The Trickster in LotR

[littlemanpoet]

I've been reading The Quest for Merlin by Nikolai Tolstoy (Little, Brown & Company, ©1985)

(I don't know of any relation to the famous Russian author.)

Who in The Lord of the Rings does the following remind you of? I'm not going to reveal who it reminded me of; I'd prefer to avail you of the same opportunity to react to the text below the way I did, without someone else's notions to clutter your reading. Once you have made your choice, it might be interesting to compare and contrast which elements fit LotR, and which don't, and what that may mean in the context of LotR. (Sorry if this is beginning to sound like a college level English assignment, but I think it would be interesting to take a look at how Tolkien used this Trickster archetype, what he integrated and what he discarded or used in another way.)

I'll quote at length.

Few mythological figures enjoy so widespread a provenance as a quirky character known as The Trickster. A many-faceted, complex personality, his traits add up to a rounded and recognizable individual - possibly the first to appear as a 'literary' concept. His attributes have been effectively summarized by the American anthropologist Paul Radin:

'Manifestly we are here in the presence of a figure and a theme or themes which have had a special and permanent appeal and an unusual attraction for mankind from the very beginnings of civilisation. In what must be regarded as its earliest and most archaic form, as found among North American Indians, Trickster is at one and the same time creator and destroyer, giver and negator, he who dupes others and who is always duped himself. He wills nothing consciously. At times, he is constrained to behave as he does from impulses over which he has no control. He knows neither good nor evil yet he is responsible for both. He possesses no values, moral or social, is at the mercy of his passions and appetites, yet through his actions all values come into being.' ... How is one to reconcile a figure at once benefactor, buffoon, and malignant tease; who is at the same time incarnate spirit of destructive mischief, and yet culture hero who teaches man the use of fire and cultivation of plants, a destroyer of monsters and divider of seasons?

The Trickster represents an elemental, whimsical being, whose integration into human society is only partial. There is a dichotomy in his nature, which prevents his ever breaking entirely free of his chaotic, primordial mould. He violates the most sacred taboos of society in a manner not normally contemplated even in myth. He is destructive, even murderous, on occasion; and yet his ready wit at other times leads him to teach his fellows the use of flint or the construction of dwellings.

... [much having to do with Merlin as trickster ... you'll have to read the book for yourself] ...

Symbolic of Trickster's efforts to rid himself unavailingly of the crudely bestial aspects of his nature are violent struggles maintained within himself, as when his left hand struggles against his right. Frequently he is made the dupe of his own cunning.

In a later chapter Tolstoy is writing about shamanism and says this:

Among primitive peoples the Trickster myth seems to have survived in much of its pristine purity. In societies little evolved from that of the Palaeolithic era, its therapeutic benefits remained fully vivid. It holds the earlier low intellectual and moral level before the eyes of the more highly developed individual, so that he shall not forget how things were formerly. Elsewhere, however, society became increasingly ordered and sophisticated, and rational, conscious modes of thought drove the older being deep down towards the position it occupies today, the unconscious psyche. The Trickster evolved into a god, and his generic characteristics became the individual traits and adventures of an identifiable personality.

These personalities can readily be listed: Til Eulenspiegel, Loki, Enkidu, Hermes, Pan, etc.

In other Indo-European mythologies it seems that this [Master of the Woods] aspect of the Trickster-god has been hived off onto another, darker deity.

To summarize, Varuna has his Shiva; Lug has his Cernunnos; Odin has his Loki; Enkidu has his Humbaba; Jekyll has his Hyde.

So anyway, thanks for bearing with me through this somewhat long batch of quotation. I'm quite sure that Tolkien has made use of the Trickster in LotR; what do you think?

[Encaitare]

Hmm, an interesting find, LMP!

While I don't see any one character which encompasses every trait listed, there are a few which immediately come to mind for specific traits.

Trickster is at one and the same time creator and destroyer, giver and negator, he who dupes others and who is always duped himself.

This made me think Saruman first, but now that I think about it, it can also encompass Morgoth, Sauron, and possibly Feanor. All were creators: Saruman less so, but he did breed orcs; Morgoth created the orcs in the first place; Sauron created the Ring; Feanor the Silmarils. All were also destroyers, although to different extents. Saruman was destructive in war; Morgoth was perhaps the most destructive being ever. Sauron and Feanor are interesting cases because their creations led to their downfalls. The Ring was used against Sauron, and if only Feanor hadn't made that silly oath, then he would not have died (at least, not fighting for the regaining of the jewels).

Now for the giver and negator: Sauron is Annatar, the Lord of Gifts. He gave the Nine rings to men and created the Nazgul, removing all humanity from them via his gifts.

The last bit of the above quote was what made me think of Saruman. He dupes others by means of his voice, but in his desire for power has foolishly convinced himself that he could go behind Sauron's back.

He knows neither good nor evil yet he is responsible for both.

This made me think of Eru, although perhaps wrongly, since he does intervene on occasion for the side of good. Usually, though, he just stays aloof and watches. He is responsible for both good and evil, being the Creator, but not in a direct way.

He violates the most sacred taboos of society in a manner not normally contemplated even in myth. He is destructive, even murderous, on occasion; and yet his ready wit at other times leads him to teach his fellows the use of flint or the construction of dwellings.

Again, I think of Feanor. He dared to deny the Valar, and with his oath sank to a terrible level, ie: Alqualonde. The oath itself sealed the fates of he and his sons. Yet it cannot be denied that he was a master smith, and not always a bad person.

How is one to reconcile a figure at once benefactor, buffoon, and malignant tease; who is at the same time incarnate spirit of destructive mischief, and yet culture hero who teaches man the use of fire and cultivation of plants, a destroyer of monsters and divider of seasons?

Here I think of Gollum. This is in a more subtle way, though. Gollum is a malevolant presence for much of the book, and he is willing to kill for the Ring. But, he has a small chance of redemption as well. He teaches Frodo pity, and in the end is partly responsible for the Ring's destruction. He leans in both directions, though I don't think he could be called a "culture hero."

Symbolic of Trickster's efforts to rid himself unavailingly of the crudely bestial aspects of his nature are violent struggles maintained within himself, as when his left hand struggles against his right. Frequently he is made the dupe of his own cunning.

This is much like Gollum and Smeagol, always at odds.

I look forward to reading others' views.

[Garen LiLorian]

Edit; Whoops, cross-posted with Elianna
The character who leaps to my mind for this archtype is Bombadil,

an elemental, whimsical being, whose integration into human society is only partial. There is a dichotomy in his nature, which prevents his ever breaking entirely free of his chaotic, primordial mould.

This fits pretty well.

He knows neither good nor evil yet he is responsible for both.

This is also represented in the text, though it is a little less obvious. It is obvious that he is responsible for good, through helping the hobbits, however at the council of Elrond Gandalf says he would not take the ring

"...willingly. He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away."

This seems to indicate he has no knowledge (or care, which is probably a better way of putting it) for 'good' or 'evil' as the outside world defines them. It could also be stated that he is responsible for evil, as he is Master of the Old Forest, an area feared as evil by the Hobbits.

Several of the Trickster's defining qualities

"At times, he is constrained to behave as he does from impulses over which he has no control," " is at the mercy of his passions and appetites" "a malignant tease"

are noticably missing from Bombadil, however. They show up quite nicely in Gollum, however, as Encaitare points out. Gollum also has the whole "responsible for both good and evil" thing going, although I wouldn't agree with the case that he doesn't know them. I also agree with Enca that Gollum doesn't count as a culture hero, though I guess that one's open to debate. In the context of LotR as a myth, Gollum has a pretty good hold on a trickster archtype. However, in the context of Middle-Earth itself, I still like Bombadil.

In the end, although Bombadil has many aspects of the Trickster, he is clearly a cleaned-up one. This makes some element of sense, as Tolkien's world is quite a bit more (can't quite find the right word...) socially acceptable than the sex-and-gore world that the Trickster largely inhabits in various cultural mythologies. Tolkien also (at least in LotR) takes some pains to delineate the boundary between good and evil, and someone so ambiguous as the Trickster archtype could not reasonably exist in all his full glory in the context of LotR. (IMHO, at least)

[Lathriel]

At first I was thinking of Sauron. However when it said

He doesn't know the difference between right or wrong

I thought of Gollum. he doesn't think of right or wrong. He only follows his own desires, mainy his desire for the ring.
Also he truly is a trickster. he tricked the elves of Mirkwood who held him prisoner. He also tricked Frodo and Sam when he led them into Shelob's Lair.

[Kuruharan]

I second, or rather, third the motion nominating Bombadil.

I also find some element of The Trickster in Bombadil's enigmatic nature.

However, I also agree with Encaitare that no character in the stories completely fits the bill.

[Evisse the Blue]

Indeed the similarities with Tom Bombadil are striking. The parts that do not fit may be because we know this character too little, or they haven't had a chance to manifest themselves in the given situations.
Even the part about him not having control over impulses being a subject of his passions (notice that it says 'at times'). And impulses and passions don't necessarily have an evil connotation, so I can see Tom Bombadil behaving impulsively.

The only problem I see is that Tom appears too little in the story so that he could be perfectly equivalent to the Trickster character. Tricksters usually play a predominant role, and their actions lead to major events. While Bombadil just prefers to be out of the way and is unconcerned with 'greater matters' such as the Ring.
So I agree with Garen on this one:

Originally Posted by Garen LiLorian

In the context of LotR as a myth, Gollum has a pretty good hold on a trickster archtype.

In any case, it's strange how this very interesting quote could lead to comparing two so different characters such as Gollum and Tom Bombadil!

[davem]

I think, as others have said, there are a few characters who manifest the Trickster archetype in LotR. In fact, if we take into account the early drafts, Bingo plays the role to an extent in his encounter with Farmer Maggot, wearing the Ring & drinking a mug of beer, & running off with the farmer's hat!

If we look at The Hobbit we see Gandalf playing the same kind of role when he turns up at the start & tricks Bilbo into joining the Quest of Erebor.

Its almost as if the Archetype 'overshadows' various characters at various times, rather than any one of them being The Trickster throughout. I wonder if its not misleading to look for a single character personifying any archetype in Tolkien's world. Chrysophylax plays something of the same role in Giles, as does Alf in Smith.

Perhaps the Archetype in its 'pure' form was too powerful & dangerous (as well as uncouth) a figure for Tolkien to be entirely comfortable with giving him his head. Bombadil very nearly got away from him, after all, & had to be carefully restricted to his own little land to stop him running riot. Tolkien was very careful in his use of the 'purer' mythological & psychological Archetypes - for instance, its very significant that in a mythology which makes such strong use of 'Northern' myth he carefully avoids the use of ravens. They pop up only in a minor way in the Hobbit, & this is probably because of all the incredibly dark connotations they have in Norse & Celtic myth.

I suppose Tolkien was walking a fine line in his own mind between recreating what had been lost, & producing what to him would have seemed something dangerously atavistic. The Archetypes had to be presented in a 'civilised' form, they had to be 'dealable' with for a modern audience, & principally they had to conform to his Christian worldview. The Trickster has no place in orthodox Christianity.....

[Elianna]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

He possesses no values, moral or social, is at the mercy of his passions and appetites, yet through his actions all values come into being.' ... How is one to reconcile a figure at once benefactor, buffoon, and malignant tease; who is at the same time incarnate spirit of destructive mischief, and yet culture hero who teaches man the use of fire and cultivation of plants, a destroyer of monsters and divider of seasons?

This kinda reminds me of Tom Bombadill, strangely enough.

[Kuruharan]

Evisse the Blue

The parts that do not fit may be because we know this character too little, or they haven't had a chance to manifest themselves in the given situations.

I don't agree. I believe we do know enough about Tom's general character to make some comfortable assumptions about him, strange as that may sound. Can you picture him appearing with a *FLASH* *BANG* and ravishing young hobbit maidens, going on a looting spree of Bree, or leading an army of Huorns and Ent-wraiths to flatten the Shire?

Well, I guess there was that one time...

...and I think I just came up with a new crackpot theory about what happened to the Ent-wives.

[Regin Hardhammer]

This is an interesting question. I can see how Bombadil and even Gollum have some characteristics that fit this archetype. But my gut feeling is that Davem has put his fingers on the problem we face:

I suppose Tolkien was walking a fine line in his own mind between recreating what had been lost, & producing what to him would have seemed something dangerously atavistic. The Archetypes had to be presented in a 'civilised' form, they had to be 'dealable' with for a modern audience, & principally they had to conform to his Christian worldview. The Trickster has no place in orthodox Christianity.....

I agree Tolkien was very aware of such archetypes but was leery of using them in their full blown form. When I first read Littlemanpoet's question, I was reminded of several things Tolkien wrote about Celtic myth and the Arthurian legends from Letter 131. Here Tolkien talks about his desire to reconstruct a myth that would be dedicated to England:

It should possess the tone and quality that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our 'air' (the clime and soil of then Northwest; meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe; not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East), and while possessing (if I could achieve it) the fair elusive beauty that some call Celtic (though it is rarely found in genuine ancient Celtic things), it should be 'high', purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry.

The italics are mine. I think this is where Tolkien signals his intention to part from some traditional archetypes like the Trickster that do have a big role to play in something like Celtic myth. (Or at least I think they do. I am no expert here at all.) He was aware of these archetypes, and they will influence his characters, but he softens them considerably in an effort to get away from the "gross". I think Davem is right in suggesting that Tolkien looks at archetype and even faerie through the mindset of his Christian beliefs.

In reference to the Arthurian legends, Tolkien also complained it was too "fantastical, incoherent, and repetitive". Maybe, this too suggests that he was determined to "tame" his archetypes to produce the pure, elusive beauty he wanted rather than having them appear in pure form. Certainly, the "trickster" in its original conception can rightly be labelled "fantastical".

Kuruharan -

I had to smile at your picture of Bombadil going on a rampage! The only way I could imagine him doing this is if he drank too much. Kind of like a northern Dionysius!

[Garen LiLorian]

Now, I know we've gone over the 'Tolkien and Eastern thought' thing a lot, most recently in A hint of Buddhism?

But I was looking at some other examples of the Trickster archetype, and one that really supports the Gollum case is the Chinese Trickster and Monkey King Sun Wukong. The was a pretty typical malific trickster figure until the Gods implored Buddha to do something about him. Buddha stuck him under a mountain. (quote following from Wikipedia.org

There he remained imprisoned for five centuries until he offered to serveSanzang, the Tang Priest, who was destined to make the journey to the West to retrieve the Buddhist scriptures for China. The bodisattva Guanyin helped Sanzang by giving him a magical headband which Sanzang tricked Monkey into wearing. With a special chant Sanzang is able to tighten the band until Monkey cannot bear the pain. In that way he is brought to his true calling as a disciple of Buddha. For the rest of the epic Sun Wukong faithfully helps the Tang Priest on his journey to the west.

This bears some startling (albeit probably unintentional) similarities to Gollum's journey, especially if you subscribe to the opinion that he was redeemed by his mis-step at the Crack of Doom.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks for the fascinating responses, all.

Allow me to recap my thought process as I read the quoted text.

a quirky character known as The Trickster

I immediately thought of Tom Bombadil, not least in context of the visible souls thread, which somehow devolved into yet another attempt to grapple with who and what Tom Bombadil was. It seemed to me that I had stumbled upon the best answer yet.

a special and permanent appeal and an unusual attraction for mankind from the very beginnings of civilisation.

This validated my thought of Bombadil.

Trickster is at one and the same time creator and destroyer, giver and negator, he who dupes others and who is always duped himself

At this point I thought, "more or less yes to creator and destroyer (made a home for Goldberry and himself; destroyed Old Man Willow's hold on the hobbits, and later that of the Barrowwight on them); yes to giver and negator (he gave the hobbits shelter & safety & good stories); but no to dupe and duped. In fact, he proves to be quite immune to being duped; think of how Frodo put on the Ring and it didn't work with Tom. Well, if not Tom, then who? Gollum! Okay, he is a destroyer, and a negator, and does dupe and is duped. But only the negatives. Hmmm....."

At times, he is constrained to behave as he does from impulses over which he has no control.

The tame by comparison to the archetype, Bombadil can't help but dance and stomp, not to mention rhyme even in normal conversation, and can't help being devoted to Goldberry (which maybe takes on new meaning in the context of his Trickster identity). But this fits Gollum even better.

He knows neither good nor evil yet he is responsible for both.

Okay, this doesn't work for Tom. Tolkien removed this part of the Trickster from him. On the contrary, Tom seems to be quite aware of both good and evil, but is affected by and responsible for good but not evil. Whereas Gollum knows good and evil, his appetite for the Ring overpowers.

He possesses no values, moral or social, is at the mercy of his passions and appetites, yet through his actions all values come into being.'

Okay, this is less true of Tom but true of Gollum in terms of the Ring's power to overcome all other considerations in his life.

How is one to reconcile a figure at once benefactor, buffoon, and malignant tease; who is at the same time incarnate spirit of destructive mischief, and yet culture hero...?

Indeed. It occurred to me that Tolkien's answer was to separate out the positives to Tom and the negatives to Gollum. What I find most interesting is that Gollum, of the two, is more amenable to the status of culture hero than is Tom; something that could only be true in our own age, I wager!

The Trickster represents an elemental, whimsical being, whose integration into human society is only partial.

All three aspects of this are true of both Tom and Gollum in their own ways.

There is a dichotomy in his nature, which prevents his ever breaking entirely free of his chaotic, primordial mould.

In the case of both Tom and Gollum, again, in different ways, quite.

He violates the most sacred taboos of society in a manner not normally contemplated even in myth. He is destructive, even murderous, on occasion; and yet his ready wit at other times leads him to teach his fellows...

Okay, this time we've moved away from Bombadil and find ourselves very much with Gollum, especially in terms of leading, if not teaching.

Symbolic of Trickster's efforts to rid himself unavailingly of the crudely bestial aspects of his nature are violent struggles maintained within himself, as when his left hand struggles against his right.

Ah. Gollum versus Sméagol.

In other Indo-European mythologies it seems that this [Master of the Woods] aspect of the Trickster-god has been hived off onto another, darker deity.

It was this quote that sealed it for me: Tolkien had done the same thing with the Trickster in LotR: Tom Bombadil received all the positive traits, and Gollum some of the positive but all of the negatives.

I too found it startling to be comparing these two characters out of all of them in LotR.

If you have not read the two poems that make up The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, I assure you that they will only serve to cement the notion of Tom as Trickster.

I was interested to see the other characters some of you thought of, and I can see how you could have thought of them. For me, I decided to play the game of seeing which character(s) from LotR best fit the most aspects.

davem's gives us wise words of caution, and I agree in part; nevertheless, the two characters of Bombadil and Gollum succeed in filling out the role of Trickster in LotR. Indeed, I think that to understand Bombadil as Trickster, answers much of the puzzlement that we have about him. This answers how Bombadil is "oldest" - he is the oldest archetype.

The Trickster has no place in orthodox Christianity.....

On the contrary. Orthodox Christianity has long since adopted the Trickster as one of the primary manifestations of Satan. Think of Christ's 40 days in the desert and the three ritual temptations that followed. Since you've read the book, davem, I would have thought you'd maybe remember Tolstoy's comments about how the Christian "myth" dovetails so amazingly with the myths of Trickster, Three-fold Death, the god dying to himself for the sake of his people, etc.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

On the contrary. Orthodox Christianity has long since adopted the Trickster as one of the primary manifestations of Satan. Think of Christ's 40 days in the desert and the three ritual temptations that followed. Since you've read the book, davem, I would have thought you'd maybe remember Tolstoy's comments about how the Christian "myth" dovetails so amazingly with the myths of Trickster, Three-fold Death, the god dying to himself for the sake of his people, etc.

Its a long time since I read the book. I can't argue with Tolstoy about the way the Church took up various 'Pagan' ideas (& even Pagan sites) & 'Christianised' them - there's a famous letter from Pope Gregory quoted by Bede which advocates the new Archbishop of Canterbury do just that: http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/mellitus.html

What I meant was that the Trickster in his pure formhas not been accepted into Christianity. The Trickster is not a 'moral' being, but he isn't evil per se. Having said that - & here I may be arguing against myself - in the early Church we do find 'The Lord of Misrule': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Misrule but he doesn't seem to have lasted very long, & was declared 'unChristian'