The Beauty and The Negative in JRRT's works [Archive]

Gil-Galad

10-20-2002, 12:44 AM

That's the traditional dividing of "good" and "bad"things.I have read some critics and one of the most interesting opinions are that Tolkien doesn't develop so much the characters.That's why everything is "good"or "bad"(I'm talking only for LOTR).Tolkien is not a typical writer for 20th century,and that's why he hasn't got complicated characters who are mixture of good and bad features.
I like neither Lotlorien nor Mordor.Lotorien,for me ,is an equivalent of the impossible,perfect beauty.Mordor is an equivalent of the perfect evil.They cannot exist long because of their perfection,that's why they don't exist in IV ages.

Nóm

10-20-2002, 01:19 AM

`Not even to see fair Lothlurien? ' said Haldir. 'The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair, and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater.

Finduilas

10-20-2002, 01:21 AM

Don't you think Tolkien has created the contrast between the 'good' and 'bad' because he wanted to leave a message.We shouldn't try to reach this perfection because of the reason you gave.Life is a competition and if you can't find an equal competitor(because of your perfection)then your life is frittered away.Shouldn't we look at JRRTT's works as something more than books.Something as a guide for life and how we can recognize our persol life in the adventures of his charecters.

Ravenna

10-20-2002, 01:29 AM

On the whole, I would have to agree. Tolkien tends to make his characters either good or bad, in fact the only two 'grey' characters which spring to mind are Boromir and Pippin.
Pippin, whilst in no way evil, tends to get into touble by his very youth and impulsiveness, which at least rounds him out a bit.
Boromir, on the other hand, has much more depth to him, he is devoted to the cause of good, but is tempted into a certain amount of evil, purely in his desperation to do that good. In giving him flaws, Tolkien makes him much more human and, in some ways more sympathetic, in the sense that we can all recognise his faults, and while not agreeing with him, understand how his actions came to be.
As to Lorien and Mordor, to me they appear to be symbols. Lorien is the place of ultimate peace and perfection which we all strive to be in, and Mordor is the symbol of, well, the opposite. Mordor, is showing us the ultimate ruin of eveything good and pure.
Lorien shows us too, what Mordor could have been, and Mordor shows us what Lorien could become.

Mrs. Maggott

10-20-2002, 01:32 AM

Physical beauty is not always a reliable guide to the nature of the being. Remember, Sauron presented himself in comely form when he seduced the Numenoreans into evil. The destruction of Numenor forever ended his ability to assume a beautiful guise and ever after, he was fated to appear in a form true to his nature. In the battle with Gil Gilad and Elendil, Sauron is described as "black and burning" (which is why the Ring's characters are clearly displayed) and his touch destroyed the great Elven King.

On the other hand, no one can describe the Ents or Tom Bombadil as "beautiful" and yet they are "good" while Saruman and Gandalf are similar in appearance but diametric in nature.

On the whole, Tolkien does present things that are "good" as being if not beautiful, at least not unsightly. The Elves - who are presented as a force for good - are almost uniformly identified as "fair". Dwarves, on the other hand are not handsome, but neither are they ugly in the manner of the orcs (who themselves are ruined elves). They are creatures of the earth and therefore, in stature and appearance they do not equal either elves or men in the ordinary standards of physical beauty. Yet, dwarves, too, have the power of will to rise to great good or sink into evil. Like the Dwarves, Hobbits are "earth-bound" creatures who do not achieve any degree of elvish beauty yet, again, neither are they ugly. Men range in physical comliness, but as evidenced by Aragorn whose face is described by the author as "strange and eager", their innate nature is not necessarily reflected by outward comliness.

As in "real life", beauty - or its lack - is not necessarily indicative of moral terpitude. Only the heart - not the face - reveals the true nature of the individual even in Tolkien's world. :)

Gil-Galad

10-20-2002, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Finduilas
Don't you think Tolkien has created the contrast between the 'good' and 'bad' because he wanted to leave a message.We shouldn't try to reach this perfection because of the reason you gave.Life is a competition and if you can't find an equal competitor(because of your perfection)then your life is frittered away.Shouldn't we look at JRRTT's works as something more than books.Something as a guide for life and how we can recognize our persol life in the adventures of his charecters.
Well,I agree in a way,but that's why there aren't absolute things.I have written so many times my idea about "the absolute happines","the absolute etc..",but I'll write it again.
I believe that people should reach this "perfection".
Let's have for example the Numenorians,they have wanted to be immortal and because of this aim(dream)they have developed theirselves and even have opposed the Valar.We all know what happens.
But that shows something very important.It's impossible to reach "the perfection","the absolute happiness", but the desire for it makes people go on.Because of it people survive,develop themselves and become stroger and stronger.
As a whole you're absolutely right for one thing Tolkien's works are more than books!;) :p :cool:

Gil-Galad

10-20-2002, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Ravenna

Boromir, on the other hand, has much more depth to him, he is devoted to the cause of good, but is tempted into a certain amount of evil, purely in his desperation to do that good. In giving him flaws, Tolkien makes him much more human and, in some ways more sympathetic, in the sense that we can all recognise his faults, and while not agreeing with him, understand how his actions came to be.

That's right!I totally agree with you!!!:) He wants to help his people,that's everything for him.The ring is just a THING he can use to for that.The desire for "happiness",in this case for "sirviving"is so strong,is pushing him closer and closer to the edge (just like the Numenorians).Boromir does nothing bad in fact,he does the best for his people as he understands the things.;)

gate7ole

10-20-2002, 02:16 AM

You’re right that Good and Evil are greatly distinct in ME (with a few exceptions). Most can be ranked between these two categories. [Of course Feanor is an exception having a bit of evil running though his blood.] But this distinction is clear to us, the readers. To the people inhabiting the book, it was not always easy to perceive the evil. Remember Sauron, who came as a Giver of Gifts to the elves of Eregion, or even Morgoth who deceived Manwe and gained his pardon.
It needed great wisdom to read the motives of the others and men frequently were deceived by the lies of Morgoth and his servants. But the elves being wiser, were indeed aware of these lies.
Finally, the great distinction of Good and Evil in the War of The Ring, which is more apparent than in any other tale, can be justified by the didactic intentions of Tolkien.

Mrs. Maggott

10-20-2002, 02:49 PM

"I believe that people should reach this "perfection".
Let's have for example the Numenorians,they have wanted to be immortal and because of this aim(dream)they have developed theirselves and even have opposed the Valar." <quote>

Those Numenoreans who thirsted after immortality had been corrupted by Sauron and forgotten the "gift" of Eru which made men different in temperment from elves. Elves were "designed" as it were, for immortality within the confines of the world while men were intended to live briefly in the world and then proceed to another plane of existence which is not clearly elucidated in the writings. Those who violated the restrictions of Eru (NOT just the Valar) by attempting to seize elven immortality by force were not "reaching for perfection", but REJECTING the perfection which Eru had intended for them. They wanted instead what they PERCEIVED to be "perfection" and brought destruction down upon themselves thereby.

If one looks at Boromir with the context of the book (the film was not able because of various constraints to develop either the character or the situation fully), one sees a man who BEGINS with a concern for his people but who in the end, is corrupted by visions of PERSONAL grandeur. Boromir the Great, striding across Middle Earth to defeat Sauron. Yes, certainly there was concern for his people, but in the end - just before he regains his reason - it is ALL ABOUT BOROMIR and not at all about Gondor or his father or his people. Fortunately for Boromir, he has one last opportunity to redeem himself of which he takes full advantage even at the cost of his life.

Ithrynluin

10-20-2002, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Gil-Galad
I like neither Lotlorien nor Mordor.Lotorien,for me ,is an equivalent of the impossible,perfect beauty.Mordor is an equivalent of the perfect evil.They cannot exist long because of their perfection,that's why they don't exist in IV ages.

I disagree with this.Why should perfection be a bad thing? We strive to achieve it every day (in "real" life),but it is extremely difficult to do it, if not even impossible. Perfection,in both extremes (Lothlórien-good, Mordor-evil),was a fleeting,passing thing like you said.But even as such, I would much rather be a part of perfection (however brief) than live in mediocrity for all my life.

Elennainie

10-20-2002, 08:27 PM

Lotorien,for me ,is an equivalent of the impossible,perfect beauty.Mordor is an equivalent of the perfect evil.

I don't think that Lothlorien was perfect. Wasn't it already in its autumn, and spring could never come again? Wasn't that glory and the beauty of the past being merely remembered there?

Ithrynluin

10-20-2002, 09:09 PM

Lothlórien may have been in its autumn by then,but what about all the years prior to that? For me it was always a symbol of perfection and a paradise on (Middle) Earth - that is why I love and admire it so much.:)

Elennainie

10-20-2002, 09:26 PM

Good point about the prior time. I meant at the end of the third age. I definitely did not mean it as a criticism of Lothlorien, since it's my favorite dwelling place in ME. (I think the movie was so unjust in portraying it mostly at nighttime, instead of showing the beauty of its golden leaves.) I was trying to point out that it didn't meet the strict definition of perfection at the end of the third age, because Galadriel's ring is merely maintaining its existing state rather than creating new beauty, etc. Perhaps I'm wrong on this. Anybody?

Mrs. Maggott

10-20-2002, 09:39 PM

"Perfection" is not an impossible goal. Every sunset is "perfect" as is every sunrise - and so it goes in all of nature. It is "perfect" insofar as it cannot be "improved" except by the same Divine Creator who made each sunset and sunrise - which, perforce (in rather circular reasoning), makes them "perfect" according to His will.

It is our definition of "perfection" that is the problem. Human kind cannot achieve "perfection" if that means that what has been achieved must be without flaw or fault. We live in a fallen world in which EVERYTHING has some flaw or fault. However, we are able to attain a certain type of "perfection" within the parameters of our fallen world. The man who lays down his life for another has made a "perfect" sacrifice despite the fact that he himself was not "perfect" when he did so. And likewise, perfection may be obtained (in a far more prosaic setting) mathematically or chemically as when an equation "balances out".

However, "perfect" good is limited to God while "perfect" evil does not exist. Both Morgoth and Sauron were not evil in the beginning and therefore, even the evil that they became cannot be said to be "perfect". One must also wonder that if any orcs survive the fall of Sauron, might they not, in time, begin the long climb back to ordinary nature since they are no longer enslaved to an evil Master? They would never become elves again, one supposes, but might they not become a sort of "twilight race" equally capable of good or evil - like the rest of the mortal folk of Middle Earth?

Nóm

10-20-2002, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by ithrynluin
I disagree with this.Why should perfection be a bad thing? We strive to achieve it every day (in "real" life),but it is extremely difficult to do it, if not even impossible. Perfection,in both extremes (Lothlórien-good, Mordor-evil),was a fleeting,passing thing like you said.But even as such, I would much rather be a part of perfection (however brief) than live in mediocrity for all my life.
I see how perfection might be a bad thing. With perfection people might become too content with life.
Being content might cause people sit around and do nothing all day. Now some may argeu that there is nothing wrong with this? Hmm..I think there might be. As for me I am pretty content with life and I am fine to sit around doing nothing productive because I see nothing worth gaining.

gate7ole

10-21-2002, 12:51 AM

Originally posted by Confusticated
As for me I am pretty content with life and I am fine to sit around doing nothing productive because I see nothing worth gaining.
My fellow guildmaster, Confusticated, that is a very pessimistic thing to say. Do you really think there is nothing worth gaining? Is your life carried on in vain? Then I guess we didn't get the same messages from Tolkien. I don't find any contention sitting around and doing nothing and I can't really understand how a young person, like you, would do so.
P.S. Isn't it at least productive to read Tolkien?

Ithrynluin

10-21-2002, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Confusticated
I see how perfection might be a bad thing. With perfection people might become too content with life.
Being content might cause people sit around and do nothing all day. Now some may argeu that there is nothing wrong with this? Hmm..I think there might be. As for me I am pretty content with life and I am fine to sit around doing nothing productive because I see nothing worth gaining.

In my opinion,perfection,such as was found in Lórien,would stimulate me to do good deeds,to help others who live in worse circumstances (e.g. Galadriel giving Samwise some of the Lórien soil - not that the Shire was a horrible place to live,it just wasn't perfect), I would make up poems and songs about the beautiful things surrounding me:rolleyes:,I would give advice and offer help to those who were in need of it...I would not sit idle if I had such perfection....A lot of big talk maybe,but that's how I feel.:)

Ithrynluin

10-21-2002, 12:58 AM

Nóm

10-21-2002, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by gate7ole
My fellow guildmaster, Confusticated, that is a very pessimistic thing to say. Do you really think there is nothing worth gaining? Is your life carried on in vain? Then I guess we didn't get the same messages from Tolkien. I don't find any contention sitting around and doing nothing and I can't really understand how a young person, like you, would do so.
P.S. Isn't it at least productive to read Tolkien?
Oops gate7ole, why do you say guildmaster? :D I'm a Journeyman.
It is pessimistic.
I think there is a lot in life that is worth gaining, but I obviously do not care enough to do anything about, so for me personaly you could say it is not worth the trouble. In vain? No..I enjoy life.
Productive to read Tolkien? I rather say that it is enjoyable. Though we may have different definitions of the word productive. I'mm not sure why a young person like me would do so other than personal fault and having taken the wrong path in life from a very young age.

As for people living in a perfect place, people have different ideas of what perfection is. We'll say for simplicity though that there is a one place that all people think is perfect: in my idea this place would have to include painful things and problems in general because a person would be bored nearly to death if all things went well and no effort was required to improve on things.

Ithrynluin: My point was that perfection could cause content which could cause lack of action.

Eriol

10-23-2002, 05:06 PM

If I may intrude...

Confusticated said: "perfection could cause content which could cause lack of action".

It seems that perfection is being defined as "freedom from any want" here. Stated in these terms, it is not only impossible to achieve, but also impossible to conceive. Humans (and I don't know whether elves are like humans in this regard) are defined, among many other characteristics, as alwyas having unfulfilled desires. This follows not only from psychological insight (the insecurity of our life after we leave the womb, and so on) but also from philosophical insight, which is much more compelling to me. The human mind (and I don't mean MY mind or any other specific mind, I mean ALL human minds) is not equipped to deal with freedom from desires. It's like having to imagine a world in which the principle of self-identity is false, in which A=A and A is different from A AT THE SAME TIME. We can't conceive it.

Less strict definitions of perfection are possible, of course. If you REALLY believe that freedom from desire is perfection, you should look up the Buddhist beliefs, which hold that the path to Nirvana goes through the extinction of all desires. Of course, Nirvana means "not-being", so if you really extinguish all desires you are well on your way to extinguish yourself -- not my cup of tea. I would rather be than not be (a desire ;) ).

This is a gripping subject, and these are my thoughts on it. I'd love to hear your thoughts about it. See ya!

Theoden

10-23-2002, 05:12 PM

Dont' kill me for this, but I think that the reason why Tolkien made such a distinction between good and evil was because of his beliefs. Tolkien was a Christian and in Christianity, the distinction between the ultimate good and the ultimate evil is huge. Now, you can throw rotten vegetables at me if you like, but that is what I think.

-me

Mrs. Maggott

10-23-2002, 07:41 PM

Certainly Tolkien's Christian beliefs influenced his work even though LOTR is NOT an allegory. In the Judeo-Christian belief system, there are objective truths (things that are ALWAYS true and not subject to circumstance) and both objective good and objective evil exist. This is NOT a situational belief system subject to anyone's "interpretation".

Interestingly enough, with the exception of the poor orcs and trolls who are bred to their condition (which is what Gandalf means, I think, when he says that he even pities his (Sauron's) slaves), EVERYONE ELSE who is evil has CHOSEN to be so. Neither Morgoth nor Sauron were evil in the beginning and they, of course, represent the greatest and most powerful source of evil. Saruman began as a benevolent being just like Gandalf - and chose "another path". And so it goes with all other characters in the work; they choose to be either good or evil through their own will. ertainly, from time to time, those who are "good" fail and do evil. When that happens, if they repent, they are forgiven (Boromir). If they remain obdurate, they pay the consequences of their "choice" (Saruman, Grima and Denethor).

Finally, Tolkien also expresses his Christianity when he makes clear that whatever the characters in his story are suffering IN THE END, good WILL triumph. Sam realizes this in wonder when he looks up while he and frodo are in Mordor and sees the stars shining high above, pure and clean, untouched by the foulness which surrounds the two of them. It is then that he knows that whatever happens to the Quest, evil can NEVER prevail.

Finduilas

10-25-2002, 10:25 PM

Perfection can be found only in Nature.The world is alive and every leave make people look up to the magic power which has created everything around us.Can people develop so much that they could concurate with Nature?Maybe.But should we say perfection isn't good for people when we have not ever created something perfect?I don't think so.Tolkien has tried to write(he actually created a whole history,world)a perfect book or even better -a book for perfect things in life(or not perfect).
Everyone likes his work and even admires his gift.Than if Tolkien's LOTR is just a slight resemblance of perfection,shouldn't we accept and even enjoy real perfection,the one reached by people's development?
We shouldn't judje a thing if we have not yet created it.

Gil-Galad

10-25-2002, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott
"

Those Numenoreans who thirsted after immortality had been corrupted by Sauron and forgotten the "gift" of Eru which made men different in temperment from elves.

I don't agree.The Nuenoreans became scared of death long before Sauron's coming.Sauron just help them to destroy theirselves.;)

Mrs. Maggott

10-25-2002, 11:33 PM

Even nature is imperfect but the closest we human beings come to "perfection" is when we love completely, without thought of gain or self. One may love another person or beauty or music or literature or nature or animals or even mathmatics. In fact, to love something for itself, is a reflection of the Divine Nature of God for He loved all things He created not for what they could do for Him, but for themselves alone.

We should constantly STRIVE for perfection in all that we do and all that we are, but we should not despair because we cannot achieve it. It is the striving that counts. Thus, Tolkien strove to create something great and unique and precious - and in that, he succeeded ALMOST to perfection. Can those of us who love both him and his creation do any less? :)

Gil-Galad

10-25-2002, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Confusticated
I see how perfection might be a bad thing. With perfection people might become too content with life.
Being content might cause people sit around and do nothing all day. Now some may argeu that there is nothing wrong with this? Hmm..I think there might be. As for me I am pretty content with life and I am fine to sit around doing nothing productive because I see nothing worth gaining.
I agree with you,Confusticated.I'll give an example from other movie."The Matrix".Agent Smith(Elrond) asked Neo did he know what had happened to the first Matrix.Neo answered that he didn't know.Then Agent Smith explained to Neo that the first Matrix had been perfect,but people hadn't believe it was a reality.
It's another example against the possibilty of "absolute perfection".And I will continue Confusticated's words about people who will do nothing all they:Do you think they will be any progress then,ithrynluin?