The Trickster in LotR

[littlemanpoet]

because you have a built in choice between either funny or ambiguous. If it's not one, it's the other. Other taboos: Eowyn's disobedience, riding with the Rohirrim to Pelennor; Faramir not bringing the Ring to his father; I'm sure there are more.

[Rimbaud]

Aragorn palling up with the deceased. The future of ME being decided by four short crumpet-lovers. A decided twinkle in somebody's eye methinks.

[Lush]

/because you have a built in choice between either funny or ambiguous. If it's not one, it's the other./

I do?

Hm. Sorry, can't quite understand.

I think that the above broken taboos still demonstrate a departure from the Trickster. An improvement even, if you will. Because the Trickster archetype is, from my understanding, meant to make us uncomfortable by its moral ambiguity. I don't see anyone doing just that in Middle Earth, except for maybe Gollum, but only up to a point (especially when I keep his death in mind).

Eowyn disobeys and the Hobbits wander into the Old Forest for specific reasons; Eowyn is out for death and glory and ends up slaying the Witchking in the process, the Hobbits are trying carrying a Ring that will decide the fate of the world. This isn't Trickster. There are echoes of Trickster, yes, of course, but I don't really see him there in his entirety.

And it's not that I'm saying that Tolkien had no sense of humour, but that it's markedly different from the kind of humour used in the Trickster myths I'm familiar with.

P.S. "Faust" is a great read. Though nobody has yet told me if there is any information on how Tolkien felt about Goethe. Any takers?

[littlemanpoet]

What I meant, Lush, was that some of the broken taboos in LotR lead to "not funny" stuff, and others lead to "not ambiguous" stuff. Some lead to both. None lead to neither (sorry about the triple negatives there). So between the two parts of your assertion, I say "yes, that's true".

But what about The Hobbit, or doesn't that qualify as Tolkien?

Bilbo tries to swipe Bill the Troll's wallet (at least I think it was Bill), and that sure as heck was funny. More Trickstery too, don't you think?

[Lush]

Oh, it's terribly funny, I agree. But that's what I would call an echo of the Trickster, not an actual true-to-archetype representation. If Bilbo was really acting the Trickster, he would first swipe that wallet, then take a poop in it, then provide us with some joking reference on the filthy nature of monetary transactions though without really giving a hoot as to what he's done, then... Well I best not go on.

Having said that, I'm no expert on the Trickster. I'm only familiar with the Native American and Chinese versions in any depth. So please feel free not to take me seriously. It's just that my instincts tell me that Tolkien wouldn't be all that fond of this archetype (then again, my instincts also once told me that "Saw" would make for a decent movie-going experience, so by all means...)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Yes, I agree, a very interesting thread. . .but I gotta say that I think, like davem, there may not be any 'room' in the moral fabric of Tolkien's world for a true trickster figure.

As has been mentioned here several times, one of the definitive components of the trickster is that he is amoral: neither moral nor immora; neither evil nor good. One of the great sources of depth and thematic texture to Middle-earth is the fact that is it so clearly and tangibly a moral universe, in which good and evil are present in all acts, actions and people (even places and things). This is not to say that everyone and everything is divided into two camps of Good versus Evil, but that everyone and everythign is defined by the conflict/contrast between good and evil within them.

This is just not suitable ground for the trickster to flourish in. He (or sometimes she) by virtue of his only brushing association with human society is removed from the norms of that society -- even immune to them. In Tolkien's universe, there is no one-remove from morality that anyone can get to. Bombadil is an interesting suggestion for this, insofar as he in untouched by the power of the Ring, and unmoveable to direct action in destroying it, but he is still clearly on the 'side' of Good insofar as he keeps the Barrow Wights at bay, laments for the dead woman who was brought under the shadow, saves the hobbits from Old Man Willow, helps them on their journey, and is a friend to Gandalf -- none of which is counterbalanced by similar acts or associations with evil. Were he a true trickster figure he would be equally comfortable with Sauron, invite wights over for tea, and be as like to ensnare the hobbits as help them on their way.

Ultimately, the trickster is a chaotic figure: or, more properly, a figure of chaos. He makes things happen that are interpreted or received as good by some, and as bad by others. But as we can see time and again in Tolkien's universe, there is no such force of possibility for chaos -- the One, Eru, is in charge; Providence is guiding events along. Sure, there is uncertainty and room for individual action, but the sense of history as being a story moving toward an End precludes the real possibility of chaotic action. The prospect of someone or something other than Sauron or Eru coming along to knock the whole works for a loop is just not there.

All of which is not to say that the legacy of the trickster is not present in the text: I think that Bethberry's post about the "expurgated trickster" is wonderful and will only add a "hear hear" to it. To this extent, I realise that I'm not adding anything new to the thread, but perhaps we can say something about Tolkien's moral universe:

Having realised that not only is there no trickster figure, but no POSSIBILITY of a trickster figure, does that not point to, perhaps, a certain limitation to that world? A narrow view, even, in which the possibility of chaos is being consciously removed from the tale? Chaos -- as the absence of good and evil -- is a possibility in the primary world, even for those who don't believe that the world is chaotic, their lived experience will bring them into contact with other people who believe that chaos is the state of existence. But in M-E there is no-one and nothing to give this thought voice or dramatic form. It is a world in which the thought of chaos has been suppressed by a dynamic, fluid and wonderfully dramatic relation of good and evil.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Fordim

Chaos -- as the absence of good and evil -- is a possibility in the primary world, even for those who don't believe that the world is chaotic, their lived experience will bring them into contact with other people who believe that chaos is the state of existence. But in M-E there is no-one and nothing to give this thought voice or dramatic form. It is a world in which the thought of chaos has been suppressed by a dynamic, fluid and wonderfully dramatic relation of good and evil.

And that, Fordim, is possibly why we all like Middle Earth so much! Our own world is entirely unpredictable, entirely subjective and filled with grey areas. Middle Earth has grey areas too, but we know what good and evil are there, and what actions are right and wrong, so that could be why we all like the place. But then I wonder how long many of us 'modern folk' would last there with our subjective and personal ideas.

[Garen LiLorian]

Let us for a moment consider Gollum as the Trickster. He alone of all characters in ME seems to me to have the moral ambiguity neccessary to pull off this role. Indeed, by using Lmp's criterion at the beginning of this thread, he fits almost to a T

...is at one and the same time creator and destroyer, giver and negator, he who dupes others and who is always duped himself. He wills nothing consciously. At times, he is constrained to behave as he does from impulses over which he has no control. He knows neither good nor evil yet he is responsible for both. He possesses no values, moral or social, is at the mercy of his passions and appetites, yet through his actions all values come into being.'

What put me off of calling him the trickster from the beginning is that he is not of the same ilk as Coyote, Loki, Ananzi, etc. He is no god-figure, and no culture hero. He is clearly a mere creature like everyone else. His trickeries are not of the 'stealing the sun' variety, but small mischiefs. He falls under the dominion of others, notably Sauron, in a way that my reading of an archtypal trickster never would. The Trickster is almost definable by his independance from any power, whereas Gollum is almost definable by his subservience to one (the Ring). Yet for all that, I think, for the excellent reasons posted above by Fordim, Davem and others, that he may be the closest thing Tolkien will let us have.
He is a small trickster and in the whole history of ME, he is too small a character to fill these archtypal shoes. But in the context of LotR alone, he is a giant character, one of the more distinct and talked-about characters, who majorly influences everything he comes in contact with. In this limited context, he could be the Trickster.