Unorthodox Heroes?

[the guy who be short]

Feanor is one of my "Unorthodox Heroes" too. I agree with a lot of what Gurthang said, but as Rune pointed out, he cannot be considered a good tactician. Note his death, please.

One of his particularly endearing aspects to me is his skill with words and minds. His beauty and skill in the arts and crafts also makes me look up to him. Add copious charisma, and voila - amazing character.

Yes, he represents the Fall of the Eldar. So what? He's still cool.

[Lalwendë]

Very few of the characters are presented as either 'good' or 'bad'. Yes, a character may be on the side of 'good' or 'bad', but few are wholly perfect or entirely evil. What I find interesting is that Tolkien is not didactic about how we 'read' a character; he presents us with what they do and how their behaviour impacts on other characters, but he does not tell us what to think.

One of Tolkien's tricksy methods is to alter our perceptions of 'good' and 'bad' by having us view characters through the eyes of others within the book. Until the end of Book 3 we only see Saruman as others have seen him, so our opinions are already coloured by the opinions of characters such as Gandalf. Then we also get to hear the words of Orcs, and how they long to 'retire' from soldiering, how they view Men as 'filthy tarks'; hearing their point of view and paying attention to it skews our preconceptions.

Tolkien can also manage to make us feel sorry for some characters who we ought to feel pleased about getting hurt or being killed. The sad ending to Grima's life is just one case; brought low he finally 'snaps' but all for nothing. I know I also feel very sorry for the previously horrible Lobelia Sackville-Baggins at the end of the story. And then there is Gollum, who in the end turns out to be the one to 'save' Middle-earth, albeit inadvertently; I always think that his death is the only way he could have ended up, and that makes me sorry for him. With a character such as Gollum, Tolkien makes us think about 'good' and 'evil' and makes us see that we need to think about these concepts.

But as a mirror to this, his 'good' characters are usually flawed. Galadriel has a dark past, Frodo yields to temptation, Gandalf is sometimes impatient. In particular, Aragorn is a well crafted character in this respect. He is noble, but he can also sometimes be pompous in his words, and he even has something of the 'snob' about him as he almost refuses to give up his sword before entering Meduseld. If a 'good' character is all good, then they would just be boring, learning little along the way, and possibly making us hate them for their perfectness.

Tolkien's not alone in doing this though, it's the mark of a good writer to make his or her characters believable. A lot of stories are even centred on how characters change and learn to deal with their flaws - Pride & Prejudice being a good case in point. I think where Evelyn Waugh differs is that he was a satirist, and such work often gets its humour and finds its purpose through exploiting stereotypes, so the characters often have to be more of a 'cardboard cut out'.

[Elladan and Elrohir]

Feanor was a jerk, plain and simple. I spit upon his grave. OK, that's disrespectful, I apologize.

I also like Boromir. Actually, I think I like him better now that I've seen the movies, because Sean Bean's performance is incredible. He finishes well, of course, and that seems to be a chief Tolkien criterion for determining one's moral nature.

Gollum, on the other hand, finishes in evil, and even though his fall saves Middle-earth, he is in the end an evil character. I think it is however fascinating to watch the changes that come over his character in Book Four.

This is one of the things I don't like about the movie TTT: They oversimplify and somewhat change Gollum's character. As they portray it, Smeagol orders his Gollum side out, then he lets "Stinker" back in after his "betrayal" by "wicked tricksy Master." After the departure from Osgiliath, Stinker takes over completely.

The book is, to my mind, more complex than this. It's a matter of opinion as to whether Gollum is quote unquote "schizophrenic". Also, Stinker doesn't take over completely until just before Shelob's lair, when Gollum returns from his visit to Shelob and nearly has a complete change of heart, only to be met by rough words from Sam. Tolkien wrote that he saw that moment as the supreme tragedy of that story.

Well, this post has turned into a discussion of Gollum, and for that I apologize. Hopefully someone else can come along and steer the topic back in the right direction.

[The 1,000 Reader]

In my opinion, Turin was more of a villian than Sauron. At times, however, his good personality shone through and we could imagine what he would be like if he wasn't cursed by Morgoth. Also, Denethor was already a broken man by the time he contested Sauron, and if he was not withered he might have proven a formidable adversary to the second Dark Lord.

[Firefoot]

In my opinion, Turin was more of a villian than Sauron.

Hm... could you explain that a little bit more? Turin made some bad decisions and listened to some of the wrong people, but he was cursed, and generally I'd say he acted according to his best judgment. Sauron's goal was domination of Middle-earth. I'm having trouble balancing the scale in the other way.

I must say that Fëanor could possibly be my favorite character in the Sil, and is almost certainly my favorite Elf of all time. He really fascinates me as a character, even if he isn't exactly 'nice;' indeed, sometimes "you're an idiot" would best describe his actions. His whole story is rather tragic, and I can't say whether he ultimately brought about more bad or good. But that's the best part: like Ang said, Tolkien doesn't tell us characters are "good" or "bad;" the Reader ( ) has a choice in that. Fëanor is a classic example of a basically good character whose faults and bad choices lead to his down-fall.

I've always rather liked Shagrat and Gorbag. Yes, they're Orcs, and yes, they're prone to the same, ah, flaws that tend to run in the race (e.g. killing each other...), but in they're conversation we can see a more human side to them. What they really want is to get away from it all and set up a place from themselves with a few trusty lads. They don't want to fight this war; they feel no loyalty towards Sauron. It isn't hard for me to feel sympathetic for them. The initial human reaction is to say "Orcs=evil," but they aren't wholly so. They do have some more human qualities to them, and exploring these qualities is what makes Orkish characters interesting to RPG. It's what makes all baddies fun to RPG, in fact, is that they do have good traits. It seems like the tendency in many fantasy books is to paint the bad guy as all evil without redeeming qualities. But in Tolkien's books (and several others, I'm not generalizing the genre completely), the bad guys have depth and motives and good qualities. It's what makes Saruman or Grima more interesting to analyze than Aragorn or Faramir.

Posted by Ang
I would prefer to call it another kind of power; power to create a crossroads but let us pick the path.

Exactly. I love that image.

[The 1,000 Reader]

To me Sauron was more of a cliche, average villian in The Silmarillion and after reading it I thought of him being far less intelligent and powerful than he was said to be(if you pay close attention, you'll realize that Sauron made many stupid mistakes.) The unfortunate deeds of Turin seemed far more sinister and tragic( a bad thing happened to them and they died.) Also, Turin killed people left and right when many of them were undeserving of it and some were trying to help him.

I also liked Gorbag and Shagrat, though I was slightly confused about why they killed each other. I know orcs are greedy, but if Sauron had horded so much mithril, wouldn't there be a inflation of sorts rendering it near worthless, thus making their greed be in vain? Of course if they wanted it for a promotion of sorts then that makes sense.

[mormegil]

In this thread there has already been a good amount of discussion on Turin and Feanor. I would like to discuss a little of both and give my opinions.

First I must say I disagree whole-heartedly with Gurthang and TGWBS about their view of Feanor. He is no hero. He was a great and mighty elf. I would agree that he was one of the greatest, if not the single greatest elf in Middle-earth. But greatness doesn't equate to being a hero. I have always thought of him more as a villain.

It is true that he was great in art and craft, so much so that he made the silmarils; however couldn't one argue that Sauron was also great in craft. Being on the 'good' (elf) side doesn't make a character good. Firefoot brings up a good point about characterizing different races automatically. We assume all orcs to be evil and it seems that they stereotype is for elves to be wholesome and pure. This is not a completely accurate stereotype.

Some of Feanors actions will illustrate my point. He threatened Fingolfin at sword point with his life merely because Fingolfin spoke to their father and gave his council. This was done while in Aman. This act helped to give a window, in which evil could enter Aman which name means free from evil or blessed. The kin slaying! What a nefarious act of cowardice that was! I know what will be used as a rebuttal: that Feanor didn't act alone. That is true but Feanor had a great power of influence and he used that to stir up his people into open rebellion of the Valar and the slaying of the Teleri for not allowing them to use their ships. Ironic, isn't it that Feanor won't give the silmarils to help save the trees, yet he would take by force the objects the Teleri hold as dear to them as he holds his Silmarils. This is the last example I will currently use, though not the last that could be used. Leaving his kindred near Helcaraxe to either perish or return in shame. Again what great cowardice is demonstrated.

Turin on the other hand was cursed, as has been said. But what evil did he actually do? He slew Beleg; that of course was unintentional and caused him great grief. He fled Doriath, but under what he perceived was injustice and would bring him death. He built the bridge in Nagrathond and wouldn't listen to Ulmo. This is one that is a bit more difficult to reconcile, however he did have the desire to rid the region of orcs and thought open warfare was the solution. Not a great remedy but again he is not perfect.

I think the greatest difference between Turin and Feanor is their motives. Seemingly, at least to me, Feanor did everything he did driven simply by egotistical motives. He truly didn't care about his wife or her grief. He persuaded his sons into taking an oath that would destroy them in the end. He brought a great downfall upon his people and killed innocents for reclamation of his creation. Basically his motives were self-centered and he lived his live and manipulated others to do his will and to serve him. Turin wasn't as self-centered. He truly thought that he was doing the best and attempted to work for others benefit and not merely his own. Also Turin had the curse of Morgoth on him and Feanor was free from such a taint.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Also Turin had the curse of Morgoth on him and Feanor was free from such a taint.

Although I agree entirely with your opinion that Turin is a tragic hero, and Feanor a more villainnous figure, this last sentence of yours intrigues me...

After all, Feanor was under the Curse of the Valar, and if any one Noldo had that Curse on their shoulders, it was Feanor. And notice that the predictions of their curse came true almost instantly once he arrived in Middle-Earth. No sooner had he burnt the ships than he started to loose his edge. In Aman, although his actions were even more evil than anywhere else, he had the luck, skill, or combination of both to accomplish all of his goals. Once in Middle-Earth, although equally self-important in his goals, he fails rather miserably, and indeed dies remarkably soon.

So, now I'm wondering, and this may send the thread on a different tangent, but was the Curse of the Valar more potent than the Curse of Morgoth?

[Angry Hill Troll]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Turin had the curse of Morgoth on him and Feanor was free from such a taint.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this point. In Morgoth's Ring, as the Valar are discussing the matter of Míriel's death and its cause and significance, prior to proclaiming "The Statute of Finwë and Míriel", they generally come to the consensus that Míriel's death was "unnatural" and ultimately due to Melkor's taint on Arda.

Ulmo, for instance, says the following:

The coming of Feänáro must proceed certainly from the will of Eru, but I hold that the marring of his birth comes from the Shadow, and is a portent of evils to come.

Melkor of course particularly targets Fëanor and Fingolfin, as the rather awkward family situation resulting from Míriel's death and Finwë's remarriage makes tem particularly susceptible to Melkor's lies