How the mighty do fall!

[Ivriniel]

Originally Posted by Nimikôi Angarauko

well guys im new to the forums but heres my input i recently, meaning last week, wrote a paper about the good vs evil complexities in lotr and i feel that the Evil Manifest, as i call them, fall due to their desire for something out of their reach and instead of letting it go it drives them with an evil ambition, but this desire never starts out evil just over ambitious case in point Melkor all he wanted to do was create life of his own to basically be a true God but this eventually drove him to his other horrible deeds i.e. the creature of orcs, his want to enslave the earth, and a slew of others. This over ambitious desire is seen time and time again even with Saruman he started out with intention to take the Ring from the Enemy and destroy him even to the end, well to the end but to the fall of orthanc, and use it to destroy the Enemy thats also why he played "puppet" to sauron so he could survive the flood and in the end be triumphet and there are the first signs of his evil. The truely Evil beings are bad their just written that way

I think a hello and welcome is in order and also to Althern who I see has fewer posts.

I have notised a theme that seems to run through a lot of Tolkien's Middle Earth. This is that People who were grate or mighty, are often those who fall into Evil. Take Saurman,


He was great once
Frodo Baggins, Return of the King, book six, The scouring of the Shire
Also, the Witch king of Angmar, was Grate, now evil and dead. Denathor, was a respectable leader, now a dead twisted old fool. Sauron, was a faithful servant of the Valar, now a dead Follower of Morgoth. Even Melkor, once the mightiest of the Valar, now a lonely, footless, evil spirit trapped in the Void.

Is Tolkien trying to say something here?

I guess that the corrupted Maia who followed Melkor in the rebellion just didn't like classical music. Melkor invented a new musical trend with repetitive chords. They were hard to forget.

Why Melkor would (want) to turn Arda into a dust bowl of darkness and ruined things is hard to understand.

The Valar never had a real solution to the question of Evil. They never developed means to understand their own Vanity, and I argue that the Evil of Arda was the mirror of that which the Ainur denied in themselves, (i.e. did not *resolve* in themselves). Evil cannot exist without its shadow being cast by or in or through the minds of the Ainur-Good. As Tolkien said about the Nazgul - mortals' presence "casts a shadow in their minds". That's always remained vivid imagery.

What is the shadow cast in such a mind? And what Ainur ever bothered to repair Sauron's works, or Melkor's without necessity to destroy them.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

So, how much does spending time in a lowly state affect one's sense of pride? Morwen's seems to have increased when she became poor. Is there a pattern, or is it individual randomness?

It's probably also worth remembering that it was fear of ending up in a lowly state which motivated Sauron to refuse to return to Valinor for judgement, knowing that he would have been the lowest of the low in reflection of his primacy among Morgoth's underlings. His pride had never suffered, and he couldn't seemingly bear the thought of it suffering then.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

I think a hello and welcome is in order and also to Althern who I see has fewer posts.

Might be a bit late unfortunately. You can see in the top left of the post the date of posting, and that was 2004. You can also check when a person last posted on their profile. Somehow I fear that if someone last posted twelve years ago a welcome now is unlikely to bring them back. That was a happier time, before the Hobbit films were made.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Why Melkor would (want) to turn Arda into a dust bowl of darkness and ruined things is hard to understand.

To keep things on topic with Inzil's post reviving the thread twelve years later, the reason for this was pride - pride which had become "nihilistic madness" as Professor Tolkien called it. He did not create the world, so he could not bear the thought that it existed at all. Therefore he wished to destroy it.

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

The Valar never had a real solution to the question of Evil.

This has come up before. It was not the Valar's role to find a full solution to the question, simply to maintain Arda's habitability for the Children of Eru. Eru had already solved the problem of Evil in the Music through the concept of "Arda Healed". This is all explained in parts 4 and 5 of Morgoth's Ring, which really are essential reading and answer a lot of common questions when exploring the metaphysics of Professor Tolkien's invention in more detail.

Is Lobelia an example of someone who learnt humility after pride? Does a character need to begin in a position of (relative) humility to be humble when they achieve greatness? Are there initially "great" characters who become humble later?

[Ivriniel]

Might be a bit late unfortunately. You can see in the top left of the post the date of posting, and that was 2004. You can also check when a person last posted on their profile. Somehow I fear that if someone last posted twelve years ago a welcome now is unlikely to bring them back. That was a happier time, before the Hobbit films were made.

hahahahah That's no reason to ignore her! I'm sure she'll be appreciate, perhaps in another 12 years if she returns (she's in Lorien, you know - time stop).

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It's probably also worth remembering that it was fear of ending up in a lowly state which motivated Sauron to refuse to return to Valinor for judgement, knowing that he would have been the lowest of the low in reflection of his primacy among Morgoth's underlings. His pride had never suffered, and he couldn't seemingly bear the thought of it suffering then.

I recall in the Silmarillion, when he was described as abased and defeated and begging for mercy, and yet 'he lied even unto himself' were the words at the War of Wrath after the sinking of Beleriand. Always stayed with me. Sauron as a being of pride and vanity and conceit would be angrily humiliated in defeat after little time, for that is implied by the quote. By contrast, his last moments in the Barad Dur where he discerned his peril. I suppose that is a form of fear, somehow and what he actually saw in himself in those last moments, we will never know. I imagine though, that facing that ultimate knowing of death or ending, would have pieced his God-headed vanity.

Lobelia, I believe grew in wisdom and humility of its traverse across her heart, for she lost her husband as well. Defiant candour and confinement for a chapter, and she is welcomed in our hearts as a hero of certain, but simple, plain valour.

The rebel Ainu and Maia did not seem capable or equipped to grow this way, that is, by knowing humility and candour in absence of conceit, as we saw with Lobelia. I see the same basic aspects in all their nature. Changelessness and vanity by measure each to some character. Slow to mercy or remembrance of suffering in remote corners, but purposeful in retreat, or acceptance of the marring of Arda, yet permitted to stay the impacts of marring in an annexed area, and manifest an echo of the Music of Creation, as it was discerned, or intended, to the best of their manner, sight, kind and nature.

However - strive against the evil they did. Create its echo in their footprints they did. For their labours and simple determination, they did as much as they could for this cause against evil.

However, a reshaping of Arda does not solve the question and problem of the nature of Free Will in living character. Ainu again, to return for the reshaping still have Free Will as do beings of mind, form and nature.

This has come up before. It was not the Valar's role to find a full solution to the question, simply to maintain Arda's habitability for the Children of Eru. Eru had already solved the problem of Evil in the Music through the concept of "Arda Healed". This is all explained in parts 4 and 5 of Morgoth's Ring, which really are essential reading and answer a lot of common questions when exploring the metaphysics of Professor Tolkien's invention in more detail.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

facing that ultimate knowing of death or ending, would have pieced his God-headed vanity.

Not death or ending: no Ainu can be killed within Ea. He was reduced to a shadow of malice gnawing itself in the dark, unable to grow or take shape again. "While no fëa can be annihilated, reduced to zero or non-existence, an evil spirit becomes fixed in a certain desire, and if it does not repent then this desire can become virtually its whole being. If the desire is wholly beyond the limits of the spirit, it will be unable to withdraw its attention from the unobtainable desire, even to attend to itself. It will then remain forever in impotent desire or memory of desire."

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

no Ainu can be killed within Ea.

It depends what you mean by "killed" though, doesn't it? Morgoth was literally killed when he was executed by Mandos at the end of the First Age, as in his body was damaged so much that it stopped working and his fëa could no longer resided within it.

I agree that the case of Sauron was different, however; his body probably fell apart or ceased to exist when the Ring was destroyed, rather than him being "killed" as we understand it; that being said, he was described as having been "slain" at the end of the Second Age.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It depends what you mean by "killed" though, doesn't it? Morgoth was literally killed when he was executed by Mandos at the end of the First Age, as in his body was damaged so much that it stopped working and his fëa could no longer resided within it.

I take "killed" to mean the state for any sentient creature in Arda whose physical form is separated from the fea.
In terms of Ainu, that should only apply when the forms are 'real', such as the Istari, who were ensconced in actual bodies which they could not at will discard, and Sauron, who had built himself a form that was tied to the world.

[Belegorn]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

It depends what you mean by "killed" though, doesn't it? Morgoth was literally killed when he was executed by Mandos at the end of the First Age, as in his body was damaged so much that it stopped working and his fëa could no longer resided within it.

You're on the verge of thinking like Melkor about destroying matter being the end all be all. Yea his body was destroyed after he was decapitated and that ended him as an incarnate being, but he lives on. This is especially true with him even though he became a shell of his former self since his essence was not destroyed like with Sauron in the Ring. I don't know how he might be able to draw back that power into himself as it was suggested he might do. Makes me wonder about Sauron and the Ring and why not him with that.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Belegorn

You're on the verge of thinking like Melkor about destroying matter being the end all be all. Yea his body was destroyed after he was decapitated and that ended him as an incarnate being, but he lives on.

I just came back upon this thread and noticed this. I am aware that Melkor "still lives" after the War of Wrath and that his fëa cannot be destroyed, but that's true of all beings in Eä - being killed just means that the hröa can no longer house the fëa. To my mind this corresponds with what Professor Tolkien says in the essay found in Morgoth's Ring:

Morgoth was thus actually made captive in physical form, and in that form taken as a mere criminal to Aman and delivered to Namo Mandos as judge and executioner. He was judged, and eventually taken out of the Blessed Realm and executed: that is killed like one of the Incarnates. It was then made plain (though it must have been understood beforehand by Manwe and Namo) that, though he had 'disseminated' his power (his evil and possessive and rebellious will) far and wide into the matter of Arda, he had lost direct control of this, and all that 'he', as a surviving remnant of integral being, retained as 'himself' and under control was the terribly shrunken and reduced spirit that inhabited his self-imposed (but now beloved) body. When that body was destroyed he was weak and utterly 'houseless', and for that time at a loss and 'unanchored' as it were.

"killed like one of the Incarnates" suggests to me that "killed" in this context specifically means "having the hröa destroyed such that the fëa can no longer reside in it." Just because Melkor's fëa still exists doesn't mean he wasn't "killed". Elves can be killed, but their fëa persist and can be reborn. Men can be killed and their fëa go to Mandos. It's less common for an Ainu to be killed, but if they become bound to a single body, as Morgoth did, they can. It doesn't mean they can't recover from that, because we know Melkor could, but we wouldn't say Elves can't die or be killed just because they can be reincarnated, would we?

As Inzil points out above, Gandalf and Saruman were both also killed, despite being maiar: the hröa to which the fëa was bound was destroyed. Otherwise we might as well say that Wizards, Elves, Morgoth and practically anyone else besides Men and Dwarves is only "disembodied" or "temporarily inconvenienced" rather than "killed".

Sauron is also described as being "slain" in letter 131, in reference to a time when he appears to have been bound to a single body, at the end of the Second Age: "Gilgalad and Elendil are slain in the act of slaying Sauron". I note, however, that in the Appendices to The Lord of the Rings Professor Tolkien uses the more ambiguous term "overthrown", perhaps to simultaneously indicate the breaking of his power as well as his personal (temporary) demise and to avoid confusing readers who might be wondering how he seemingly "came back to life" given that it's not very clear in The Lord of the Rings itself as to what manner of being Sauron is.