Tolkien and the Monsters

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim

I was thinking of "capacity for independent thought" in terms of sentience. Oliphaunts are not sentient, but simply beasts pressed into evil service. To my mind, therefore, they cannot be classed as "evil". The same might apply with regard to the Fell Beasts.

I take your point with regard to the Nazgul, however. They are sentient. Yet, having been enslaved by Sauron, they have no choice but to carry out his will. In one sense, therefore, they are no longer independent creatures at all, but simply extensions of Sauron's will. Conceivably, it might also be said of Gollum that he had no choice in his evil conduct - at least while his will was subservient to the Ring. Perhaps the difference is that they had a choice at the outset whether or not to take the path that led to evil. However difficult, Gollum could have resisited the lure of the Ring when he first set eyes on it, but he gave in to temptation. Similarly, the Nine Kings of Men could have rejected the Rings offered to them by Sauron but gave in to their pride and lust for power. I am not sure off the top of my head whether they were aware of exactly who it was who offered them the Nine Rings. But, even if they were not, they succumbed to vices which, ultimately, led them onto the path of evil.

With Orcs, we come back to the eternal question: are they inherently evil, or do they have a choice?

Although they are not "monsters" as such, I would add Saruman and Wormtongue to your list of those who freely chose to commit evil acts.

[Noxomanus]

I do wonder,can a creature be called evil if it doesn't know that it's doing wrong? Fact is,the Watcher would be called evil though I suppose it wouldn't think so itself.

[davem]

Isn't Tolkien showing the effect of evil choices on the individual - The Nazgul are Kings who in all probability (as Shippey points out) took the Rings Sauron offered to them not because they wanted to be slaves, but because they wanted power, to have some degree of control over their lives & the lives of others. That desire could have originally been motivated by a wish to do good. But this very desire for control leads in the end to a loss of control. They become in the end nothing but manifestations of Sauron's will. Wraiths/wreaths (Shippey again) -twisted things. So Tolkien's concern is showing the consequence of our choices - because we can become 'wraiths' also. 'The end justifies the means' - if I can make things better for all concerned in the long run, then its ok if I cut a few corners now. If I have to 'remove' certain individuals to make the world a 'safer' place that's acceptable, etc, etc. But the end result is I become a wraith of 'Sauron' - of the state, of that single all encompassing vision. Tolkien's skill, though, is that, rather than going into a long philosophical discussion about such things, he just shows us the consequence. He doesn't try to argue us out of making such choices, which will just lead to long convoluted arguments on whether wraiths (or orcs, or giant spiders, etc ) are really evil or just misunderstood, or just a 'bunch of guys' trying to get on with their lives. He shows us - 'Frodo, if you claim the Ring you'll become a wraith. Do you want to become like them? Slaves with no will, no freedom? Ok, so don't claim the Ring'.

There's a real danger, as Tolkien pointed out, in 'studying the arts of the Enemy'. The difference between 'good' & 'evil'? Why choose Good over evil? Well, look at the consequences of the choice.

Or the Barrow Wight, who spends ages brooding on death, nothingness, till in the end it becomes simply a 'will to nothingness' it desires only the void which is what it gets in the end - I'm struck by the fact the the Barrow wight's great nemesis is Tom Bombadil, who symbolises its opposite - light, joy, life, being. The wight is another form of Shelob/Ungoliant to my mind.

Or Old Man Willow - 'evil' because he wants 'revenge' against all who go on two legs, not justice against those hobbits who hacked their way into the Old Forest & destroyed his trees. He has become obsessed with destroying all those not like himself, & so has turned himself into a monster.

In short, The characters in Tolkien's world who symbolise/manifest true evil have two things in common - they have all made the moral choice to become evil, & they are all ugly, deformed & cruel. Something in us is repelled by them - we know they are wrong - truly 'wrong', not just 'incorrect'.

[The Saucepan Man]

So Tolkien's concern is showing the consequence of our choices - because we can become 'wraiths' also. (davem)

But how does this tie in with the Christian idea of forgiveness? The Nine kings of Men made some pretty terrible decisions, yes. Their pride, greed and ambition led them to become instruments of Sauron’s evil will. But, being enslaved by Sauron, they were then wholly unable (during their “lifetime” at least) to repent. Doesn’t Christian doctrine hold that God will accept anyone who truly repents, whatever sins they have committed in their past? The Ringwraiths never got that opportunity.

The same may be said of Orcs (and I am veering into well-trodden territory here). From the moment that they become (or are born as) Orcs, they have no opportunity of redemption during their lifetime. They are condemned to commit evil.

It seems to me therefore that, by creating irredeemably evil creatures in order to avoid a philosophical debate, Tolkien just created more problems for himself. From what I know of what is said in the HoME series, Tolkien recognised this, since he began to rethink his ideas on the origin of Orcs. Logically, the only solution to the dilemma of having creatures which are born irredeemably and unchangeably evil is to portray them as mindless pawns, and this, I believe, is the direction in which Tolkien was heading. But it doesn’t sit well with the characterisation of the likes of Shagrat and Gorbag in LotR.

[HerenIstarion]

I’ve tried to deal with the issue in more, so to say, brief way, but eventually came to the conclusion that it should be taken as seriously as possible. In doing so, I will pass beyond boundaries set by the Lord of the Rings, but so be it. Some issues were dealt with separately in different threads across the Downs, as it is but, again, my goal here is to have as full a picture as I’m able of contriving. It may take quite a run to reach titular ‘monsters’ of the thread, but the journey is unavoidable, I believe. Any comments/corrections are welcome.

List of abbreviations to be used:

AT – Absence Theory
BT – Battlefield Theory
S77 – Silmarillion published in 1977
OK – Osanwe-Kenta
AFaA – Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth
MT – Myths Transformed


Concepts

It seems logical, before proceeding to individual cases, as listed above in Fordim’s initial post, to look into concepts of Evil as employed by Tolkien in his works. Ultimately, Tolkien draws on official Christian view on the subject. The whole concept of Evil with Tolkien originates with the concept of the whole world and its origins. So, the concept is simple enough – the world is created by ultimately potent, omniscient and benevolent God – Eru, for the benefit of his creatures – Ainur and Children (Men and Elves).

The Evil originates as corruption brought into the scheme by one of the Ainur, Melkor (later – Morgoth). So, the facts of cosmology support the main idea:

Only Good is original, Evil is its perversion or lack thereof.

And,

Good is eternal, Evil – temporary

And

Good does not need Evil to exist, but Evil can not be if there were no Good to start with

Furthermore, to avoid confusion with any ‘real-world’ concepts (i.e. Boethian, or Dionisis Areopagitus or whatever and whoever), I shall call it Absence Theory (AT for short)

In other words, as it is stated throughout Tolkien’s works, Evil can not create, it can only mock, and it barely exists – i.e. being an opposite of Good, it has its qualities in negative, and as existence is aspect of Good, the longer Evil exists, the less it exists. It maybe termed as shadow (and so it is done throughout LoTR), in a sense ‘thing not existent’, ‘lack of light’, or ‘thing caused by absence of something’.

Hence such a quotation as:

Silm77

But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.

It illustrates the principle so very acutely – whatever done, Evils is destined to ‘walk the ruinous path down’ into the Void (that is, nothingness)

But, if followed to its extreme, such a concept may lead to a conclusion that, as Evil is non-existent, and destined to eventually extinguish itself, each individual creature is free ‘to stand aside’, and entrust all to the general line of development (i.e. ultimately to Eru)

Not to let such a concept develop into opinion, there is opposite dualistic concept at work, which maybe put down as:

Evil has its own being, it is Force outside man’s [elf’s, dwarf’s, etc] mind and should be fought against
(To be labeled Battlefield Theory further on (BT for short))

Such a concept is never voiced directly throughout JRRT’s works, but hinted at here and there, as for the ‘should be fought against’ part of the maxim, it is self obvious – the whole bulk of the legendarium and LoTR is a history of such a fight.

Before I proceed on to embodiment of these two concepts, it should be noted that always, always, always the Absence Theory has the upper hand, though there are not paragons of Evil with Tolkien who would be pure expressions of one of the concepts.

Embodiment

The merging of these two concepts gave us what images of Evil we have with Tolkien. I call it merging for a reason – that being, that in no instance, in no piece of text, one is not channeled through without at least a bit of another there.

Per instance – the Evil itself in Arda is brought about by Melkor.

What conclusions may one draw when evaluating his actions from 2 concepts of evil point of view, would be the following:

1. Morgoth is perverting the Music of Iluvatar, but not creating his own (Absence Theory)
2. Morgoth is a person (Battlefield Theory)
3. Morgoth is able to put forth part of his own being (!) into Arda, tainting it and thus making it ‘Arda Marred’ (Battlefield Theory)
4. In doing so, Morgoth looses his being eventually, weakens himself to an extent of near annihilation (Absence Theory)

Both concepts are at work, though Absence Theory is predominant. (Even if he is a person, he is not able to create anything of his own, only mock)

Morgoth is furthermore viewed as Prime Evil – i.e. the cause of all Evil hereafter

Free People

Under free people, I, rather daringly, have united more that it is usually meant. In this particular post, the term means not only Children - Men, Elves and Dwarves, but spirits - Maiar, Valar and others too, i.e. all that have gift of Free Will granted by Eru. But there is categorization to be made, nevertheless. In Category A spirits are grouped, i.e. those ‘bodiless’, or bodily clad following their own choice, in Category B, spirits clad in bodily form not out of their own choice, but by their nature, i.e. Incarnates.

In both categories both concepts are at work.

For Category A, though spirits be free to choose (AT), some of them:

S77

that sang nigh him grew despondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered; but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which they had at first

I.e., are liable to outside impact (BT), the sheer force of Melkor’s disturbance makes them change their own music

Category B has it still more complicated. For one, their bodies come from the matter of Arda, and that is already ‘tainted’, ‘marred’ by Melkor. So, as it is stated that hröa and fëa influence each other (OK, AFaA), they have drawback to them from the start (BT), but their spirits are of Eru, so when the go bad, the do it ‘on the inside (AT)

The paragons of such a combined impact are a-plenty throughout the books. Per instance, Ringwraiths – they are overcome due to their own vices (i.e. power-greed etc), and becoming Evil, they by and by loose qualities inherent to Good – i.e. their life is less life but mere ‘going on’, they loose or almost loose their bodies and so forth, so the evil at work here falls under AT concept, but, and very grave but at that, they are overcome by the outside impact too – their rings (BT)

Frodo and the Ring, with all instances of ‘his own urge to put on the Ring’ and ‘there was no answer in his will any more, some outside force was moving his hand’ instances, and, especially, Frodo in the Sammath Naur, is one of the best channelings of both concepts Tolkien had written. If you look at the wording of his claim to the Ring, it is quite unclear ‘who doth quoteth’ – he, or the Ring itself.

Barrow-Wights are focus of two concepts again. There are theories that it is King of Angmar to blame that they are there, in the first place (BT), but, then again, Tom Bombadil sings quite a song to reveal a hint at the AT final to all the issue:

Lost and forgotten be, darker than the darkness,
Where gates stand for ever shut, till the world is mended

A-ha! one may utter – the world is to be mended, and than BW would be set to original plan, too! (AT)

But the most interesting is the issue of the Fall of Men, as dealt with in AFaA. Again, both AT and BT concepts are at work – The Fall is achieved with personal intervention of Morgoth (BT), but happens as Men cease to listen to the Voice-Eru (AT). It is lasting as it is hereditary and goes down the generations (BT), but can be repented off and set right (AT), and will be eternally set right in the End (AT)

And again, though both are at work, AT is predominant


Beasts/puppets

Under category of beasts fall all living creatures that haven’t got Free Will/Soul, that is, animals, orks (majority of them, as investigated here (All About Orks), balrogs with small b (see here (One Hand Tied Behind Their Backs), fell beasts, horses of the Nazgul etc.

The beast issue forms quite a difficulty. We have Arda Marred to deal with, and, as all matter is tainted by Melkor, all beasts have a drawback to them of being (at least partially) made of what has Morgoth’s will in it (BT)

But beasts do not have souls. Therefore, what is done by them for self-preservation, even killing of other beast, can not be surely put to their blame?

This situation is ascribed to Morgoth again:

S77

Forests grew dark and perilous, the haunts of fear; and beasts became monsters of horn and ivory and dyed the earth with blood. Then the Valar knew indeed that Melkor was at work again

I.e. the whole ‘strife for survival’ issue is designed by Morgoth, and is another expression of Evil as outside Force (BT). So, it may be said that no beast is personally to blame for killing (so hunting tiger is quite a fellow, unless it is the author of this post to be hunted ), but the order of animal strife is not ‘natural’ – in a sense not in accordance with the natural plan, therefore – evil.

But, as the original plan was perverted, so it is promised to be set right, when Arda is Remade (AT)

Monster

Monsters proper may be enlisted as – spirits abiding in bodily forms of their own choice, not like to housing of Children of Eru. That gives us Balrogs (capital B), dragons, Ungoliant and Shelob.

Balrogs and Dragons Evilness is like to that of Free Peoples. That is, they make their choice (AT), but may be influenced by Melkor’s disturbance of the Music too (BT)

Ungoliant and Shelob are ‘baddies’ apart. Though Melkor be Prime Evil, it is said that she does not acknowledge Him. Neither does Shelob in case of Sauron. But!

S77

and there in Avathar, secret and unknown, Ungoliant had made her abode. The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwë, and that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service. But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust, taking all things to herself to feed her emptiness; and she fled to the south, escaping the assaults of the Valar and the hunters of Oromë

Again, both concepts at work – BT – for she was corrupted by Morgoth, but AT, for, even thoough she (or they) may seem ‘in love’ with Evil for the sake of Evil, another glance reveals it is not so. For what do they both desire – to preserve own existence. But existence is the quality of Good, so her Evilness, as all other evilness, has its root in Good, so is absence of one

Evil – where it comes from

Now, what is the root of Evil? The answer, throughout the works, rings the same bell always – pride. I.e. putting something less than Eru in His place.

I think, for the time being, this brief note suffices. It can be elaborated at will, if the need arises


Evil – what is it needed for at all

Returning to one of my first maxims of the post:

The world is created by ultimately potent, omniscient and benevolent God – Eru, for the benefit of his creatures

Why than, does such benevolent Creator tolerate Evil at all? (‘I’m evil, you’re evil, Eru’s evil’ quote of osse’s in one of the preceding post) More can be found here (Was Eru A Sadist). With the brief note, though, it may be said that Evil, originates out of Pride. But pride is possible only were freedom is. So, one can not have Free Peoples without letting in the possibility of Pride. But pride in itself is AT concept in its ultimate expression


This can also be (and have been) elaborated to the great length, but what is said is sufficient for the time being

With the hope I haven’t tired you overmuch

My regards

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Now davem, Heren Istarion and SaucepanMan, you just stop what you're doing right now. . .I mean it! davem put down that Bible. And you, H-I drop your copies of the HoME, I mean it! Do it right now.

Oh Saucie, please take that copy of the Letters out of your mouth.

Heavens to Besty, but you lot are such a handful. Don't you remember what happened when you three started like this on the Canonicity thread? Do you want that to happen again?

I didn't think so.

So now -- just get away from those windows and let's concentrate on the question at hand, shall we? Those are all very interesting points that you are making, and I would like to thank you all for them very much, but let's not get sidetracked into the "What Is The Nature Of Evil In Middle-Earth" debate again.

I know! My topic is what started this, and I have begun it all, but please try to move back to the issue of the monsters in LotR, and how they help us to think about the nature of evil in the book.

Now I don't want to have to say this again. If you can't focus on the assignment I'll have to send you down to Principal Estelyn's office where you can explain to her why you always want to talk about books and matters that aren't under discussion.

(Saucie, will you please stop making that noise with your armpit? It's disgusting.)