The Trickster's Consort

[littlemanpoet]

davem, do you suppose that a "black heart" is meant, by Tolkien, to mean something other than evil? If so, what? Consider his style in all other places; is it in keeping with LotR to attribute an alternate meaning to it in the case of trees?

evil as a result of Morgoth's choice - why aren't all the trees evil if that's the cause?

Because the Valar kept him from achieving complete domination of Arda. Fangorn and the Old Forest may not be evil places, but if Morgoth's taint is on everything, even if he did not dominate everything, why would it turn out that some places in Fangorn must not be evil? In our world, there is, by way of example, such a thing as genetic predisposition.

I think for an individual to become evil must be the result of a moral choice...

Of course, you're entitled to your own theology. Tolkien's theology, however, he being a Roman Catholic, was that of original sin, which means that we are all born tainted with sin; we start out that way. I know this is offensive to some people, but that is Christian theology, and it's what Tolkien believed. Is it to be found in LotR? If Morgoth's taint is not Tolkien's depiction of original sin in Middle Earth, I don't know what it is. Yes, that's my opinion, and it may be debated. It does seem to be more in keeping with Tolkien's ouvre. Thus, moral choice is only one half of the question of evil.

So, are all the trees of the Old Forest evil, or just some of them?

Some of them. Certainly one of them.

The OF is sentient...

I think it would be more helpful to say that the trees of the Old Forest are aware. It is one of the three definitions of sentient in my dictionary, but more in keeping with LotR - at least, to my thinking.

Just as Tom himself & Goldberry, & OMW & the Barrow Wight, don't have any 'relevance' outside their poem-reality ('Tom's country ends here, he will not pass the borders...)

The barrows and the wights that reside there are definitely a part of Arda/Middle Earth, having to do with the old Kingdom of Arnor and old battles fought there, and long-dead warriors' ghosts ... not at all unlike the Dead Marshes. The fact that Tom has power over him gives evidence to his "relevance" outside his own - er - "poem-reality".

I've noticed here at BD that as soon as someone begins to speculate about Tolkien's Middle Earth based on their own personal likes, dislikes, beliefs, and values, the topics seem to, as it were, float up from the groundedness Tolkien has given all of Middle Earth, to become disembodied effluvia that just don't ring true, for me, to Tolkien's Middle Earth. Maybe that's another way of saying which side of the "canonicity" debate I'm on.

That said, I think there is great virtue in what you say about the indefinability of Tom and Goldberry. Nevertheless, I will still point out traits I see, such as the Trickster, when they occur to me, as you are, of course, also entitled to do.

[davem]

Ok, the 'poem-reality' is connected to the 'real' landscape of that part of Middle-earth, but the 'feel' is different. As Sam might have put it, when I read those chapters I feel as if I were 'inside a song'. Another thought occurs. Frodo's dream in the house of Bombadil. Its as if he is both dreaming himself back into his own reality but at the same time dreaming himself into paradise. As if he has passed from the secondary 'poem-reallity' into another, deeper kind of reality. Worlds within worlds

Tolkien's theology, however, he being a Roman Catholic, was that of original sin, which means that we are all born tainted with sin; we start out that way.

But is this the theology of M-e? Certainly M-e has nothing like the Christian concept of original sin, in that there is no single, all encompassng Fall, just lots of falls - the Noldor, Men (possibly- some speculation in Athrabeth) & Morgoth's. But this is difficult. Tolkien states that Morgoth 'suffused' his evil, his power, into the stuff of Arda, so that matter itself becomes tainted. But this then becomes a given, & all things inherit it. All matter is corrupted, but is it 'fallen' in the Christian sense? I don't know enough of Christianity to say, but it seems different, in that no-one has chosen to be corrupted in that way. It is simply a kind of 'poison' which all things carry around inside them. So there is no personal moral failing involved, & freedom of choice remains. Perhaps this must be so, there being no 'saviour' who can enter in & redeem the inhabitants of Arda (though in Athrabeth Finrod speculates on this possibility).

Perhaps, as fallen beings ourselves, our vision is tainted, & we can only see Middle-earth from that perspective...

Sorry, I'll have to stop there, because I don't know where I'm going with that....

[littlemanpoet]

I do see a lot of similarity between "original sin" and Morgoth's tainting; and I think you are right in thinking that the differences between the two have to do with the lack of a savior in Middle Earth. It must be remembered that the Athrabeth is a very late part of Tolkien's lengendarium, in which he was rethinking everything in terms of a round-world mythology with modern physics in place from the get-go. So maybe part of his rethinking was the introduction of a savior after all! But who's to know?