Tolkien and the Monsters

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Sorry for labouring the point, Mr Fordim sir

That’s Professor Fordim, if you please.

It seems to me that we’re not going to get very far if we keep focusing our discussion on the extremely problematic figures of the Nazgûl and the orcs. As H-I’s rather impressive list of threads shows, there’s been plenty of back-and-forth on these points already, and we’re no closer to really understanding these issues. That, I would humbly suggest, is a good thing, in a way, insofar as Tolkien is not oversimplifying a complex issue in his presentation of evil.

That having been said… In reading through the posts to this thread, I’ve begun to think that of all the ‘monsters’ we can look at, the most illuminating might well be the Mouth of Sauron: not, strictly speaking, a monster, I know, but he certainly is monstrous. The reason I think we should single out this character is that the one thing we don’t know about the Nazgûl or the orcs – how did they become Sauron’s servants? – is the one thing that we are told about the Mouth:

The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale: for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: “I am the Mouth of Sauron.” But it is told that he was a renegade, who came of the race of those that are named the Black Númenóreans; for they established their dwellings in Middle-earth during the years of Sauron's domination, and they worshipped him, being enamoured of evil knowledge. And he entered into the service of the Dark Tower when it first rose again, and because of his cunning he grew ever higher in the Lord's favour; and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron; and he was more cruel than any orc.

His motivation for joining with Sauron is pretty clearly laid out here: he was “enamoured of evil knowledge.” It is this desire to be evil that makes him the ally of Sauron willingly. The other thing we learn about him is that he is a “renegade,” but a renegade from what or whom is interestingly left unclear. I suppose at the most literal level he is a renegade Númenórean, but perhaps there is the sense also that he is a renegade from Good? (Dare I say, Eru?) In this respect I think we can pretty clearly put him ‘beside’ the Balrog. Interestingly, however, he is not like Shelob (the book’s other ‘renegade’ maiar), who doesn’t care a jot for “knowledge” be it evil or not: she just wants to devour. In this sense, I guess, she provides a useful foil to the Mouth, for he is Man whose own identity has been devoured by Sauron.

It’s in this respect that he is like the Nazgûl. Like them, he has no identity anymore. Even he doesn’t remember it and all he can say about himself is that he is “the Mouth of Sauron.” He is, however (I think) ‘worse’ than the Nazgûl (perhaps even, more evil?) in that he didn’t even need the power or excuse of a Ring to enter into the service of Sauron. He’s apparently of higher ‘rank’ in Mordor than even the Witch-King, since he is the “Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr”.

Where things really start to get interesting is, I think, the final line of this description when we learn that “he was more cruel than any orc.” His cruelty is here being presented not as the ‘source’ of his evil (that is, he does cruel things, therefore he is evil) but as the result of his evil (he knows “much of the mind of Sauron” and therefore is “more cruel than any orc”).

I would therefore like to float a tentative suggestion about monsters and how they develop the nature of evil in The Lord of the Rings *takes a deep breath*

The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” (this is still a bit ambiguous: what makes certain knowledge “evil”?). The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge". The consequence of this evil choice is two-fold. First, one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer. Second, one becomes cruel and bestial.

And from this, I think I can develop a ‘hierarchy’ of sorts of the monsters (bear with me):

“The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge”" – The most evil monsters in the book, then, would be Sauron, the Balrog, and Shelob(?).

“one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer.” – The next ‘order’ of evil monsters would be, according to this, the Nazgûl, Gollum(?), the Mouth of Sauron and perhaps Saruman.

“one becomes cruel and bestial” – The ‘least’ evil characters are the cruel “beasts”: orcs, the Watcher in the Water, wargs, etc.

Of course, I still don’t know what this “evil knowledge” might be that starts off the whole process! I think if we can figure that out, we’ll get a lot further than arguing about the potential for repentance upon the part of orcs…

[davem]

A few random thoughts:

Originally Posted by Fordim

The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” (this is still a bit ambiguous: what makes certain knowledge “evil”?). The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge". The consequence of this evil choice is two-fold. First, one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer. Second, one becomes cruel and bestial.

Can we say that: 'The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” '?

Perhaps 'the root (cause)of evil actions is the desire for evil knowledge' would be more accurate?
'Evil' knowledge is merely knowledge of evil, & someone must have practised/produced evil in order for knowledge of it to come into being, so 'evil' must have pre-existed evil knowledge. Yet if evil is not a thing in itself, but a myriad forms of corruption of something else - 'good', how can we speak about a desire for 'evil' knowledge as if it was a desire for knowledge of some specific subject - knowledge of 'evil' is not the same as knowledge of physics, or biology, or even of Quenya, say.

So, we could speculate that what the Mouth originally wanted was the knowledge of how to corrupt good. But why would anyone desire a corrupt form of something over its pure form- its like desiring a broken-down car more than one in working order.

So, we could speculate instead that the Mouth began under the delusion that there was such a thing as pure evil, equal & opposite of good. Probably, given he is described as a Black Numenorean, he was part of a group that had followed Sauron's worship of Melkor. In other words, he was the Middle Earth equivalent of a 'Satanist'. We could further speculate that the evil knowledge he desired was power over others, & over the matter of Arda - this is basically what Melkor desired, & Sauron also. We know worship practices instigated by Sauron in Numenor included human sacrifice. If the Mouth was crueller than any orc, perhaps we are talking not just about practices involving torture, burning alive, etc, but the kind of thing the Lord of the Nazgul threatens Eowyn with

"He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."

To be able to keep a victim's mind captive after their flesh has been devoured would be beyond the capacity of any orc. I suppose we could speculate that the Mouth rules the Houses of Lamentation, & has the capacity to destroy the Hroa & keep the Fea to torture (or should that be destroy the Hroa and the Fea & keep the sana to torture - I'm not up on Middle Earth metaphysics). This would come under the general heading of 'control over the matter & inhabitants of Arda', having the capacity to manipulate the physical & metaphysical dimensions, which would offer the possibility of overcoming death - which seems to have been the Black Numenorean's obsession.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course, I still don’t know what this “evil knowledge” might be that starts off the whole process! I think if we can figure that out, we’ll get a lot further than arguing about the potential for repentance upon the part of orcs…

OK. I'll try one more time to explain the point that I am trying to make.

Fordim, you place Orcs, Wargs and the like furthest down on your "heirarchy of evil". These creatures are not interested in seeking "evil knowledge" as you put it. They act in a cruel and wicked manner because that is their nature. So how can they truly be described as evil at all if they have no choice but to act in the way that they do? In other words, it might be said that these creatures are not in fact evil, but simply "beasts" pressed into evil service in the same way that Oliphaunts are.

Conceivably, the same could be said of Shelob. Did she ever have any choice in her insistent desire to devour, or is it simply part of her nature? I would suspect the latter, in which case perhaps she too is not really evil. (Incidentally, what makes you think that she is a maia? I appreciate that there is an argument for Ungoliant being one of the maiar although it is not clear, but I am not aware of any suggestion that her spawn were of that nature.)

To sum up, however, the point that I am trying to make is that, to my mind, evil requires some degree of choice. If a creature does not have that choice, can it truly be evil? And doesn't this question go to the very heart of the nature of evil in Middle-earth?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

To sum up, however, the point that I am trying to make is that, to my mind, evil requires some degree of choice. If a creature does not have that choice, can it truly be evil? And doesn't this question go to the very heart of the nature of evil in Middle-earth?

Couldn't agree with you more. But I think we can refine that by saying that evil is defined not just by any choice (i.e. an 'evil' choice) but by choosing to seek or take up "evil knowledge."

As to the whole Shelob v Sauron evil thing, it can be answered in two ways. First, the way you would appear to be answering it: Shelob is not truly evil, just doing her thing (that is, she is not Sauron-evil, which is real evil).

The other way to answer it is the way I prefer: she is evil but in a different way than Sauron is evil. Sauron does evil for the sake of the evil knowledge that he seeks/wants in his desire to overthrow the created world; Shelob is evil because of her desire to consume the created world. So closely allied, but not quite the same thing. The common element, I suppose, would be that they each put the fulfilment of their individual desires ahead of creation.

As to Shelob-Maiar: I admit, I don't really know this for a 'fact': but she sure isn't just some overgrown spider either!

[The Saucepan Man]

Just a quick point on the following:

Shelob is evil because of her desire to consume the created world.

I accept that it is said of Ungoliant that she had an all-consuming desire to consume. But is this actually said of Shelob too, or are we imputing it to her by virtue of her ancestry? Isn't Shelob simply hiding away in a mountain lair, keeping herself to herself and consuming only what she needs to survive? The again, she is a sentient being and has the capacity to choose who/what she consumes and who/what she does not. Perhaps that counts against her. Maybe the question depends upon what was agreed between her and Gollum. Did she know that Frodo and Sam were two good little Hobbits, or did she simply view them as small Orcs?

[davem]

Shagrat on Shelob:

Anyway my lads reported that Her Ladyship was having some
fun, and that seemed good enough for me, until the message came. I thought
her Sneak had brought her a toy. or that you'd perhaps sent her a present, a
prisoner of war or something. I don't interfere when she's playing. Nothing
gets by Shelob when she's on the hunt.'

[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks for the quote, davem.

I suppose that could just be an Orcish way of referring to the manner of her hunting her prey. But his words do seem to tie in with the delight taken by the Spiders of Mirkwood in capturing Thorin and co for later consumption.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Little she knew of or cared for towers, or rings, or anything devised by mind or hand, who only desired death for all others, mind and body, and for herself a glut of life, alone, swollen till the mountains could no longer hold her up and the darkness could not contain her.

I would suggest that Shelob is far more that just a hungry 'beast'! Shelob's hunger is more than just the pangs of a being that needs sustenance. So great is her "lust" to consume "all others" that she is very much on par with Sauron:

So they both lived, delighting in their own devices, and feared no assault, nor wrath, nor any end to their wickedness.

The more I look at Shelob, the more I see her as Sauron's equal in evil -- she is just another form of evil. And now I am going to take a flier: Shelob is the manifestation of feminine (note: not female) evil, and Sauron of masculine. Shelob is the complete perversion of femininity and the 'ideals' of the feminine (as embodied by Arwen?): she consumes and feeds and gluts rather than nourishes. Sauron is the perversion of masculinity and the 'ideals' of the masculine (as embodied by Aragorn?): he seeks dominion and control rather than inspiring love through his willingness to sacrifice himself.

[Legolas]

Point being, if orcs were originally Elves, aren't they 'destined' to do what they do? Isn't it set out in the Music that they will become orcs - aren't orcs destined to be orcs? How much freedom do they have to act outside the confines of the Music?If they have no such freedom, they can't be held accountable for their choices, & so have no need to repent.

No...this "destiny" you talk about seems to exclude freewill. Freewill is entirely the point here. Certainly people aren't destined to be bad or good - their good and/or bad decisions are what destine them. The Music isn't Predestination. Orientation and Predestination aren't the same thing.


The Saucepan Man - I'm afraid you're posing the age-old, kind of answerless question: Are those that don't know held accountable? I have an "answer," but I'm going to have to hold off until I've had more sleep to verbalize it comprehensibly.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legolas

No...this "destiny" you talk about seems to exclude freewill. Freewill is entirely the point here. Certainly people aren't destined to be bad or good - their good and/or bad decisions are what destine them. The Music isn't Predestination. Orientation and Predestination aren't the same thing.

So, we would then have to assume that Orcs could be good - yet, being orcs they are corrupt - their Hroa is corrupt, Fea & Hroa are one, so are they not, in their essence, corrupt beings? Certainly, they're not 'robots', they are sentient beings, with fea & hroa:

] Gorbag:'Those Nazgûl give me the creeps. And they skin the body
off you as soon as look at you, and leave you all cold in the dark on the
other side.

Which shows that they have some 'religious'/metaphysical understanding of their own nature - they concieve of themselves as 'spiritual' beings, whose body can can be 'skinned' off them & they themselves left 'cold in the dark on the other side'. They also seem to have a belief in some kind of after life - they can continue to exist after the death of their physical body. Can we infer some kind of reward/punishment scenario from this - offend the Nazgul (or the Mouth? - this seems to be a practiced 'technique' - not simply a nasty, groundless threat made by the Lord of the Nazgul to intimidate Eowyn) & you are punished by having the body skinned off you & left in the dark. Be a 'good' orc & you'll get some kind of reward?

Are we seeing some glimpse of Sauron the 'god-king' here, with a developed religion handed down to his 'subjects/worshippers'? If so, to what extent is their 'wickedness' based on 'religious' tenets/commandments?

[Bêthberry]

The more I look at Shelob, the more I see her as Sauron's equal in evil -- she is just another form of evil. And now I am going to take a flier: Shelob is the manifestation of feminine (note: not female) evil, and Sauron of masculine. Shelob is the complete perversion of femininity and the 'ideals' of the feminine (as embodied by Arwen?): she consumes and feeds and gluts rather than nourishes. Sauron is the perversion of masculinity and the 'ideals' of the masculine (as embodied by Aragorn?): he seeks dominion and control rather than inspiring love through his willingness to sacrifice himself.

Oh, I don't think this is a flier at all, Fordim. There is a reason why so many of the descriptions of Shelob refer to her gender--constantly and continuously is the pronoun 'she' repeated, even, of course, in her very name, Shelob. The female glutton whose appetites are so deadly and whose body is so foul and putrid. Even the orcs' mockery of "Her ladyship" is significant.

However, the text sets her up against Galadriel, rather than Arwen, don't you think? It is Galadriel's star glass which Sam recalls and which lights his and Frodo's way, the light of the pure feminine figure.

[wilwarin538]

Id like to say something about one of Bethberry`s first quotes. God doesnt make mistakes, he makes us with free will, to do as we please, we make are selves evil. Perhaps it is the same in middle-earth, orcs are made with a free will to be evil or good, which ever they please. Perhaps they are raised to be evil and thats all they know how to be. Im sure everything on that list could be good but just choosed to be evil, maybe because of how they were raised or just by the way they wish to live there life.

I`m sure most of this was said but I just wanted to give my own opinnion on this matter.

thanks for reading,
Wilwarin

[Osse]

I would like to bring another factor into the fray here, after i've sat back and watched for a while...

That being the upbringing of those who 'choose' to become evil. Let us take orcs as an example...

Reared for a soul purpose, they are dealed with with an 'iron hand'... beaten into submission from conception, indeed concieved for the purpose of hate, death and suffering... their lives mean nothing to those above them, around them and below them... they hate themselves, their comrades and their lot. They become spiteful, hateful beings almost immediately. What then can this person do. One orc who refuses to fight is beaten, then if it continues, is killed. Die fighting, or just die in pain!

It's a vicous cycle... they cannot escape, they cannot live for themselves, and they cannot refuse. This cycle, so cunningly percieved by Morgoth, has enthralled the race completely - there is no hope for the orcs i fear.

[Evisse the Blue]

Mithalwen and Osse brought up the role that genetics and upbringing might have in determining one's goodness/badness. Sadly this question is not solved in your world, let alone in Middle Earth. The 'super males' and 'super females' have a lower IQ, therfore a tendency to solve problems using physical violence and a short attention span. That makes them prone to relatively minor crimes like robbery and assault. A good upbringing will guarantee that desirable behaviours will be enacted if as long as they are reinforced. In other words, I'll have nice table manners because daddy promised me a pony ride. That does not exclude the latent existance of undesirable behaviours that will rear their ugly head when opportunity knocks.
Alright, enough of that. After all, this is only a story and real life can be much more complicated. The bottom line is - if one can prove, based on Tolkien's own assumptions, that, if a kindly Elf had reared Shelon since she was an teeny weeny baby spider, she would not have become the 'Dark Goddess of gluttony', than the question's settled: she's not a monster, the true monster is society. Same with orcs.

As an afterthought, I always get the impression, based on absolutely no cannonical sources at all, that Tolkien was feeling more kindly towards orcs than he let show, and similarly, more pessimistic towards men.