Unorthodox Heroes?

[Anguirel]

Of course, we can all tell when reading LOTR and the Silmarillion whom we are meant to like and whom disapprove of. Those who show humility and yet still courage, like Frodo and Sam, are feted to the skies. Those blinded by their own power, overweening and proud, like Saruman or Denethor, are doomed to ignominious disgrace or death. Then there are the contemptible, like Wormtongue and Gollum, Lotho Sackville-Baggins.

However, it seems to me that Tolkien is an author whose characters his readers feel free to disagree with him about. Many of us find Gandalf rather irritating; a few devotees want to marry Denethor. For myself, I idolise Celegorm, Caranthir, Curufin, and Maeglin. I know that none are nice, that all are dangerous, that perhaps inviting two of them to a Downer Dinner Party would be a bit risky; and first and foremost that Tolkien himself largely condemns them.

But in this way, Tollers really does act, not as an author, but as a mere guide to Middle-Earth, fully formed and chronicled already. We appreciate what he tells us, but we can disagree with him as we would with any other History tutor; I feel I have as much right to praise Celegorm as I have to praise Richard Coeur-de-Lion. (Lord-purely by accident, I've stumbled on how similar those two are...)

It is this, surely, that helps to explain the vast body of fanfiction and RPGing around Tolkien; other, probably lesser, historians at work, but even if inferior to the definitive scholar, still eager to get their theses across, their interpretations.

It might be said that this is a sign that, as critics so monotonously burble out, Tolkien's characterisation lacks power; that we can so easily agree and disagree with these paper figures, whereas in, say, Evelyn Waugh we have absolutely no choice, his masterful, bitter wit directing us exactly where he wants us. I would prefer to call it another kind of power; power to create a crossroads but let us pick the path.

What do you think? Do you regard going counter to the Prof as misreading or bounden right? Where are your blind spots, where your unusual passions? Or do you distribute admiration exactly where Tolkien does?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I my self dont have these unusual passions (Not when it comes to Tolkien any how)
, but i have a strong pasion for Fingolfin. He is second to none for me. In fact i like all of his house.

But to the point: The heroe who i think is the most intresting is Turin Turambar.
I mean he was perhaps the mightiest warior of all the edain, save Hurin.
He became respected by elves and men for hes deeds with a sword, but he only brought grief and disaster upon those he loved. Of course he was coursed by Morgroth. So it is hard to blame him for all the dispare he brought too Beleriand.

This is a caracter witch i both love and hate.

I hate him for the part he played in the fall of Nargothrond where he becomes too proude and bold. First he abandons the tactical precept of Finrod by bridgin the Narog, then he dos not lisent to the message frome Cirdan (Ulmo). and in the end boldly went out too meet Glaurung and his host in battle.
(the slaying of Beleg)

I love him for the deeds he comided in the service of Thingol and for some of he's deeds in Brethil, but most of all for the slaying of Glaurung.

This is an unorthodox heroe in my eyes.

[Boromir88]

Well I'm a fond sympathizer of Boromir. A lot of people don't like him (and is understandable he nearly caused the destruction of the whole quest) but I think it comes down to some just don't understand him. I say Boromir, because though Tolkien does give him that fallen hero quality and redemption he's compared him to Saruman and Denethor before. And we know they aren't such good company.

I also tend to sympathize for Denethor as well. Once a good man, but in his later years he was becoming more and more like a tyrant. And Sauron was getting a hold over him. Foolishly believing he can beat Sauron and in the end Denethor learns his lesson. I still don't take away though the fact that Denethor is arguably the strongest willed person when it comes to men, even more than Aragorn.

Denethor loses his wife, his favorite son, his father liked Thorongil, he's about to lose his other son, his kingdom's on the verge of destruction, he's been using the palantir for 20+ years, and until the end when he finally does lose his mind he (for the most part) was able to keep his kingdom and his men together. Until he lost it, but that he brought upon himself.

[Gurthang]

Well, one person I think deserves a little more repute is Feanor. He was possibly the greatest elf ever to live, and he made the Silmarils. Besides that, he was very strong willed, stood up for himself, knew what he was about, and generally did a job to completion.

He's usually set up as a bad buy for being the scapegoat for the Kinslaying and for leading the elves out of Aman. Yet I think most people stop close to that and don't see the depth of his character. True, he was a bit of a hot-head, but so was Gimli for that matter, and Feanor had a great tactical mind. I think he was given a rather poor lighting in the Silmarillion, and if you knew him better, there is a lot of good under the initial badness.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Well i do not know if we ar supose to discuss each others post.
so i will try to make it quick.

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Feanor had a great tactical mind.

I agree that he was not so bad as he is made out to be, but a great tactical mind.
I do not think that leaving Fingolfin and the main Noldor host behinde and rushing agains Balrogs shows great tactical ability!

[the guy who be short]

Feanor is one of my "Unorthodox Heroes" too. I agree with a lot of what Gurthang said, but as Rune pointed out, he cannot be considered a good tactician. Note his death, please.

One of his particularly endearing aspects to me is his skill with words and minds. His beauty and skill in the arts and crafts also makes me look up to him. Add copious charisma, and voila - amazing character.

Yes, he represents the Fall of the Eldar. So what? He's still cool.

[Lalwendë]

Very few of the characters are presented as either 'good' or 'bad'. Yes, a character may be on the side of 'good' or 'bad', but few are wholly perfect or entirely evil. What I find interesting is that Tolkien is not didactic about how we 'read' a character; he presents us with what they do and how their behaviour impacts on other characters, but he does not tell us what to think.

One of Tolkien's tricksy methods is to alter our perceptions of 'good' and 'bad' by having us view characters through the eyes of others within the book. Until the end of Book 3 we only see Saruman as others have seen him, so our opinions are already coloured by the opinions of characters such as Gandalf. Then we also get to hear the words of Orcs, and how they long to 'retire' from soldiering, how they view Men as 'filthy tarks'; hearing their point of view and paying attention to it skews our preconceptions.

Tolkien can also manage to make us feel sorry for some characters who we ought to feel pleased about getting hurt or being killed. The sad ending to Grima's life is just one case; brought low he finally 'snaps' but all for nothing. I know I also feel very sorry for the previously horrible Lobelia Sackville-Baggins at the end of the story. And then there is Gollum, who in the end turns out to be the one to 'save' Middle-earth, albeit inadvertently; I always think that his death is the only way he could have ended up, and that makes me sorry for him. With a character such as Gollum, Tolkien makes us think about 'good' and 'evil' and makes us see that we need to think about these concepts.

But as a mirror to this, his 'good' characters are usually flawed. Galadriel has a dark past, Frodo yields to temptation, Gandalf is sometimes impatient. In particular, Aragorn is a well crafted character in this respect. He is noble, but he can also sometimes be pompous in his words, and he even has something of the 'snob' about him as he almost refuses to give up his sword before entering Meduseld. If a 'good' character is all good, then they would just be boring, learning little along the way, and possibly making us hate them for their perfectness.

Tolkien's not alone in doing this though, it's the mark of a good writer to make his or her characters believable. A lot of stories are even centred on how characters change and learn to deal with their flaws - Pride & Prejudice being a good case in point. I think where Evelyn Waugh differs is that he was a satirist, and such work often gets its humour and finds its purpose through exploiting stereotypes, so the characters often have to be more of a 'cardboard cut out'.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Feanor was a jerk, plain and simple. I spit upon his grave. OK, that's disrespectful, I apologize.

I also like Boromir. Actually, I think I like him better now that I've seen the movies, because Sean Bean's performance is incredible. He finishes well, of course, and that seems to be a chief Tolkien criterion for determining one's moral nature.

Gollum, on the other hand, finishes in evil, and even though his fall saves Middle-earth, he is in the end an evil character. I think it is however fascinating to watch the changes that come over his character in Book Four.

This is one of the things I don't like about the movie TTT: They oversimplify and somewhat change Gollum's character. As they portray it, Smeagol orders his Gollum side out, then he lets "Stinker" back in after his "betrayal" by "wicked tricksy Master." After the departure from Osgiliath, Stinker takes over completely.

The book is, to my mind, more complex than this. It's a matter of opinion as to whether Gollum is quote unquote "schizophrenic". Also, Stinker doesn't take over completely until just before Shelob's lair, when Gollum returns from his visit to Shelob and nearly has a complete change of heart, only to be met by rough words from Sam. Tolkien wrote that he saw that moment as the supreme tragedy of that story.

Well, this post has turned into a discussion of Gollum, and for that I apologize. Hopefully someone else can come along and steer the topic back in the right direction.

[The 1,000 Reader]

In my opinion, Turin was more of a villian than Sauron. At times, however, his good personality shone through and we could imagine what he would be like if he wasn't cursed by Morgoth. Also, Denethor was already a broken man by the time he contested Sauron, and if he was not withered he might have proven a formidable adversary to the second Dark Lord.

[Firefoot]

In my opinion, Turin was more of a villian than Sauron.

Hm... could you explain that a little bit more? Turin made some bad decisions and listened to some of the wrong people, but he was cursed, and generally I'd say he acted according to his best judgment. Sauron's goal was domination of Middle-earth. I'm having trouble balancing the scale in the other way.

I must say that Fëanor could possibly be my favorite character in the Sil, and is almost certainly my favorite Elf of all time. He really fascinates me as a character, even if he isn't exactly 'nice;' indeed, sometimes "you're an idiot" would best describe his actions. His whole story is rather tragic, and I can't say whether he ultimately brought about more bad or good. But that's the best part: like Ang said, Tolkien doesn't tell us characters are "good" or "bad;" the Reader ( ) has a choice in that. Fëanor is a classic example of a basically good character whose faults and bad choices lead to his down-fall.

I've always rather liked Shagrat and Gorbag. Yes, they're Orcs, and yes, they're prone to the same, ah, flaws that tend to run in the race (e.g. killing each other...), but in they're conversation we can see a more human side to them. What they really want is to get away from it all and set up a place from themselves with a few trusty lads. They don't want to fight this war; they feel no loyalty towards Sauron. It isn't hard for me to feel sympathetic for them. The initial human reaction is to say "Orcs=evil," but they aren't wholly so. They do have some more human qualities to them, and exploring these qualities is what makes Orkish characters interesting to RPG. It's what makes all baddies fun to RPG, in fact, is that they do have good traits. It seems like the tendency in many fantasy books is to paint the bad guy as all evil without redeeming qualities. But in Tolkien's books (and several others, I'm not generalizing the genre completely), the bad guys have depth and motives and good qualities. It's what makes Saruman or Grima more interesting to analyze than Aragorn or Faramir.

Posted by Ang
I would prefer to call it another kind of power; power to create a crossroads but let us pick the path.

Exactly. I love that image.

[The 1,000 Reader]

To me Sauron was more of a cliche, average villian in The Silmarillion and after reading it I thought of him being far less intelligent and powerful than he was said to be(if you pay close attention, you'll realize that Sauron made many stupid mistakes.) The unfortunate deeds of Turin seemed far more sinister and tragic( a bad thing happened to them and they died.) Also, Turin killed people left and right when many of them were undeserving of it and some were trying to help him.

I also liked Gorbag and Shagrat, though I was slightly confused about why they killed each other. I know orcs are greedy, but if Sauron had horded so much mithril, wouldn't there be a inflation of sorts rendering it near worthless, thus making their greed be in vain? Of course if they wanted it for a promotion of sorts then that makes sense.

[mormegil]

In this thread there has already been a good amount of discussion on Turin and Feanor. I would like to discuss a little of both and give my opinions.

First I must say I disagree whole-heartedly with Gurthang and TGWBS about their view of Feanor. He is no hero. He was a great and mighty elf. I would agree that he was one of the greatest, if not the single greatest elf in Middle-earth. But greatness doesn't equate to being a hero. I have always thought of him more as a villain.

It is true that he was great in art and craft, so much so that he made the silmarils; however couldn't one argue that Sauron was also great in craft. Being on the 'good' (elf) side doesn't make a character good. Firefoot brings up a good point about characterizing different races automatically. We assume all orcs to be evil and it seems that they stereotype is for elves to be wholesome and pure. This is not a completely accurate stereotype.

Some of Feanors actions will illustrate my point. He threatened Fingolfin at sword point with his life merely because Fingolfin spoke to their father and gave his council. This was done while in Aman. This act helped to give a window, in which evil could enter Aman which name means free from evil or blessed. The kin slaying! What a nefarious act of cowardice that was! I know what will be used as a rebuttal: that Feanor didn't act alone. That is true but Feanor had a great power of influence and he used that to stir up his people into open rebellion of the Valar and the slaying of the Teleri for not allowing them to use their ships. Ironic, isn't it that Feanor won't give the silmarils to help save the trees, yet he would take by force the objects the Teleri hold as dear to them as he holds his Silmarils. This is the last example I will currently use, though not the last that could be used. Leaving his kindred near Helcaraxe to either perish or return in shame. Again what great cowardice is demonstrated.

Turin on the other hand was cursed, as has been said. But what evil did he actually do? He slew Beleg; that of course was unintentional and caused him great grief. He fled Doriath, but under what he perceived was injustice and would bring him death. He built the bridge in Nagrathond and wouldn't listen to Ulmo. This is one that is a bit more difficult to reconcile, however he did have the desire to rid the region of orcs and thought open warfare was the solution. Not a great remedy but again he is not perfect.

I think the greatest difference between Turin and Feanor is their motives. Seemingly, at least to me, Feanor did everything he did driven simply by egotistical motives. He truly didn't care about his wife or her grief. He persuaded his sons into taking an oath that would destroy them in the end. He brought a great downfall upon his people and killed innocents for reclamation of his creation. Basically his motives were self-centered and he lived his live and manipulated others to do his will and to serve him. Turin wasn't as self-centered. He truly thought that he was doing the best and attempted to work for others benefit and not merely his own. Also Turin had the curse of Morgoth on him and Feanor was free from such a taint.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Also Turin had the curse of Morgoth on him and Feanor was free from such a taint.

Although I agree entirely with your opinion that Turin is a tragic hero, and Feanor a more villainnous figure, this last sentence of yours intrigues me...

After all, Feanor was under the Curse of the Valar, and if any one Noldo had that Curse on their shoulders, it was Feanor. And notice that the predictions of their curse came true almost instantly once he arrived in Middle-Earth. No sooner had he burnt the ships than he started to loose his edge. In Aman, although his actions were even more evil than anywhere else, he had the luck, skill, or combination of both to accomplish all of his goals. Once in Middle-Earth, although equally self-important in his goals, he fails rather miserably, and indeed dies remarkably soon.

So, now I'm wondering, and this may send the thread on a different tangent, but was the Curse of the Valar more potent than the Curse of Morgoth?

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

After all, Feanor was under the Curse of the Valar, and if any one Noldo had that Curse on their shoulders, it was Feanor. And notice that the predictions of their curse came true almost instantly once he arrived in Middle-Earth.

The major difference that I see is what brought the curse on and the very nature of the curse. Turin's curse was not brought on by himself but the heroic act of his father. Feanor's curse contrarily was brought on upon himself by and evil act and was given by the just in consequence of his actions. What I am saying is that by slaying the Teleri and rebelling against the Valar, Feanor brought the curse upon himself. It wasn't really a curse given to him. More of a consequence of his own actions and Mandos essentially told him what would come of his actions.

[Thinlómien]

My most unorthodox heroes are Boromir and Maedhros. But they're not really "bad persons" they're just "good persons" that do evil deeds under pressure/ blinded by something (=the ring/lust for the ring and power, feeling of doing good/doing a necessary thing for the sake of one's people and an oath sworn in fury). So they don't maybe count.
I have also a strange sympathy for orcs (especially Shagrat, Gorbag, Grishnakh and the two quarreling orcs who Frodo and Sam meet in Mordor). That's maybe for the fact that though they are disgusting, cruel and greedy, they're also funny in a way...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Anyone else agree that Thorin Oakenshield was quite the unorthodox hero? When I first read The Hobbit I didn't really connect with the old dwarf. He seemed quite distant and 'big for his boots', if you'll follow me. He always treated Bilbo (our hero) as a bit of a joke and he only seemed to accept the hobbit when he was saving the Dwarves from danger. He was then very unfriendly and not at all understanding of the situation involving Bard et al; and he almost killed Bilbo in a fury over the Arkenstone. Not very immediate, yes?

But on further readings I began to understand. Thorin was immensely proud and had suffered much grief in his lifetime. The Quest of Erebor was his chance to deliver a mighty vengeance upon the Dragon that had made a refugee of him, and (as it happened) the Orcs who had so hurt his family. Of course he was going to be curt with Bilbo, that random passenger picked by Gandalf (for no apparent reason) who was always moaning about how hungry he was. Hell, he had to put up with Bombur for that whole time too!

And yes, Thorin did go a little crazy at the end; but he repented. He proved valiant in battle, and noble in his dying moments. So Thorin Oakenshield was an unorthodox hero: Never close nor warm nor particularly endearing, but a hero nonetheless.

[Nuranar]

I think Lal went straight to the nub of the matter:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Very few of the characters are presented as either 'good' or 'bad'. Yes, a character may be on the side of 'good' or 'bad', but few are wholly perfect or entirely evil. What I find interesting is that Tolkien is not didactic about how we 'read' a character; he presents us with what they do and how their behaviour impacts on other characters, but he does not tell us what to think. ...it's the mark of a good writer to make his or her characters believable.

Personally, few things irritate me more than characters that aren't true to life. (Not that I'm for modernistic realism, by which I mean [to paraphrase Agatha Christie] unpleasant people doing unpleasant things and not even enjoying them very much. I'm talking about characters at the moment, not stories.) And not that I don't enjoy judicious satire and exaggeration; try Dickens. It's just that Tolkien comes very close to creating people as opposed to mere characters.

And that's what makes the whole idea of an "unorthodox hero" possible. As Lal pointed out even the "good" characters have flaws, and even one flaw makes perfection impossible. In real life you don't find people who are perfect. You can invent plenty of classifications with varying degrees of good and bad, but in the end even the "best" people are "best" in comparison only. Stories comes about as all kinds of people end up on different sides. We can easily recognize which is "good" and which is "bad," but it's all too easy to extend the definition to include everyone on each side. Those unorthodox heroes are largely on the "good" side, but they've got problems. It surely is difficult to classify people.

I just had a largely unrelated thought. We're discussing unorthodox heroes; are there any anti-heroes? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm no good at thinking up examples. If there really aren't any - why not?

[the guy who be short]

Originally Posted by morm

First I must say I disagree whole-heartedly with Gurthang and TGWBS about their view of Feanor. He is no hero. He was a great and mighty elf. I would agree that he was one of the greatest, if not the single greatest elf in Middle-earth. But greatness doesn't equate to being a hero. I have always thought of him more as a villain.

There is a world of difference between a villain and a tragic hero, which is one of the best ways in which one can describe Feanor. Hero doesn't necessarily mean angelic.

It is true that he was great in art and craft, so much so that he made the silmarils; however couldn't one argue that Sauron was also great in craft.

No. Sauron "crafted" to conquer the races of ME. Feanor, to begin with, crafted for beauty and an appreciation of art.

He threatened Fingolfin at sword point with his life merely because Fingolfin spoke to their father and gave his council.

Enter tragedy.
The animosity betwixt Feanor and Fingolfin was due to Morgoth's lies. Feanor cannot be held accountable for being poisoned by a god - one whose foul intentions not even Manwe could discern at the time.

The kin slaying! What a nefarious act of cowardice that was!

Tragedy. Feanor had to do something; if he halted and turned back then, he would look like an idiot. The text actually claims that the Teleri began the fighting:

When he judged that his strength was enough, he went to the Haven of the Swans and began to man the ships that were anchored there and to take them away by force. But the Teleri withstood him, and cast many of the Noldor into the sea. Then swords were drawn...

Here we see his intent to steal the ships, which isn't perhaps the most moral thing to do. However, it was the Teleri throwing the Noldor into the sea that actually began the violence. Though not the best defence, and I'll admit a flimsy one, it can be argued that Feanor did not intent to kill anybody.

That is true but Feanor had a great power of influence and he used that to stir up his people into open rebellion of the Valar

This is where the romance comes in. The words Feanor uses are so beautiful, so moving. Such hurt at the least will I do to the Foe of the Valar that even the mighty in the Ring of Doom shall wonder to hear it. If that doesn't stir something in you, there's seriously something wrong.

Leaving his kindred near Helcaraxe to either perish or return in shame. Again what great cowardice is demonstrated.

Tragedy. Lies of Melkor -> Distrust of Fingolfin -> Abandonment of Fingolfin.

Feanor did everything he did driven simply by egotistical motives.

If you're referring to the creation of the Silmarils, that was done in pursuit of art. His "evil" actions were largely the cause of the lies of Morgoth.

In short, the "evil" of Feanor is not evil in the sense of the Fallen Angel Morgoth, or his angelic followers including Sauron. The Fall of Feanor is a tragedy, something that would not have happened had the first fall not occurred. It was preventable, which makes it all the more tragic. And it wasn't his fault. Well, mostly.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

The main part of your argument seems to be comprised of "The devil made me do it."

So Feanor threatened Fingolfin with death. Morgoth made him do it.

He rebelled against the Valar. Morgoth made him do it.

He stole the ships of the Teleri, and then fought and killed them. Morgoth made him do it.

He abandoned his brother Fingolfin to almost certain death in the Helcaraxe. Morgoth made him do it.

Sure, Morgoth had a huge influence on Feanor, but you cannot lay ALL of the responsibility for Feanor's dark deeds at the feet of the Great Enemy. In the end, Feanor chose to believe Morgoth, and he chose to commit great evil. It was his choice.

[Anguirel]

I think a case could be argued that "the devil made me do it", added to a single crucial character flaw, produces the chemical reaction that results in the product of tragedy. Think of Othello's Iago, Macbeth's weird sisters (four in number, of course, as his lady-wife is among them...)

Attraction to flawed tragic characters, I suppose, is a Greek or Classical emotion in origin, rather than an attitude from Nordic tradition. Thus, perhaps, those admirers of Tolkien who, like me, strongly disagree with him aesthetically quite a lot of the time, will think his epic Nordic heroes a little bland and will build new heroes out of Classically inspired failures-running contrary to Tolkien's intentions, yes, but also exercising our privilege as readers.

It is a truism, but nevertheless a worthwhile thought, that a published work is independent of its author's views; that an author's criticism and appreciation of his work is on the same level as any other critic's view of it. The "historico-literary" nature of Tolkienalia, almost uniquely, allows the readers to excercise the power of the historical critic with the justifications of a literary one.

[Angry Hill Troll]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Turin had the curse of Morgoth on him and Feanor was free from such a taint.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this point. In Morgoth's Ring, as the Valar are discussing the matter of Míriel's death and its cause and significance, prior to proclaiming "The Statute of Finwë and Míriel", they generally come to the consensus that Míriel's death was "unnatural" and ultimately due to Melkor's taint on Arda.

Ulmo, for instance, says the following:

The coming of Feänáro must proceed certainly from the will of Eru, but I hold that the marring of his birth comes from the Shadow, and is a portent of evils to come.

Melkor of course particularly targets Fëanor and Fingolfin, as the rather awkward family situation resulting from Míriel's death and Finwë's remarriage makes tem particularly susceptible to Melkor's lies

[mormegil]

All quotes are by TGWBS unless otherwise noted.

Feanor cannot be held accountable for being poisoned by a god

Were others not equally poisoned, so to speak. Did not Finarfin have the same potential to believe the lies? No temptation to evil is a constant to all, it's how one handles said temptation that determines the strength of character. Feanor failed.

if he halted and turned back then, he would look like an idiot. The text actually claims that the Teleri began the fighting:

See again my point is here, Feanor is egotistical and prideful. His pride will not allow him to turn back and face the justice of judgment. Well, the fact is he couldn't turn back because of his evil oath.

Pg 94 in the Silmarillion

When he judged that his strength was enough, he went to the Haven of the Swans and began to man the ships that were anchored there and to take them away by force. But the Teleri withstood him, and cast many of the Noldor into the sea. Then swords were drawn...

I see some interesting points here. Feanor waited until his strength was sufficient? Why? He foresaw violence and the need for his people to attack. My impression of the passage is that the Noldor marched in and began to take the ships after the Teleri forbade it. The Teleri grappled with the Noldor merely casting them into the sea to defend their property. When this began the Noldor drew their swords. It is also said that for the most part the Teleri only had slender bows. Tolkien didn't say they drew weapons, he singled swords. Feanor caused his host to attack first.

Pg 94 again

Thus at last the Teleri were overcome, and a great part of their mariners that dwelt in Alqualonde were wickedly slain. For the Noldor were become fierce and desperate...

Tolkien even calls the slaying wicked.

However, it was the Teleri throwing the Noldor into the sea that actually began the violence.

I would disagree and call wrestling to protect ones property as simply that, protection of property and not violence.

This is where the romance comes in. The words Feanor uses are so beautiful, so moving. Such hurt at the least will I do to the Foe of the Valar that even the mighty in the Ring of Doom shall wonder to hear it. If that doesn't stir something in you, there's seriously something wrong.

I agree with you in part here. His words do move me. They are very powerful and influential, and yet the motive and desire he uses them for is rebellion and for his own motives. Not for good purposes.

I do not view Feanor as a tragic hero. He has free-will and was able to decide for himself which course of action to take. Remember that all elves in Aman were subject to the same lies and deceits of Morgoth; yet not all choose the path of evil that Feanor took.

Posted by Angry Hill Troll
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this point. In Morgoth's Ring, as the Valar are discussing the matter of Míriel's death and its cause and significance, prior to proclaiming "The Statute of Finwë and Míriel", they generally come to the consensus that Míriel's death was "unnatural" and ultimately due to Melkor's taint on Arda.

Ulmo, for instance, says the following:

I haven't yet read Morgoth's Ring, however what I read from this is simply that Ulmo is saying that evil has entered into Aman. The taint was on Arda itself not Feanor.

The major difference between the two, Turin and Feanor, is that Turin was directly cursed so that any action he performed would turn to evil in the end. Turin could have had, and did have, very good intentions and yet anything done by him would turn for ill. Feanor never had such a curse and choose his own path. Feanor had agency and free choice and Turin had that but the outcome was directed to ill no matter what. Does that make Turin evil? No, of course not, he didn't have the level of control over the outcome of his actions that would be needed to declare him evil. Feanor did.

Sorry that this has become a Feanor thread but getting back on topic a bit more, I think Samwise is an unorthodox hero. He has very few of the typical characteristics of a hero. He isn't strong, skillful at much, besides gardening and cooking, he is slow of wit and all in all not overly intelligent. Yet he has common hobbit sense and undying loyalty. Sam becomes, to me anyway, the true hero in the whole history of the ring.

[Anguirel]

I wouldn't define Sam as an unorthodox hero. In fact, I'm rather annoyed by him because he's as orthodox as they get, according to the Tolkien creed. Tolkien is almost always straining his muscles to make us like Sam.

"Oh, look at the solid, decent, rural type, fond of his gardens and his saucepans, a loyal servant, humble, all that is finest about the British peasantry, indefatigable courage, fondness for Elven lore, go on, like him, he even provides light relief in Mordor, like him, you know you want to."

Thankfully, as I say the twofold historical and literary way LOTR can be interpreted allows me to say "No thanks, actually I prefer, say, Celeborn." (!)

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

If you take a look at the Heroes Tolkien has created, then Sam is different that all of them. Sam is the only heroe who is totaly plain!

Lets take a look on some of the other Heroes

Hurin - Lord of Dor-lómin and represents a mingling of the chiefly lines of the third and second houses of the edain.

Fingolfin - High king of the Noldor

Glorfindel - No mater witch one of them mighty amongst elves (one in Elrond's court and one sleev a Balrog)

Aragorn - Chieftain of the Dúnedain

Gimli - Son of Gloin, king of the dwarf-colony in the Grey Mountains

All are nobel of Great houses, mostley they can be compared to royalty. . .

And no i have not forgotten about the other hobbits.
But the Brandybuck's have their own small kingdom of Buckland. The Tooks have the thain title and even the bagginses is not ordinary they have allways been higly esteemed. In the case of Bilbo and Frodo they were hold wery high by the Elves. (elffriends)

[Anguirel]

That's not my point. What I'm saying is that Tolkien likes Sam, admires him without reservation. This makes him an "orthodox" hero; his humble background adds to, rather than detracts from, this; everyone is meant to love the chap who strikes a blow for the little man. An unorthodox hero is one Tolkien to some measure disapproves of; that can range from Gollum to Feanor to Gorbag to Maeglin. Some characters, like Galadriel, are of course so heavily revised that it's difficult to tell what the author's final orthodox view of them is. This allows the aesthetic choice to decide instead; (eg we can decide that we prefer the version where Galadriel defies the Valar).

[mormegil]

ANG, under that definition I would have to agree with you that Sam is not unorthodox. I initially said it because he is not like any other hero that I have read about. The fact that he is a servant and remains the servant is fairly unique, yet I understand further your definition and accordingly I would say that Samwise is orthodox. I guess what you are saying is that there is no ambiguity as to weather or not we are meant to like him and therefore he is orthodox.

[Anguirel]

Quite. The only time Sam could be described as an unorthodox hero is in the stairs of Cirith Ungol incident and his treatment of Gollum generally. And possibly the Scouring, if you share Frodo's horror at the killings.

Congratulations about your baby, Mormegil, by the way!

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

How nice we all agree.


And i too find Sam rather annoying.

Originally Posted by Anguirel

In fact, I'm rather annoyed by him. . .

[Gurthang]

Well, I can see your point about Sam. Personally, I like his character, but that is what we are supposed to do; so really he is an orthodox figure.

But I must ask: Is the question orthodox character or orthodox hero? If we are asking for orthodox characters, then you are 100% correct about Sam. But the other way I have to disagree. Here's why: Sam is not strong, bold, skillful, smart, or persuasive. Basically he has no qualities that a hero should possess. Therefore, he should not be a hero, and the fact that he should not be a hero but is makes him an unorthodox hero simply by definition.

[the guy who be short]

Were others not equally poisoned, so to speak. Did not Finarfin have the same potential to believe the lies? No temptation to evil is a constant to all, it's how one handles said temptation that determines the strength of character. Feanor failed.

No.

Then Melkor lusted for the Silmarils, and the very memory of their radiance was a gnawing fire in his heart. From that time forth, inflamed by this desire, he sought ever more eagerly how he should destroy Fëanor and end the friendship of the Valar and the Elves

Fiercest burned the new flame of desire for freedom and wider realms in the eager heart of Feanor; and Melkor laughed in his secrecy, for to that mark his lies had been addressed, hating Feanor above all, and lusting ever for the Silmarils.

The hatred of Morgoth was particularly aimed at Feanor.

On the subject of Finarfin - he did fall by turning his back (even unwillingly so) on the Valar and accompanying Feanor and co. He was redeemed before too much damage could be wrought.

Tolkien even calls the slaying wicked.

Unorthodox hero.

I would disagree and call wrestling to protect ones property as simply that, protection of property and not violence.

Throwing people into the sea is a violent act. Life is more important than property - if the Teleri had realised this, perhaps the Kinslaying could have been averted. However, the Kinslaying is perhaps the lowest act Feanor commits (no matter how influenced he was at the time ).

So Feanor threatened Fingolfin with death. Morgoth made him do it. He rebelled against the Valar. Morgoth made him do it. He stole the ships of the Teleri, and then fought and killed them. Morgoth made him do it. He abandoned his brother Fingolfin to almost certain death in the Helcaraxe. Morgoth made him do it.

Exactly. The curse of Morgoth - if such it can be called - lay particularly heavily upon Feanor's head. Feanor was the target of Morgoth's lies and deceit, and Eve of Middle Earth.

The tragedy of Feanor is further reflected in the hints we receive of the power and majesty he could have had, had he not fallen.

Yet had he said yea at the first, before the tidings came from Formenos, it may be that his after deeds would have been other than they were.

The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only Manwe might in some measure conceive.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Is Maedhros not an interesting character ?

Each time i read the Sil. i find my self constantly switching in opinion of him. He is of course a villian, but he seems to have a side to him that the other sons of Fëanor dos not have.

He opposes the burning of the ships at Losgar
He gives the high-kingship to Fingolfin
He formed the Union of Maedhros

And then he does all his evil deeds, one of them being the assult on the havens of Sirion

ofcourse driven by his oath.

[mormegil]

Maedhros would in my opinion be an unorthodox hero. Like Maglor I think he is really a good person at heart and would have been a wonderful being had he not become tangled up in the oath. He committed some evil things but it is different to me than Feanor.

Maedhros is one of my favorite characters and is what I think of as an unorthodox hero.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Maedhros would in my opinion be an unorthodox hero. Like Maglor I think he is really a good person at heart and would have been a wonderful being had he not become tangled up in the oath. He committed some evil things but it is different to me than Feanor.

Maedhros is one of my favorite characters and is what I think of as an unorthodox hero.

Quite. And if you think about it, he DID do some amazing deeds. The Union of Maedhros bears his name, and it was a great achievement, and failed only because of Men. Speaking of whom, the Sons of Bor, who served Maedhros and Maglor remained loyal- a testament to their more heroic nature, I say, whereas those who served Caranthir were the ones to be faithless- and Caranthis was known to be haughty.

And then there is his remorse over the sons of Dior, and although it is Maglor who raises Elrond and Elros, it must have been at the tolerance of Maedhros his lord and dominant brother.

A hero, if unorthodox, indeed.

[Child of the 7th Age]

What I'm saying is that Tolkien likes Sam, admires him without reservation. This makes him an "orthodox" hero....

Anguirel,

No, no. There are times when Tolkien was quite irked with Sam. Indeed, he was quite irked with hobbits in general. Just look at this quote from a letter written by the Professor in 1963:

Sam is meant to be lovable and laughable. Some readers he irritates and even infuriates. I can well understand it. All hobbits at times affect me in the same way, though I remain very fond of them. But Sam can be very "trying". He is a more representative hobbitthan any others that we have to see much of; and he has consequently a stronger ingredient of that quality which even some hobbits found at times hard to bear: a vulgarity--by which I do not mean a mere "down-to-earthness"--a mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness (in varying degrees) and cocksureness, and a readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited experience, largely enshrined in sententious traditional "wisdom"....Imagine Sam without his education by Bilbo and his fascination with things Elvish! Not difficult. The Cotton family and the Gaffer, when the "Travellers" return are a sufficient glimpse....

Tolkien goes on to chastise Sam for his inability to understand what was going on between Frodo and Gollum: how Sam was unable to see the "damaged" good in Gollum that Frodo so clearly perceived.

All this is a farily harsh commentary on Tolkien's part. If Sam was indeed vulgar and cocksure with all the other "little" faults that Tolkien lists, and yet was still a hero, then surely he merits the title of "unorthodox hero" as well or better than any other in the Legendarium.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nuranar

I just had a largely unrelated thought. We're discussing unorthodox heroes; are there any anti-heroes? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm no good at thinking up examples. If there really aren't any - why not?

I think Gollum is the prime candidate for anti-hero of the books. He is treacherous, ugly, greedy, a murderer, all things we are supposed to dislike him for, and yet he still wins a lot of support. It is Gollum in the end who 'saves' the quest, and by this time many readers have grown to feel attached to him, whether through pity or something else is probably a personal response, but nevertheless readers do see that even Gollum can perform an heroic act.

[Mithalwen]

"anti-hero, principal character of a modern literary or dramatic work who lacks the attributes of the traditional protagonist or hero. The anti-hero's lack of courage, honesty, or grace, his weaknesses and confusion, often reflect modern man's ambivalence toward traditional moral and social virtues."

THat would fit quite a few of the people already mentioned but not Sam. I think Sam is more of an "unsung hero". He was modelled on the "batmen" Tolkien encountered in WW1 and I think Tolkien does genuinely admire him. While he is given a fair amount of comedy and no other character does himself down, he is the most "real" perhaps of all ..... For all that he is a servant, he is not cowed or fazed by the great lords and he is a rare "socially mobile" character... He is a servant who gate crashes a great counsel, answers back a captain of Gondor.... for all his being "trying" ... his lack of nobility has it's advantages. I doubt Frodo would have survived GOllum without a "nassty suspicious" hobbit sidekick...

[Anguirel]

Child, a fascinating quotation, and one that has improved my estimation of Tolkien's taste in heroes no end! I think your qualification of "as well or better than any other in the Legendarium" rather extreme; but I will admit that there is a case for his admission into La Legion Des Heros Anti-Orthodoxes...

Rune, Mormegil, Formendacil, you are quite right about Maedhros. More than, say, a whole book on the Avari, I would love to see a little more insight from Tolkien into the Sons of Feanor, above and beyond the Shibboleth. It seems to me, though, that both of the elder brothers had potential for being solid, orthodox Elven heroes in the manner of Fingolfin or Finrod had their oath not constrained them. Perhaps their best description would be "unorthodox villains." Or, more truthfully if less enlighteningly, "fascinating, ambiguous and multi-faceted characters"...

But I would add that there are heroic aspects to be found even in Caranthir. Didn't he act as protector to the People of Haleth? I see him as quick to anger but not as black as he's painted, with honesty lacking in Celegorm and Curufin (both of whom I also like, but whom even I find pretty difficult to defend morally!)

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

But I would add that there are heroic aspects to be found even in Caranthir. Didn't he act as protector to the People of Haleth? I see him as quick to anger but not as black as he's painted, with honesty lacking in Celegorm and Curufin (both of whom I also like, but whom even I find pretty difficult to defend morally!)

One of the interesting "unorthodox" qualities, I find, about Caranthir is his tolerance. By that, I mean unorthodox within the Legendarium. Caranthir, for all his reputation of having a quick temper, is the first Noldorin Prince of the First Age to befriend the Dwarves, and it appears that the friendship was fairly close for both parties made good profit. The tone that the narrator takes at that point is a bit cynical, I feel, but it is an action quite unique among the Elven princes.

Furthermore, look at- as you hinted- his treatment of the Halethrim. As you note, he made a (belated) effort to defend them in the time of Haleth. But equally as "Elvenly Unorthodox" is his past history with them. Caranthir was quite tolerant of having the Halethrim live on his lands in the manner they wished. Perhaps this can also be taken as ignoring them, but it is markedly different from the attitudes of Finrod, Fingolfin, and even Maedhros, in their treatment of the Men in their lands/in their service. Perhaps that contributed to the unfortunate experience he had with his second batch of men. Perhaps he gave the traitorous people of Ulf TOO much tolerance...

In any case, he's a bit unorthodox for a bona fide Tolkien Elven prince...

[Lalaith]

*pushes open the ancient oak door of the Books Forum, peers in tentatively*
...ah, the days when I used to spend my Barrowdowns time in here, trying to be sensible, rather than messing about in the light halls of Mirth....
Anyway, intrigued by the various character preferences emerging in Sil Survivor, I've wandered back in...
Some very interesting stuff here. I agree with Eomer about Thorin, and really enjoyed Child's fascinating quote about Tolkien's view of Sam.

Ang, your comment:

Attraction to flawed tragic characters, I suppose, is a Greek or Classical emotion in origin, rather than an attitude from Nordic tradition. Thus, perhaps, those admirers of Tolkien who, like me, strongly disagree with him aesthetically quite a lot of the time, will think his epic Nordic heroes a little bland and will build new heroes out of Classically inspired failures-running contrary to Tolkien's intentions, yes, but also exercising our privilege as readers.

I would agree that Feanor is very much in the Classical tradition of flawed tragic hero: a textbook case of hubris if ever there was one.
However, I would say his sons (definitely the C's - Caranthir, Celegorm and Curufin) are rather more in the Norse saga tradition of unorthodox "dark" heroes. In the sagas, there were the conventional "light" heroes, fair-haired, noble and beloved by almost all: Gunnar from Njalssaga, Kjartan from Laxdaela. But in contrast were men like Grettir the Strong, Egill Skallgrimsson or Skarphedinn from Njalssaga, often ill-favoured in looks and always by fate. The ultimate example of the dark hero in Tolkien is of course Turin, while in contrast his cousin Tuor is so "light" and lucky that he makes it to Valinor against all odds and edicts.
Allow me to elucidate further by repeating myself, a quote from this antique thread

Free will is a Christian concept. The pagan North European believed in "luck" or fortune: gaefa in old Norse. Translate it as luck, fate or fortune, it is a complicated concept, and packs far more of a moral punch than the word "luck" does in our modern world picture. A man of luck - gaefumadr - does things and they work out for him. He is a man you want on your side. Meanwhile, a man of ill luck constantly causes rows and upsets wherever he goes and whatever he does, and eventually his 'ogaefa' (ill luck) becomes so overwhelming that astute and sensitive people can pick him out as what he is, even in a crowd. To me, poor Turin was very much an 'ogaefumadr', a man of ill luck. That's what I meant when I said that the Narn felt more pagan than other works of Tolkien.

As for my own favourite unorthodox hero, I have always felt sympathy for Turin's mother Morwen, a woman straight out of Norse poetry and saga, made stern and cold by tragedy, hardship and war. That heartbreaking scene when, heavily pregnant and widowed, she sends the child Turin off to Doriath - she says nothing, but 'clutched the doorpost so that her fingers were torn.'