Seems Like Someone's Rooting for the Wrong Side

[The 1,000 Reader]

LOTR, Sil, etc. are great books which tell tales of hope, combat, and most importantly of all are entertaining. The main characters, who support the good side of life, range from Frodo to Fingolfin. Though the majority of the tales are quite "black and white", Tolkien never fails to tell a grand story.

However, after reading the books and observing the Professor's letters, there is an odd group of fans that stand out. It appears as if they cast aside any message the works of Tolkien are made to tell, and key points are forgotten. To put it in short:

These people like/root for the bad guys.

In all honesty, this makes no sense whatsoever. As displayed numerous times, the orcs and such beasts are nasty, intolerant, lack honor, and are excessively violent. Morgoth was selfish and bent on ruining the lives of those who were happy and did no wrongs. Sauron was exactly like Morgoth, except bent on ruling them (and dumber, in my opinion.) Mordor and Angband were savage wastelands, and no effort was made to improve them.

On the other side of the spectrum, the men of Middle-Earth are kind, wise, and less narrow-minded. The elves are gentle and respectful. The hobbits are an ideal race who are peaceful, content with life and one with nature. They are all living harmless, happy lives. With care, their lands are lovely.

So, why do people root for and like the forces of evil? It seems like a lost cause. As a closing and powerful note, I have a message written by a former fan of Darkness which drives the point home.

Originally Posted by Second of the Nine

I used to be a rabid supporter of Melkor and Sauron and their ilk, but not anymore. Why? Mainly because they were a lot of selfish ********.

Let's go back to Melkor's theme. Now, once I would have said this was a grand expression of creativity; Melkor was putting his rights of sub-creation to the test, being true to himself and not a slave. But really, playing that theme was just plain wrong. Let's think: creator vs. creation, who knows better? Now as much as you want to romanticise his rebellion, the fact of the matter remains plain: Melkor's will have mistakes in it while Eru's will not; or, assuming Eru is not perfect but only very powerful, it will logically have fewer mistakes because of his higher position.

Then, let's look at the results: Valinor vs. Utumno/Angband. Where would you rather live, honestly? Honestly now. We have our fun on this board talking about Elf-roasts and whatnot, but in all seriousness the realms of darkness were not nice places. They were filled with violence, filth, destruction and degradation. Where would you rather live, the Shire or Mordor? The Shire is a lovely place filled with kind folk who enjoy nothing more than eating and giving one another presents. Mordor is a militaristic society that runs on slave labor and is ruled by a megalomaniac.

The point of the above comparison is, who REALLY had a better plan for the world? The followers of Eru, or the followers of Melkor? His "rights" to follow his own plan notwithstanding, Melkor was a bloody evil idiot who, judging from the sort of places he produced, could not possibly have had anyone's best interests in mind, and he should have just sat down, shut up and played along with the rest.

So, why do certain readers find themselves supporting the evils of Tolkien's world?

[Mithalwen]

Natural rebels? The sterility of absolute goodness - I am thinking a little of Blake and his resentment of the stifling effect of tradition and the establishment (of course for Blake Orc is a positive figure.

Villains can be more attractive than heroes, especially perhaps to adolescents who are going through a rebellious phase anyway.

While I think rooting for Sauron would be a bit sinister, there are lots of Sarumans in the modern world - he would have fitted in quite nicely with the "Greed is Good" culture of the 80's. In fact he may well have been reincarnated as Gordon Gekko.

Also, Middle Earth isn't so black and white (and is a lot more interesting when it is not so). The LOTR is the closest to being black and white and even there those who are good often have to break the rules to "do the right thing" (Faramir, Eomer, Eowyn, Beregond...), Boromir and Denethor are not faultless but they are not evil.

The Silmarillion is packed with characters who fought Morgoth but were not "pure white". Feanor for a start is hardly a gentle and respectful elf.... yet noone could have hated Morgoth more. He like Thingol and Turgon could be accused of selfishness. Personally I find Luthien incredibly selfish since she is only does anything when motivated by her own interest....

Basically a character who is all white is as interesting as a blank piece of paper...

[Raynor]

Personally I find Luthien incredibly selfish since she is only does anything when motivated by her own interest....

How come you consider her selfish, and acting in self interest only, when she gave up her family, royal status, freedom, immortality and risked her life for her beloved? I don't deny there is satisfaction in love, but that in itself hardly amounts to selfishness, esspecially when one sacrifices everything for love.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Raynor

How come you consider her selfish, and acting in self interest only, when she gave up her family, royal status, freedom, immortality and risked her life for her beloved? I don't deny there is satisfaction in love, but that in itself hardly amounts to selfishness, esspecially when one sacrifices everything for love.

She did that in order to get her beloved ie self interest. It is a similar situation to some of my friends who think they are martyrs becasue their lives revolve around their children. As far as the rest of the world goes they are incredibly selfish..... But this is off topic - you don't have tosearch far to find more of my opinions on Luthien.

[shieldmaiden4xsword]

Maybe because they don't understand the good side? Or because.... they have nothing in common with the good side and root for the bad side instead? Because it just seems that the good guys are helplessly good? (they're not) or maybe cuz the bad guys seem to be freer? (they're not) Or because..... the good side is so so soooo far away from them.... they desparately want to be in the good side but it seems that they wouldn't fit in there?

*sigh* I'll say.... there's the good side, and the bad side. There's a clear difference between both of them. Would you be a mindless slaying creature or someone that fights for the good of Middle Earth, for those that he/she loves....

If it was selfishness for Luthien, then we're all selfish.

[Lalwendë]

People root for them because they can. It's a book. You can do what you want with it. It's not the law. So you can like which ever characters you want to like.

I wouldn't say I root for the bad guys, but they are certainly fascinating and they have to be or a piece of literature would cease to be literature and would just become worthless pap. Can you imagine how interminably boring a novel of over 1,000 pages would be if it was just whimsical doings of Hobbits or Elves being nice to one another? It would be truly vomit worthy.

And Tolkien gives us characters who are flawed on both sides, characters who are interesting and complex, like Gollum and Saruman. If he'd just written a black and white novel then it would be rubbish, like some cruddy simplistic 'sword and sorcery' nonsense. Instead he gives us subtlety, shade and light.

I don't care how bad Saruman is. He is a fantastic and utterly fascinating character, more so than some of the Elves who can come across as boring prigs. Thankfully Tolkien gives plenty of page time to his more complex creations. The Shire, Mordor, Angband, Rivendell etc don't exist, so questions over whether I'd rather live in one of them more than another are irrelevant, because to put it bluntly, I WON'T ever live in any of them, I will always live on Planet Earth. Neither Eru nor Morgoth exist nor ever did exist nor ever will, so I can like who I want to like.

In short. There isn't a wrong side, because these are just characters in a book.

[Raynor]

the bad guys, but they are certainly fascinating and they have to be or a piece of literature would cease to be literature and would just become worthless pap

I don't think that literature dealing with overcoming one's shortcomings, fears, or with finding purpose or inspiration, or actualising an ideal is worthless. And such subjects don't require bad guys.

The Shire, Mordor, Angband, Rivendell etc don't exist, so questions over whether I'd rather live in one of them more than another are irrelevant
...
In short. There isn't a wrong side, because these are just characters in a book.

(To avoid any misunderstandings, I am talking strictly on the general level; nothing I say is directed at any person in particular; I am talking ideas not individuals.) But doesn't being moral mean chosing good not evil in every situation? Can a person chose evil and not good in a situation and claim that he/she is still moral because said choice could never come into materialisation? Doesn't intention in fact define morality, moreso than the materialisation of intention? Isn't this an instance of hypocrisy?

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Villains can be more attractive than heroes, especially perhaps to adolescents who are going through a rebellious phase anyway.

I know, yet the fans in question are hateful of the lively, peaceful hobbits. It's as if they were reading a completely different book. They see Frodo as garbage and Sam as an idiot, not to mention a horrid hate for Gandalf. They are not rebellious teens: a good deal of them are middle-aged folk.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

While I think rooting for Sauron would be a bit sinister, there are lots of Sarumans in the modern world - he would have fitted in quite nicely with the "Greed is Good" culture of the 80's. In fact he may well have been reincarnated as Gordon Gekko.

Saruman was in fact a good villain, as well as Gollum, yet the fans the thread is referring to seem to forget that these fellows, despite their dynamics, were evil in the end. Yes, they can be liked as characters, but when Tolkien fans start treating them like the Messiah, that's not right.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Also, Middle Earth isn't so black and white (and is a lot more interesting when it is not so). The LOTR is the closest to being black and white and even there those who are good often have to break the rules to "do the right thing" (Faramir, Eomer, Eowyn, Beregond...), Boromir and Denethor are not faultless but they are not evil.

Yes, the good guys aren't perfect, but in a way that makes the arguement stronger. The good guys of Middle-Earth are not the typical one-dimensional characters: they are like real people. On the other hand, the orcs and their ilk are just bland, hateful monsters. It is also diversity that makes Saruman and Gollum stand-out villains.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

The Silmarillion is packed with characters who fought Morgoth but were not "pure white". Feanor for a start is hardly a gentle and respectful elf.... yet noone could have hated Morgoth more. He like Thingol and Turgon could be accused of selfishness. Personally I find Luthien incredibly selfish since she is only does anything when motivated by her own interest....

That is true as well, but only goes to show that the good forces of Middle-Earth are realistic and not the standard "goody-two-shoes". Not only are they trying to preserve all that is good and happy in the world, they're real people in a sense.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Basically a character who is all white is as interesting as a blank piece of paper...

I am of that same mindset, yet the heroes of Middle-Earth are not all white or in a similar catagory. That is why I don't understand why anybody supports the evil side to such a major degree: the better motive, the development and emotion, all of that is with the side of good.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

Saruman was in fact a good villain, as well as Gollum, yet the fans the thread is referring to seem to forget that these fellows, despite their dynamics, were evil in the end. Yes, they can be liked as characters, but when Tolkien fans start treating them like the Messiah, that's not right.

Seriously, why isn't it 'right'? Right and wrong don't come into it when thinking about a book as you're free to enjoy the characters in whatever way you like. Remember Tolkien's work is not scripture, it's literature, it's Art. Even if it were scripture (which I think some people think it is for some reason) you're still free to treat it in any way you like.

There are some Downers who happen to love Orcs, think Melkor is ace and have crushes on Grima. So what? They aren't wrong, but it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice.

[The 1,000 Reader]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Seriously, why isn't it 'right'? Right and wrong don't come into it when thinking about a book as you're free to enjoy the characters in whatever way you like. Remember Tolkien's work is not scripture, it's literature, it's Art. Even if it were scripture (which I think some people think it is for some reason) you're still free to treat it in any way you like.

I meant to a nearly-cultist point. Letting fiction have such a grand effect on your life like that is what's messed up.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

There are some Downers who happen to love Orcs, think Melkor is ace and have crushes on Grima. So what? They aren't wrong, but it's definitely wrong to say they are wrong for that as it's a free choice.

They aren't hated, but their reasoning is not very fleshed out. In the end, orcs are just rude and brutal animals.

[CaptainofDespair]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

They aren't hated, but their reasoning is not very fleshed out. In the end, orcs are just rude and brutal animals.

One could say the same of humans.

In any case, I feel (as a card-carrying member of the "I Heart the Witch-King" Fan Club) that I can at least speak for myself, and just maybe, some of the "evil-lovers" out there. Or not.

Evil is an exciting element. It allows one to be put into a mindset that is apart from, and yet similar to, that of Good. It can be quite enthralling. And so, to cheer for the vile is to cheer for the hopelessly doomed to defeat. It's fun to watch that downfall. There's not much suspense (as you may be able to guess quite well how the Enemy always causes its own end), but you can still sit back and watch the fireworks. Looking at things from the side of Good, the "miraculous" nature of every victory is always a bother.

There are, of course, more reasons. But I feel this one is enough.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The 1,000 Reader

I meant to a nearly-cultist point. Letting fiction have such a grand effect on your life like that is what's messed up.

Well I'd agree with that! You could say I'm obsessed, in fact if someone who wasn't a fan of Tolkien walked into our house they would start rolling their eyes and muttering about "weird nerds..." or something like that. But there are degrees of obsession. What can be charming and eccentric can quickly become disturbing - such as the woman I used to know who lived as a Klingon (had a Klingon wedding and spoke Klingon at home) who did indeed prove to be delusional as she locked herself and her husband in the cellar with survival supplies (and little hats made of tinfoil) over the Millennium eve...

But do you really know anyone who follows the dark forces of Tolkien's work to that extent? I don't, and I've been a fan since the early 80s - any Orcs fans I know treat is purely as fun. Most of the borderline obsessives are fans of Elves or Hobbits.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't think that literature dealing with overcoming one's shortcomings, fears, or with finding purpose or inspiration, or actualising an ideal is worthless. And such subjects don't require bad guys.

Is there any though? Even if there are no 'bad guys', then there at least 'bad things' to be dealt with. The only literature which approaches that (that I can think of) is some descriptive poetry, e.g. some of Keats' Odes, and this is not lengthy stuff, suggesting it cannot be stomached at great length by the reader or indeed the writer!

[the guy who be short]

To those who says Middle-Earth isn't black and white - look at orcs. Do they have any chance of repentance? They're an entire race doomed to evil.

I find this unfair. When I was younger, I set about writing a story that basically mirrored LotR, with a few changes. One of these was the repentance of those created by evil.

Though I've never supported the evil side, it's interesting - not weird, to me - that people do. Remember that good and evil are relative concepts. The elves were doomed to hate orcs and try to wipe them out. The orcs were doomed to hate elves and try to wipe them out. To the orcs, the Elves must have appeared as evil aggressors. Supporting them is entirely fair.

On a character basis, we have some grey. But on a racial basis, we have white and black in the Elves and Orcs. All you have to do is press a button to invert the colours.

[Lalwendë]

The other thing is, these characters are nice and safe in a book so we're able to enjoy the bad guys to the full if we like - they aren't real so we can freely imagine what it would be like to be them, it's fun! Who hasn't dressed up on Halloween or for a fancy dress party as something a bit scary? We like thrills and chills as they're just exciting.

Quite ironic really that when you see kids fighting and causing trouble, it's never the Goths who are fond of 'unwholesome' doomy gloomy stuff, it's the supposedly 'ordinary' lads who like the 'wholesome' things like Football who are busy beating each other up in the pub.

Some people are frightened of things a bit different to the 'norm' whereas others aren't.

[davem]

I think Tolkien kind of 'assumes' the reader will feel more drawn to the 'good' side. In an interview he spoke of the underlying morality of the world he created:

Did this alternative creation worry Tolkien, a lifetime Roman Catholic? It did not seem to. I had remarked to him once that, despite the absence of organised religion in his mythical world - no priests, no temples - his peoples still behaved well. Yes, of course, he said, there was "what theologians call natural morality, natural duties and courtesies - ".

So Tolkien assumes that attitudes which are often held up as part of the 'Christian' underpinning of his creation are in fact anything but - they are the result of 'natural morality, natural duties & courtesies - when a man refuses to strike an enemy when he's down, that sort of thing'.

It is this 'natural morality' that Tolkien plays on - he assumes the reader will be drawn to the good side not because they are made more 'attractive' & exciting, but because whether the reader is 'religious' or not they will be, by their nature, more attracted by the good side - in fact, their behaviour will actually seem more 'natural' to the reader than the behaviour of the bad side.

Hence, anyone who is attracted by the bad side is (according to the theory Tolkien espoused) is going against their own natural inclinations.

Of course, Tolkien could have been wrong.