Split Personality?

[littlemanpoet]

It seems to me that this debate about evil breaks in two what Tolkien wrought whole.

He gives evidence for both "schools of thought" on evil because he presents it as it truly is, whole-cloth. It's an example of mythic unity. We can debate as much as we like "what Tolkien really meant", and it's just only half the story, or less. What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

What he evoked is what evil is in its realistic complexity.

Just occurs to me, on the subject of evil - is evil depicted differently in CoH to the way its depicted in LotR - if we take them as stand alone works? In short, the main force/source of evil in LotR is defeated & the tale ends in hope, while in CoH evil has total victory.

I'm thinking here of the CoH review in the Church Times http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=42450

Here the fallen archangel and the dragon organise the doom that the defiant Húrin must watch helplessly, which culminates in his son and daughter unknowingly marrying one another. Is Túrin right to call himself “master of doom”? He continues defiant, and kills the dragon; but when he and his sister separately learn the truth, they both kill themselves. Tolkien offers no judgement on this; but in The Lord of the Rings Túrin is known as one of the great heroes, “the mighty Elf-friends of old”.

The Lord of the Rings is silent about his story, but its own centre might be called equally dark. Providence arranges for Frodo to bear a temptation so strong that in the end he must give way. But he endures for long enough to ensure that, when he does give in, the world can still be saved (by his dark other self destroying itself — he himself is too much damaged to go on living in the world).

It would be more reassuring to believe that God never allows us to face a temptation that we are unable to endure; but Tolkien’s view looks uncomfortably realistic.

Of course, this perhaps takes the thread off topic, but if we only had CoH from Tolkien would we take a different message from Tolkien about the nature of evil? The most interesting thing to me about CoH is that there is no Ring to either claim or reject.

Or what about this one http://www.sfreviews.net/tolkien_children_of_hurin.html

The Children of Húrin draws an impressive balance between the modern and the classical. Darker and less redemptive by light-years than The Lord of the Rings, its story is unutterably sad, but viscerally powerful in the way literature's greatest tragedies have been. And Alan Lee's peerless art — the color plate of Glaurung between pages 224-25 is beyond Hugo-worthy — enhances the story's sense of consequence. Perhaps a book better read by those already a little deeper into Tolkien than casual fans who picked up the trilogy in the wake of the movies, The Children of Húrin is an impassioned exercise in mythmaking, a story that cuts to the darkness within its hero, to find a frightened child.

Is Turin 'evil' or is he really a 'frightened child' trying to do his best & failing because of some inner fault - or is it simply a 'fault' - is it some inner 'darkness'/evil'? How different is Boromir to Turin - is it the Ring which corrupts him, or is the Ring equivalent to Morgoth's curse?

Sorry - a lot of rambling musings there....

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Just occurs to me, on the subject of evil - is evil depicted differently in CoH to the way its depicted in LotR - if we take them as stand alone works? In short, the main force/source of evil in LotR is defeated & the tale ends in hope, while in CoH evil has total victory.

How about starting a new thread in Books on this so that anybody who's interested in this particular aspect can find it without having to dig 6 pages into a movie thread on Split Personality?