Tolkien and the Monsters

[Bêthberry]

davem,

Whether this is deliberate on Tolkien's part is the question - maybe it came through unconsciously ...

To me all this is part of a deep undercurrent to the Legendarium - I'm just not sure that in the case of Shelob (as opposed to Lembas, for instance, which I think is a deliberate reference to the Host) that its intentional, or even conscious on Tolkien's part. I suspect that he just wanted something really terrifying, & being stuck in a pitch black tunnel with a giant spider is pretty terrifying.

Well, here we are back on some unresolved Canonicity issues, I think. Just what constitutes evidence for authorial 'intentionality'. What is authorial intentionality? Must it always be conscious and deliberate? What kinds of things in the text would persuade you that Shelob is supposed to represent one of these ancient wicked female figures? or archetypes? Is it just happenstance that the gender attribute given to this terror is female? And happenstance that the terror is given such intense physical traits of appetite?

(Aside: Doesn't Carpenter tell a story of Tolkien being bitten by a tarantula while a child i South Africa?)
Would you need to see a long line of literary references to decay, rot, corruption and how they are linked to females? Medieval literature fairly reeks with such descriptions and attributes. A initial line about Shelob capitalises 'she':

But other potencies there are in Middle-earth, powers of night, and they are old and strong. And She tht walked int he darkness had heard the Elves cry that cry far back int he deeps of time, and she had not heeded it, and it did not haunt her now.

And is it just happenstance that Shelob is given disgusting details of parturition?

and she served none but herself, drinking the blood of Elves and Men, bloated and grown fat with endless brooding on her feasts, weaving webs of shadow; for all living things were her food, and her vomit darkness. Far and wide her lesser broods, bastards of the miserable mates, her own offspring, that she slew, spread from glen to glen, ...But her lust was not his lust. Little she knew of or caref for towers, or rings, or aything devised by mind or hand, who only desired death for all others, mind and body, and for herself a glut of life, alone, swollen till the mountains could no longer hold her up and the darkness could not contain her.

Does Tolkien ever use 'lust' in any other context in LotR?
Fordim,

Well, there certainly is a contrast between Shelob and Galadriel in terms of who gives in to her appetite and who does not, who luxuriates in it and who is so distanced from her mate that he stays behind when she sails West.

In terms of your opposition between consuming and controlling, where would you put a figure like Goldberry, who controls the weather but who certainly sustains and supports others? Or are you suggesting that this consuming and controlling are merely flips sides (ying/yang) of those who lack self-control?

[HerenIstarion]

Without wanting to pursue this too far, there isn't really an 'opposition' of Goddesses in the ancient mysteries

That's precisely the reason to suggest Celebrian as a Mother. For, if Shelob be Crone, than there would be inside oppositiong between Crone on one hand and Mother and Maiden on another. But if Galadriel be Crone - i.e. the most proud and most 'mindy' of the three, than all three as one would oppose Shelob - focus and image of Feminine perverted.

cheers

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

What is authorial intentionality? Must it always be conscious and deliberate? What kinds of things in the text would persuade you that Shelob is supposed to represent one of these ancient wicked female figures? or archetypes? Is it just happenstance that the gender attribute given to this terror is female? And happenstance that the terror is given such intense physical traits of appetite?

I would tend to speak of 'authorial intentionality' only when it is conscious & deliberate - otherwise we're speaking of what Tolkien called 'the author of the story, by which I do not mean myself'. I wouldn't say that 'Shelob is supposed to represent one of these ancient wicked female figures? or archetypes?' - I wouldn't say those archtypes were 'wicked' - they were the 'dark' face of the Goddess, who was the source of all things to the ancient mind. Yes, in the medieval view that 'negative' view of the feminine was commonplace, but that was due to the 'demonisation' of Eve, & the Christian tendency towards dualism, which misunderstood the Goddess had both dark & light aspects, & split her in two - Virgin Mary & Eve/Mary Magdalen. Perhaps Tolkien's 'worship' of Mary, manifested in Galadriel/Varda, caused the 'Dark Mother' aspect to be split off into Shelob. But I don't think that symbolism was put in there deliberately. Certainly Tolkien idealised women, put them on a pedestal, & probably repressed anything that didn't fit. And repressed contents tend to become twisted & perverted, swallowed up into the 'Shadow'. But I don't think that was in Tolkien's conciousness when he wrote, I don't think he would have recognised it, simply because it had been repressed. I do think though, that even if Lembas had popped into his head as he was writing, he would immediatley have recognised that as a form of the Host, & recognising it, he would have made a concious decision to keep it in.

Would you need to see a long line of literary references to decay, rot, corruption and how they are linked to females? Medieval literature fairly reeks with such descriptions and attributes. A initial line about Shelob capitalises 'she':

And couldn't you also provide an equally long list of literary references linking females to birth, nurturing, compassion. The mediaval period was also the time of the Troubadours & Trouvieres, of Courtly Love & the idealisation of the female. Woemn were personified in extreme ways, both bad & good. And so were men - we see men lionised & denigrated in the literature of the time. I think there's a danger in focussing on Ecclesiastical sources, which is mainly where we find the really venomous attacks on woman. Its rarer to find anything of that kind in vernacular literature.

Is it just happenstance that the gender attribute given to this terror is female? And happenstance that the terror is given such intense physical traits of appetite?

No, probably not, but Shelob is far from the worst villain in the book, or the most monstrous. I think a case can be put for Tolkien, conciously at least, simply trying to create the most extreme sensation of horror & fear in the reader at this point. And she is the only female baddy (unless we count Lobelia). Yes, we have lust, gluttony, cruelty, a whole list of 'sins' walking around in female form, but draw together all the male villains of the book into one figure, & I think you'd have a worse & more monstrous villain. The Male comes off far worse than the female.

Well, there certainly is a contrast between Shelob and Galadriel in terms of who gives in to her appetite and who does not, who luxuriates in it and who is so distanced from her mate that he stays behind when she sails West.

I think a case could be made for Galadriel giving in to her appetites - using Nenya to make for herself a realm, where she can halt time, prevent death, rule uncontested - different appetites, but she gives in to them nonetheless.

And can't we have one female bad guy, just so we men don't feel we're completely at fault - its not like we're dealing with the real world

Originally Posted by H-I

But if Galadriel be Crone - i.e. the most proud and most 'mindy' of the three, than all three as one would oppose Shelob - focus and image of Feminine perverted.

No, because the Crone is an ugly, deformed, destructive, cruel, foul, etc, etc 'witch' who eats liitle children all up . And that's because the Crone is not a seperate figure, but an aspect of the Goddess, who is also Maiden & Mother. Its only when you seperate the aspects that you fall into the trap of either seeing it as a male conspiracy to denigrate women, or into presenting the Crone as a wise, kindly old lady. The Crone symbolises death, & its attendant horrors. As Mother she gave life, as Crone she takes it away. All things spring from her womb, & all things, in the end, are swallowed up by her gaping maw. Galadriel & Shelob are perfect symbols of her two faces, & it only becomes a problem if you view them as seperate figures, unconnected to each other. Brigid & Morrighan are the same Goddess. All the positivity which Bethberry finds missing in Shelob is manifest in Galadriel & Arwen & (Goldberry) - whether Tolkien intended that or not.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, I admit I'm stretching things a bit all the way, but Galadriel is going away she is oldest lady present, and she takes away (death) all things she has given (or gave birth to). I.e birth = time preservation/stainless Lorien, taking away = 'I will diminish and go into the West. But with this "I will go" she takes Lorien away not from her only, but from those she had given it to in its time - from elves living there. Was there general referendum? No, the whole of the choice lies with Galadriel only. She is like Goddes to her own people, forming their fate to its ultimate end, she decides for them would they fade here or go to Aman.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Or are you suggesting that this consuming and controlling are merely flips sides (ying/yang) of those who lack self-control?

Uhhh. . .sure. . .yes. . .that was precisely what I was suggesting. (Yeah, that's it, this was my idea!)

There is a tweak I would suggest to this however: that Sauron and Shelob do not lack self-control, but wish to control others according to the desires of the self. For them, there is no other except insofar as the other exists for the self.

Goldberry is an interesting character in this regard, I admit (and how surprising of you to introduce her here ). The control she weilds is not for the purposes of domination, however, but -- as you say -- to nourish and protect (which is what makes her 'magical' and not 'monstrous'). The ying/yang (I prefer to stick to the feminine/masculine terminology or, picking up on Renaissance formulations of this -- as I am hip deep in Shakespeare at the moment -- Mars and Venus; not as divisions between men and women, but as the two forms or modes of living for all people) at any rate, this interdependent relation of Sauron and Shelob is mirrored by Tom Bombadil and Goldberry on the mystical plane, and by Arwen and Aragorn on the historical plane (and by Sam and Rosie on the domestic?).

Hmmmm. . .it occurs to me that perhaps one possible definition of evil we might apply is that in LotR, the more a being is out of balance with this essential kind of interdependence, the more evil that being becomes. . .?

[davem]

Of course, we have Goldberry & her mother, the River Woman - aspects of a primal nature goddess? Goldberry is the maiden aspect, & the River woman the crone. Does Goldberry love her 'mother'. Whether Old Man Willow is in a similar relationship to Tom is something I think has been mentioned before.

Its almost like Tolkien is creating 'mirrored images' - Tom/OMW, Goldberry/RW, Galadriel/Shelob, Frodo/Gollum, Gandalf/Saruman,Aragorn/Boromir- showing the outcome of moral choices. So its not simply good guys vs bad guys, Good vs Evil, its a depiction of the consequence of moral choices. And those who make the wrong moral choice become 'monsters' - physically as well as pyschologically. Its not a case of 'well, he makes all the good guys handsome so we can identify with/admire them & all the villains ugly so we'll hate them. Its that he's saying evil choices make us ugly - in this world only on the inside, but in Middle Earth on the outside too. His evil characters have made themselves ugly & foul ...

(Bang!! Davem's argument slams into the 'orc question' - ouch!)

Perhaps this is the reason Tolkien agonised so much in later writings about the origin of orcs. All the other villains are self made monsters, ugly & cruel because they've chosen to be. Orcs, however, are made into monsters by an external force. But I suppose this is what happens when you start out writing fairy tales & & end up writing high mythology. Faerie contains monsters, who are just 'monsters'. In Faerie Goblins, Trolls & Ogres simply exist, & have as much right to exist as Elves, Gnomes, & talking foxes! There's no 'moral' dimension as such. Ogres simply exist there & always have. They aren't explained, because they don't need to be. An ogre in a fairystory is just 'there'. He has as much 'right' to be there as the most beautiful Fay.

But in Middle Earth the moral dimension is a force, it affects individuals. There, all were once good, but some chose to become monsters - except the Orcs & by extension the Trolls. So, they must be 'robots', mustn't they? Yet, they have a metaphysics of their own - the Nazgul can strip them of their bodies & leave them (their 'spirit') naked in the 'dark' on the 'other side', so how can they be 'robots'?

Could it be possible that the Elves originally corrupted into Orcs made a moral choice to serve Morgoth - without realising the ultimate consequence? Who knows.

I think SpM's problem with Orcs' moral status still stands unresolved.

[The Saucepan Man]

But I suppose this is what happens when you start out writing fairy tales & & end up writing high mythology. Faerie contains monsters, who are just 'monsters'. In Faerie Goblins, Trolls & Ogres simply exist, & have as much right to exist as Elves, Gnomes, & talking foxes! There's no 'moral' dimension as such.

Spot on, davem. That, I think, summarises the problem of the existence of Orcs (and also Trolls) in Middle-earth in a nutshell. As you say, in "Faerie", these creatures have a right to exist as much as any other. Evil is just another "way of life". A rather banal, but nevertheless illustrative, example from my own (alas now historical) experience is the concept of alignment in role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons. Every creature has its own alignment which is a combination of opposing concepts: Good v Evil, Lawful v Chaotic. Races are ascribed their own generic alignment. For example, Orcs are lawful Evil (living within an ordered but inherently evil society). No one alignment is, objectively, the "correct" way to behave.

In this kind of a world (similar to the world of "Faerie"?), evil is an end in itself. Evil creatures have their own Gods and pursue their own evil ends. Neither their Gods nor the Gods of the creatures of good alignment were responsible for the creation of the world, but are vying for control of it. In contrast, however, evil in Middle-earth is objectively "wrong", a corruption of the plan set in motion by the being responsible for the world's creation. But, if evil is objectively wrong, it seems inherently unfair that creatures such as Orcs have no choice but to be evil.

As you say, davem, I think that it is the tension inherent in combining the world of "Faerie" with a Christian world-view that give rise to the difficulties that we have with the moral status of Orcs. And it is this, I think, that led to Tolkien revisiting his ideas on the origins of Orcs in his later years. Portraying them as simple "beasts" or automatons resolves these problems, but does not sit well with the characterisation of the likes of Shagrat and Gorbag in LotR (nor, indeed the quasi-independent Goblins of The Hobbit).

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Portraying them as simple "beasts" or automatons resolves these problems, but does not sit well with the characterisation of the likes of Shagrat and Gorbag in LotR (nor, indeed the quasi-independent Goblins of The Hobbit).

Indeed. In the later writings, he tries mightily to extricate himself from this dilemna, & ends up with orcs produced from men, elves, Maiar & animals, as 'robots' with no will of their own, driven by the will of Morgoth. But it doesn't work. I suspect that its a problem which he faced in his own psychological lfe - he was a committed Catholic, yet he loved Pagan myths. He wanted (needed?) to create a mythology, but it had to conform to Catholicism. Catholicism demanded a moral universe, in conformity with the tenets of his faith. Myth required that universe to have its roots in Faerie. This lead him to 'split' Pagan gods in two - Odin cannot be translated into Middle Earth simply by giving him an Elvish name. Odin's 'good' side manifests as Gandalf, his 'dark' (I won't say evil) side as Saruman. The Pagan Great Goddess is split into Galadriel & Shelob, & instead of balance & complementarity you have conflict & antagonism. And the 'good' tends towards perfect GOODNESS, & the bad towards absolute EVIL. This, I feel, is the reason for the 'Manichaeanism', which he struggles with. He doesn't believe in it (its heresy from the Catholic viewpoint), yet it comes across - especially to readers unfamiliar with the rest of the Legendarium - as the way Middle Earth works.

The Pagan worldview is more like the D&D one, yet ultimately there is no 'moral' dimension in the Christian sense. Life & death are seen as part of a cycle, not as opposites in conflict. And, again, Death is the great theme of LotR - the love of the world in those doomed to leave it, & the wearness & yearning for escape in those destined to remain within it. Yet the Pagan view was that the two worlds, this one & the Otherworld, intermingled & anyone could pass from one to the other.

And the orcs, as you say, are the great problem - the great problem. They are born orcs, but they are, as Tolkien admits, moral beings. They have souls, & when they die (this is a later thought of Tolkien's) their souls go to Mandos. Yet the Halls of Mandos are a place for reflection & judgement. If they can reflect on their lives, & be judged for their actions, they must have had the capacity for moral decisions. Yet they don't. Indeed, the Mythology would lose its impact if we were always uncertain about the orcs' behaviour. If we felt that any orc that appeared might decide to help the heroes, or could be won over to the good side, they wouldn't be so powerful & frightening. Its the very fact that we know they are irredemebly 'evil' that makes them the terrifying beings they are. Its also what justifies our easiness with their slaughter. We don't feel sorry for the orcs because we know they are heartless, cruel & beyond 'salvation'. Our 'heroes' remain heroes in our minds no matter how many orcs they slaughter, because we know that 'the only good orc is a dead orc'. Ths can only be if we feel they are evil incarnate. While the Dunlendings who attack Helm's Deep are spared, the orcs aren't - & we agree that that is a correct policy. But 'Nothing is evil in the beginning' Tolkien tells us through Elrond. But he must be wrong, mustn't he - maybe the first Elves, twisted & corrupted into orcs, weren't evil, but those born orcs were bad from the start - from the moment they were born. They cannot be 'saved', cannot 'repent' - or if they can, our 'heroes' are not heroes when they slaughter them without compunction. Unless its a case of 'Kill them all, Eru will know his own'.

You're right. Orcs are the problem. The Nazgul chose to take the Rings. Saruman chose to pursue power. Even Shelob, while she must eat, chooses to 'play' & 'make sport' of her captives. But orcs don't choose to be orcs. They've been brought into Middle Earth from Faerie, taken from a world where they were evil simply because that's what goblins in Faerie are like, & placed in a moral universe, where salvation or damnation are, for everyone else, the consequence of a moral choice, a choice which they are denied.