Absolute Good in Lord of the Rings

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Ah, but strictly in LotR she does exhibit, even in her eventual acquiescence, the sin of pride.

Oh that uppity woman.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

*Sniffs* Oh, that was beautiful -- very touching. Unfortunately, the original question did not concern characters struggling to be 'good', but of the existence of a character who embodies 'absolute good'; therefore, "the complete absence of evil or the complete presence of good" is the crux of the discussion, and "flaws and negative characteristics" directly negate any 'absolute'.

If you wish to have a discussion of the relative merits of 'good' or 'evil' in characters, that would require a separate thread, or we must abandon the original posit altogether. That would be fine wth me, as I've already inferred that the term 'absolute good' is contentious in itself.

I was under the impression that most of us agree there is no character in LotR who exhibits "absolute goodness". Yet Cailin's essay cannot consist of the single sentence to that effect. ["An 'F'? 'But Professor, that single sentence is my essay!" "But you have to prove that." "How do I prove that?" "By demonstrating what kind of goodness the characters exhibit and how these kinds are not absolute goodness.") Furthermore, from her subsequent post I gathered that her question concerns a general statement about fantasy, that as a genre it involves questions of good versus evil.

Originally Posted by Cailin's second post in thread

Some very interesting answers, thank you. I did not wish to go off-topic, because this is a Tolkien forum, but some of you might still be interested why I pose this question. The question actually arose from an article ("From Elfland to Hogwarts") I read by John Pennington, who finds fault with the Harry Potter series by comparing it to The Lord of the Rings, and some other famous fantasy works which he considers to be at the heart of fantasy (Chronicles of Narnia, for example). His main point is basically that Harry Potter is “fundamentally failed fantasy”. One of the reasons was most intriguing to me:

Quote:
But the archetypal theme of good versus evil appears to be what the Potter books are about. Harry's education is cemented in this ultimate dichotomy that Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin privilege in their texts. So just what are the Harry Potter books about? (...) All is ripe for the good old-fashioned battle between good and evil. But that tone is quickly undercut--Harry is often more interested in being able to visit Hogsmeade and practice Quidditch than he is in fighting evil.

And later:

Quote:
Finally, what ultimately is the role of the archetypal good versus evil dichotomy in the series? Voldemort represents the darkest of evil. But what of the good? Is there an overarching figure of good--a supreme being, for example, not necessarily God--whom Harry and his friends follow? They certainly are in a Christian universe, for they celebrate the Christmas season. If there are the Dark Arts, are there the Light or White Arts? Dumbledore is a Merlin and Gandalf figure, but Dumbledore does not achieve any grandeur; his name evokes bumble and bumbling, reminiscent of Tweedledee and Tweedledum, those foolish characters. There seems to be a good in the novel, but that goodness seems individual rather than archetypal. Thus the archetypal evilness in the Potter universe has no real antidote other than Harry and his friends (who do not seem to take that evil too seriously).

Since Rowling’s work is constantly contrasted with The Lord of the Rings, presumably Pennington did find the archetypes he was looking for in Tolkien’s writing. Perhaps he was indeed referring to Eru - though as Formendacil rightly points out, Eru is not really mentioned in The Lord of the Rings. He may be the source of goodness, as he is the source of everything, but like Tom Bombadil, the Ring seems to be beneath his concerns and Sauron’s far lesser evil is sufficiently balanced by characters such as Gandalf, who are not supreme archetypes. The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

P.S. I’m not sure how many Potter fans / readers are present, but of course after the publication of Deathly Hallows it is quite clear that the Potter universe is indeed Christian. The article quoted above is from 2002, and was written before the fifth instalment in the series was published.

This is a larger issue than the question she first posed, and I took it that she would not be adverse to expanding the discussion to what is "goodness", particularly with this comment she made, which I repeat here: The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

If I erred, I do apologise.

Lal, I do agree that Galadriel and Celeborn are all draped up in the trapings of leadership. This is the exotic realm in LotR! Galadriel's (and hubby's ) attempts to make time stand still are fascinating. It is an essential quality of the elves, that for them, goodness means unchange. (and, yes, my grammar here is deliberate.)

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

IThis is a larger issue than the question she first posed, and I took it that she would not be adverse to expanding the discussion to what is "goodness", particularly with this comment she made, which I repeat here: The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

If I erred, I do apologise.)

No need to apologize, it's my fault actually. I glanced at Cailin's second post, saw 'Harry Potter' prominently displayed, and immediately ignored the balance of the remarks. I guess it's a negative Pavlovian response to Rowlings (without the drooling, of course).

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, one could argue that everything Eru does actually conforms to that 'objective' standard - that Eru is incapable of doing anything that breaks those rules, because those rules actually reflect His essential nature & to do anything contary to them would be to go against His nature, & leave Him effectively divided against Himself - which is impossible as He is One (Eru is only referred to as The One in the Appendices), & if we take this as a 'theological' statement then we are left with the simple fact that everything Eru does is a reflection of His nature - nothing can be out of character.

I guess it depends on how Eru is viewed, as he himself said of Morgoth's continuing destruction of physical Arda that it merely redounded on The One's own plan, thus enhancing it; therefore, the Numenorean's actions, even the sinful ones, could be construed as enhancing Eru's plan. But the destruction of Numenor is an artificial set of circumstances, an arbitrary manuever set in motion by the Valar's inability to handle the situation. How odd that Eru would destroy a human civilization -- and humans prone as they are to sin and mistake -- yet allow the horrific reigns of Morgoth and then Sauron to go utterly unchecked for millenia. To allow one and destroy the other is inconsistent, and removes the very Free Will that is indeed a cornerstone of Tolkien's Catholicity.

Perhaps Tolkien was just too enamored of the obvious parallels between Numenor and both the biblical flood and the Greek Atlantis to be concerned with such notable inconsistency. The story itself and its corollary to 'real world' myth was just too strong, and Tolkien opted for a rousing tale over the internal logic of the story.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, this opens another can of worms, because if we classify whatever a character (& Eru is a character created by Tolkien) does as 'good' (& by extension that that Character him/herself is good) simply because that character does it then we could say the same of any character - Gandalf is absolutely good, because his every act/thought is good, & his every act/thought is good because they are his acts/thoughts. And of course, that argument could be used to claim any character, from Galadriel through to Sauron is 'Good'.

Another can of worms that Tolkien opens is the acceptance of the 'eye-for-an-eye' mentality that differentiates the Old Testamant vengeful Yahwew with the New Testament compassionate Christ. Both Christians and Muslims have used the context of a vengeful god destroying the enemies of the one, true religion to slaughter indiscriminately their enemies in emulation of their god, while ignoring the more christlike aspects that would seem to contradict the earlier, more barbaric aspects of The One.

Originally Posted by davem

In the end, though, the one who sets the standard of 'good' in LotR is Tolkien, not us. We have to accept that in his world 'good' is whatever Tolkien says it is. For Tolkien the destruction of Numenor was a good act in that it was the act of a good God & done to punish 'evil'.

And yet Eru punishes the followers and not the fomenters, the actual cause of rebellion and the primary root of all evil in Arda. Isn't that the way it always is with these elitist deities? *shrugs*

[Groin Redbeard]

I find it entertaining and humorous that many Christians will fight tooth and nail for the sacrosanct rights of an innocent human fetus, but will abandon babies outside of the womb to the torments of hell because their parents don't subscribe to a particular religious view. Why bother stopping abortions when these 'seeds of Satan' will only grow up to be carbon copies of their demonic parents? Don't answer, I was only speaking rhetorically.

You cannot make a response like that and not get a response. A child of innocence is in God’s hands, but to kill an unborn child because the parents don’t want what the Bible describes as a blessing from God is no less than murder. I don’t expect you to get that though, life is so cheap in with all the relativism people nowadays.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

So, on Numenor, could you tell which newborn infant was Sauronic or one of the Faithful? Were the Sauronic babies given knives so that they could join in on the human sacrifice, making it a family affair, like a picnic? Tell me, Groin, suppose your parents were from some Satanic group (like the Democrats, for instance).

Heaven forbid!

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Does this guilt by association automatically make you a lifelong Democrat as well? Or is there such a thing as free will, which is a supposed tenet of many major religions? Could it be possible that you have an epiphany later on in life and become a Republican, thus joining the righteous select on the path to conservative Heaven rather than liberal Hell? Oh, sorry, you don't get to make that choice, God just wiped out your family in a thunderstorm of indignation.

Well if my parents worshipped a god who allowed human sacrafice, if they believed that they were entitled to the glories of God, if they believed that they could take Valinor by force and took steps to see these plans through, do you really think that that is a good house to live under? It would be far better to have that family destroyed and for the child to be called up to sit at God’s throne. You can argue it both ways Morthoron: is it more merciful to let the infant be raised by a clearly evil family in a clearly evil sociaty until he is old enough to actually take accountability and be damned, or is it more merciful for God to destroy that sociaty and for you, still as a child, to be brought to be in heaven? Remember, Sauron twisted the facts about death making it something to be feared while Eru gave it to Man as a blessing. That was pure genious on Tolkien’s part for writing that.

Sorry if I got off topic, I'll join in on the discussion if I think of anything.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

You cannot make a response like that and not get a response. A child of innocence is in God’s hands, but to kill an unborn child because the parents don’t want what the Bible describes as a blessing from God is no less than murder. I don’t expect you to get that though, life is so cheap in with all the relativism people nowadays.

Oh, I understand you more than you know, Groin: life is sacred on the inside, but cheap on the outside (where smug folks wash their hands in self-satisfaction, and say "Our job is done here, they are in God's hands now" -- a very Dickensian workhouse mentality). Perhaps if more folks cared for the latter, there would be less of the former.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Well if my parents worshipped a god who allowed human sacrafice, if they believed that they were entitled to the glories of God, if they believed that they could take Valinor by force and took steps to see these plans through, do you really think that that is a good house to live under? It would be far better to have that family destroyed and for the child to be called up to sit at God’s throne. You can argue it both ways Morthoron: is it more merciful to let the infant be raised by a clearly evil family in a clearly evil sociaty until he is old enough to actually take accountability and be damned, or is it more merciful for God to destroy that sociaty and for you, still as a child, to be brought to be in heaven? Remember, Sauron twisted the facts about death making it something to be feared while Eru gave it to Man as a blessing. That was pure genious on Tolkien’s part for writing that.

Wow, just...wow. It is that type of thinking that eventually leads to genocide. I am reminded of Robert of Geneva (nicknamed 'The Butcher', who, not surprisingly later became a pope). When his mercenary forces took the heretical city of Cesena, Robert ordered the butchering of every last man, woman and child. When one of his captains suggested that there were many innocents in the city, Robert shrugged and said, "What belongs to God He will take care of," and the slaughter continued unabated.

With your concept in mind, we should have slaughtered all the infants in Nazi Germany. After all, their country was waist-deep in the blood of human sacrifice. Would it have been merciful to wipe out every blonde-headed, blue-eyed German baby, Groin? Hitler, like Sauron, also twisted the facts quite masterfully.

Originally Posted by Andsigil

To be fair, the last time Christians did this in the name of Christianity was when, exactly?

If you're looking for Christian intolerance and the heartless slaughter that follows, one needn't go back to the Crusades to find Christian barbarity, Andsigil. Let's see, there were Christians slaughtering Muslims in Serbia, Christian Hutus committing massacres in Rwanda, Protestants and Catholics slaughtering each other in the name of Christ in Northern Ireland, Christians and Muslims butchering each other in the Lebanese civil war. Would you like me to continue?

Originally Posted by Andsigil

If you're looking for hearltess slaughter you'd find more results studying the proclivities of atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries. Under the guise of communism, and with modern weaponry, they've amassed quite a record.

Blind faith in any creed that will not allow mutual respect for another creed inevitably leads to genocide. It is the same among Stalinists and Maoists as with Nazis, Hindus (if you recall, it was because of religious intolerance that Gandhi was assassinated), Muslims, Christians and Jews. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans were just as culpable in the extermination of the Indians and the near elimination of their animistic religions.

I am sorry for the digression, I will not continue it further.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

If you're looking for Christian intolerance and the heartless slaughter that follows, one needn't go back to the Crusades to find Christian barbarity, Andsigil. Let's see, there were Christians slaughtering Muslims in Serbia, Christian Hutus committing massacres in Rwanda, Protestants and Catholics slaughtering each other in the name of Christ in Northern Ireland, Christians and Muslims butchering each other in the Lebanese civil war. Would you like me to continue?

Continue all you want. These are drops in the bucket. Besides,

-Hutus didn't slaughter in the name of Christianity. They slaughtered in the name of Hutu.
-Maronites were generally on the receiving end in Lebanon. That's why they're nearly extinct since that trouble began.
-And deconstructing the Balkan conflict into a simple religious conflict is rather oversimplified. One could just as easily argue that it was Christians who came to stop the conflict.

In any event, these are all candles next to the sun. Pol Pot, alone, accounts for more than this. We haven't even discussed China yet. Or the Soviets. I think more people died in Kolymaa and the Lubyanka than did in the Balkans. The atheist communists have indeed worked very hard to set the bar high.

To tie this in with Tolkien, I've already said that that kind of mechanical, systemic slaughter is reminiscent of Mordor to me. Perhaps Tolkien was as much a prophet as Orwell.

I am sorry for the digression, I will not continue it further.

Ahh, good. I got the last word, then. Since I made a Tolkien tie-in, I'll stop as well... just as soon as I get to this other post.

[Cailín]

I understand that the discussion of good and evil is of considerable interest and many may feel personally involved. However, I have to agree with davem and wish to stress that we are dealing with a fictional world, which is created by the author's voice alone and which is not neccessarily compatible with contemporary ideas of good and evil.

I see that there is some discussion over the term absolute as well. Rikae interprets the quoted article in the same way I did: it seems Pennington is looking for some divine entity. However - and please forgive me Morthoron, for again mentioning Harry Potter: I have no wish to cause psychological trauma - his insistence that Voldemort (who is human and surely not Satan himself) represents the darkest evil would lead me to believe that there is leeway for imperfection here.

My own thoughts were definitely Manwë, if the Silmarillion was included and Gandalf (the White and Improved Version) in Lord of the Rings. It seems sensible to say that Gandalf and Sauron, being equal in the hierarchy of beings, are pitted against each other in this battle. However, I am not too eager to simplify Lord of the Rings and it is difficult to see it as a stand-alone novel, because there are clearly so many other powers at work (the Balrog, Bombadil, Galadriel) to ignore them and focus on Sauron and Gandalf as the two extremes.

I will certainly include a link to this thread in my footnotes. There is a tendency to over-simplify fantasy in discussions on the genre in general. Thanks to all contributors so far.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Another can of worms that Tolkien opens is the acceptance of the 'eye-for-an-eye' mentality that differentiates the Old Testamant vengeful Yahwew with the New Testament compassionate Christ. Both Christians and Muslims have used the context of a vengeful god destroying the enemies of the one, true religion to slaughter indiscriminately their enemies in emulation of their god, while ignoring the more christlike aspects that would seem to contradict the earlier, more barbaric aspects of The One.

To be fair, the last time Christians did this in the name of Christianity was when, exactly?

If you're looking for heartless slaughter, you'd find more results studying the proclivities of atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries. Under the guise of communism, and with modern weaponry, they've amassed quite a record.

Something about all of it reminds me distinctly of Mordor.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

To be fair, the last time Christians did this in the name of Christianity was when, exactly?

If you're looking for heartless slaughter, you'd find more results studying the proclivities of atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries. Under the guise of communism, and with modern weaponry, they've amassed quite a record.

Something about all of it reminds me distinctly of Mordor.

To likewise be fair, and to stop an argument brewing, Stalin and Mao didn't cause the slaughter of millions because of Atheism, either; Hitler was a Catholic, but his murdering was because of Fascism.

Originally Posted by Groin

It would be far better to have that family destroyed and for the child to be called up to sit at God’s throne. You can argue it both ways Morthoron: is it more merciful to let the infant be raised by a clearly evil family in a clearly evil sociaty until he is old enough to actually take accountability and be damned, or is it more merciful for God to destroy that sociaty and for you, still as a child, to be brought to be in heaven?

Maybe in Tolkien's creation, but not in our own! Plenty of people have been raised in vile circumstances but must be joyful to grow into adulthood - like Josef Fritzl's children/grandchildren.

Though I have to say that whether Eru tipped Numenor on end because the people there were 'evil' is entirely debatable in the light of evidence given in recent threads on here. If he did it would have been the first and only time he interfered - and it seems he opened a rift in the world because of the pleading of the Valar to protect Valinor rather than any other reason. The drowning of innocents was purely incidental. It seems rather that Eru wanted to wipe out this failed experiment that the Valar had indulged in and he didn't much care who, if anyone, got away.

This is another reason why I think Eru is 'beyond' any idea of 'goodness', because he is outside the world, he created it, but isn't concerned with it. That's extremely different to the various Gods in the real world.

[Macalaure]

Why do threads like these always derail themselves so quickly here....

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Absolute good would be the possession of all goodness. Manwë (and any other purely good character you might think exists in Arda) is not perfectly good, because he is not perfect. Although immensely powerful, he is still a limited being, and a limitation of power or knowledge is also a limitation of good, because it would be better (ie. "gooder") to have the power or knowledge that is lacking.

Hmm, then you say that in order to be absolutely good, one has to be perfect (in this case, all-knowing)? Of course a good person's actions would be better if he was omniscient, and Manwe certainly made quite a couple of mistakes in his career, but wouldn't this make the threesome of all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful partly redundant? My knowledge of theology is admittedly rather limited, but I always took the meaning of all-good to be only that a person's will and intentions are absolutely good (setting aside whether this is equal to absence of evil here). I don't see why it should be impossible to have a person that is all-good, but not all-knowing and all-powerful. In any case, this was at least my idea when I labelled Manwe absolutely good.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To likewise be fair, and to stop an argument brewing, Stalin and Mao didn't cause the slaughter of millions because of Atheism, either; Hitler was a Catholic, but his murdering was because of Fascism.

Actually, Hitler was an apostate who renounced the religion of his baptism.

I find it rather odd that Christianity is still such a bogeyman to so many overly nervous people. Other, horrible things are happening right now on a far greater scale in the name of other things, and have been for a while. I think it's just fashionable, not to mention politically correct, to rail against Christianity.

It's too bad Tolkien, or his friend CS Lewis, are no longer alive to argue against it. I'm certain they'd be appalled, or indignant at the very least.

Feel free to take the last word, if you feel compelled to do so.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

Actually, Hitler was an apostate who renounced the religion of his baptism.

All the evidence points towards him not being an atheist at any rate. But the fact remains, all these dictators did not commit their atrocities in the name of Atheism so it's not really a fair counter argument to the one that various modern day atrocities are committed in the name of Faith. Sorry, had to take that last word

Originally Posted by Cailin

My own thoughts were definitely Manwë,

The glaring problem with Manwe of course is that he took part in the creation of Numenor, was there when it was made what it was, a viewing platform for Men to gaze at Valinor - which ultimately led to the deaths of thousands of innocents. I'd say Manwe had a lot of responsibility for his part in this.

[Boromir88]

What we have here is a very different thing, not a question about some lore thing, but rather directly questioning Tolkien's own belief.~TM

But the conflictions occur when Tolkien repeatedly denies allegory in his story, and he cut out religion from his story. Rather, religion is in symbols and you can say Gandalf is Christ-like, Eru is like the Christian God. But the depth of the characters makes it impossible to say Gandalf is Christ and Eru is the Christian God.

Tolkien wasn't writing to teach, nor was he to preach, he was writing a story for people to enjoy, and not just Christians. In Letter 142 Tolkien believed that critics will find it hard to "pigeon-hole" his story. You can't take one label and slap it on to one of Tolkien's characters. Is there a christian influence? Without a doubt, I say yes. But there's also norse, greek, modern, linguistic influences, and the list can go on from there.

And besides, personal beliefs change overtime. Maybe after writing the story, setting it down, thinking about it, reworking it...etc - through that process his ideas changed. Who knows? But, you don't have to be Christian to believe someone has to die to save something he/she loves. What I mean with that is, there are certain themes, ideals, morals, whatever you want to call them, that are global. Sacrifice, mercy, The Fall, death, Stewardship, these are everywhere, and these ideas are what Tolkien decided to work with, and write into his story.

but I always took the meaning of all-good to be only that a person's will and intentions are absolutely good (setting aside whether this is equal to absence of evil here).~Mac

I personally agree with you there , but I would caution that we don't attach our own external beliefs to the characters in the story, or the internal text. Now, to completely detach our beliefs from the text I think would be absolutely () impossible, but we must do so as much as possible.

I will say it's clear that someone intentions do matter, and that is set up right in the story where Saruman justifies his "end" by going through admittingly horrible "means." So, what we have is in Saruman's own delusional mind, his intentions are good, but are they really? And on top of that, he doesn't care what it takes to reach those ends, he doesn't care who he kills, maims, destroys to get there, but he will reach his "good end."

Then we have several letters where Tolkien states, the Ring's destruction (definitely a good thing) is no benefit to Gollum. Gollum's intentions were completely and totally evil. He had planned for a long time to lead the hobbits into a deadly trap, and his actions in the Sammath Naur are anything but good. Eventhough the Ring is destroyed, because Gollum slips in, that does no good for Gollum, his motives were entirely evil.

And on top of that we have Sam, who has good intentions when he mistakes Gollum's "pawing" at Frodo; Sam is only looking after his master. However, his snap and failure to pity Gollum quite possibly leads to Gollum's failure at redemption. Even someone with entirely good motives (not like Saruman who is delusional ) causes evil to happen. It's unintentional, but Sam could not find Pity for Gollum up until the very end, in the Sammath Naur. This doesn't make Sam evil, but does it make him absolutely good?

Here is another thought, there's been talk about absolute evil, Morgoth, Sauron..etc and Tolkien does say that he doesn't believe in Absolute Evil, but he goes on to talk about the two big villains in his myth (Morgoth and Sauron) - what about objects? What about the Ring? Maybe since Sauron is not absolute evil, it is impossible for him to create something that is. However, the Ring just has this knack to turn every possible light, into dark. It has the ability to twist, and corrupt even the most noble actions. And as Frodo is full of pity, strength, courage, to get the Ring to the place where it was made, Frodo's chance to overcome an object of absolute evil; an object that can do no good and turn the best intentions upside down, fails. Frodo succumbs to the Ring - does it then take an absolute good character to destroy an absolutely evil object?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

All the evidence points towards him not being an atheist at any rate. But the fact remains, all these dictators did not commit their atrocities in the name of Atheism so it's not really a fair counter argument to the one that various modern day atrocities are committed in the name of Faith.

Whether someone commits atrocities in the name of their religion, to me, is less of a question than whether their actions obey or disobey the tenets of their faith (or absence thereof.) For a Christian to commit atrocities is fundamentally disobedient to their moral and religious duty, and for a Christian that does so this is the proper criticism: not that your moral and religious code is invalidated by your actions; but that you have been shown to be disobedient to that code. If Hitler claimed to be a Christian, then he showed himself disobedient (to put it mildly.) If someone is striving to love his neighbor and defend the innocent, and fails, then he failed. That doesn't invalidate the directive to love the neighbor and defend the innocent. Meanwhile, if someone else's code is to jail those he does not enjoy, and he consistently does so, we may feel that his customs are better honored in the breach, but we cannot criticize him for being inconsistent with his belief system.

Boromir88 brings up the idea of intent, and I do think that is important. I think it is valuable to take intent into account, and I think Tolkien would have also done so.
To judge a code by its followers is a risky thing (although I understand the tendency to do so.) Saruman had, as the White Council supposed, a code of virtue. Do his actions invalidate that code of virtue? Or do his actions reveal that he was disobedient to that code? Tolkien held, in Middle-earth and presumably in England as well, that Virtue was better than Evil. THe actions of those who profess to be good, but do evil, do not prove that evil is better than good. Their actions simply prove that they are not following the path of virtue.

Stalin, Lenin, and Pol Pot showed themselves obedient to their own code and value system. They acted in a manner consistent to their dogma. In a similar manner, Sauron (once he established himself firmly as a Black sort of fellow) proved obedient to his new code (disobedeint to the old, to be sure.) But that is no suprise. Shelob acted in a manner consistent to her own dogma. So did Gollum (in the end.) Some folk hold that consistency is a good thing, but I would ask "consistency regarding what?" That Sauron and Gollum were consistently evil, does not make them nicer to be around than those who strove to be good and occasionally failed. I would rather live in a society that strove for virtue and failed occasionally, than one that was consistent at being nasty and mean because it was in their belief system. Consistency notwithstanding, Orc-run Moria would not be my choice for a vacation spot.

In the books, Aragorn, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Faramir, Legolas, Gimli, Sam, and even Merry and Pippin adhered pretty well (consistently!) to their own codes of virtue. Because of this, our modern society at times does not understand them. (I have long complained that PJ was far, far better at painting evil than he was at painting virtue.) Because PJ guessed that a purely noble Aragorn would not sell many tickets, we instead got a confused, hesitant, reluctant, I'm-only-in-this-because-I-have-to kind of Aragorn. I always thought that was too bad. Faramir also, was initially less good in the movie than in the book. But I digress.

Gimli isn't much of an archetype, in my mind; neither are Merry, Pippin, or Sam (some may argue.) But Legolas is. Perhaps that's an odd way of looking at the pair of them. BUt they did not start out as a pair.

The main characters who wanted to be good but strayed from their own code of virtue were, I think, Saruman, Boromir, Denethor, and Frodo himself. This to me is the heartbreak of Frodo's time at Sammath Naur; after struggling so long to adhere to his code of virtue, he fails at the last moment. THis removes him, in his own mind, from the code of virtue, and makes him a has-been. You were virtuous, Frodo, until that last moment. Too bad.

What a heartbreak for him.

IN contrast, Gandalf (wisely) refuses to take the ring knowing it would cause him to violate the code of virtue. Aragorn likewise, Faramir likewise.

Boromir, as we well know, succumbs to the temptation, but redeems himself in the end. Denethor would have snatched it given the chance, with no desire for redeemption.

While Galadriel strayed once, long ago, and has had her own independant streak, still, for the past thousand years she has steadfastly guarded the borders of Lorien against evil: first against Dol Guldor, then against Mordor. I find it difficult to lay much blame at her feet during the timeframe of LOTR. She has earned the title of virtuous, I think, by the time Frodo meets her.

Saruman is the blatantly disobedient one. He is the one who consistently behaved drastically differently from the code of virtue he proclaimed and professed; spoke sweetly while working treachery; consistently decieved many while being supposed to be faithful; butchered the Westfold. So going back to Lalwende's point above: In whose name did he do all this? His own (The White Hand)? Did Saruman commit his atrocities in the name of the White Council? If he had, would that have diminished the rest of the council? WOuld that have made his actions worse, better, or the same? Or do we care in what name he acted? If he had acted in the name of Mordor, would that have made his atrocities less? Only that it would have removed the "treachery" aspect of it; but the Westfold victims would be dead nonetheless. The atrocities Saruman committed proved that he was not, in fact, obeying his code of virtue.

He was, eventually, removed from the White Council and his staff was broken. Amazing that in the midst of it all, after the burning of the Westfol and the assault on Helm's Deep, even Gandalf hoped for his redeemption-- hoped that Saruman would return to real virtue.

Maybe Saruman is an archetypal traitor. I'm not familiar enough with all that to say. But to me, within LOTR, Gandalf is clearly an archetypal good, as are Aragorn, Faramir, Galadriel, Elrond, etc.

(Very interesting question regarding absolute evil, Boromir88; but my reply is already over-long...)

[Pitchwife]

One more attempt to turn this back into a Tolkien discussion (and don't think I'm not tempted to join the melee...)

Eru is not the Christian God (however much the Professor may have tried to make him so) but a fictional character based on Tolkien's idea of the Christian God. Proof: Eru did several things which the Christian God (according to the Bible) didn't do: e.g. creating elves as well as men, drowning Numenor, sending Gandalf back after his death (supposing the Valar weren't responsible for that) etc.

An interesting parallel might be Alternate History novels using historical characters. I don't know if any of you are familiar with Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series, but to take a (random) example from that, there's a character in it called Taleswapper who is based on the poet William Blake (his real name is actually mentioned). Now while Taleswapper doesn't really do or say anything that would be completely out of character for the real William Blake, he didn't do quite a lot of things the real William Blake did (e.g. writing/engraving Jerusalem and Milton) and vice versa (e.g. emigrating to America when we know the real Blake spent the whole of his life in Britain).

Likewise, although we wouldn't expect Eru to act entirely unlike the Christian God as Tolkien saw Him, it doesn't necessarily follow that every attribute ascribed to God by Christian theology during the last 2000 years is valid for him (with a lower case 'h' !).

EDIT: Oops, I just realized I hadn't read page 2! I was afraid this was turning into another Christians vs non-Christians thread (like 'Lord of the Bible'), but others took care of it before me; sorry! Nevertheless, I stick to my arguments about Eru.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Eru is not the Christian God (however much the Professor may have tried to make him so) but a fictional character based on Tolkien's idea of the Christian God. Proof: Eru did several things which the Christian God (according to the Bible) didn't do: e.g. creating elves as well as men, drowning Numenor, sending Gandalf back after his death (supposing the Valar weren't responsible for that) etc.

Yahweh had the immortal Nephilim who bred with mortal stock (whence came such giants as Goliath), he flooded the world, and there was a notable ressurrection in the bible as well. The parallels are there.

Oh, and Pitchwife, say hello to Saltheart Foamfollower for me!

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I haven't had a chance to read all other responses... but for me, the answer would be Samwise Gamgee.

Why?

Samwise seemed to have a knack for "getting people" without really knowing them. He wasn't fooled by Gollum. He protected Frodo even when Frodo shunned him.
He was an all around "good guy."
He wasn't really affected by the Ring (granted, Hobbits in general were not as affected, and had he had it as long as Frodo it's quite possible he would've broken down too) when he took it, at least not to the point of failing on his mission.
He STUCK to his mission... his main goal was to see the Ring destroyed and Frodo home safely. He was kind of like a child in that he tried to remain untainted by everything that was going on.

Granted, this is from the movies, not the book, but I always loved this dialogue exchange, and I think they did an excellent job of writing Sam in the movies (for the most part):

Frodo: I can't do this, Sam.
Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.