Are Hobbits capable of evil?

Are Hobbits capable of evil?

Disregarding the influence of the ring itself, which might possibly make them do things against their nature...

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Yep. One of the recurring themes of Tolkien is good corrupted.

I think any being is capable of evil as the interpretation of "evil" can be different to different people.

If you mean pre-meditated murder or becoming a follower of Sauron then I'd have to say yes. I think we have it in all of us for different reasons. Also I don't remember Tolkien saying that the Hobbits were omni-potent in that respect.

Finding pre-meditated evil done by a hobbit in Tolkiens works may be tricky though. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] In the Scouring of the Shire I think the hobbits were all portrayed as being bad because they were forced to do it, even Lobelia and Lotho.

Originally posted by Quellesir:
<STRONG>Finding pre-meditated evil done by a hobbit in Tolkiens works may be tricky though. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] </STRONG>

Well that's just it... I'd say they are too, but on what evidence really?

Ok, let me rephrase a little bit:
If we do not find any evil deeds perpetrated by Hobbits, is it because they are able to stand by a higher moral code (unlike for instance humans) or because they are one dimensionally good? (just like there are lots of one dimensionally bad characters)
null

[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: Hobbes ]

[obloquy]

Hobbits were just too simple to commit evil deeds.

[Maluriel]

wasn't Gollum a hobbit as Smeagol?

[red]

Yes, Smeagol was a hobbit and he was evil before the Ring showed up. He was, if you will remember, an outcast among his own family.

And then there was Ted Sandyman. He wasn't exactly Mr. Niceguy either. Bad apple, that one!

So, yes, hobbits can be evil and there are examples from the books.

-réd

[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: red ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I agree, I was going to mention Ted Sandyman as well.

I think those with rotten qualities didn't have much chance to play them out because they tended to be the minority amongst the comfortable and happy hobbits.

Ted was only obnoxious until Sharkey and his bad boys took over. And Gollum was driven out by his own family.

Hobbit life discouraged these sorts from having influence to go from "mean" to "evil."

[ December 25, 2001: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Fenrir]

Red, wasn't Smeagol cast out after he found the ring? Not that I'm disagreeing, he must have been quite nasty to strangle his friend after only seeing the ring for a few seconds.
The hobbits of the Shire hadn't really had much of a chance to show how good or bad they were by nature, there had been little hardship since they settled there. While there was no real evil in or near the Shire, there were some less desirable personality traits e.g. jealousy, selfishness, greed.

I believe that all creatures are capable of evil. This includes Hobbits. I do think that their culture is in a state where all Hobbits that commit evil deeds are outcasts. Therefore, very few Hobbits would think of doing evil.
*Just my two cents*

[Eldar14]

In ME, the hobbits were a sort of 'link' to humans in the real world. That is one of the reasons that SIL is difficult to read; no hobbits. So, if hobbits in ME are congrous to (at least very similar to) humans, and some humans are evil, I would have to say Hobbits are capable of being evil, it just doesn't happen very often.

[red]

Who says the Silmarillion is difficult to read? I whizzed right through it and I certainly am no Lit. major! Also, I found the lack of hobbits refreshing.

-réd (Elf groupie)

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Oh no! Lack of Hobbits refreshing? Don't tell Gilthalion! Or Frodo.

The Sil. and The LotR are stylistically very different. The Sil. is patterned on the epic poem like the Odyssey or Beowulf, with the central "character" so-to-speak, the world of Middle Earth. It's a total milieu-type story. The LotR is a milieu story too, but it's still driven by one central plot. Plot, character, milieu, idea and event-focused stories will attract different types of readers. That's why it's so hard for some people into different types of writing (character or idea-focused esp.) to get why fantasy has such a draw, and so it's chalked up to "escapism." Ten bucks says the same people who love the LotR are into foreign languages, exotic cultures and distant places.

[obloquy]

Nailed me on that one, Maril. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Phil The Balrog]

You know, i often wondered this same question. I would say that Hobbits are probably capable of evil, but certainly not predisposed to it. Almost like angels. In the Bible, the only bad angels were the ones that were led astray by Lucifer. There were no accounts of angels being bad on their own. Perhaps Hobbits have much the same nature, good unless led astray by the Ring or some such force.

[Evil Anya]

You'd be hard pressed to find many examples of an "evil to the core" hobbit in the books. We're given the impression that Smeagol had a great capacity for evil even before the lure of the ring but i don't think he's portrayed as someone who is "evil incarnate", his story evokes pity, his was a pathetic existance. Also, it all depends on how we define evil for ourselves. If hobbits weren't capable of evil then i don't think they would feel the effects of the ring, but that's a whole other discussion having to do with the nature of the ring.

[Elrian]

The only evil they ever commit is stealing mushrooms according to the book [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Maédhros]

I think you'd have a hard time finding an "evil to the core" anything in the books. All of the examples of evil we see in LoTR have been taken and twisted by some greater power. Gollum - twisted by the ring; the Nazgul - twisted by the nine rings; orcs - twisted by Sauron/Morgoth; Wormtongue - twisted by Saruman; Saruman - twisted by Sauron. The only "pure" evil in Tolkien's work is the original evil of Melkor/Morgoth, and perhaps a few other creatures of the Silmarillion and their offspring (Ungoliant & Shelob, for example). All creatures seem to be equally capable of evil, although not all creatures tend to have equal tendencies towards evil.

[zifnab]

It was always my belief that without evil their would be no good. They have to always balance out. Too much good is bad just as too much evil is. They have to try and balance them selves out so that the "Wave isnt made into a tidal wave". At the begining of time there was always some form of evil, be it a major or minor role.

[Schvenn Of The Schack]

Zifnab, I disagree.
You do not have to have evil in order to have good.
For one, the whole concept of Christianity relies on the concept that all evil will eventually be destroyed, leaving only pure goodness.
I digress.
Think of good as warmth and evil as cold.
Cold does not actually exist.
Cold is relative.
It has no mass, no energy, no form.
Cold is simply the complete lack of warmth.
Absolute zero, or pure cold, is the lack of all movement even at the basest molecular level.
Heat on the other hand, is energy and has no limit.
It has definate parameters.
It has definate measurement.
See what I'm getting at?
I see evil as nothing more than the complete lack of good.
Good on the other hand, has no limits.
:: shrug ::
How's that for armchair theology?
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[zifnab]

Very good point, Schvenn. Im no thelogist be it armchair or not. It seems to me that opposites attract. What I am saying is that when there is some form of good their will always be some form of evil.

I see evil as nothing more than the complete lack of good.
Good on the other hand, has no limits.

Wouldnt good be nothing more than the complete lack of evil, also? I also believe that evil has no limits, but it seems that evil always is evil's worst enemy, be it greed or envy. Evil turns in upon itself. But I believe that if used right that evil wouldnt have any limits.

Even though I would love to live in a world where there is no evil, I dont see it happening.

[zifnab]

Whoa....I just re-read my post, I really should think more before I write down my thoughts. lol


Zifnab...lay of the brew, man!

[onewhitetree]

Hobbits were not immune to human nature any more than we are. They seem to be more virtuous because they were, I think, Tolkien's ideal people, so they lived by morals for the most part. Also, their entire culture was on a smaller scale, and so of course their evils were on a smaller scale.

[Luineglin]

all things are cabable of evil how ever innocent or simple they may seem.

[Jellinek]

----posted by Zifnab
It was always my belief that without evil their would be no good. They have to always balance out. Too much good is bad just as too much evil is. They have to try and balance them selves out so that the "Wave isnt made into a tidal wave". At the begining of time there was always some form of evil, be it a major or minor role.
----

Sounds like a True Neutral to me (AD&D anyone?)

[Kin-strife]

Schvenn, I think your collation of evil with cold is apt. The image Tolkien often prefered was shadow and light (compare Mordor, the land of shadow, with the light of Lorien). Like the relationship with warmth and cold, shadow is nothing more than an abscence of light. It's not how I'd personaly view the relationship but it seems a good perspective in terms of the lord of the rings. So where does that leave the hobbits? Incapable of evil if merely left to their own devices? I strongly doubt it. Aren't hobbits distantly related to men. If so there must be great potential for evil. The Sackville Bagginses are inarguably greedy people before the arrival of Sharky and his ruffians. Greed is an evil and acted as a handy pre-existing foundation for Saruman to work from. Which he did by invoking fear.

[Carannillion]

In Tolkien's world/works, there is clearly evil at work, originating from Melkor, but as it is said in Ainulindalë:
"Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that nullnullI am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he hinmself hath not imagined.'"

Evil (or what we perceive as evil) in Eä originates from Melkor; his envy and desire for dominion and mastery makes his mind twisted and corrupted, so that after a while, anything he does is in mockery of the other Valar. He either destroys what they have built, or he alters it (elves turned into orcs...). BUT, as Ilúvatar said, everything will simply turn into another piece in his grand design, which only he knows the end of. Now - and this has also been discussed regarding God, Allah, or whatever deity you might believe or not believe in - does this mean that Ilúvatar has evil in his being? If not, why does he then allow Melkor to go on the way he does? Why allow Melkor to torment his children like this?

Just a few thoughts from a newcomer to this forum. Please hit me with my own words, should they be wrong [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

This discussion could be dragged out in all eternity, i suspect... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Halbarad]

Evil also originates from disobedience. Lucifer was disobedient and desired power. For this reason he was banished. In the same way Melkor was disobedient and did not sing in the way he was commanded. He created discord in the song of the ainur, and the things he corrupted were also disobedient by association. To stay reasonably on topic, Smeagol liked to burrow to the deep places and discover things that were hidden, i.e. he was curious. He may not have been bad originally, but was corrupted by the evil influence of the ring, which drove him to murder, and the rest became history.

[Ghâshgûl]

I think we should distinguish between the "evil" in the real world and the "evil" in Middle Earth. It is quite different.

In the real world, beeing good or evil it is a question of ethics. Beeing good means acting ethically, i.e. following the categorical imperative. (They are tons of philosophical books written about this question...) In the real world there are not "the good ones" and "the evil ones" (although there are many stupid people who think this is the case).

But Middle Earth is not reality. It is kind of a fairy-tale world, a good-vs-evil-universe. In this world, good and evil is not mainly a question of ethics, but a question of choosing a side. Basically, good means pro-Valar, and evil means pro-Melkor. (Or better contra-Valar, see Feanor or Saruman.) Of course, to justify the terms "good" and "evil", the "good" people are always kind and altruistic, whereas the "evil" people are mean, egoistic and cruel. But this is only a consequence of the side they have choosen. When we ask "why are Nazgûl considered as evil", the answer is not "because they are acting unethically" but "because they are servants of Sauron". (From an ethical point of view, they are neither good nor evil because they have no free will!)

Ghâshgûl

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Ghâshgûl ]

[Carannillion]

Very good points. As for the original topic, whether hobbits are capable of evil or not, I think hobbits are capable of it just like a man - when influenced by Morgoth or any of his servants or 'subservants' - but due to their good-heartedness, wit and strong will, they are not so easily turned to 'the dark side' [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

By the way: With their strong will, How would hobbits do as wizards? (new post)

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

Carannillion (I hope I spelt that right!) Iluvatar probably "allowed" evil in for the same reason that the powers didn't interfere to much in LOTR-to give all beings a choice...if there was no choice where would merit lie????? without shadow how can you appreciate the bright light??
as to the hobbits-they are fallable.

[Rhudladion]

Lots of great discussions going on in here.

Let me begin on topic by saying that I think Hobbits can definitely be evil: stealing spoons from your kin is evil is it not? Also, even if the Hobbits were "forced" to do bad things at the end of the ROTK, if they enjoyed it or accepted it (i.e. Lotho) does that make it less evil? What I mean by this is that the heart may be evil and the person seem blameless.
Secondly, on the discussion Zifnab started about the symbiotic relationship between good and evil: If "too much good is bad", then we end up having to say that too much good is evil and this doesn't seem quite possible to me. Also, Whether or not there was always some form of evil in the beginning depends on what your worldview is (actually the truth doesn't depend on anyone's worldview)...I'm inclined to think that in the beginning there was no evil. Furthermore, I agree with Schack, in that "you do not have to have evil in order to have good." However, the definition that Schack gives for good doesn't allow us to escape from Zifnab's theory: we still end up defining things in terms of 'what they are not' as Zifnab points out: "Wouldn't good be nothing more than the complete lack of evil, also?" If we continue to define things in terms of what they are not then we must define "life" as the absence of "death", "love" as the absence of "hate", "caring" as the absence of "apathy"....what a crappy dictionary! Now, of course one CANNOT be hateful and loving at the same time, and one CAN hate a certain thing and love another, but the existence of that love does not depend upon the existence of hate. I think if we are to use common sense as our guide, which, not discarding reason, we must often use, the burden of proof should lie with one who claims evil is necessary for good to exist, and not vice versa. Now, I know what's coming from many of you: "How could we call good, good if there is no evil from which to make the distinction?" Simple:We find us a being who created everything from nothing and who claims that He is the definition of "good" and that all he creates and allows is "good", and not just because it is not evil. I think the God of the universe makes this claim, and I think Lluvatar makes it as well. This requires faith? Heck yes it does. "It's a fool that looks for logic in the hearts of men."

Halbarad: I would say that disobedience originates from evil.

Ghâshgûl: I think the evil in ME is exactly like the evil in reality. You've defined evil as acting unethically. I define it as acting in opposition to God's/Lluvatar's will. I don't think the Nazgul are evil merely because they bow to Sauron. They, like Sauron, love evil things. Certainly Sauron is not evil just because he is Sauron. He is evil because he opposes Lluvatar and things Lluvatar says are good. If you are suggesting that your claim is sound because the peoples of ME don't exist in this world, well I'm just taken aback! I had an unexpected party just the other day….
Oh yea…"no free will"??? Mustering the strength of the "free peoples" of ME was the sole purpose of the Istari!

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Rhudladion ]

[Carannillion]

Eowyn o I:
Yes, you spelled it right.

I agree with you on the choice and the interference.

without shadow how can you appreciate the bright light??

Sometimes I actually appreciate the shadow, not because I'm evil, simply because the sun is hot and it it bothers me (trying to read with the sun 'poking' your eye from the side). But, would you appreciate good if there was no evil? I think so. Light/dark is another matter. Sometimes we want it to be bright, other times dark (like "doin' it" in the dark or with the lights turned on... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), it often depends on your mood.

And Rhudladion, I think we can thank ourselves (that definetely means you too) for the great discussions.

Free will is perhaps the road to salvation in ME?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I must say that this is an interesting philosophical discussion. My opinion is that what we call "good" and "evil", are, in fact indicators of the balance between love of self and love of one's fellows. The good characters in Middle Earth show compassion, self-sacrifice, courage, etc. because they act for the common good over and above their own interests. Characters such as Melkor, Sauron and even Feanor place their own interests before those of others, even to the point of considering the welfare of the world in general to be irrelevant. Even the Nazgul, thralls of Sauron though they may be, were only ensnared in the first place because they desired dominion over others, betrayed by their own greed.

I see this as a recurring theme throughout Tolkien's work: The idea that the love of self leads not to personal happiness, but to self-defeat and universal misery. For example, Feanor neither regains the Silmarils, nor personally avenges his father, but he does divide the Eldar against themselves and subject his followers to abject suffering. Melkor, far from ruling the world, is exiled from it, destroying a great deal of beauty along the way and Sauron, in his attempt to rule all the Rings of Power, creates an object the destruction of which will bring him to ruin, whilst reducing the power of other, more helpful rings.

I think that this is probably why individually the "good" characters are unequal to the task of defeating evil. Their strength lies in co-operation; the sharing of authority, knowledge and responsibility, which the dark powers cannot emulate or understand because of fear of betrayal, a weakness which is itself a result of selfishness.

On the evil of hobbits, well, that's been discussed, but I wouldn't say that they're alone in casting out the bad apples: All levels of ME seem to operate in the same way, highest to lowest. Evil is always alone.

Sounds a bit high-flown, I know, but that's my view.

[Carannillion]

Squatter, I agree. This is the general thing with good and evil in just about any literary work (especially of the fantasy/sci-fi genre). The moral message, one might say.

Philosophically, this discussion is always going on, and will probably never end. A typical ethics discussion in school will probably look like this one. If people who are discussing it agrees on the definitions, then they will surely want to go even deeper, and deeper, and deeper. Just look at this forum. All we can hope for, is that we don't go too deep, like the dwarves of Moria... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Blimey. Agreement. Must be slipping ;-)
Actually I've just remembered a nice example from somewhere else; Samuel Butler's "Erewhon", to be precise.
In Erewhon, for the benefit of those who lack the stomach for Butler's turgid moralising, they have a game called "Virtues and Vices", which is something like chess, only with a moral message: The virtues tend to ally with each other, whereas the vices divide in competition. I think he intended to imply that vices can't win, which would make for a pretty boring game; but, IMO, that's the problem when one tries to make morals stand in for a plot.

Apologies for not mentioning the Professor. I shall rectify that omission immediately by saying that he doesn't fall into this trap, which is why everyone's heard of LoTR, but "Erewhon" is just another utopian novel.

[Mr. Frodo]

Yes, hobbits are capable of evil. All of us are capable of evil. Look at Smeagol. He had evil in him, even if it didn't show, before he had the Ring. He had to be evil to kill Deagol after only seeing the Ring for a moment when Bilbo and Frodo didn't start acting strange for years and Sam was able to ignore it completely.

[Gimli Son Of Gloin]

I think hobbits are capable of evil, everyone is. Being capable and practicing that capability are two different things. Gollum, Saruman, and others practice evil, Frodo is capable of evil, but he doesn't practice evil.

BTW, was Smeagul a hobbit before he went bad?

[Wormtongue]

Any living being capable of discerning right from wrong is also capable of evil deeds.
Everyone has a breaking point and evil is just waiting to burst forth. Some are predisposed to evil and some have deeply buried but still-too-damn-evil thoughts.
Some folks aren't evil persay, but little bubbles of evil are unleashed now and again.
Hobbits, like everyone else, could be evil, sure...why not? [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

As has been pointed out the idea of a "balance between good and evil", or "needing evil in order to appreciate the good", or "evil being created by Illuvatur / God", or any such variant, is explicitily antithetical to the traditional Christian morality of Tolkien. The notion of balance, oppositional harmony, oneness and so on are more likely to be found in non-Christian philosophies and faiths (Maril can probably illustrate this better than I). Both LotR and The Silmarillion are narratives containing the ultimate triumph of good over evil.

In fact, it is difficult to precisely reconcile the notion of 'evil' with any recent (or Western) philosophy or ethics (including Kant's categorical imperatives). To BE evil is not necessarily the same as doing an evil thing - for which one may repent, be forgiven and/or achieve redemption. "Evil" implies an essential state of being, or nature, within an unquestionable moral framework. And moral absolutism is philosophically unsound (as is all absolutism).

I think the point made earlier, that evil in Tolkien represented a kind of servitude - to the malicious will of a destructive force (Sauron, Melkor, Saruman etc.), or perhaps to selfishness etc. - is a good point. Tolkien wrote that his tales were partly concerned with a (the) Fall. This is certainly in line with the Biblical concept (but NOT ALLEGORY!!!!! [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] ).

The philosophical question is this - and I guess it can be applied both to Christian notions and to Tolkien ... if an omnipotent God (or Illuvatar) is the creator of everything, and all that exists is of His essence, and all is or that shall be is known by Him, then the Fall of Lucifer (or Melkor) must be deliberate (ie. "created"). Yet God (or Illuvatar) is angry with, and battles with, the fallen one ... and is generally seen as 'not responsible' for the evil, the loss of innocence (or Paradise) that results. It is man (or, specifically, woman) that is held accountable for Original Sin. In The Simarillion, Melkor is the most gifted of the Valar (created by Illuvatar), and when he creates discordant harmonies he is drowned out (sort of) three times by an increasingly wrathful creator, in which time the first Fall, the sowing of an evil seed, is accomplished. How can this NOT be the will of Illuvatar? Yet Melkor is not seen as a servant or agent of the Creator, and the Fall (and all its variants and implications) is a tragic concept. As above, the idea of yin and yang, or good and evil in harmonious opposition, is NOT what Tolkien (or traditional Christianity) seems to be about ... or is it?

Now, these are difficult issues to reason philosophically. But taking all this on board, the answer is yes. I mean, yes, hobbits can be evil in Tolkien's world. But they are generally not. Evil, that is [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Peace

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]