We have Sauron who is the closest aproximation of it, as stated in the letters (I would personally put Melkor at least on the same level but whatever). Then there are the nazgul and the balrogs, who are probably unshakeable from their allegiance. Then the orcs who are in large numbers and very close to the edge; true enough, none are lauded. At least for these beings we can say that they are thoroughly corrupted; even if they do achieve something spectacular, is it actually their own abilities which bring about that result, or the force of evil, a very present and powerful one, which drives them forth? I would hold it is the later and that force of evil merits no recognition. Not morally, nor otherwise; why praise Melkor's force at work, which was the most powerful in Arda to begin with (less Eru's)?

However, there are also, as stated, other servants of Sauron, who can make brave last stands. We also have two parties at war because of Sauron/Melkor - but both parties are "good" and their worth recognized often: Feanor against teleri & Galadriel; Gondorians in the kin-strife; Thingol against the dwarves. These evil guys do receive recognition, but not for their evil deeds.

[davem]

Another thought occurs - what message does the reader take from Tolkien's work as regards war - its often stated that Tolkien's work reflects the tragedy of war - but is it so simple?

Of course tragedy runs through Tolkien's writings & that tragedy is often associated with the consequences of war...& yet...

War is only presented as tragic when the heroes ('our side') lose. When the other side lose it is seen as good, as glorious. So, war, in & of itself, is not tragic - only the defeat of 'our side' is tragic. War is only bad if 'we' lose.

Hence, we are not 'detatched, horrified observers of the horror (which we are in a real sense with Homer - when Hector fights Achilles we know that it will be horrible & that whoever wins we will feel grief. Hence Homer brings home the horror & tragedy that war is - no matter who wins there is loss & bereavement). We root for one side to win & only wish to see the utter defeat of the other. Thus, we only grieve when 'our side' loses, & cheer when the other side is beaten.

And that seems (to be provocative....) a questionable message, does it not?

EDIT

Feanor against teleri & Galadriel; Gondorians in the kin-strife; Thingol against the dwarves. These evil guys do receive recognition, but not for their evil deeds.

Of course - and yet the tragedy here is due to 'delusion' or trickery, not because noble warriors are fighting each other for causes they truly believe in. Hence, that element of tragedy is missing.

[Raynor]

War is only presented as tragic when the heroes ('our side') lose. When the other side lose it is seen as good, as glorious. So, war, in & of itself, is not tragic - only the defeat of 'our side' is tragic. War is only bad if 'we' lose.

Then again, there is only one story, and that is unfinished, about confronting evil forces which are not (directly) imbued with a mythological power (The new shadow). If that particular power, through its various agents, succeeds, then it is end game. It is not like the victors have some good side that could, in time, develop. If Melkor wins, he brings the whole house down; he is too nihilistic not to, cf Myths Transformed. If Sauron wins, none may see the end of his reign, cf Gandalf, Last Debate.

We may see evil loosers in the third age who have less of an unfair advantage (I am reffering to their use of the evil power in Arda), and thus far more merit.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Then again, there is only one story, and that is unfinished, about confronting evil forces which are not (directly) imbued with a mythological power (The new shadow). If that particular power, through its various agents, succeeds, then it is end game. It is not like the victors have some good side that could, in time, develop. If Melkor wins, he brings the whole house down; he is too nihilistic not to, cf Myths Transformed. If Sauron wins, none may see the end of his reign, cf Gandalf, Last Debate.

We may see evil loosers in the third age who have less of an unfair advantage (I am reffering to their use of the evil power in Arda), and thus far more merit.

Yes - but I'm not suggesting that the enemies we have in Tolkien's work are 'good, noble or heroic' - I'm asking why Tolkien chose to give us the enemies he did, & what effect that has on the story & on the heroes - why that whole dimension of the noble enemy, the 'fellow brave' is absent. There is no Hector to Aragorn's Achilles, & that particular & specific tragic horror of war is absent - is it a serious lack?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Of course - and yet the tragedy here is due to 'delusion' or trickery, not because noble warriors are fighting each other for causes they truly believe in. Hence, that element of tragedy is missing.

Excluding perhaps Feanor & sons, the noldor were convinced of their cause, that they were marching to freedom. Also, the late-coming noldor were fighting to save their kin, while the teleri were fighting to protect their treasured ships. In Gondor, there was also those who tried to preserve the old traditions and those who tried to preserve the existing blood line. I would hold all these fighted for causes in which they believed.

Originally Posted by davem

There is no Hector to Aragorn's Achilles, & that particular & specific tragic horror of war is absent - is it a serious lack?

The problem is that a Hector marred by Melkor would have little merit. This is not just a moral corruption; evil men can stirr great evil, at least during those mythical times. His merit (if he had any; it can be argued that his free will would have been heavily subdued) would be diminished by using "nukes" against "savages". Resisting that kind of evil, in the first three ages, is always a long defeat from an individual point of view, without "outside" intervention.

[Child of the 7th Age]

When the other side lose it is seen as good, as glorious. So, war, in & of itself, is not tragic - only the defeat of 'our side' is tragic. War is only bad if 'we' lose......

We root for one side to win & only wish to see the utter defeat of the other. Thus, we only grieve when 'our side' loses, & cheer when the other side is beaten.

Whoa! Wait a minute.

If the message is so clear cut, how do you understand Frodo's response in the Scouring? Yes, he's exhausted, and that has something to do with his reluctance to take up a sword. But surely there's more to it than that.

Isn't this a case of Tolkien saying that there is more than one way to look at the use of force? Frodo is in a sense grieving even before the loss of life takes place and it's for the other side, even more than for his own. Plus, we're not just talking hobbits here, but also men.

Frodo's stance is clearly not the only way. It may not even be the best way in a practical sense (from the viewpoint of the story), but I never felt that JRRT was looking down his nose at Frodo because of the position he took. In the Letters, Tolkien tells us that "Frodo's attitude to weapons was personal" and that "he had.... reached the conclusion that physical fighting is actually less ultimately effective than most (good) men think." The efforts of Merry and Pippin essentially free the Shire, but Frodo's presence keeps bloodshed to a minimum. And it is only Frodo who has the moral authority to offer Saruman the chance of redemption essential for the moral balance of the story. Isn't Tolkien saying something about the necessity of having more than one side represented on a question of this type? In a sense he is reminding the reader that the use of physical force has plenty of questions attatched to it.

And speaking of giving your enemies a second chance... The offer to Saruman was an example of that.

[davem]

And I take those points - yet, the Ruffians were not 'noble, fellow braves', but cowards. Of course Frodo realises that killing is wrong, & seeks to halt, or limit any deaths, but the question I'm posing is different. War seems to be a fact of life in both the primary & secondary world, but it is the nature of the enemy that interests me. In most wars there is heroism & self sacrifice on both sides - heroes fight heroes & no side has a sole claim on nobility & courage.

Except in Middle-earth. Frodo wants an end of killing per se - but that would require an end of the Warrior, of the cause worth dying for (& I'm not limiting 'Warrior' to the military sense).

And war, for all its horror, may produce heroism which is seen nowhere else - yet for such heroism to happen it seems to me that warriors must exist on both sides. If the other side consists wholly of cowardly 'monsters' then the 'hero' is actually reduced to the role of cockroach exterminator - he may go down fighting under a million cockroaches, & that may be a brave act if he does so willingly, to save his friends, but is it 'Heroic' in the Homeric sense - & is it 'tragic' or merely sad if the enemy is not equally noble & his death not an equal loss?

Now, none of this is meant to denigrate Tolkien's achievement, merely to ask whether something important has been missed out & whether that something is of far greater importance than the usual stuff Tolkien is accused of avoiding - like sex, for instance (Pullman's great bugbear. And interestingly Pullman does present us with a noble tragic 'anti-hero' - Lord Asriel...)

[Raynor]

And war, for all its horror, may produce heroism which is seen nowhere else - yet for such heroism to happen it seems to me that warriors must exist on both sides.

What am I to understand? You haven't addressed my last post. We do have persons doing evil acts, for causes which they believe. I also challenged the claim to merit of beings utterly corrupted. It is good to ask a question, but you also need to consider the answers.