Tolkien and the Monsters

[Osse]

Rather than hard to define, which of course if you take a bloody dictionary it is NOT... think of it as hard to compare, especially to itself. One person's sense of evil or wrong, is often warped by their beliefs, upbringing and values, as well as personal experiences. If you are going to be that blatant and word-abiding, HerenIstarion, one could say that anyone is EVIL... Aragorn is evil, he achieves his goals at the expense of all the forces of Darkness. Eru himself is evil, he achieves his goals at the expense of most if not all of Arda's inhabitants.... in fact, every single character in all of every writen work is Evil... I am evil, you are evil... even my cat is evil.


Also, your theory has a flaw: What about those creatures that are 'purely' evil...

Taking your simplistic formula:

Utterly Evil Character - end: death to all other life / means / death to all other life


Without trying to sound insincere, i do not believe that Evil is a word that should be thrown around lightly, nor does the definition you so kindly provided, outline it's real meaning... Evil is something far more sinister and intentional than just achieving something at the expense of others...

Evil is intense, it's often deliberate or at least self-observing if not intentional! Evil is a word thrown around too much in the world today... but i am not here to rant about things, I just vehemently resent the simplicity in which you have replied to my quite serious remark, a remark that I felt held truth and deeper meaning. Rather than play Devil's Advocate, as you perhaps are, maybe you should have looked at the meaning behind what I was trying to say?

I have great respect for you HerenIstarion, and your posts are always filled with insight and general freshness, I can only assume you were taking this in a humourous light, or picking up on an opportunity i myself might, yet I cannot understand why you would simplify something so intensly complex - over simplification itself dare I say it is... EVIL!

My regards nevertheless still go out to you HerenIstarion, and all you read this post, i am highly interested in hearing what you have to say on this superbly thought-out topic!!

Ossë

[Lalaith]

Perhaps the problem lies in trying to compare Tolkien's evil with real life evil.
I believe (although I know that probably others on the board do not) that there are no Saurons in our world.
In Middle Earth, thera are beings who are entirely evil and the only dilemma is how best to defeat them. In our world, no individual being is entirely evil in this sense, and our moral dilemmas are considerably more complicated as a result.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by osse

Also, your theory has a flaw: What about those creatures that are 'purely' evil..

But there is no ‘pure evil’ as such. That's (or, rather, it's opposite), what I've tried to bring across with simplified Shelob, for what is put down to as:

end: death to all other life / means / death to all other life

may be rendered as:

end: preserve own life/ means: death to all other life

And life preservation is the thing good in itself. Evilness of action is expressed by ‘death to all other life’ part of the fork. So, the origin of evil (death to all life) is good (preservation of own life)

I am evil, you are evil... even my cat is evil.

For one, cats are evil (I know it – as I do own two cats), it is just style they’ve got to them that masks their ultimate brutality and ‘bastardness’. For another (and you did lure me out into the deep, the thing which I tried to avoid with alleged ‘simplification’) – it is arguable that whole animal ‘strife for survival’ kind of life is as it is due to the Fall of Man

Let me confess that in watering the concept down, I rather hoped to work out definition to work for everybody, regardless their faith. I must admit the essay was not very succesful, as, I’m sure, you imply with the quote (I'm evil, you are evil) above, it is impossible to make moral choice – which action on what time is evil, and which not

But before rewriting the maxim of ‘on the expense of the others’ (let it be labelled as ‘maxim A’) let me explore the following:

Originally Posted by osse

One person's sense of evil or wrong, is often warped by their beliefs, upbringing and values, as well as personal experience

Verily so. But deviations are very minor. Generally, virtues are always the same, as vices are always the same. It is form they take that is different from culture to culture. To have an analogue – in all societies throughout the world courage was praised, not cowardice. But expressions of courage might be different. Similarly, ‘love for thy neighbour’ is praised everywhere, not only in Christianity, , the definition of ‘neighbour’ being different only. For Christianity, it is everybody, for Islam, Muslims only (though Jews and Christians are tolerated as opposed to Pagans), for some obscene tribe lost in the mountains it may be only members of the tribe who are considered ‘neighbours’, and than all the strangers get killed. But the main fact – that man should love his pairs, is one and the same for everybody.

Now, am I allowed to rewrite the ‘simplistic maxim A’? It may stand thus:

Something achieving its ends (even if ends are good at some point) by means of harming others (Let it be labelled ‘maxim A1’)

It says pretty much the same, but harm done to ‘others’ may be more explicit this way.

I’m aware what may pop up to anyone’s mind following such a maxim. “what about hunting tiger – is it evil?” In a way I render the issue down to this point, I have no answer to that question.

But if I were to let Eru into it, than I’d say – ‘tis for the Fall of Man only’ And, as ‘Fall of Man’ is not seen from LoTR in an explicit way, so the initial question was dealt with.

Final form, following the last paragraph, would sound like:

Evil’s is anything to put itself forward, to prefer its own will to the Will of its Creator

(Let me label it as maxim B (nailing it down in one word, it’d be Pride, and so the Fall of Man came about to pass))

Maxim B contains in itself, though is not filled up by, the A and A1 maxims

If you are ready to accept ‘maxim B’ as a whole, fine. If not, than I can contrive no better than maxims A and A1

So, having written all of the above without much consideration and in a hurry, I hope that it is moderately articulate, and fly off to meet pressing requirements of RL, with the promise to come back to the issue later on

PS. osse, I’m really flattered by your just revealed attitude to my musings on the fora. My gratitude and compliments in return

[The Saucepan Man]

Another classic thread from Fordim.

I’m aware what may pop up to anyone’s mind following such a maxim. “what about hunting tiger – is it evil?”

I think that we have to make a distinction between mere beasts and creatures of evil. Regardless of how one defines evil, I would say that a creature can only be evil if it acts intentionally with a motive other than simple self-preservation. A hunting tiger is not evil because it is doing what it needs to do for no other purpose than to survive. And I am sure that there are a variety of creatures in Middle-earth that fall into this category. The fox, for example, that wonders upon Frodo, Sam and Pippin sleeping under the stars in the Shire no doubt needs to kill to survive. We would not, however, class it as evil.

There are also creatures within this “beast” category which are employed in the service of evil, but which, since they have no choice but to do so, I would not class as intrinsically evil. Oliphaunts, for example, and the beasts that drew Grond to the Gate of Minas Tirith. Perhaps the Ringwraiths’ horses and fell-beasts fall within this category too. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to suggest that they were “independently evil”, as opposed to simply being employed as steeds by evil creatures.

Some might say that Orcs fall within this category too, since one theory has it that they have no will of their own but are simply pawns used by the forces of evil. I don’t personally hold with that theory, although one does then get into difficult questions of whether Orcs are inherently evil, whether redemption is available to them etc. I will steer clear of that topic since, as Fordim noted, there are enough threads that address it already.

And what about Wargs? Are they simply overgrown wolves that are pressed into service by Orcs and the like. Or are they in fact creatures with an evil will? The fact that they are made out in The Hobbit to be sentient creatures that have willingly formed an alliance with the Goblins, plus the fact that they seem deliberately to target the Fellowship in LotR, would strongly suggest the latter. Indeed, the fact that Gandalf refers to them as “Hounds of Sauron” is probably a fairly big clue.

The Watcher in the Water I find interesting in this context. Superficially, it would appear to be a simple beast. One that is simply protecting its territory, or perhaps looking for a tasty Hobbit snack. Yet, as Imladris has mentioned, there is a suggestion that there is something more than coincidence in the fact that it targets Frodo, the Ringbearer. If this is more than coincidence, is its attraction to the Ring internal or external? In other words, does the Ring attract it or is it innately attracted to the Ring? If the former, then it may indeed simply be a beast: one that the Ring is using to escape. If the latter, however, then this might suggest that it is itself a creature of evil.

Finally Shelob and her predecessor, Ungoliant. As others have suggested, the fact that their motive for destruction and consumption is more than simple self-preservation, but rather destruction for destruction’s sake, would suggest that they are in themselves evil creatures (even though neither are loyal to the Dark Lords that they associate themselves with). Their sentience adds to this impression, as it does with Shelob’s “spawn”, ie the spiders that Bilbo encounters in Mirkwood. Although the Mirkwood spiders no doubt capture the Dwarves so as to feed themselves, the delight which they appear to take in doing so tends to indicate that there is more to their actions than simple self-preservation.

(Off topic:

For Christianity, it is everybody, for Islam, Muslims only (though Jews and Christians are tolerated as opposed to Pagans)

I would not agree with this statement. Islam, of course, can take different forms. But, in its purest form, I understand it to be extremely accepting of other faiths, at least as much so as Chrisitanity.)

[Mithalwen]

Oh well I did say it was an instant instinctive answer.... I hadn't really established in my own mind a hierachy of evil........ I think evil is meant to be a consequence of the marring of Arda so the root cause would be Morgoth......and enough seeds of evil were sown to mean evil would continue even when Morgoth and Sauron were vanquished ..... largely in the hearts of men who saw the gift of men as a curse .... To answer other issues raises the issue of evil in the wider world - Nazi Germany and many more recent and current tyrannies....... does "the only following orders" defence have any validity ........ and evil as a religious concept ..... Gollum is so hard....... and part of the problem I have with him is part of the problem I have with Christianity - there is teh impression that Gollum is redeemable but in the end he "fails" but by his failure the world is saved...... similarly without Judas' failure the expiating sacrifice of Christ doesn't happen... sorry rambling now.....

[The Saucepan Man]

does "the only following orders" defence have any validity

It does when we are considering creatures without the capacity for independent thought, such as Oliphaunts. Whether it applies to Orcs is a matter of some debate. Otherwise, no it does not (in moral terms at least).

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

SaucepanMan, you wrote, in response to Mithalwen:

"does "the only following orders" defence have any validity" -- It does when we are considering creatures without the capacity for independent thought, such as Oliphaunts

Or the Nazgul? They at one time did have the capacity to think for themselves (when they were still Men), but they forsook that (willingly?) when they gave in to the temptation/seduction/possession of the rings of power. But this goes right to the enigmatic heart of the evil-question I am trying to work through: are they evil Men who chose Sauron (in which case, evil is defined by what one does rather than by what one is -- let's call this Option A) or were they Men who were made Evil when they were enslaved by Sauron (in which case, Evil is what one is -- Option B). I don't think that there's any way to really settle this enigma through the books -- that's kind of the point, I feel, for it forces us to come at the nature of evil in LotR from the perspective of the age-old nature/nurture (genetics/environment) debate.

That Tolkien was one very smart customer.

If we go with Option A, then the orcs, the Balrog, the Watcher in the Water, trolls, and all the nasties who oppose the Fellowship (that is, who do evil) are indistinguishable from one another in that evil -- they perform evil acts, in which case evil is defined by that which opposed good for whatever reason.

If we go with Option B, then the only 'truly' evil characters would be figures like Sauron and Shelob (in fact, I think I would confine the list to them alone, for this option) -- they are the only ones whose sole purpose in life is to defined by their evil intent, and their evil acts are only the putting into action of their evil natures. In this case, evil is not defined solely by its opposition to good, but as a more active and conscious presence.

[Bombadil]

Perhaps what defines what creatures are truly evil by nature and which ones are not could further be explored by observing their aggressiveness. What I mean is the Balrog doesn't stir from Moria, but when the fellowship disturbed it, it attacked them. So for every creature:

The Black Riders - Aggresive, leaving Minas Morgul to find the ring by any means.
Old Man Willow- Well since he can't physically move you could call him aggressive for going out of his way to mess with the hobbits.
The Barrow Wights- The Hobbits came into their land, so once again cold be disputed, but they aggressively took the party captive.
The Watcher in the Water- Minding his own business was disturbed by Boromir throwing a rock i his pool.
Moria orcs- Fellowship entered their domain.
The Balrog- As I said above, they disturbed it
Gollum- Aggressive, going out of his way to re take the ring.
lots and lots of orcs (and Uruks)- Aggressive, in terms of Parth galen and Helm's Deep.
The Fell Beasts- I suppose you would call them aggressive, as they bore the ringwraiths.
Shelob- Was disturbed in her domain
The ghosts of the unfaithful- disturbed
The Mouth of Sauron - at black gate he was called forth, but Lieutenant of aggressive army
Sauron- Very Aggressive

Now at this point you're probably wondering what my point is, after reaidng all those "aggressives." When an Orc strolls into Rohan, it's killed. When the group of (Aggressive) Uruks ran through the Ridder-Mark with Merry and Pippin, they were on the land of the horse people, and they killed the orcs for that reason. The Rohirrim were even hostile towards Legolas Gimli and Aragorn. So why label creatures as evil if they are only defending themselves from unknown creatures, or ones known to be their enemies in the past? My point may be a little far fetched but I'll throw it out there.

[Firefoot]

So why label creatures as evil if they are only defending themselves from unknown creatures, or ones known to be their enemies in the past?

I think the problem I have with that statement is the word "defend". In cases such as Moria, Parth Galen, etc, and in events including most of the examples of evil, they are not merely defending themselves. They are launching an out-and-out attack on the unknown creatures/ known enemies. In Rohan, the Orcs were killed because they had made battles with the Rohirrim in several occaisions, and recently, and lauched raids on their farms etc.