Was Melkor Bipolar?

[Ren the Unclean]

Originally Posted by Sarumian

We are talking not about someone evil but about the one who begot evil.

This is a really powerful insight. I think it describes, in one statement, who Melkor was. He's not just a character who became evil. He's the original architect of evil.

And I think you guys are right - Tolkien's writing should be interpreted in moral terms rather than medical, as tempting as it is to view his world through scientific eyes. (I like technology. I like machines. I'm guessing I shouldn't try to pick up a Silmaril.)*


Continuing to ask, "What is the nature of evil?" I'm beginning to believe that power itself is a big part of the nature of evil. By which I mean, my guess is that an ordinary person, if he were suddenly given great power, would have a very hard time *not* being evil.

Mildly negative traits that aren't so terrible in an ordinary person could become sources of great evil in a person having significant power. If an ordinary person with character traits not normally considered dangerous (anger, selfishness, impatience, being controlling, etc.) became extremely powerful, all of a sudden their actions, resulting from their character and temperament, could have a lot more impact and a lot more potential for harming others.

Power is a multiplier, and it seems to multiply the dark side more than the light.

This thought has given me enormous respect for the characters who are powerful and are *not* evil, Elrond and Aragorn for example. But I remain most in awe of Manwe. His power is staggering, yet he's got to be the nicest guy around. How does he do it? I'm no longer assuming it's easy.



*joke, refering to Tolkien's model of "English countryside = good", "technology & development = evil"

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Ren the Unclean

*joke, refering to Tolkien's model of "English countryside = good", "technology & development = evil"

Well, that's also some interesting insight. If we consider English countryside to be the Shire, then the most-good, maybe even the happiest people, are hobbits, and not Elves, Men, or even Valar. Maybe because they are content with what they have and resent having any kind of power (over sitting at the head of the table, that is. ).

What do you think?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Ren the Unclean

And I think you guys are right - Tolkien's writing should be interpreted in moral terms rather than medical, as tempting as it is to view his world through scientific eyes. (I like technology. I like machines. I'm guessing I shouldn't try to pick up a Silmaril.)*

. . . .

Mildly negative traits that aren't so terrible in an ordinary person could become sources of great evil in a person having significant power. If an ordinary person with character traits not normally considered dangerous (anger, selfishness, impatience, being controlling, etc.) became extremely powerful, all of a sudden their actions, resulting from their character and temperament, could have a lot more impact and a lot more potential for harming others.

If you are going to consider the moral terms of LotR, then it is not possible to claim that some traits would not be considered dangerous in an ordinary person. Every trait that is a traditional sin is harmful and wrong in every person, regardless of their social or political status. Such traits are wrong because they destroy charity in the heart of the beholder as well as leading to harm of others. Anger, for instance, is one of the traditional "deadly sins". See Wikipedia on the seven deadly sins.. (They are in distinction to the main virtues of faith, hope and charity, the last of which is the greatest according to Paul--there are other, "cardinal" virtues as well. See Wiki on Seven Virtues.).

Characters like Melkor are studies in pride, anger, envy, greed while Gollem appears to be a study in lust, gluttony and envy.

Originally Posted by Ren the Unclean

Power is a multiplier, and it seems to multiply the dark side more than the light.

Mellkor was the most gifted and the least humble. Yet Aule, who was able to sub-create--something Melkor could not do--was also able to admit wrong and apologise.