The Trickster in LotR

[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.....