[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Yes, I agree, a very interesting thread. . .but I gotta say that I think, like davem, there may not be any 'room' in the moral fabric of Tolkien's world for a true trickster figure.

As has been mentioned here several times, one of the definitive components of the trickster is that he is amoral: neither moral nor immora; neither evil nor good. One of the great sources of depth and thematic texture to Middle-earth is the fact that is it so clearly and tangibly a moral universe, in which good and evil are present in all acts, actions and people (even places and things). This is not to say that everyone and everything is divided into two camps of Good versus Evil, but that everyone and everythign is defined by the conflict/contrast between good and evil within them.

This is just not suitable ground for the trickster to flourish in. He (or sometimes she) by virtue of his only brushing association with human society is removed from the norms of that society -- even immune to them. In Tolkien's universe, there is no one-remove from morality that anyone can get to. Bombadil is an interesting suggestion for this, insofar as he in untouched by the power of the Ring, and unmoveable to direct action in destroying it, but he is still clearly on the 'side' of Good insofar as he keeps the Barrow Wights at bay, laments for the dead woman who was brought under the shadow, saves the hobbits from Old Man Willow, helps them on their journey, and is a friend to Gandalf -- none of which is counterbalanced by similar acts or associations with evil. Were he a true trickster figure he would be equally comfortable with Sauron, invite wights over for tea, and be as like to ensnare the hobbits as help them on their way.

Ultimately, the trickster is a chaotic figure: or, more properly, a figure of chaos. He makes things happen that are interpreted or received as good by some, and as bad by others. But as we can see time and again in Tolkien's universe, there is no such force of possibility for chaos -- the One, Eru, is in charge; Providence is guiding events along. Sure, there is uncertainty and room for individual action, but the sense of history as being a story moving toward an End precludes the real possibility of chaotic action. The prospect of someone or something other than Sauron or Eru coming along to knock the whole works for a loop is just not there.

All of which is not to say that the legacy of the trickster is not present in the text: I think that Bethberry's post about the "expurgated trickster" is wonderful and will only add a "hear hear" to it. To this extent, I realise that I'm not adding anything new to the thread, but perhaps we can say something about Tolkien's moral universe:

Having realised that not only is there no trickster figure, but no POSSIBILITY of a trickster figure, does that not point to, perhaps, a certain limitation to that world? A narrow view, even, in which the possibility of chaos is being consciously removed from the tale? Chaos -- as the absence of good and evil -- is a possibility in the primary world, even for those who don't believe that the world is chaotic, their lived experience will bring them into contact with other people who believe that chaos is the state of existence. But in M-E there is no-one and nothing to give this thought voice or dramatic form. It is a world in which the thought of chaos has been suppressed by a dynamic, fluid and wonderfully dramatic relation of good and evil.