|
Actually Bźthberry, I don’t think that Galadriel is Shelob’s ‘opposite’ in the manner that I think you are suggesting, although she is certainly the primary opponent of Shelob, through her ‘champion’ Sam. I think that this is because Galadriel is not wholly defined as a ‘feminised’ figure in the text, insofar as she is tempted by the Ring. She overcomes this ‘masculine’ desire (please note, I am not saying that this is a desire of men, but a desire that is directed toward the masculine desire for rule that is expressed negatively by Sauron and positively by Aragorn), but she still does possess it. Arwen, on the other hand, has no such desire and is instead possessed by her ‘feminised’ desire to nourish and support those who are pursuing the quest to overthrow Sauron (it is telling, I think, that Arwen is who provides the happy ending for both Aragorn and Frodo, who goes to Elvenhome because Arwen gives up her place to him). This is the opposite of Shelob, whose only desire is to consume the world and take it into herself, not rule over it.
But on another tack…
I’m beginning to think that another way of working through monsters and evil might be to focus on their lasting effects. I come to this after thinking about Arwen and how she tries to give the heroes their relief after their struggles (she gives Aragorn the green stone that announces his kingship and his bond to her; she gives Frodo the white stone that he clutches in his moments of despair back in the Shire). Frodo says at the end of his journey that he is “wounded with knife, sting and tooth, and a long burden.” I think that this statement tells us a lot about the nature of evil in the book. The other dangers of the journey, once over and done with, are revealed to be just that – dangers, or obstacles toward the goal. The only real and lasting damage that has been done has been inflicted by the Nazūl, Shelob, Gollum and Sauron (the Ring). This is a nice shorlist of the evil beings who might help us to understand what that evil is. Without being too programmatic it might be possible to use each wound as a sign of a different ‘type’ of evil:
The Nazgūl, are the faceless and banal doers of evil; people who have willingly forsaken the obligation of men to think morally and make decisions of their own. They have made the evil choice to let the logic of power and domination determine what is right for them, rather than exercise their own consciences and engage with the difficult and disturbing issues of what is right. (I love davem’s image of them as soulless bureaucrats in an authoritarian state – it was Shippey who likened the Wraiths to the Nazis, wasn’t it?).
Shelob is the ‘feminised’ form of evil: she devours and wants to consume all life and creation. She is the feminised form of pride that puts her desire for self-fulfilment before all other considerations.
Sauron is the ‘masculinised’ form of evil: he seeks to dominate and control all life and creation. He is the masculinised form of pride that puts his desire for self above all others.
Gollum is the evil that comes when the self is corrupted by evil choices, and by the desire to do evil. He is the flip-side to the Nazgūl insofar as he has not given up his right and duty to choose, he has just chosen to continue to make the same evil choice over and over again. He isn’t the suspension or loss of conscience, but the corrupted conscience. This is why, I think, he bows down to Shelob and becomes kind of her Nazgūl (her servant who brings Frodo to her); just as the Wraiths have given over their sense of self to the power of Sauron (they have submitted to his desire for control), Gollum has allowed his-self to be consumed (as Shelob wants to do to the world).
|