Unorthodox Heroes?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Nuranar

I just had a largely unrelated thought. We're discussing unorthodox heroes; are there any anti-heroes? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm no good at thinking up examples. If there really aren't any - why not?

I think Gollum is the prime candidate for anti-hero of the books. He is treacherous, ugly, greedy, a murderer, all things we are supposed to dislike him for, and yet he still wins a lot of support. It is Gollum in the end who 'saves' the quest, and by this time many readers have grown to feel attached to him, whether through pity or something else is probably a personal response, but nevertheless readers do see that even Gollum can perform an heroic act.

[Mithalwen]

"anti-hero, principal character of a modern literary or dramatic work who lacks the attributes of the traditional protagonist or hero. The anti-hero's lack of courage, honesty, or grace, his weaknesses and confusion, often reflect modern man's ambivalence toward traditional moral and social virtues."

THat would fit quite a few of the people already mentioned but not Sam. I think Sam is more of an "unsung hero". He was modelled on the "batmen" Tolkien encountered in WW1 and I think Tolkien does genuinely admire him. While he is given a fair amount of comedy and no other character does himself down, he is the most "real" perhaps of all ..... For all that he is a servant, he is not cowed or fazed by the great lords and he is a rare "socially mobile" character... He is a servant who gate crashes a great counsel, answers back a captain of Gondor.... for all his being "trying" ... his lack of nobility has it's advantages. I doubt Frodo would have survived GOllum without a "nassty suspicious" hobbit sidekick...

[Anguirel]

Child, a fascinating quotation, and one that has improved my estimation of Tolkien's taste in heroes no end! I think your qualification of "as well or better than any other in the Legendarium" rather extreme; but I will admit that there is a case for his admission into La Legion Des Heros Anti-Orthodoxes...

Rune, Mormegil, Formendacil, you are quite right about Maedhros. More than, say, a whole book on the Avari, I would love to see a little more insight from Tolkien into the Sons of Feanor, above and beyond the Shibboleth. It seems to me, though, that both of the elder brothers had potential for being solid, orthodox Elven heroes in the manner of Fingolfin or Finrod had their oath not constrained them. Perhaps their best description would be "unorthodox villains." Or, more truthfully if less enlighteningly, "fascinating, ambiguous and multi-faceted characters"...

But I would add that there are heroic aspects to be found even in Caranthir. Didn't he act as protector to the People of Haleth? I see him as quick to anger but not as black as he's painted, with honesty lacking in Celegorm and Curufin (both of whom I also like, but whom even I find pretty difficult to defend morally!)

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

But I would add that there are heroic aspects to be found even in Caranthir. Didn't he act as protector to the People of Haleth? I see him as quick to anger but not as black as he's painted, with honesty lacking in Celegorm and Curufin (both of whom I also like, but whom even I find pretty difficult to defend morally!)

One of the interesting "unorthodox" qualities, I find, about Caranthir is his tolerance. By that, I mean unorthodox within the Legendarium. Caranthir, for all his reputation of having a quick temper, is the first Noldorin Prince of the First Age to befriend the Dwarves, and it appears that the friendship was fairly close for both parties made good profit. The tone that the narrator takes at that point is a bit cynical, I feel, but it is an action quite unique among the Elven princes.

Furthermore, look at- as you hinted- his treatment of the Halethrim. As you note, he made a (belated) effort to defend them in the time of Haleth. But equally as "Elvenly Unorthodox" is his past history with them. Caranthir was quite tolerant of having the Halethrim live on his lands in the manner they wished. Perhaps this can also be taken as ignoring them, but it is markedly different from the attitudes of Finrod, Fingolfin, and even Maedhros, in their treatment of the Men in their lands/in their service. Perhaps that contributed to the unfortunate experience he had with his second batch of men. Perhaps he gave the traitorous people of Ulf TOO much tolerance...

In any case, he's a bit unorthodox for a bona fide Tolkien Elven prince...

[Lalaith]

*pushes open the ancient oak door of the Books Forum, peers in tentatively*
...ah, the days when I used to spend my Barrowdowns time in here, trying to be sensible, rather than messing about in the light halls of Mirth....
Anyway, intrigued by the various character preferences emerging in Sil Survivor, I've wandered back in...
Some very interesting stuff here. I agree with Eomer about Thorin, and really enjoyed Child's fascinating quote about Tolkien's view of Sam.

Ang, your comment:

Attraction to flawed tragic characters, I suppose, is a Greek or Classical emotion in origin, rather than an attitude from Nordic tradition. Thus, perhaps, those admirers of Tolkien who, like me, strongly disagree with him aesthetically quite a lot of the time, will think his epic Nordic heroes a little bland and will build new heroes out of Classically inspired failures-running contrary to Tolkien's intentions, yes, but also exercising our privilege as readers.

I would agree that Feanor is very much in the Classical tradition of flawed tragic hero: a textbook case of hubris if ever there was one.
However, I would say his sons (definitely the C's - Caranthir, Celegorm and Curufin) are rather more in the Norse saga tradition of unorthodox "dark" heroes. In the sagas, there were the conventional "light" heroes, fair-haired, noble and beloved by almost all: Gunnar from Njalssaga, Kjartan from Laxdaela. But in contrast were men like Grettir the Strong, Egill Skallgrimsson or Skarphedinn from Njalssaga, often ill-favoured in looks and always by fate. The ultimate example of the dark hero in Tolkien is of course Turin, while in contrast his cousin Tuor is so "light" and lucky that he makes it to Valinor against all odds and edicts.
Allow me to elucidate further by repeating myself, a quote from this antique thread

Free will is a Christian concept. The pagan North European believed in "luck" or fortune: gaefa in old Norse. Translate it as luck, fate or fortune, it is a complicated concept, and packs far more of a moral punch than the word "luck" does in our modern world picture. A man of luck - gaefumadr - does things and they work out for him. He is a man you want on your side. Meanwhile, a man of ill luck constantly causes rows and upsets wherever he goes and whatever he does, and eventually his 'ogaefa' (ill luck) becomes so overwhelming that astute and sensitive people can pick him out as what he is, even in a crowd. To me, poor Turin was very much an 'ogaefumadr', a man of ill luck. That's what I meant when I said that the Narn felt more pagan than other works of Tolkien.

As for my own favourite unorthodox hero, I have always felt sympathy for Turin's mother Morwen, a woman straight out of Norse poetry and saga, made stern and cold by tragedy, hardship and war. That heartbreaking scene when, heavily pregnant and widowed, she sends the child Turin off to Doriath - she says nothing, but 'clutched the doorpost so that her fingers were torn.'