Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[Lalwendë]

Not at all Bb. I am genuinely offended by what Raynor is implying about many good people on here and see no value in continuing such unpleasant discussion while it will be insulting other people. It isn't nice, is it, to be associated with rapists, Stalin, Hitler and other nasties? It brings to mind the similar offence caused by ANOther thread we all know about. One of my good pals here, who I can personally vouch for as being a great guy (and he knows who he is if he reads this) keeps telling us about his replica of Angband in his cellar. Yeah, he's evil he is. Riiiiiiiiiight.

But that's my last word on that. And I will not be drawn on it, thank you very much.

And anyway I shall let you off Bb because you're trying to do what I've tried to do more'n a few times which is draw this thread out of the poison and into more interesting light.

I shall see if it goes on that way before deciding whether to bother any more.

[The Saucepan Man]

Just an observation, but I hope that it might take the sting out of this thread. It looks to me like there is a certain amount of talking at cross-purposes going on here.

As far as I can see, no one arguing that delighting in evil is immoral has sought to suggest that any member of the Barrow Downs is immoral. Nor, as I see it, have they sought to imply as much by suggesting that having a light-hearted “crush” on Wormtongue or building a replica of Angband, or any other such weird and wonderful things that a Downer might do, is immoral. Their case, as I understand it, is that those who take a delight in the deeds of Tolkien’s evil characters, who genuinely find their intent and purpose, as depicted by Tolkien, laudable, is an approach lacking in morality. That, it seems to me, is a proposition which may be discussed without anyone taking offence, save for those falling within that category. And I seriously doubt that anyone who would wish to spend any significant amount of time on the Downs would fall within that category.

Similarly, I do not understand those who are arguing that it is justifiable to find the evil characters interesting, or to have a bit of fun with them (for example, to dress up as the Witch King or write an evil character in an RPG), to be seeking to suggest that the deeds and purposes of those characters, as depicted by Tolkien, are morally acceptable. Their case, as I understand it, is that academic, literary or merely light-hearted interest in the evil characters does not denote sociopathy or immorality.

If my understanding of both positions is correct, then it seems to me that they are largely, if not wholly, reconcilable, and I am really not sure what this argument has been about at all. I would therefore counsel taking the diversion offered up by Bêthberry, rather than continuing it.

[Thenamir]

We have been discussing these characters in somewhat of a vacuum. Tolkien was not silent about these tragic heroes. Let us examine what Tolkien chose to highlight about the subjects to which we refer. Pay attention, there will be a test afterwards.

Morgoth:

From splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless. Understanding he turned to subtlety in perverting to his own will all that he would use, until he became a liar without shame. He began with the desire of Light, but when he could not possess it for himself alone, he descended through fire and wrath into a great burning, down into Darkness. And darkness he used most in his evil works upon Arda, and filled it with fear for all living things.

In the powers and knowledge of all the other Valar he had part, but he turned them to evil purposes, and squandered his strength in violence and tyranny. For he coveted Arda and all that was in it, desiring the kingship of Manwë and dominion over the realms of his peers.

But he desired rather to subdue to his will both Elves and Men, envying the gifts with which Ilúvatar promised to endow them; and he wished himself to have subject and servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over other wills.

Then Melkor saw what was done, and that the Valar walked on Earth as powers visible, clad in the raiment of the World, and were lovely and glorious to see, and blissful, and that the Earth was becoming as a garden for their delight, for its turmoils were subdued. His envy grew then the greater within him; and he also took visible form, but because of his mood and the malice that burned in him that form was dark and terrible. And he descended upon Arda in power and majesty greater than any other of the Valar, as a mountain that wades in the sea and has its head above the clouds and is clad in ice and crowned with smoke and fire; and the light of the eyes of Melkor was like a flame that withers with heat and pierces with a deadly cold.

But ever the Noldor feared most the treachery of those of their own kin, who had been thralls in Angband; for Morgoth used some of these for his evil purposes, and feigning to give them liberty sent them abroad, but their wills were chained to his, and they strayed only to come back to him again.

But in the north Melkor built his strength, and he slept not, but watched, and laboured; and the evil things that he had perverted walked abroad, and the dark and slumbering woods were haunted by monsters and shapes of dread...And in that dark time Melkor bred many other monsters of divers shapes and kinds that long troubled the world...

...all those of the Quendi who came into the hands of Melkor, ere Utumno was broken, were put there in prison, and by slow arts of cruelty were corrupted and enslaved; and thus did Melkor breed the hideous race of the Orcs in envy and mockery of the Elves, of whom they were afterwards the bitterest foes.

...he [Manwë] saw not to the depths of Melkor’s heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him for ever.

...Then Melkor lusted for the Silmarils, and the very memory of their radiance was a gnawing fire in his heart. From that time forth, inflamed by this desire, he sought ever more eagerly how he should destroy Fëanor and end the friendship of the Valar and the Elves; but he dissembled his purposes with cunning, and nothing of his malice could yet be seen in the semblance that he wore. Long was he at work, and slow at first and barren was his labour. But he that sows lies in the end shall not lack of a harvest, and soon he may rest from toil indeed while others reap and sow in his stead.

[Quote]...Thus with lies and evil whisperings and false counsel Melkor kindled the hearts of the Noldor to strife; and of their quarrels came at length the end of the high days of Valinor

and the evening of its ancient glory.

Sauron:

Among those of his servants that have names the greatest was that spirit whom the Eldar called Sauron, or Gorthaur the Cruel. In all the deeds of Melkor the Morgoth upon Arda, in his vast works and in the deceits of his cunning, Sauron had a part, and was only less evil than his master in that for long he served another and not himself. But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.

...Sauron, greatest and most terrible of the servants of Morgoth, who in the Sindarin tongue was named Gorthaur, came against Orodreth, the warden of the tower upon Tol Sirion. Sauron was become now a sorcerer of dreadful power, master of shadows and of phantoms, foul in wisdom, cruel in strength, misshaping what he touched, twisting what he ruled, lord of werewolves; his dominion was torment.

So, now, let's review. Even for Lalwendë who has her fingers in her ears and isn't listening anymore.

• Arrogant and contemptful of everything except themselves
• Liars without shame
• Selfish in the extreme
• Use fear and intimidation to dominate other wills
• Turn good things to evil purposes
• Usurpers of the rightful realms of others
• Coveting everything for themselves
• Appear in dark and terrible forms
• Tortured, maimed, killed, enslaved, perverted the elves
• Completely loveless
• Envious, jealous and bitter
• Ever striving to insert strife and dissent
• Cunning dissemblers and deceivers
• Instrumental in the downfall of Numenor and the consequent deaths of almost an entire race
• And in the end complete losers and failures.

Yep. Darn fine upstanding citizens, role models for people of all ages, inspirations to generations of Tolkien fans the world over, marks of excellence that we should all strive to achieve. I can only hope my children read and learn from these great heroes of Middle Earth.

Is it possible that some may understand why we might feel a little uneasy around those who uphold these characters as the "good guys"?

[davem]

I still think we have to step back & remember that we are dealing with a work of fantasy. One may like a character in a work of fiction even if that character does things which would be morally unnacceptable in real life. Morgoth is not (& never was) real - neither are Hobbits or Elves, Dwarves or Dragons. Hence we are dealing with fantasy figures doing 'nasty', 'immoral' things to other fantasy figures. Or to put it another way, words on a page.

To make moral judgements about another human being based on whether they like or admire a particular character is to cross a line. LotR is neither the Bible nor the Koran - it is not a divinely inspired book of Law intended for the moral guidance of humanity. Whatever the author's intention (or hope) may have been, it is for most readers an escapist fantasy.

One could argue that the Elves & most of the men are the kind of boring, self righteous prigs that needed (or at least provoked) the contempt of Morgoth. Indeed I would certainly argue that without the Enemy the story (& the world of Arda Unmarred itself) would have been so dull that no-one would have cared whether the good guys 'lived in bliss' forever.

The enemy are the ones who make the story interesting, exciting & worth reading. They are the source of the dynamism & power in the work. If there is an 'endless defeat' going on - ie an eternal battle - it is because if ever the good guys won the story would be dead in the water. Tolkien may not have liked that anymore than some posters here, but its true.

Bb's point is worth exploring because it seems to me that it is the case that the very undeveloped nature (in terms of description) of the enemy makes them more 'archetypal' & therefore more open to 'projection'. Their very 'undeveloped & unexplored' nature makes them more attractive in many ways than the Elves. They're interesting & therefore attractive because they're unknown, mysterious.

I think another aspect of their attractiveness is simply that one cannot help but feel a bit suspicious as to whether they are actually as 'bad' as they're painted - we don't, for intsance, have their side of the story - Thenamir has given us the Human-Elvish perspective on them, but is that the whole story? What, really, motivated Melkor's rebellion - we're basically told he decided to be 'bad', but we're not told why he made that decision. Maybe he heard the Theme & thought 'For Eru's sake! What is this bland, middle of the road pap we're being expected to play. This tune needs jazzing up a bit if its going to have a chance of getting to Number One.' And, as I said, if he hadn't 'jazzed it up' & added some beats it would have been a pretty dull gig ('Christian Rock' anyone??).

So, I can definitely see the attraction the evil characters hold for some readers - without them there would be no stories - or would anyone care to speculate on what kind of tales we'd have if there was no Melkorian rebellion, no Glaurung, no Sauron, no Ring, no Lord of the Nazgul for Eowyn to confront.

And that is the point - the Lord of the Nazgul is cool, & so is Eowyn's dispatching of him....

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by SpM

As far as I can see, no one arguing that delighting in evil is immoral has sought to suggest that any member of the Barrow Downs is immoral. Nor, as I see it, have they sought to imply as much by suggesting that having a light-hearted “crush” on Wormtongue or building a replica of Angband, or any other such weird and wonderful things that a Downer might do, is immoral. Their case, as I understand it, is that those who take a delight in the deeds of Tolkien’s evil characters, who genuinely find their intent and purpose, as depicted by Tolkien, laudable, is an approach lacking in morality. That, it seems to me, is a proposition which may be discussed without anyone taking offence, save for those falling within that category. And I seriously doubt that anyone who would wish to spend any significant amount of time on the Downs would fall within that category.

I agree with all your points.

Originally Posted by SpM

Their case, as I understand it, is that academic, literary or merely light-hearted interest in the evil characters does not denote sociopathy or immorality.

With the exception of "light-hearted interest" (which seems a bit too vague in the context of our discussion - I always requested qualifications), I have stated a similar idea

Originally Posted by post #51

Simply liking "amusement, excitement and intellectual stimulation" in itself is not morally wrong; it is deligthing in evil (as I pointed out several times) that I consider it raises questions about morality.

Originally Posted by davem

So, I can definitely see the attraction the evil characters hold for some readers - without them there would be no stories - or would anyone care to speculate on what kind of tales we'd have if there was no Melkorian rebellion, no Glaurung, no Sauron, no Ring, no Lord of the Nazgul for Eowyn to confront.

There is nothing wrong with recognising that evil characters pose greater challenges in stories, and greater challenges in stories make them more interesting. However, such a recognition is not in itself an equivalent for justification of deligthing in evil. Moral integrity requires that one's actions, ideas and feelings are consistently compatible with what one considers morality. Any such inconsistency, on whatever level, is, by definition, immoral. One has the free will to do whatever, and one may tolerate one's natural propensities, but that doesn't make every action and every propensity moral, just because they are enacted or tolerated.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There is nothing wrong with recognising that evil characters pose greater challenges in stories, and greater challenges in stories make them more interesting. However, such a recognition is not in itself an equivalent for justification of deligthing in evil. Moral integrity requires that one's actions, ideas and feelings are consistently compatible with what one considers morality. Any such inconsistency, on whatever level, is, by definition, immoral. One has the free will to do whatever, and one may tolerate one's natural propensities, but that doesn't make every action and every propensity moral, just because they are enacted or tolerated.

But in the end a story is entertainment, & as I stated we are dealing with fantastical characters in a fantastical setting. Of course, applicability comes in - to the extent taht the reader wishes - but my own feeling is that one cannot make judgements about a reader's morality based on which characters they prefer or support. One may enjoy seeing Elves hacked apart by Orcs simply because one finds Elves annoyingly smug & think they deserve all they get (which I don't actually, but I accept some readers may).

One cannot simply project Middle-earth onto our world & apply the standards of good & evil in that world to our own - who are the Elves & who the Orcs in our world? How can one relate the secondary world to the primary so precisely as to be able to make such judgements as 'If you like the Orcs you must also like rapists & murderers' or 'If you side with Melkor you must be a neo-Nazi'. It simply doesn't work. Primary & Secondary worlds are too different, character's motivations & desires in the Secondary world cannot be simply projected onto human beings in the Primary. Taking LotR as a guide for moral behaviour in the 21st Century is bound to be a failure, because the Primary world is a whole lot more complicated than the Secondary one.

Tolkien never accounts for the existence of evil in M-e - in the sense that we are never told why Melkor chooses to rebel. Tolkien simply tells us that he 'rebelled'. In fact, one gets the feeling that he couldn't explain it at all - he needed an 'evil enemy' & stuck one in & told the reader - 'He's evil'. We have no real sense of why Melkor does the nasty stuff - which allows the reader to invent all kinds of justifications, even to the extent of thinking he may just possibly have had a good reason - or at least that he rebelled because he didn't want to be a servant, & wanted to do his own thing - why did Eru give him free will if he wasn't to be allowed to use it? If I gave you a million dollars & then commanded you only to use it as I dictated you might well be tempted to see my 'gift' as worthless & throw it back in my face.

In other words, I can see the argument that Eru is the power mad dictator & Melkor saw the whole thing as a laboratory for Eru's 'experimentations' (or his 'Art') & decided he would have none of it, & sought to wreck the whole silly thing. Its an argument. Hence, if a reader takes that approach I would not declare them 'immoral'. They are judging characters in a story & their attitude to 'evil' acts in the Primary world may be entirely different.

And this thread is asking about some readers support of the 'evil' characters in M-e, not their support of evil people in this world.

[Raynor]

Davem, if I understand your argument correctly, you say that there are no ideas/feelings/propensities which are evil/immoral/wrong in and of themselves, regardless whether they are put to action or not. Please confirm.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Raynor

There is nothing wrong with recognising that evil characters pose greater challenges in stories, and greater challenges in stories make them more interesting. However, such a recognition is not in itself an equivalent for justification of delighting in evil.

I think one has to make a distinction between liking, being amused by or being intrigued by an evil character and delighting in evil. Personally, I have observed that it is often the evil characters in stories that have the most interesting past, the writer has to decide what made them evil and why. In Tolkien's work one does grow curious about why characters fell into evil, like Saruman, for example, if he just became evil and no explanation was given, wouldn't you want to know what the reason was? Is this curiosity to know the reasons a delight in evil? I do not think so.

Also, more often than not, many amusing quotable quotes come from the evil characters.
One of my favorite scenes is the confrontation between Gandalf, Theoden and the rest with Saruman. Mainly because a lot of the things Saruman says make me laugh, especially since it sometimes seems that he over-reacts. "LATER? LATER? Yes, when you have the keys of Barad-Dur itself..."
Granted, many of the good characters have good quotes to, so there is a good balance.