Tolkien's "black-and-white" worlds ...or...?

[Lhunithiliel]

Is Tolkien's mythological world "black-and-white" only?

In other worlds, do you think that the worlds and their inhabitants, that he had created, are based upon this bi-pole pattern, or are there "shades" and nuances?
Are the "good guys" only 'good' and the "bad guys" - only bad?
Is 'good' only good and 'evil' - only evil?

Some "food for thought". ;)

[Astaldo]

I don't think Prof. Tolkien's world is black and white. Everyone good or bad have something that is from the opposite side. For example a good guy always have something evil inside him and the same happens to the evil guys. I think this also happens to Prof. Tolkien's works though we don't have any evidence of this.

[alcesta]

Most emphatically NOT.

There are many characters we can see in development, or both their sides. Gollum and Smeagol, for example. I think Feanor is the most complex of them. And what about Thingol, Boromir, or Denethor? There are many more I can't think of at the moment. Besides, entire Arda was marred by Morgoth's evil, so there are shades of it in all the elements, somewhere more, somewhere less. I'm sorry I've got no more time to discuss just now.

[Mrs. Maggott]

I would say that Tolkien's world is filled with nuances of black and white insofar as its characters are concerned. Where there are no nuances is in his moral vision. Evil is evil (even though there can be mitigating circumstances regarding an individual's fall into evil) and good is good. Where the "shades" begin is in the reaction of various characters to this moral vision within the framework of the story. Hence, Boromir falls and commits an evil deed but is redeemed by his courage and salvific death. Saruman, on the other hand, is seduced into wickedness and at the end, when the opportunity to repent and find salvation is offered to him, fails the test that Boromir passed.

Tolkien was an "absolutist"; that is, he believed as a Christian that there are moral absolutes in the world. However, as a Christian he also believed that until the end, sentient beings who succumb to evil have the opportunity to turn from that path and embrace goodness. True, there are those whose evil is such that they cannot be redeemed, but these are the great spirits of evil and their "offspring" - Morgoth/Sauron and Ungoliant/Shelob - are some examples of those who have gone beyond all possible redemption. On the whole, however, other beings have the free will to be both evil and good. The choice is their own.

[Sammyboy]

If you generalise a lot, you could say that Middle Earth is 'black and white' - in that Orcs etc. are all evil (that we've read/seen anyway!), although it's not quite as clearcut with Men (eg. the men from the South).

Here in the 'real' world, the lines are much more blurred than they are in Middle Earth - perhaps this is one of the attractions of LotR et al - it's a traditional good vs evil story, and it's relatively obvious who the enemy is. There's no real middle ground or grey areas, like there is in a lot of situations here in the 'real' world.

EDIT: @Mrs Maggot - it seems we have the same 'deep thought' - if you like I can change mine as you were first with it ;) Great minds think alike, eh? :p

[scotsboyuk]

Tolkien's work doesn't exist in a vaccuum and a smuch as the man himself might have denied any parody of real life events one must assume that real life events did shape his work. He lived through the two most destructive wars in history and in one of them he would have seen the greatest evil that has ever walked this Earth, it is hard to imagine that that would not have affected him.

As has been mentioned before, we can see the concept of good and evil, sin and redemption running through his works. Frodo is perhaps a good example of this when he ultimately succumbs to the lure of the Ring. Frodo fails to destroy the ring and so we see him 'fall from grace' so to speak. However, this isn't presented to us as 'evil' rather I got the impression that it was the frailty inherent in all living creatures coming to the surface.

Gandalf realises that if he accepts the Ring he will ultimately be enslaved by it, this isn't necessarily evil, rather it it is frailty. This theme is really played up with respects to Men e.g. Isildur. I think what Tolkien was perhaps showing us was that in the middle of things, that is, between ultimate good and ultimate evil, there is strength and weakness, which allows Men, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, etc to do both great good and great evil.

[Eledhwen]

You can see where the darkness is overtaking Frodo at the moments where he perceives Bilbo and later Sam as a threat.

In The Lord of the Rings, you can see evil is an absolute, manifested as a Ring. An evil that can sneak up on those who study it too closely (Saruman) and overpower those forced into its company (Frodo). Then there is Gollum - a mean spirit who was immediately overcome by desire for the Ring, and the proud spirit, Boromir, who felt the call of the Ring in his desire for glory.

In LotR, we see the principle of corruption. A pure thing can be corrupted or contaminated by coming into contact with something bad; but a bad thing cannot be made clean by coming into contact with something good. The traffic is all one way. But hope is otherwise. Even Morgoth in the Silmarillion is shown mercy and given the opportunity to repent; Sauron receives mercy from Numenor with disastrous results; and in LotR, Gollum, Wormtongue and Saruman are all shown mercy a number of times, and only Wormtongue seemed to be even close to accepting it (though how that would have turned out, we never discover).

The shades between black and white are most noticeable in the tribes of men. They are to be found on the side of both good and evil, and throughout Middle-earth history the children of Illuvatar have ever been led to destruction by a seductive voice.

[scotsboyuk]

@Eledhwen

I broadly agree with you, however, there is something that I feel might add a little strength to the points you made.

If we focus specificaly on LotR we can see a very interesting situation. Frodo is able to resist the Ring longer than anyone else, even Gandalf knows that he would not be able to resist its power and he is far more powerful and wiser than Frodo. The Ring represents utter evil and I think Tolkien was saying that sometimes the greatest evil can be best resisted by the smallest and weakest among us. The Ring was a danger in the hands of men like Boromir, Faramir, the Istari too; all people with the capacity to use the Ring's power on a great scale. Frodo, on the other hand, was a Hobbit from a remote area of Middle Earth with no temporal power over the affairs of the world. Evil has little use for such a person and so finds its power negated by the sheer weakness inherent in the ring bearer's makeup.

That Frodo was corrupted by the Ring is significant because of the location. Frodo is corrupted at the moment when he is at his most powerful, when the decisions he makes will have the most impact upon the wider world. If the Ring had survived then it seems likely, barring intervention from the Valar themselves, that Sauron would have won the War of the Ring, all because of a decison that Frodo would have made. That the Ring was destroyed was not because of a deliberate action on the part of Frodo, rather it was a combination of actions by Frodo and Golum. Perhaps the message here is that true evil is ultimately self-destructive in that those it controls loose their free will and can no longer be of benefit to the evil controling them.

[scotsboyuk]

@Walter

The idea of 'contamination' can be looked at in another way; sin and redemption. This is one of the oldest themes in the world and I think Tolkien uses it very well throughout LotR.

The Ring is destroyed through the death of Gollum, the living embodiment of the Ring's corruption and contamination. It can be argued that Gollum's death is a redeemer's death in that the destruction of the Ring sets everyone free from the corrupting influence of the Ring.

[Eledhwen]

So Gollum is Geezusssss?

[Eledhwen]

There may have been a clue to Tolkien's thinking in Saruman of many colours. It is not all just black, white and shades of grey.

[scotsboyuk]

@all

I wasn't directly equating Golum with Jesus, although one cans ee certain similarities between them. Golum is a no great lord, he is a simple creature akin to Jesus' simple life as a carpenter. Golum take son the evil of the Ring more directly than anyone else and in the end it is this evil that results in his death inside Mount Doom, a purifying death through fire, which destroy the Ring and its evil. Jesus takes on the evil of men and through a purifying death frees men from that evil.

Whilst there are similarities, there are sufficient differences to make a direct comparison betwen Golum and Jesus difficult, if not impossible. The most glaring example is that Golum murders someone, which is more like the story of Caine and Abel, than that of Jesus.

@Walter

You raise some interesting points, especially on the existence of opposites. If one examines Tolkien's works once can see that although various characters commit evil acts, they are often commiting them due to a belief that they are doing what is right. For example; Melkor initially believes that he is aiding Iluvatar when he sings against the song of the Ainar, only to feel shame when he realises he is not. Boromir wants the Ring to defend Gondor against the evil of Sauron, blind to the fact that the very evil he would seek to oppose would destroy him, a similar situation to that of Isildur when he keeps the Ring.

This would seem to be a shade of grey to me, that evil can be committed through good intentions, after all, isn't the road to Hell paved with good intentions?

[Mrs. Maggott]

To my mind, Gollum is far more akin to Judas Iscariot than Christ. He thinks only of himself and his own needs, willing to even do murder if it suits his ends. When he is captured by the hobbits, he dissembles and presents himself as a friend (or at least as a helper) and, in fact, does serve them well - although he always means to, in the end, betray them. However, even in betrayal, he brings about the thing most desired. In the case of Judas, it is the salvific death and redemptive resurrection of Christ. In the case of Gollum, it is the destruction of the Ring. However, in neither instance can a case be made that the results were the intention of the individuals involved.

[scotsboyuk]

@Mrs. Maggot

A very interesting analogy, but I don't see Golum as being based on any one person, rather he seems to be more of an amalgamation of various people. The Judas analogy is very good though, very useful in explaining some of his actions and traits.

[Eledhwen]

To my mind, Gollum is far more akin to Judas Iscariot than Christ. He thinks only of himself and his own needs, willing to even do murder if it suits his ends. When he is captured by the hobbits, he dissembles and presents himself as a friend (or at least as a helper) and, in fact, does serve them well - although he always means to, in the end, betray them. Not just interesting, but Mrs. M is bringing sanity back to a discussion where Gollum has been compared to Jesus! Sanity also tells us (and so does Tolkien) that there are no intentional analogies in The Lord of the Rings, so although comparisons are interesting, and sometimes fun, we should always bear in mind the author's comment.

[scotsboyuk]

@Eledhwen

I presume you are making reference to myself, but as I have stated before, I am not directly comparing Golum with Jesus. There is a facet of Golum that can be compared with Jesus, but as I pointed out, there are substantial differences between the two, which make any sort of meaningful comparison all but impossible.

We may very well find striking comparisons between any Tolkien character and any person from the real world, if we look hard enough. Golum may fit nicely into the mould of Judas, but equally, I am sure, there are many others throughout history, who would provide a very apt likeness, in which to place Golum (or any other character for that matter).

I think there is a tendency to look into Tolkien's work too much, and I think we can build constructs, which simply do not exist, or at least were never intended. Didn't Tolkien himself downplay reading into his works to any significant degree?

[Eledhwen]

Yes, he did, but also had to reluctantly admit to being a 'chosen instrument' (Letter 413)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Tolkien is writing in the great mythological style. He isn't Hemingway or F. Scott Fitzgerald or Michael Crighton. He isn't interested in deep psychological analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of his characters. This isn't "reality fiction", but myth! Evil is a greater evil than we find in more modern stories. In those stories, the villains would be like Bill Ferny or even Lotho Pimple. Tolkien's villains are Miltonesque monsters - Satan and his dark angels become Sauron and his orcs.

As for characteristics: there are many characters who display Christ-like characteristics. Gandalf is certainly one. He is not only wholly compassionate and self sacrificing, but he has spent his 'life' in Middle-earth in the service of others. In that way, Aragorn too is not only the "suffering servant", but the "hidden king". Frodo takes the sins of the world (the Ring) upon himself - and so forth. Tolkien presents not only all of the great virtues, but the great vices - envy, hatred, greed, lust etc. - in the tale as well. Even in the prosaic Shire, there are the seeds of greatness.

That is why reading Tolkien is so very much different than reading just about every other author with the exception of C. S. Lewis or MacDonald; they are a very scarce and valuable commodity and, alas, I don't see their like with us today. Even Rowling, good as she is, presents a world that is very much like our own despite all of its "magic" and strange creatures. But that's okay because she, like Tolkien, is presenting the virtues and the vices clearly enough for anyone to understand.

[scotsboyuk]

@Mrs. Maggot

Indeed, Tolkien has taken the myths, legends and history of our own world and created a realm, which is as complex and detailed as it is interesting and fun to read about. Tolkien's works, especially LotR, embodies a very British, and particuarly a very English, quality. The themes of self-sacrifice, loyalty, freedom and a struggle to the bitter end aginst overwhelming odds are all very much characteristics Tolkien would have found in his natve land, as well as in humanity in general. The idea of a small people (quite literally in Tolkien's works) struggling against the might and seemingly unstoppable power of an enemy many times greater, is a resonant image throughout British history.

What is so interesting about the way that Tolkien wrote is that he weaves a story that all can enjoy, not just Englishmen or Britons, but all those who recognise good and evil and the struggle between the two. It is that struggle, which I see as being so important. It is in the struggle itself that we see both greatness and failure, it is the struggle, which is the heart of the story, that which gives it universal appeal and resonance.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Is Tolkien's mythological world "black-and-white" only?

In other worlds, do you think that the worlds and their inhabitants, that he had created, are based upon this bi-pole pattern, or are there "shades" and nuances?
Are the "good guys" only 'good' and the "bad guys" - only bad?
Is 'good' only good and 'evil' - only evil?

Some "food for thought". ;)

"Bi-pole"? In real life as in Middle-earth, there are always the extremes of good and evil, between which are infinite shades of them both.

Barley

[Forgotten Path]

You know, the comparison of Gollum to Jesus reminds me of fans in the early years of The L.R. writing "Gollum died for your sins" on bathroom walls. Quite a deviation from the normal "Trust Jesus" we get over here in America. :D

I hate to interject on your conversations, but I would like to hearken back to the earlier conversation. I believe that nothing in Tolkien's works is "pure" evil, and I think that is the way Tolkien intended it to be. In Letters, Tolkien states that he does not believe Sauron is pure evil "since that is zero" (paraphrased). Nor is the Ring "pure" evil. For instance, the gold of the Ring is not in itself evil. (This comes from an essay from The L.R. and Philosophy, a book I am reviewing.) "Pure" evil is nothing, the void, etc. Furthur support of this view is shown when Gandalf tells the Witch King to "go back to the abyss that awaits you and your Master". However, I believe it may be possible to "fall" past the point of redemption. Comparable to a black hole. It pulls you in with it's extreme gravity, but you still have a chance to escape until you pass the event horizon. Maybe there is such an "event horizon" with Tolkien's characters. (The only ones in The L.R. past this "event horizon" would be Sauron and the Nazgul.)

I am glad I stumbled upon this thread. It is very interesting, and I enjoy musing over this subject. Everyone, I hope this all made sense. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

What an interesting comparison...

Judas, just like Gollum, is most often seen just as the villain. Judas is the no-good egomaniac who sells the saviour for 30 pieces of silver.

But a closer look may even here bring up some interesting aspects that may throw a different light at Mrs. M's comparison. Just like Gollum had his "alter ego" Sméagol, Judas sicarius, the 'murderer' or 'assassin', probably had one too. In the light of biblical scholarship of the last century it appears quite plausible that Judas Iscariot is identical with Judas Thomas, the (twin-)brother of Jesus, who is said to have "betrayed" Jesus, but with that probably only fulfilled Jesus' order (which was necessary to fulfil the prophecies; e.g. Zech 11:12; 12:10).

But just like Gollum, Judas Iscariot was playing an important role, without which the "greater plan" could not have been fulfilled, without which the world could not have been saved and both, Sméagol and Thomas (thomas is the aramaic word meaning 'twin') had to pay dearly in order to fulfil the divine plan, the one with his life, the other with his honour...
I am very wary of "modern" Biblical scholorship which is often less than objective and tries to "disprove" earlier versions. Much of the problem with the Bible and its relatively different "versions" has to do with translations from Hebrew, Greek or Latin - and especially Greek. The old saw that "the Greeks have a word for it" is not without truth. For instance, the King James version translates the word into "charity"; later translations, "love". However, there are many different kinds of love which are quite clear in the Greek.

Another problem is the word "brothers" used to indicate St. James and others apparently "related" to Christ (Thy Mother and Thy brothers are outside and wish to see Thee...). In the Greek, the term is "brethren" meaning those in one's family, but not necessarily siblings. Since the Scripture speaks of a virgin birth (and not merely "a young woman" becoming pregnant - hardly a "miraculous" event!), to suggest that Christ had brothers and sisters directly contradicts the teaching of the early Church - and continued today in the Orthodox East and the Roman West that Mary is the "ever Virgin" Mother of God (Theotokos). In the early Church, the understanding was that the "brethren" alluded to in Scripture were the children of Mary's husband, Joseph. Now, according to the early Church documents and Tradition, Joseph was an older man who took Mary into his home as "wife" when she had to leave the Temple wherein she had been consecrated to God by her mother and father the elderly Joachim and Anna. There she had lived since she was a child of about three. Of course, once she reached puberty, she could not longer remain in the Temple precincts for biological reasons and so, like other of these "consecrated" young virgins, she was "given in marriage" to a man who was widowed and already had children in keeping with the tradition of continuing the family line. The idea was that these older men would look after and provide for these "vestal virgins", leaving them both money and their own family to care for these young women after the older "foster husband" had died. This was, according to the documents and Tradition of the early Church, a common practice for such young girls. Therefore, even though the information is not contained in Scripture, the early Church had sufficient documentation to determine that Joseph was such a man and that those whom Christ called "brothers", were in fact, His step-brothers, the children of his foster father, Joseph. Unfortunately, these nuances of familial relationships did not survive garbled attempts to translate Scripture from its early sources.

As for Judas: we must remember that Jesus of Nazarath had as many as a hundred followers with Him most of the time - men and women! Of those, He chose only twelve to be not His "disciples", but His "apostles". Among them was Judas. Therefore, Judas could hardly have been a man of no standing among Christ's followers nor could he have been openly of questionable character. And so why did he betray his Master? Who knows? Perhaps Judas was one who wanted the type of Messiah desired by the zealots - that is, someone to bring down God's wrath and defeat the Romans, re-establishing Israel as a mighty nation. Certainly we know that Judas repented of his actions and even declared himself guilty of the shedding of "innocent blood"! Yet, surely he must have known the fate to which he was condemning Jesus - the Sanhedrin had hardly been secretive in its efforts to find some reason to apprehend and condemn Christ! Nor was Judas stupid so, perhaps (as has been suggested in at least one film) he wished to "push" Christ to reveal Himself by putting Him in mortal peril and thus "force the issue".

Whatever the reason, Judas for at least a very short time walked a fine line between salvation and damnation. Indeed, he could have been one of the greatest saints of the Church - had he only asked for the forgiveness of the Man he betrayed and those who had trusted him (Jesus' followers). But instead (like Denethor more than Gollum), he was not able to abase himself and humbly ask for that forgiveness. Instead, because he could not live with his ultimate sin, he chose to take his own life and thus damn himself forever.

Gollum, on the other hand, does not resemble Judas in this way. The resemblence is strictly narrative, not motivational. He betrays the person to whom he has pledged faithfulness (Frodo) and his betrayal leads - unexpectedly and unintentionally - to the desired outcome of the matter. Judas also betrayed the Person to whom he had pledged faithfulness and his betrayal also led to the "desired outcome" of the matter. Without Gollum, the quest would have failed even though it was certainly not Gollum's intention to bring the quest to a successful conclusion. Without Judas, Scripture would not have been fulfilled and God would not have been able to redeem mankind - at least at that time. He would have eventually succeeded (one cannot "thwart" God!), but we have no idea how. Yet, Judas obviously did not foresee the ultimate result of his actions nor is it probable that he really intended that result - that is, the crucifixion of Christ. Gollum's motives were simple and obvious; Judas's were considerably less so.

[Barliman Butterbur]

You know, the comparison of Gollum to Jesus reminds me of fans in the early years of The L.R. writing "Gollum died for your sins" on bathroom walls...

LOL ROFL! I missed that one "back when," but it sure gave me a belly laugh when I read it in your post just now!:D

Barley

[Forgotten Path]

Thank you, Walter. It does look very interesting. :) I don't have time to read the whole thing now, but I am looking forward to it. I think you would enjoy The Lord Of the Rings and Philosophy . I bought my copy at Walden Books. If theres not one near you, I'm sure they have a website you can order off of. There are alot of essays in it concerning good/evil. Thanks again for directing me to that thread! :)

[Eriol]

Here I do not agree. I think the bigger part of the problem which has arisen for Christian Orthodoxy in the past decades by the results of modern biblical scholarship are just "old sins" coming back to haunt them: Namely, the biased and manipulative way to handle "scripture" and create "canon" and "orthodoxy" - and thus "correcting" and omitting those "apocryphal" traditions that didn't fit nicely into Paul's and Peter's new religion (creating a new religion was never Jesus' intention anyway) during the first 3 or 4 centuries.

But I really do not wish to get drawn into another religious discussion, my intention was to point out that there's more to your comparison between Gollum and Judas than what first meets the eye.

Modern biblical scholarship doesn't differ much from ancient biblical scholarship in that they draw way too much conclusions from too few data (and that goes for both Christian and non-Christian scholars). Yet, as anyone who looks into the matter knows, the "manipulative and biased way" to handle the texts isn't at all different from "protection of copyright"; the early Church certainly condemned and destroyed books which projected a false character on Jesus. The same thing would surely happen if people began to write "alternative Lord of the Rings" in which Aragorn were an orc, or Gandalf were just an impersonal force of nature like "the Force" in Star Wars, or in which Gollum and Frodo were considered the same character.

This would happen with LotR, a work of fiction; it's rather more understandable (and important) if we are speaking about factual reports, about real people, as the gospels are. The apocryphal were rejected because they were false; and we know that precisely because they were rejected. The point, which no biblical scholar would deny, is that the early Church was in the best imaginable position to pick which books were true and which were false; much better than any biblical scholar, modern or ancient. To presume that they picked the books according to some conspiracy to establish a great religion (something which led the leaders to ghastly deaths) while knowing that they were lying about it is, to put it mildly, sorely lacking in evidence. As much as some people would loooove to see a Jesus like the one depicted in the apocryphals, such as one who married Mary Magdalene, the simple fact is that this did not happen, according to the best evidence that we have -- the gospels, selected by the people closest to Jesus, and who had no vested interest in manipulating the stories, quite the contrary (if they had any vested interest it was surely to make them softer, more like the apocryphals, for it would render their religion more acceptable to Roman society. Yet, they didn't).

I was curious when you asserted without any doubt that Paul and Peter did not follow Jesus' wishes. Do you have any inside information on what were Jesus' wishes? I'd rather assume that Peter, the person whom Jesus specifically chose to continue his work, knew what he was doing.

Even though such a simple and obvious belief is quite unfashionable among those who wanted a completely different kind of Christianity, one less... offensive. Yet, as Jesus (not Peter, and not Paul) said, "Blessed is he who is not offended in me". Apparently Jesus had a fair notion of how many people would be offended by him (and not by Peter or Paul).

[Barliman Butterbur]

Modern biblical scholarship doesn't differ much from ancient biblical scholarship in that they draw way too much conclusions from too few data (and that goes for both Christian and non-Christian scholars). Yet, as anyone who looks into the matter knows, the "manipulative and biased way" to handle the texts isn't at all different from "protection of copyright"; the early Church certainly condemned and destroyed books which projected a false character on Jesus. The same thing would surely happen if people began to write "alternative Lord of the Rings" in which Aragorn were an orc, or Gandalf were just an impersonal force of nature like "the Force" in Star Wars, or in which Gollum and Frodo were considered the same character.

This would happen with LotR, a work of fiction; it's rather more understandable (and important) if we are speaking about factual reports, about real people, as the gospels are...

Ahem, ahem, beg pardon...not all of us hold that to be true. As far as I'm concerned, the gospels speak of alleged "facts," the details of which are as "manipulated and biased" as anything you were talking about in your opening paragraph. (I think this discussion will eventually call down The Wrath of the Mods, since such discussion has been declared a no-no...)

Barly

[Eriol]

Ahem, ahem, beg pardon...not all of us hold that to be true. As far as I'm concerned, the gospels speak of alleged "facts," the details of which are as "manipulated and biased" as anything you were talking about in your opening paragraph. (I think this discussion will eventually call down The Wrath of the Mods, since such discussion has been declared a no-no...)

Barly

You have my pardon :D. And not all of us hold that to be false either. What I object to is the presentation of some minority opinions as facts. I know quite well that Walter and you do not agree with the gospels, but the least that I can ask of you is that you label your opinions with the tag "opinion", and your facts with the tag "facts" ;).

Which Walter didn't do in that passage above.

[Ciryaher]

In reference to the original post of this thread, I believe that a generalization that would declare Tolkien's works to be strictly "black and white" or "good versus evil" would be incorrect. Consider the Eldar. While they are generally seen as 'good', we must examine their role in the Kinslaying (for the Noldor, at least) and subsequent events. I see the Silmarilli as the first Ring, though rather than being corrupting in and of themselves, they corrupt indirectly. Recall that the sons of Feanor would declare war on anyone who kept the Silmarils from them. Surely this is not an act of "good".

The dwarves, it is stated, are also not entirely "good", and instead work in that grey area that is their own agenda, along with the Ents.

Perhaps the most "grey" people of all in all of Tolkien's works are the Pukel-men, or Druedain. They really don't go for one side or the other, but instead only want the "evil" orcs gone because they cut down trees and make nasty black clouds and brown air.

When examining who is "good" and who is "evil", one cannot simply examine actions, one must examine motivations. Did all of those Haradrim really want to fight, or were they lied to, threatened, and manipulated into fighting? Tolkien himself brings down that tremendous message with that single passage which we are all of course familiar with.

[Barliman Butterbur]

You have my pardon :D. And not all of us hold that to be false either.
Of course!

What I object to is the presentation of some minority opinions as facts.
Oh, so do I! But then — in this case — you object to your own post (even a majority opinion can be wrong)!

I know quite well that Walter and you do not agree with the gospels, but the least that I can ask of you is that you label your opinions with the tag "opinion", and your facts with the tag "facts" ;).

Which Walter didn't do in that passage above.
(I take it you accept "as far as I'm concerned"?) And you didn't either. But we're not supposed to talk about this stuff anymore.

Good morning! And how is your lovely garden?:D

Barley

[Eriol]

And you didn't either.

Well, I also remember that you don't believe in objective truth, so it's no surprise that you equate "opinion with evidence" and "opinion without evidence". Which is of course your sovereign right as a free human being ;).

Yet, as far as the evidence is concerned, my post presented some. Each one must judge it by himself, of course. And I agree we shouldn't be speaking about this, but what can I do? If you saw someone talking about LotR as if Frodo were a dwarf, you would take exception, wouldn't you? I'd much rather discuss the blackness/whiteness of Tolkien's world, but there was that little matter of a missing tag... :D.

As regards the topic, I think that Tolkien's musings about the origin of Orcs in HoME X are a sign of his concern about this. He certainly made the Orcs to be absolutely "black", but that couldn't be reconciled with the old theory of "Orcs-as-corrupted-Quendi" without ditching the free will of the elves, and Tolkien wasn't ready for that. The idea of making orcs "corrupted beasts" (which presumably lacked free will), perhaps infused with Maiar spirits (which would be evil by choice), is very much an "explanation" of that blackness seen in Orcs, who are irredeemable.

There is a letter, I think it is directed at W.H. Auden, in which Tolkien discusses the problem of the Orcs, and agrees that an irredeemable race can't be present in a world created by God (or something to that effect).

[Gothmog]

I think this discussion will eventually call down The Wrath of the Mods, since such discussion has been declared a no-no.Not yet :) Just a friendly request to keep the discussion related to Tolkien in the thread. For any points not related to Tolkien Please use PM's

Thanks

[Barliman Butterbur]

Well, I also remember that you don't believe in objective truth, so it's no surprise that you equate "opinion with evidence" and "opinion without evidence". Which is of course your sovereign right as a free human being ;).

Your first phrase is absolutely on the money. I'm not sure that I even understand what you put into quotes.

If you saw someone talking about LotR as if Frodo were a dwarf, you would take exception, wouldn't you?

Is that what was going on???!! But if that were the case, I would indeed pipe up.

...Tolkien's musings...made the Orcs to be absolutely "black", but that couldn't be reconciled with the old theory of "Orcs-as-corrupted-Quendi" without ditching the free will of the elves, and Tolkien wasn't ready for that. The idea of making orcs "corrupted beasts" (which presumably lacked free will), perhaps infused with Maiar spirits (which would be evil by choice), is very much an "explanation" of that blackness seen in Orcs, who are irredeemable.

It's an explanation — but is it the right one? (I am being worn down by too many of you with a wider reading experience — I am slowly but surely being driven to acquire a paper version of HoME...)

There is a letter, I think it is directed at W.H. Auden, in which Tolkien discusses the problem of the Orcs, and agrees that an irredeemable race can't be present in a world created by God (or something to that effect).

That's quoted in HoME? (I'll have to do some investigating — which volume is it?)

Barley

[Eriol]

The letter (actually a fragment) is letter 269 (this was an answer to Auden's question about whether the notion of the Orcs, an entire race that was irredeemably wicked, was not heretical):

With regard to The Lord of the Rings, I cannot claim to be a sufficient theologian to say whether my notion of orcs is heretical or not. I don't feel under any obligation to make my story fit with formalized Christian theology, though I actually intended it to be consonant with Christian thought and belief, which is asserted somewhere, Book Five, page 190, where Frodo asserts that the orcs are not evil in origin. We believe that, I suppose, of all human kinds and sorts and breeds, though some appear, both as individuals and groups to be, by us at any rate, unredeemable. . . . .

As for the part of HoME X (Myths Transformed) that deals with orcs in detail, here it is:

...Their nature and origin require more thought. They are not easy to work into the theory and system.

(1) As the case of Aulë and the Dwarves shows, only Eru could make creatures with independent wills, and with reasoning powers. But Orcs seem to have both: they can try to cheat Morgoth/Sauron, rebel against him, or criticize him.

(2) ? Therefore they must be corruptions of something pre-existing.

(3) But Men had not yet appeared, when the Orcs already existed. Aulë constructed the Dwarves out of his memory of the Music; but Eru would not sanction the work of Melkor so as to allow the independence of the Orcs. (Not unless the Orcs were ultimately redeemable, or could be amended and 'saved'?)

It also seems clear (see 'Finrod and Andreth') that though Melkor could utterly corrupt and ruin individuals, it is not possible to contemplate his absolute perversion of a whole people, or group of peoples, and his making that state heritable [Added later: This latter must (if a fact) be an act of Eru.]

In that case Elves, as a source, are very unlikely. And are Orcs 'immortal', in the Elvish sense? Or trolls? It seems clearly implied in The Lord of the Rings that trolls existed in their own right, but were 'tinkered' with by Melkor.

(4) What of talking beasts and birds with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from less 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot now be excised. They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but sufficiently to show they are a recognized feature of the world. All other creatures accept them as natural if not common.

(...)

In summary: I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fëa. The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted/converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their 'talking' was really reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor. Even their rebellious critical words -- he knew about them. Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much independence as have, say, dogs or horses of their human masters. This talking was largely echoic (cf. parrots). In The Lords of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them.

It is important to note that this passage from HoME is (supposedly) from 1959, while the letter to Auden is from 1965. Which means only what we already knew -- Tolkien surely took a long time in establishing this kind of "theoretical frame", and it is quite hard to know what was his "final opinion" (or even whether he came to one final opinion in the end of his musings),

[Barliman Butterbur]

Let us for a moment consider "redemption" in the light of real life. The common meaning seems to be that a person, no matter to what depths of depravity and evil has fallen, is still capable of giving them up and becoming good once more. We know that in some cases it happens and in some it doesn't. The theological issue seems to be however that all individuals (since "made by God") are "redeemable," given the right circumstances. This begs the question, Is that really true, or simply a hope or a religious doctrine? More than that, I believe that Christianity has religionized the general human hope that we can all "turn over a new leaf" when necessary. After all, what reasonably well-adjusted person would willingly come to a ready conclusion that Man's tendency is to stay as he is and not be open to change for the better?

There is also a scientific/genetic approach: most people will be good as long as they can manage the bad things that happen to them in good spirit, but every person can be driven to hideous behavior given the right circumstances. And my life's experience has led me to conclude that if most people tend to the "good," there are some who are so willingly, consciously evil in thought and deed that there must be a strong genetic/temperamental component to it. The Germans have an interesting word: schadenfruede, taking pleasure in cruelty. So there is strong evidence for a wide streak in humans beings of "evil as a consciously chosen lifestyle" as well as "good as a consciously chosen lifestyle."

Tolkien is addressing a theological issue that comes from within Western religion, specifically Christianity, and also what seems to me to be his private problem (and the in-house problem of other Christians for whom it matters): shall orcs be redeemable since they were "bred" from elves, or not? This to me is a question which breeds (no pun intended) endless (and therefore fruitless) speculation. If even he couldn't come to an answer which satisfied him, I shall certainly not presume to try to find one for him!

For me, the whole issue is one which stands entirely outside my ethical/moral concepts because I am not a Christian (nor, for that matter, a serious believing member of any other mainline religion). Indeed there are other major religions in which the concept of redemption does not even exist, because the operative notion is one of karma, one of behavior: each individual soul, through a series of lives eventually and inexorably achieves perfection, that is, Oneness with God (by whatever name the religion calls Her).

Further, I am glad indeed that JR didn't weigh down his saga with his (private) question openly, happily leaving Joe Reader (including myself) to enjoy his reading without being weighted down, albatrosslike, with extraneous (for the reader who has no such concerns) religious baggage.

Barley

[Arvegil]

Tolkien is addressing a theological issue that comes from within Western religion, specifically Christianity, and also what seems to me to be his private problem (and the in-house problem of other Christians for whom it matters): shall orcs be redeemable since they were "bred" from elves, or not? This to me is a question which breeds (no pun intended) endless (and therefore fruitless) speculation. If even he couldn't come to an answer which satisfied him, I shall certainly not presume to try to find one for him!


Further, I am glad indeed that JR didn't weigh down his saga with his (private) question openly, happily leaving Joe Reader (including myself) to enjoy his reading without being weighted down, albatrosslike, with extraneous (for the reader who has no such concerns) religious baggage.

Barley
Without going in to speculation too far, I thought Tolkien designed the Orcs in such a way as to avoid such issues, or at least make them of limited relevance within his mythology.

[Eledhwen]

Without going in to speculation too far, I thought Tolkien designed the Orcs in such a way as to avoid such issues, or at least make them of limited relevance within his mythology.Yes. As Tolkien took such pains to remove all traces of religion from The Lord of the Rings, it seems almost rude to attempt to cram it back in again, and some.

There is an essay in HoME10 (Morgoth's Ring), that deals with the origins of orcs. The wonderfully individual portrayals in PJ's films seem to have been close to the mark, as the orcs were bred from whatever (or whoever) was available to the incumbent Dark Lord. Add to that the interbreeding of the various types of orc, and it soon becomes obvious that you'll get into a right quagmire sorting out whether they go to Mandos or not.

[Arthur_Vandelay]

The Germans have an interesting word: schadenfruede, taking pleasure in cruelty.

I thought the word Schadenfruede meant "taking pleasure in the misfortune of others," which is slightly different. But I'm not a Germanophone, and am willing to stand corrected.

[Barliman Butterbur]

I thought the word Schadenfruede meant "taking pleasure in the misfortune of others," which is slightly different. But I'm not a Germanophone, and am willing to stand corrected.

Is this not cruel? Your definition is probably the more literally accurate dictionarywise, but mine is, unfortunately, the more accurate as a description of historic behavior. There is not that great a distinction between taking pleasure in the misfortune of others, and causing misfortune in order to take pleasure in it.

Barley