Tolkien and the Monsters

[Mariska Greenleaf]

The interesting thing about Shelob (to me) has always been that she most emphatically did not associate herself with Sauron at all. I am working away from my books *sob* but as I can recall, we hear that Shelob "cared not for towers or rings" and that she did not acknowledge or care about Sauron's claims to sovereignty (which makes her a lot like the good guys, now that I come to think of it).

In my opinion Shelob wasn't really evil. She was just doing what needed to do to survive, and it seemed like the Balrog was just protecting his territory.

I agree. In my opinion, Shelob stands outside any category of evil monsters, for one, because she didn't feel related to Sauron, and she was not only feared by the good guys, but also by the orcs, which she had for dinner... Just doing what was needed to survive, is very well put.

The other pattern I see is one charted by the Barrow Wights, the Balrog and the Mouth of Sauron. Each of them is doing Sauron's work, but as we move through the novel each one is successively more and more aware of how he/it is doing Sauron's work.

Good point. I believe that it symbolises the distance between the evil creatures and Sauron. The closer they are to Sauron's dwelling, the more they are aware of who they are "working" for.

[HerenIstarion]

In Shelob's case, the defining aspect of her 'evilness' is her hatred. She does not merely kill for survival - she hates all that is not herself. In this respect, she is even more Evil than Sauron himself, who (in the beginning, at least) does all the things he does for a purpose other than himself

[Lalaith]

Nonetheless, Shelob was extremely evil. Remember, her 'mother' Ungoliant, the ally of Morgoth. That alliance was based on their determination to destroy light and beauty. But it was only a temporary alliance as their aims were quite different. Morgoth, like Sauron, was a positive, proactive evil - he corrupts life but continues it - how else would he wield power? Shelob is like her mother before her a negative evil, a kind of black hole that aims to obliterate everything into nothingness.

edit: whoops, cross-post with HerenIstarion, who is clearly of a similar opinion...

[Osse]

Exactly! Shelob (and Ungoliant's) evil, centres around pure, complete and utter consumption. Especially Ungoliant, who craved power and nourishment so much that she devoured the Trees, as well as everything else in her path. It's a self preservatory evil perhaps, but still a great evil nonetheless. The spiders unlike the Dark Lords, didn't want to control others, they just wanted to consume others - a very different, yet equally malicious evil.

I always half-pitied the orcs - a revolting form of life spurred on by evil masters to do their bidding. Though repulsive, and rather nasty themselves, they always seemed to me to be the small-time-crims of Arda. As we can see in a few conversations, namely the one Sam overhears on the pass of Cirith Ungol, the orcs would rather get away from war, and make a 'quiet' life for themselves somewhere far from the whips and orders. Of course, this life would probably still consist of a fair amount of murder, pillaging and robbery, like we witness in the case of the Goblin colonies of the north, but that is largely due to the hateful nature of the creatures. I do not believe that they are altogether evil, but are built to live off killing and raiding - largely due to no fault of their own. Still they are of course somewhat evil, it's just a rather mild evil. (as far as murdering, burning and robbing is compared to say, taking over the whole of arda or killing the Trees...)

Balrogs, are rather hard to understand, as is the Watcher. One can assume one of two things - they are completely and magniliantly evil and are forever burning with hate and the desire to destroy life. OR that they are benignly evil and were just protecting a patch of their long-held territory, though of course stirred by the great evil of the East. One would be safe assuming either.


Evil itself (as this discussion is meant to outline) is very hard to define in itself. Evil or 'bad' takes many manifestations and personas, that can be percieved differently from person to person... one man's evil is another's... um?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by osse

Evil itself (as this discussion is meant to outline) is very hard to define in itself

um-m, let me doubt that maxim

Even without mentioning Eru and sin of pride (=root of all evil), evil may be defined simply as:

Something achieving its ends (even if ends are good at some point) on the expense of others:

To use the list provided by Fordim, it can be cast down to:

• The Black Riders - (end - service to their master/ means - slavery of all the rest of the world)
• Old Man Willow - (end - protection of the wood (?) / means - death of the hobbits)
• The Barrow Wights (end - revival of itself ~ preservation of memory (?) / means death/loss of own personality for the hobbits)
• The Watcher in the Water (end - protection of the gate/ means - death of all who pass by)
• The Balrog (end - unclear / means - burn them all)
• Gollum (end - freedom and being his own master~eat some fresh fish/ means - s-s-s-sstrangle nass-sty thieves-s-s-s)
• The ghosts of the unfaithful (end - keep the secret~find rest/ means - kill/drive mad anyone going in)
• The Mouth of Sauron (end - domination/means - kill 'em all)
• Sauron (end - order/ means - slave 'em all)

Only the Fell Beasts seem to behave like mere animals (and probably Watcher should be modified to fit the description) = (end - live on/ means - kill anything fit to eat)


Shelob is left quite apart from the list:

end - destroy everything but herself/ means - destroy everything but herself

But it is stated that nothing is originally bad - Good is the real thing, and Bad its' parasite, so even Shelob's paradigm can be modified to stand for:

end - exist in herself/ means - stop everything else form existing

[Osse]

Rather than hard to define, which of course if you take a bloody dictionary it is NOT... think of it as hard to compare, especially to itself. One person's sense of evil or wrong, is often warped by their beliefs, upbringing and values, as well as personal experiences. If you are going to be that blatant and word-abiding, HerenIstarion, one could say that anyone is EVIL... Aragorn is evil, he achieves his goals at the expense of all the forces of Darkness. Eru himself is evil, he achieves his goals at the expense of most if not all of Arda's inhabitants.... in fact, every single character in all of every writen work is Evil... I am evil, you are evil... even my cat is evil.


Also, your theory has a flaw: What about those creatures that are 'purely' evil...

Taking your simplistic formula:

Utterly Evil Character - end: death to all other life / means / death to all other life


Without trying to sound insincere, i do not believe that Evil is a word that should be thrown around lightly, nor does the definition you so kindly provided, outline it's real meaning... Evil is something far more sinister and intentional than just achieving something at the expense of others...

Evil is intense, it's often deliberate or at least self-observing if not intentional! Evil is a word thrown around too much in the world today... but i am not here to rant about things, I just vehemently resent the simplicity in which you have replied to my quite serious remark, a remark that I felt held truth and deeper meaning. Rather than play Devil's Advocate, as you perhaps are, maybe you should have looked at the meaning behind what I was trying to say?

I have great respect for you HerenIstarion, and your posts are always filled with insight and general freshness, I can only assume you were taking this in a humourous light, or picking up on an opportunity i myself might, yet I cannot understand why you would simplify something so intensly complex - over simplification itself dare I say it is... EVIL!

My regards nevertheless still go out to you HerenIstarion, and all you read this post, i am highly interested in hearing what you have to say on this superbly thought-out topic!!

Ossë

[Lalaith]

Perhaps the problem lies in trying to compare Tolkien's evil with real life evil.
I believe (although I know that probably others on the board do not) that there are no Saurons in our world.
In Middle Earth, thera are beings who are entirely evil and the only dilemma is how best to defeat them. In our world, no individual being is entirely evil in this sense, and our moral dilemmas are considerably more complicated as a result.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by osse

Also, your theory has a flaw: What about those creatures that are 'purely' evil..

But there is no ‘pure evil’ as such. That's (or, rather, it's opposite), what I've tried to bring across with simplified Shelob, for what is put down to as:

end: death to all other life / means / death to all other life

may be rendered as:

end: preserve own life/ means: death to all other life

And life preservation is the thing good in itself. Evilness of action is expressed by ‘death to all other life’ part of the fork. So, the origin of evil (death to all life) is good (preservation of own life)

I am evil, you are evil... even my cat is evil.

For one, cats are evil (I know it – as I do own two cats), it is just style they’ve got to them that masks their ultimate brutality and ‘bastardness’. For another (and you did lure me out into the deep, the thing which I tried to avoid with alleged ‘simplification’) – it is arguable that whole animal ‘strife for survival’ kind of life is as it is due to the Fall of Man

Let me confess that in watering the concept down, I rather hoped to work out definition to work for everybody, regardless their faith. I must admit the essay was not very succesful, as, I’m sure, you imply with the quote (I'm evil, you are evil) above, it is impossible to make moral choice – which action on what time is evil, and which not

But before rewriting the maxim of ‘on the expense of the others’ (let it be labelled as ‘maxim A’) let me explore the following:

Originally Posted by osse

One person's sense of evil or wrong, is often warped by their beliefs, upbringing and values, as well as personal experience

Verily so. But deviations are very minor. Generally, virtues are always the same, as vices are always the same. It is form they take that is different from culture to culture. To have an analogue – in all societies throughout the world courage was praised, not cowardice. But expressions of courage might be different. Similarly, ‘love for thy neighbour’ is praised everywhere, not only in Christianity, , the definition of ‘neighbour’ being different only. For Christianity, it is everybody, for Islam, Muslims only (though Jews and Christians are tolerated as opposed to Pagans), for some obscene tribe lost in the mountains it may be only members of the tribe who are considered ‘neighbours’, and than all the strangers get killed. But the main fact – that man should love his pairs, is one and the same for everybody.

Now, am I allowed to rewrite the ‘simplistic maxim A’? It may stand thus:

Something achieving its ends (even if ends are good at some point) by means of harming others (Let it be labelled ‘maxim A1’)

It says pretty much the same, but harm done to ‘others’ may be more explicit this way.

I’m aware what may pop up to anyone’s mind following such a maxim. “what about hunting tiger – is it evil?” In a way I render the issue down to this point, I have no answer to that question.

But if I were to let Eru into it, than I’d say – ‘tis for the Fall of Man only’ And, as ‘Fall of Man’ is not seen from LoTR in an explicit way, so the initial question was dealt with.

Final form, following the last paragraph, would sound like:

Evil’s is anything to put itself forward, to prefer its own will to the Will of its Creator

(Let me label it as maxim B (nailing it down in one word, it’d be Pride, and so the Fall of Man came about to pass))

Maxim B contains in itself, though is not filled up by, the A and A1 maxims

If you are ready to accept ‘maxim B’ as a whole, fine. If not, than I can contrive no better than maxims A and A1

So, having written all of the above without much consideration and in a hurry, I hope that it is moderately articulate, and fly off to meet pressing requirements of RL, with the promise to come back to the issue later on

PS. osse, I’m really flattered by your just revealed attitude to my musings on the fora. My gratitude and compliments in return

[The Saucepan Man]

Another classic thread from Fordim.

I’m aware what may pop up to anyone’s mind following such a maxim. “what about hunting tiger – is it evil?”

I think that we have to make a distinction between mere beasts and creatures of evil. Regardless of how one defines evil, I would say that a creature can only be evil if it acts intentionally with a motive other than simple self-preservation. A hunting tiger is not evil because it is doing what it needs to do for no other purpose than to survive. And I am sure that there are a variety of creatures in Middle-earth that fall into this category. The fox, for example, that wonders upon Frodo, Sam and Pippin sleeping under the stars in the Shire no doubt needs to kill to survive. We would not, however, class it as evil.

There are also creatures within this “beast” category which are employed in the service of evil, but which, since they have no choice but to do so, I would not class as intrinsically evil. Oliphaunts, for example, and the beasts that drew Grond to the Gate of Minas Tirith. Perhaps the Ringwraiths’ horses and fell-beasts fall within this category too. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to suggest that they were “independently evil”, as opposed to simply being employed as steeds by evil creatures.

Some might say that Orcs fall within this category too, since one theory has it that they have no will of their own but are simply pawns used by the forces of evil. I don’t personally hold with that theory, although one does then get into difficult questions of whether Orcs are inherently evil, whether redemption is available to them etc. I will steer clear of that topic since, as Fordim noted, there are enough threads that address it already.

And what about Wargs? Are they simply overgrown wolves that are pressed into service by Orcs and the like. Or are they in fact creatures with an evil will? The fact that they are made out in The Hobbit to be sentient creatures that have willingly formed an alliance with the Goblins, plus the fact that they seem deliberately to target the Fellowship in LotR, would strongly suggest the latter. Indeed, the fact that Gandalf refers to them as “Hounds of Sauron” is probably a fairly big clue.

The Watcher in the Water I find interesting in this context. Superficially, it would appear to be a simple beast. One that is simply protecting its territory, or perhaps looking for a tasty Hobbit snack. Yet, as Imladris has mentioned, there is a suggestion that there is something more than coincidence in the fact that it targets Frodo, the Ringbearer. If this is more than coincidence, is its attraction to the Ring internal or external? In other words, does the Ring attract it or is it innately attracted to the Ring? If the former, then it may indeed simply be a beast: one that the Ring is using to escape. If the latter, however, then this might suggest that it is itself a creature of evil.

Finally Shelob and her predecessor, Ungoliant. As others have suggested, the fact that their motive for destruction and consumption is more than simple self-preservation, but rather destruction for destruction’s sake, would suggest that they are in themselves evil creatures (even though neither are loyal to the Dark Lords that they associate themselves with). Their sentience adds to this impression, as it does with Shelob’s “spawn”, ie the spiders that Bilbo encounters in Mirkwood. Although the Mirkwood spiders no doubt capture the Dwarves so as to feed themselves, the delight which they appear to take in doing so tends to indicate that there is more to their actions than simple self-preservation.

(Off topic:

For Christianity, it is everybody, for Islam, Muslims only (though Jews and Christians are tolerated as opposed to Pagans)

I would not agree with this statement. Islam, of course, can take different forms. But, in its purest form, I understand it to be extremely accepting of other faiths, at least as much so as Chrisitanity.)