Good and evil

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Your question is somewhat confusing, but I think I've worked it out: Tolkien certainly personifies the Ultimate Evil, i.e. evil deeds performed with no end other than the dominion of evil itself, in Morgoth and Sauron. Yet nowhere does he singly personify the Ultimate Good, i.e. good deeds performed with no end other than the dominion of good itself. Even with no ulterior motive, no single character devotes their entirety to the destruction of evil: they grieve for each other's deaths, they hesitate and make mistakes...

I would argue (rather simplistically) that while the Professor channeled "evil" into one or two characters, he spread the "good" out through the races, into multiple characters with seperate functions. We see some goodness in the Noldor as much as in the Riders of Rohan. Why? My still-simple argument would be that while absolute evil is easy to believe in, there's a tendency in society, at least ours, to reject the totally good as unbelievable. Melian comes close, but we are distanced from her as not to know how close. Perhaps the Professor just didn't want to personify God in his fictional works: you did mention that he was a Christian.

I can see your frustration at this, because I myself am feeling it in trying to explain my own feelings. Are we left with one Ultimate Evil, and a huge array of middling Good-But-Weak characters, and no Great Good? I hate to cite Harry Potter at a time like this, but the world isn't split between good guys and Death Eaters. There are so many inbetweens like Maedhros and Thingol, who are on the whole meant to be great and good but somehow fall spectacularly; who are neither Valar nor Morgoth's servants. Also, I will certainly cede that Iluvatar seems to be a laid-back sort of Creator, creating and then sitting back to watch, but does that mean he is not a Great Good? If Tolkien was a Christian, the destruction of Beleriand can be no more evil than the Great Flood (of Noah), and Eru therefore no less of the Great Good than the Christian God.

My greater question would be whether or not Good means Perfection. Can you still be Good if you make mistakes, or have weaknesses? I certainly wouldn't consider Boromir to be the Ultimate Good in the books, but he was only flawed, not evil. And if you had to classify him, he would have been wholeheartedly on the side of Good: only the presence of ultimate evil led him astray.

[edit] P.S. If this thread is meant to be argued in context of Tolkien's beliefs, I'll quietly withdraw... but for now I just hope I didn't do more confusion than good.

[Sir Kohran]

Now this is a very interesting point. I've thought about this often yet have never been able to put my thumb on it. Thanks for making it clear.

As a 'semi-Christian', I've always been slightly disturbed by the general atheism of Middle-Earth's people. Whilst there certainly are references to higher powers, there's no 'belief' in them - the people never pray before battle or anything of the sort. Despite often being in great despair they never seem to even think of putting their faith into anything greater than themselves. There are a few points - Frodo's use of the name of Elbereth, or Damrod's shouting for the Valar to turn the Mumakil away from him - but these are essentially little more than cries for help, soon forgotten once the situation is resolved (never by divine means, it seems) unless there is cause to say it again. There's no feeling of worship or spiritualism.

I think this ties in with the big complaints against Harry Potter by certain religious groups - I think the real reason it is rejected by some religious people is the complete lack of religion or divinity in any way, in a world of witchcraft and sorcery - demonic activities. Ironically the being that comes closest to being God is Voldermort - he appears unkillable and is possibly the most powerful character in the books. The world of Harry Potter features the devil but no god - and the thought of a world with Satan but without God is frightening.

I find this lack of religion very strange, especially considering Tolkien's Christian point of view and the very Christian themes in his work. Could someone shed some more light on this?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I find this lack of religion very strange, especially considering Tolkien's Christian point of view and the very Christian themes in his work. Could someone shed some more light on this?

I think Tolkien's representation of Eru Illuvatar is much in keeping with the Old Testament Yahweh, right down to god speaking through intermediaries rather than directly to man (in Tolkien's case it is the Valar who mediate, in Yahweh's it is the angel Metatron who is mentioned as the voice of God in Talmudic studies, and is the voice of the burning bush that speaks to Moses). The vengeful destruction of Numenor is not much different than the flood brought down by Yahweh (if anything, Yahweh was much more violent in his methods).

On the general lack of direct religious content, Tolkien eschewed such overt mention of religion much the same way he would, as an Anglo-Saxon scholar, attempt to strip the patina of Christianity off of Beowulf to derive the true source material. Per his letters, any religious symbolism is subsumed in the narrative. This is a good thing from the perspective of myth-making, and, whether consciously or not, it allowed for a much wider readership of Tolkien's work. This sublimation offers the reader a variety of interpretations of the text, and therefore it does not delve into the cloying allegory Lewis presented in the Narnia Chronicles, which would certainly have lessened the innate power of Tolkien's presentation.

[Boromir88]

Can evil exist without good? Generally, all evil is, is a rebellion against good. Morgoth and Sauron are set up as the 2 primary evils. Why were they the main evils? Because they were the 'satanic rebels' against Eru as Tolkien says:

But in this ’mythology’ all the ’angellic’ powers concerned themselves with world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the Absolute Satanic Rebellion of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the faineance of some of the other higher powers or ’gods.’~Letter 156

Just a quick question to mull over, with some thoughts to consider before I get into my reply here.

Beanamir, your post definitely was not a lonely one, but I am going to point out the one thing I disagree with:

Tolkien certainly personifies the Ultimate Evil, i.e. evil deeds performed with no end other than the dominion of evil itself, in Morgoth and Sauron. Yet nowhere does he singly personify the Ultimate Good

I agree that there is no 'ultimate good' in the stories, but disagree with the statement there is ultimate evil.

’In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any ’rational being’ is wholly evil.'~Letter 183

Tolkien talks about that even Sauron had 'relics of positive purposes' (his love for order and co-ordination)...and he would go on to say in Letter 183 that Sauron 'represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.'

One thing I love about Tolkien's stories is the way he portrays what good and evil is. In Letter 131, he defines evil as 'rebelling against the thoughts of the Creator' and the 'bull-dozing of others free wills.' So, those are 2 clear definition of evil in the story...however, what is not so clear to readers is what makes a person evil and what doesn't? This is the tricky question to answer and Tolkien also hated the criticism that his books were 'all these pure good guys' against 'all these pure bad guys':

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right…In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.~Letter dated 25 September 1954

Which sadly seem to reflect Tolkien's thoughts on WW2 in Letter 66:

For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed.But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn men and elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are so clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side...

That is the thing that interests me about Tolkien's books. He defines what is good and what is evil, but as far as what makes somebody good or evil is less clear and up to the reader. As, it's not so simple as 'you do good things you're good and you do evil things your evil.' Intent/motive plays a major role:

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.~Letter 181

Simply because good came out of Gollum's actions does not make him a 'good' person. In fact, Tolkien calls him wicked, and showing persisten wickedness. I think motive plays a major part in determining who is truly good and who isn't. Isn't it just so convenient that in a Letter when Tolkien was talking about magic in his stories he comes out and says what is the 'supremely bad motive'?

The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other ’free’ wills.~Letter 155

And I think this is what sets up the Morgoth's and the Sauron's as the prime evils in the story...their intent to dominate, enslave, or simply flat out destroy.

Let me conclude with making a comparison between Radagast and Saruman. Tolkien remarked that both wizards had failed their mission. The Istari's mission was to unite the Free People's of Middle-earth to guide resistance against Sauron. Both Saruman and Radagast fail at this mission, but they fail in different ways, and it's motive that makes Saruman the 'evil' wizard and Radagast a good, yet simply idle one:

Radagast was fond of beasts and birds and found them easier to deal with; he did not become proud and domineering , but neglectful and easygoing, and he had very little to do with Elves or Men although obviously resistance to Sauron had to be sought chiefly in their cooperation. But since he remained of good will (though he had not much courage) , his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments.~From: Tolkien Papers, Bodleian Library found in Hammond and Skulls LOTR Companion

Where Saruman on the other hand no longer resisted and flat out accepted Sauron's goal:

Saruman fell under the domination of Sauron and desired his victory; or no longer opposed it. Denethor remained steadfast in his rejection of Sauron, but was made to believe that his victory was inevitable, and so fell into despair.~Unfinished Tales; The Palantiri

This also just so happens to bring up a little nifty comparison between Denethor and Saruman as well.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I find this lack of religion very strange, especially considering Tolkien's Christian point of view and the very Christian themes in his work.

I'm not entirely sure what "Christian themes" you mean by this (though baseline societal mores could certainly suffice), but honestly? I have this feeling that Tolkien was attempting separate specifically Christianity from his works with Middle-Earth. Raynor gave lots of citations about Iluvatar as an active God, and frankly, if I were in Tolkien's place, creating an entirely new gods, goddesses, and hierarchy of power, I would try to leave existing religious frameworks out entirely. Given, as Boromir88 proved with a whacking direct quote, I don't quite think the same way as Tolkien but all the same...

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

The world of Harry Potter features the devil but no god - and the thought of a world with Satan but without God is frightening.

This is such a horrible digression, but after all, I started it: the powerful problem I have with the Harry Potter series (in terms of good and evil) lies in the fact that not a single person fighting against Voldemort is without an ulterior motive. Voldemort fights solely for possession of the magical world and the death of Muggles: yet even Dumbledore, our Good character, had ulterior motives.

In relation to Harry Potter/Dumbledore, I take back my comments from my last post, in light of Boromir88's introduction of the Istari and my brain waking up:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The Istari's mission was to unite the Free People's of Middle-earth to guide resistance against Sauron. Both Saruman and Radagast fail at this mission, but they fail in different ways, and it's motive that makes Saruman the 'evil' wizard and Radagast a good, yet simply idle one.

Gandalf, the third Istari, comes pretty darn close to a definition of "the Good who fights for only the dominion of Good." Gandalf seems to have no ulterior motives whatsoever, in terms of his own life or power. He does not wish to supplant Denethor for the power of the Istari; only to bring Aragorn to his rightful place. Gandalf gives his life to save the Fellowship in their quest against Sauron; he doesn't even hesitate when Frodo chooses the Mines of Moria over the Gap of Rohan, though he must know it will take his life.

One thing that convinces me of this is that Gandalf is definitely not my favorite character. I much prefer the Men of Gondor, with all their failings. The fact that Gandalf, to me, is an emotionally neutral character, does even more to convince me that he is about the closest we get (strictly in The Lord of the Rings, anyway) to a purely Good character.

[Boromir88]

Beanamir, good points about Gandalf, and I think he is as close to 'ultimate good' as is possible. As he points out time and time again, he's not doing this for himself, but for Eru and the Valar:

'I am a servant of the Secret Fire...'~The Bridge of Khazad-dum

And his words to Denethor about being 'a steward.'

"Yet the Lord of Gondor is not to be made the tool of other men's purposes, however worthy. And to him there is no purpose higher in the world as it now stands than the good of Gondor; and the rule of Gondor, is mine and no other man's, unless the king should come again."
[...]
"But I will say this the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor, nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything else passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I am a steward. Did you not know?"~Minas Tirith

Denethor's idea of his 'Stewardship' of Gondor, is a position of Rule. Gondor is his Rule, his command, and no one else's. Then he throws out this little 'well it's mine unless the King comes back.'

But, Gandalf has a very different view of what 'a steward' is to do. A steward is not a position of ruling, but one of caring, and that also makes Gandalf a steward. Gandalf makes clear, as a steward, he rules nothing, but he cares for 'all worthy things that are in peril.'

Gandalf implies time and again, he is not out for himselr (or any ulterior motives as you say) he is a servant, he is a caretaker for the 'higher powers.' It's really interesting how Saruman starts calling Gandalf power hungry:

Saruman’s face grew livid, twisted with rage, and a red light was kindled in his eyes. He laughed wildly. ’Later!’ he cried, and his voice rose to a scream. ’Later! Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dûr itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now.~The Voice of Saruman

In Saruman's anger and contempt he makes lofty claims that Gandalf is becoming too power hungry. Gandalf wants power over Sauron (The Keys of Barad-dur) he wants power over the Istari (The Rods of the Five Wizards), and he wants the power of Kings...the power over the people of Middle-earth.

I say this is interesting, because Saruman is making the lofty claims that Gandalf has become power hungry, yet it is Saruman himself who became obsessed with power, and who wanted to 'Rule' over the weak Middle-earthians. We can see exactly how foolish and silly Saruman's claims are because Tolkien ends Saruman's big rant with a silly remark that we all are familiar with:

'have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now'

Hmm...strikingly similar to someone saying 'you have become too big for your own boots.'

Saruman makes these lofty claims that Gandalf wants power over everything, but ends with a weak, silly comment, showing that Saruman's rant is simply that...a rant 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'

And after all this I got to thinking, why isn't Gandalf the 'ultimate good.' I mean there doesn't seem to be a blemish on his record, as everything he does is arguably in the name of the 'Valar' and 'Eru.' He is their servant, their steward. I guess it would have to do with something about how when Olorin was chosen as one of Istari to go to Middle-earth, at first he begged not to go, because he feared Sauron's power. That's the only thing I can think of.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

The only reason Gandalf didn't come to my mind at first, I think, is because of that Steward-like quality or position. Morgoth was second to none in his quest for Evil; in the Third Age, Sauron was the same. Both wanted to rule all. Gandalf, however, was more than happy to serve the King, as long as that King is on the side of Good. So we don't immediately think of Gandalf in terms of Eru, God, the Omnipotent.

Probably that's why Gandalf might be the greatest example of Good in Tolkien's works: because the Good does not wish for power, only the ability to use it properly, if it is offered. (I hate to draw too many Christian parallelisms, buuuuuut now that Sir Kohran brings it up...)