Absolute Good in Lord of the Rings

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Gollum the Great

If I remember rightly from the Bible, the devil requested permission to tempt Job, thus inducing him to blaspheme or call God unjust (I can't recall what exact sin it was). What did God use this for? A test. As the All-knowing God He already knew the measure of Job's faithfulness, but man with free will (still going Catholic) may make his own decisions and his virtues and vice only incline him to one side or the other. And what was this to Job?

The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.

God permits Satan to do these things to Job, it is ultimately God's work which was happening to him. Thus, God demonstrates his absolute freedom and omnipotence. And in doing so, finds out that Job's faith is such he accepts these horrible things.

Tolkien I am positive does not go with Eru being evil, that's impossible. Evil is an absence (Catholic again) or perversion of the good.

Of course Eru is not 'evil', but everything stems from him, every possibility, even Morgoth's works stem ultimately from Eru as Eru makes him and makes him so he is able to do these things. But of course even the things we see as 'evil' which happen in Arda are ultimately 'good' as they stem from Eru. And Eru even gives us a little explanation when he says

no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me

and

thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory

The best example to demonstrate how Melkor's works only serve to make Eru seem more glorious is good old snow. It seems odd at first to think that even the bad things stem ultimately from Eru, but they do. And that chimes in with the profound and quite difficult things said in Job.

Like Boro says,

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I would argue that Lewis (and Tolkien) were writers who were Christian, and obviously were influenced by their faith. But to say Tolkien created a Christian God in Eru, I think, is taking things a step too far.

Eru may be a reflection of Tolkien's own vision of God, that's something nobody can ever know is true or not, but is he 'the' God? Who knows? That depends on what your own experience or not is and mine is that there isn't just one version

So anyway...I think Cailin is probably right to concentrate on the main characters in Lord of the Rings itself! Even if her answer is a big old "No".

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

So anyway...I think Cailin is probably right to concentrate on the main characters in Lord of the Rings itself! Even if her answer is a big old "No".

Interesting that no one here has mentioned Galadriel. After all, we are given her temptation scene, just as we saw Gandalf refuse to be tempted by the Ring. I'm not saying that she's an example of "absolute good", but certainly in her wisdom, insight, tremendous hospitality, and prescient gifts she provides something very positive, helpful, and healing. She's the closest Tolkien gets to giving us a Goddess, verily an emissary of Light.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Interesting that no one here has mentioned Galadriel. After all, we are given her temptation scene, just as we saw Gandalf refuse to be tempted by the Ring. I'm not saying that she's an example of "absolute good", but certainly in her wisdom, insight, tremendous hospitality, and prescient gifts she provides something very positive, helpful, and healing. She's the closest Tolkien gets to giving us a Goddess, verily an emissary of Light.

Yet dear ol' Galady had her faults. She did, after all, ignore the Ban of Mandos, being more interested in personal gain, tempted as she was by the oratory of Feanor (even though she disliked him, she still fell for the bad boy image).

Regarding the circumlocutious debate concerning Eru and his omniscience, to me he/she/it was neither good or bad, and resembled Yahweh of the Torah, who could be quite despicable at times, butchering enemies of Israel wholesale (like Yahweh, Eru did slaughter innocent folks -- the old and the infant -- on Numenor).

Aside from the Eru discussion, I do not believe there was any character exhibiting an absolute goodness, because the definition of 'absolute good' would preclude items like killing (even in battle) and lying (even little white lies); therefore, even Gandalf or Sam, who have been mentioned by others, did have their foibles and faults.
I suppose it is necessary for this dialogue to define what is meant by 'absolute good'. Here are some extracts from our friends at Merriam-Webster:

ABSOLUTE:
free from imperfection
perfect, pure
outright , unmitigated
having no restriction, exception, or qualification
positive , unquestionable
fundamental, ultimate
perfectly embodying the nature of a thing <absolute justice>

GOOD:
virtuous, right , commendable
kind, benevolent
competent , skillful
loyal

There are no characters who match these definors on a consistent basis, and actually the word absolute goes beyond mere consistency, it means, rather, always exhibiting certain characteristics, and free from imperfections.

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Regarding the circumlocutious debate concerning Eru and his omniscience, to me he/she/it was neither good or bad, and resembled Yahweh of the Torah, who could be quite despicable at times, butchering enemies of Israel wholesale (like Yahweh, Eru did slaughter innocent folks -- the old and the infant -- on Numenor).

Yet for ten righteous soles would God have spared Sadden and Gomorra, the same thing can be seen with Numenor in the flight of the faithful. The Numenorean's, apart from the three houses of the faithful, were under Sauron's influence and worshipped Melkor, sacrificing the him those that were still faithful. Should the seed of that Satanism be allowed to endure? Should Eru have spared Numenor on the fact that women and children still lived there? I doubt that would have been very wise, the pride of man had grown to great to be pardoned. The faithful were spared and the evil worshippers were destroyed.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Yet for ten righteous soles would God have spared Sadden and Gomorra, the same thing can be seen with Numenor in the flight of the faithful. The Numenorean's, apart from the three houses of the faithful, were under Sauron's influence and worshipped Melkor, sacrificing the him those that were still faithful. Should the seed of that Satanism be allowed to endure? Should Eru have spared Numenor on the fact that women and children still lived there? I doubt that would have been very wise, the pride of man had grown to great to be pardoned.

I'm sorry, but since I consider 'original sin' an asinine theological doctrine (and one of the many reasons I parted ways with the Catholic Church and Christianity as well), I would have to define the murder of innocent infants, whose only fault was that their parents may have been on the wrong side of whatever religious imperative you care to name, as a despicable act by God/Yahweh/Allah/Eru.

I find it entertaining and humorous that many Christians will fight tooth and nail for the sacrosanct rights of an innocent human fetus, but will abandon babies outside of the womb to the torments of hell because their parents don't subscribe to a particular religious view. Why bother stopping abortions when these 'seeds of Satan' will only grow up to be carbon copies of their demonic parents? Don't answer, I was only speaking rhetorically.

So, on Numenor, could you tell which newborn infant was Sauronic or one of the Faithful? Were the Sauronic babies given knives so that they could join in on the human sacrifice, making it a family affair, like a picnic? Tell me, Groin, suppose your parents were from some Satanic group (like the Democrats, for instance). Does this guilt by association automatically make you a lifelong Democrat as well? Or is there such a thing as free will, which is a supposed tenet of many major religions? Could it be possible that you have an epiphany later on in life and become a Republican, thus joining the righteous select on the path to conservative Heaven rather than liberal Hell? Oh, sorry, you don't get to make that choice, God just wiped out your family in a thunderstorm of indignation.

[Macalaure]

Let me see…

For Manwe was free from evil and could not comprehend it. ~ Of Feanor and the Unchaining of Melkor

If somebody is free from evil, he obviously has to be perfectly good, so we do have an absolutely good character in Arda.

But the question was about the LotR, so this doesn’t help an awful much. In LotR, evil is of course embodied by Sauron, with some special aspects manifested in the Nazgul, the Orcs, Saruman, etc. However,

For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so. ~ The Council of Elrond

Of course, just because he wasn’t evil in the beginning, doesn’t mean he was not absolutely evil at the later point we’re looking at. Luckily Tolkien clears it up elsewhere:

[Sauron] still had the relics of positive purposes, that descended from the good of the nature in which he began: it had been his virtue that he loved order and coordination, and disliked all confusion and wasteful friction. ~ HoMe 10, Myths Transformed VII

So, as others have already stated, there is indeed no absolute evil in LotR. An interesting question is whether it actually matters that he isn’t absolutely evil. Doesn’t it suffice that he’s evil enough, at least to meet the requirements of the author of that article?

Anyway, the thread is about the good (again, is absoluteness really necessary?). I would like to dismiss Bombadil immediately, because even though he could be a good candidate, the fact that he pretty much simply ignores the existence of evil (outside his small realm) disqualifies him. He’s not the “alternative” to Sauron that I think we’re looking for here. The fellowship (apart from Gandalf) are in fact the protagonists that struggle between good and evil. If one of those (Sam has been mentioned) doesn’t do anything wrong on his journey, it only means that his intentions and choices inside the storyline were always right, not that he is free from evil.

The characters that I would consider are Gandalf*, Elrond, and Galadriel. The latter two have important functions, but no more, while Gandalf is clearly the most active, even though, contrary to Sauron on the other side, he does not actually hold any power (apart from taking over the command of the forces of Minas Tirith briefly).

Now that I come to think of it, the fact that Gandalf is never in a real position of power might actually be a very significant difference. Even though very much is made of the position of the King, Gandalf (the White) is clearly on a level above Elessar (Gandalf crowns him, f.ex.). But he does not seem to fit in with the “overarching good figure who the heroes have to follow”. Maybe this exact thing was something Tolkien was uncomfortable with and therefore attributed to his evil overarching figure only.


* esp. Gandalf the White: Gandalf the Grey still has one foot in the category of the fellowship. If I’m right about all the stuff I’m saying, then it’s interesting, I think, that Tolkien chose to let his “overarching good figure” emerge and grow by the circumstances, even replacing an unworthy predecessor, and that he does not simply present him as a given.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

If somebody is free from evil, he obviously has to be perfectly good, so we do have an absolutely good character in Arda.

This does not necessarily follow, even if we are proceeding from an Augustinian view that evil is the perversion or lack of a good.

Absolute good would be the possession of all goodness. Manwë (and any other purely good character you might think exists in Arda) is not perfectly good, because he is not perfect. Although immensely powerful, he is still a limited being, and a limitation of power or knowledge is also a limitation of good, because it would be better (ie. "gooder") to have the power or knowledge that is lacking.

Furthermore, it is possible to lack goods that do not quite constitute evils. For example, I'm diabetic. This is a lack of a good (functioning islets of Langerhan in my pancreas), but it does not make me evil. (It is AN evil, but it does not make me evil...)

Beyond this general philosophic point, I really haven't anything to add... possibly because on the diabetic note, I'm in need of food.

[Rikae]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Sadden and Gomorra

Hence the mortal sin of "Saddeny".

I'd like to contradict Mac slightly, and argue for Bombadil. He is the only character who is not even tempted by the ring, a character able to drive away the Barrow Wights with nothing more than song (which, in light of the Ainulindale, is kind of suggestive in itself).

The fact that he does not involve himself in the conflict central to LOTR actually underscores the way in which Tolkien's work differs from the "absolute good vs. absolute evil" model Pennington seems to be looking for. LOTR is driven by the struggle between good and evil within the characters. Sauron, who may be absolute evil insofar as he appears in LOTR, is not actually one of the "players" - he remains offstage. Bombadil appears long enough to depict the strength of "light", "good", or whatever you want to call it, but must remain outside the plot, or else ruin it. I actually see a bit of an echo of Eru's rather passive response to Melkor here - there is the possibility Bombadil has the power to change things, but allows them to unfold - so if Eru is good, Tom is, or rather, Tom is good in the way Eru is.

Eru himself is, of course, off-topic, since the question was on LOTR.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Interesting that no one here has mentioned Galadriel. After all, we are given her temptation scene, just as we saw Gandalf refuse to be tempted by the Ring. I'm not saying that she's an example of "absolute good", but certainly in her wisdom, insight, tremendous hospitality, and prescient gifts she provides something very positive, helpful, and healing. She's the closest Tolkien gets to giving us a Goddess, verily an emissary of Light.

Yes but she's still got a naughty streak, which is what makes her so interesting. If she was just wise and beautiful and healing she'd be a little dull, however she is also power hungry and isolates herself and her people. Plus there are all those adoring male fans...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Yet dear ol' Galady had her faults. She did, after all, ignore the Ban of Mandos, being more interested in personal gain, tempted as she was by the oratory of Feanor (even though she disliked him, she still fell for the bad boy image).

The question here, though, pertains to LotR, and Tolkien went through enough niggling with the Galadriel character that it is possible to argue that the Silm Galadriel is but a distant relative of the Ring Galadriel. It's all a can of worms to try to unify some of the characters, such as Hobbit Gollem and Ring Gollem, even Hobbit Bilbo and Ring Bilbo, to say nothing of the tra la la la lally elves. And, anyway, my reply was not to suggest absolute goodness but . . .

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Yes but she's still got a naughty streak, which is what makes her so interesting. If she was just wise and beautiful and healing she'd be a little dull, however she is also power hungry and isolates herself and her people. Plus there are all those adoring male fans...

I don't think being naughty is what makes her interesting; it is her struggle within herself. It isn't evil that is interesting, but the struggle against it.

All of Tolkien's "good" characters struggle: it is this process which allows them to be good, not the complete absence of evil or the complete presence of good. Look at the long and torturous route Frodo follows and what happens to him on Mount Doom. Yet his struggle and sacrifice is what made it possible for events to unfold and thus, his struggle is not lost. Something valuable, life affirming and, well, good, came of his struggle. Something good was created.

Creation is an essential and paramount activity for Tolkien; in OFS, he equates it with the divine act. Actions which create cooperation, fellowship, community, the free will of individuals are what are good in Tolkien's world. So all of the main characters--Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Merry, Pippin, Sam, Frodo, Bombadil--can have flaws and negative characteristics. But what marks them as good is the degree to which they resist things which destroy and break down and dominate. They resist self-satisfaction and their own willfulness, to greater or lesser degrees, for communal good.

They leave Middle-earth a better place.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The question here, though, pertains to LotR, and Tolkien went through enough niggling with the Galadriel character that it is possible to argue that the Silm Galadriel is but a distant relative of the Ring Galadriel. It's all a can of worms to try to unify some of the characters, such as Hobbit Gollem and Ring Gollem, even Hobbit Bilbo and Ring Bilbo, to say nothing of the tra la la la lally elves. And, anyway, my reply was not to suggest absolute goodness but . . .

Ah, but strictly in LotR she does exhibit, even in her eventual acquiescence, the sin of pride. And I do realize your reply was not to "suggest absolute goodness"; this, however, leads me to further commentary:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

All of Tolkien's "good" characters struggle: it is this process which allows them to be good, not the complete absence of evil or the complete presence of good. Look at the long and torturous route Frodo follows and what happens to him on Mount Doom. Yet his struggle and sacrifice is what made it possible for events to unfold and thus, his struggle is not lost. Something valuable, life affirming and, well, good, came of his struggle. Something good was created.

Creation is an essential and paramount activity for Tolkien; in OFS, he equates it with the divine act. Actions which create cooperation, fellowship, community, the free will of individuals are what are good in Tolkien's world. So all of the main characters--Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Merry, Pippin, Sam, Frodo, Bombadil--can have flaws and negative characteristics. But what marks them as good is the degree to which they resist things which destroy and break down and dominate. They resist self-satisfaction and their own willfulness, to greater or lesser degrees, for communal good.

They leave Middle-earth a better place.

*Sniffs* Oh, that was beautiful -- very touching. Unfortunately, the original question did not concern characters struggling to be 'good', but of the existence of a character who embodies 'absolute good'; therefore, "the complete absence of evil or the complete presence of good" is the crux of the discussion, and "flaws and negative characteristics" directly negate any 'absolute'.

If you wish to have a discussion of the relative merits of 'good' or 'evil' in characters, that would require a separate thread, or we must abandon the original posit altogether. That would be fine wth me, as I've already inferred that the term 'absolute good' is contentious in itself. For instance, Groin thinks it is in the interest of 'absolute good' that a mythical deity should strike down an entire civilization for a colective sin, even though there are persons in that society who did not directly commit a sin, or are as of yet incapable of sinning (as in the case of an infant); whereas I find that notion deplorable and 'ungood', if not evil in and of itself, because it lacks the elements of mercy and compassion I would determine as essential in any mythical deity which represents 'absolute good'.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Ah, but strictly in LotR she does exhibit, even in her eventual acquiescence, the sin of pride.

Oh that uppity woman.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

*Sniffs* Oh, that was beautiful -- very touching. Unfortunately, the original question did not concern characters struggling to be 'good', but of the existence of a character who embodies 'absolute good'; therefore, "the complete absence of evil or the complete presence of good" is the crux of the discussion, and "flaws and negative characteristics" directly negate any 'absolute'.

If you wish to have a discussion of the relative merits of 'good' or 'evil' in characters, that would require a separate thread, or we must abandon the original posit altogether. That would be fine wth me, as I've already inferred that the term 'absolute good' is contentious in itself.

I was under the impression that most of us agree there is no character in LotR who exhibits "absolute goodness". Yet Cailin's essay cannot consist of the single sentence to that effect. ["An 'F'? 'But Professor, that single sentence is my essay!" "But you have to prove that." "How do I prove that?" "By demonstrating what kind of goodness the characters exhibit and how these kinds are not absolute goodness.") Furthermore, from her subsequent post I gathered that her question concerns a general statement about fantasy, that as a genre it involves questions of good versus evil.

Originally Posted by Cailin's second post in thread

Some very interesting answers, thank you. I did not wish to go off-topic, because this is a Tolkien forum, but some of you might still be interested why I pose this question. The question actually arose from an article ("From Elfland to Hogwarts") I read by John Pennington, who finds fault with the Harry Potter series by comparing it to The Lord of the Rings, and some other famous fantasy works which he considers to be at the heart of fantasy (Chronicles of Narnia, for example). His main point is basically that Harry Potter is “fundamentally failed fantasy”. One of the reasons was most intriguing to me:

Quote:
But the archetypal theme of good versus evil appears to be what the Potter books are about. Harry's education is cemented in this ultimate dichotomy that Tolkien, Lewis, and LeGuin privilege in their texts. So just what are the Harry Potter books about? (...) All is ripe for the good old-fashioned battle between good and evil. But that tone is quickly undercut--Harry is often more interested in being able to visit Hogsmeade and practice Quidditch than he is in fighting evil.

And later:

Quote:
Finally, what ultimately is the role of the archetypal good versus evil dichotomy in the series? Voldemort represents the darkest of evil. But what of the good? Is there an overarching figure of good--a supreme being, for example, not necessarily God--whom Harry and his friends follow? They certainly are in a Christian universe, for they celebrate the Christmas season. If there are the Dark Arts, are there the Light or White Arts? Dumbledore is a Merlin and Gandalf figure, but Dumbledore does not achieve any grandeur; his name evokes bumble and bumbling, reminiscent of Tweedledee and Tweedledum, those foolish characters. There seems to be a good in the novel, but that goodness seems individual rather than archetypal. Thus the archetypal evilness in the Potter universe has no real antidote other than Harry and his friends (who do not seem to take that evil too seriously).

Since Rowling’s work is constantly contrasted with The Lord of the Rings, presumably Pennington did find the archetypes he was looking for in Tolkien’s writing. Perhaps he was indeed referring to Eru - though as Formendacil rightly points out, Eru is not really mentioned in The Lord of the Rings. He may be the source of goodness, as he is the source of everything, but like Tom Bombadil, the Ring seems to be beneath his concerns and Sauron’s far lesser evil is sufficiently balanced by characters such as Gandalf, who are not supreme archetypes. The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

P.S. I’m not sure how many Potter fans / readers are present, but of course after the publication of Deathly Hallows it is quite clear that the Potter universe is indeed Christian. The article quoted above is from 2002, and was written before the fifth instalment in the series was published.

This is a larger issue than the question she first posed, and I took it that she would not be adverse to expanding the discussion to what is "goodness", particularly with this comment she made, which I repeat here: The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

If I erred, I do apologise.

Lal, I do agree that Galadriel and Celeborn are all draped up in the trapings of leadership. This is the exotic realm in LotR! Galadriel's (and hubby's ) attempts to make time stand still are fascinating. It is an essential quality of the elves, that for them, goodness means unchange. (and, yes, my grammar here is deliberate.)

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

IThis is a larger issue than the question she first posed, and I took it that she would not be adverse to expanding the discussion to what is "goodness", particularly with this comment she made, which I repeat here: The goodness in Lord of the Rings seems to me quite individual and I think it would somehow detract from characters such as Sam and Frodo that their goodness is ultimately nothing more than some sort of divine infusion from above.

If I erred, I do apologise.)

No need to apologize, it's my fault actually. I glanced at Cailin's second post, saw 'Harry Potter' prominently displayed, and immediately ignored the balance of the remarks. I guess it's a negative Pavlovian response to Rowlings (without the drooling, of course).

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, one could argue that everything Eru does actually conforms to that 'objective' standard - that Eru is incapable of doing anything that breaks those rules, because those rules actually reflect His essential nature & to do anything contary to them would be to go against His nature, & leave Him effectively divided against Himself - which is impossible as He is One (Eru is only referred to as The One in the Appendices), & if we take this as a 'theological' statement then we are left with the simple fact that everything Eru does is a reflection of His nature - nothing can be out of character.

I guess it depends on how Eru is viewed, as he himself said of Morgoth's continuing destruction of physical Arda that it merely redounded on The One's own plan, thus enhancing it; therefore, the Numenorean's actions, even the sinful ones, could be construed as enhancing Eru's plan. But the destruction of Numenor is an artificial set of circumstances, an arbitrary manuever set in motion by the Valar's inability to handle the situation. How odd that Eru would destroy a human civilization -- and humans prone as they are to sin and mistake -- yet allow the horrific reigns of Morgoth and then Sauron to go utterly unchecked for millenia. To allow one and destroy the other is inconsistent, and removes the very Free Will that is indeed a cornerstone of Tolkien's Catholicity.

Perhaps Tolkien was just too enamored of the obvious parallels between Numenor and both the biblical flood and the Greek Atlantis to be concerned with such notable inconsistency. The story itself and its corollary to 'real world' myth was just too strong, and Tolkien opted for a rousing tale over the internal logic of the story.

Originally Posted by davem

Of course, this opens another can of worms, because if we classify whatever a character (& Eru is a character created by Tolkien) does as 'good' (& by extension that that Character him/herself is good) simply because that character does it then we could say the same of any character - Gandalf is absolutely good, because his every act/thought is good, & his every act/thought is good because they are his acts/thoughts. And of course, that argument could be used to claim any character, from Galadriel through to Sauron is 'Good'.

Another can of worms that Tolkien opens is the acceptance of the 'eye-for-an-eye' mentality that differentiates the Old Testamant vengeful Yahwew with the New Testament compassionate Christ. Both Christians and Muslims have used the context of a vengeful god destroying the enemies of the one, true religion to slaughter indiscriminately their enemies in emulation of their god, while ignoring the more christlike aspects that would seem to contradict the earlier, more barbaric aspects of The One.

Originally Posted by davem

In the end, though, the one who sets the standard of 'good' in LotR is Tolkien, not us. We have to accept that in his world 'good' is whatever Tolkien says it is. For Tolkien the destruction of Numenor was a good act in that it was the act of a good God & done to punish 'evil'.

And yet Eru punishes the followers and not the fomenters, the actual cause of rebellion and the primary root of all evil in Arda. Isn't that the way it always is with these elitist deities? *shrugs*

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

whereas I find that notion deplorable and 'ungood', if not evil in and of itself, because it lacks the elements of mercy and compassion I would determine as essential in any mythical deity which represents 'absolute good'.

A bunch of random thoughts.....

But one could define 'good' as 'whatever Eru does' - so, killing (virtually) the whole population of Numenor is a 'good' act because Eru does it. One does have to have some criteria by which to determine what is 'good' after all.

Or one could argue that there is an objective standard of 'good', a set of rules & regulations by which one must live & in accordance with which one must act in order to be considered 'good'. One would then have a standard by which one could judge every 'being' - including Eru. But that would then set something 'above' God/Eru.

Of course, one could argue that everything Eru does actually conforms to that 'objective' standard - that Eru is incapable of doing anything that breaks those rules, because those rules actually reflect His essential nature & to do anything contary to them would be to go against His nature, & leave Him effectively divided against Himself - which is impossible as He is One (Eru is only referred to as The One in the Appendices), & if we take this as a 'theological' statement then we are left with the simple fact that everything Eru does is a reflection of His nature - nothing can be out of character..

Of course, this opens another can of worms, because if we classify whatever a character (& Eru is a character created by Tolkien) does as 'good' (& by extension that that Character him/herself is good) simply because that character does it then we could say the same of any character - Gandalf is absolutely good, because his every act/thought is good, & his every act/thought is good because they are his acts/thoughts. And of course, that argument could be used to claim any character, from Galadriel through to Sauron is 'Good'.

So, for any character to be considered good His acts must conform to some objective standard of goodness. So firstly one has to set out those standards & tick off the various characters behaviour against them. But who determines those standards? Are we to let Eru set those standards - its His creation after all. Maybe - but of course, Eru's set of rules & regs will simply reflect his own nature, & tells us no more than what Eru considers to be good.......

Further, a large number of characters in the book would consider themselves to be 'good' people - according to their own personal standards.

In the end, though, the one who sets the standard of 'good' in LotR is Tolkien, not us. We have to accept that in his world 'good' is whatever Tolkien says it is. For Tolkien the destruction of Numenor was a good act in that it was the act of a good God & done to punish 'evil'.

But we, of course, are not required to accept that - its just that if we don't the whole moral & philosophical underpinning of the Legendarium is undermined.

[The Might]

So, I guess we must accept that what Tolkien defined as good is good, as davem well points out above. And this goes for all the characters, some better, some worse.

In the case of Eru though I still feel we must make a distinction. Why is Eru to be regarded as a character if Tolkien clearly says he is not? He is the Christian God, absolutely good, meaning that in this case the realms of our real world and Tolkien's Arda intersect with God as the lowest common denominator (sp?). Meaning that all the things that Tolkien believed to be good, as a consequence of his religious upbringing are the same things that would be good in Arda as these rules all come from the same God.

I think that in this case a discussion crossing the barrier of Tolkien's works would again be in order, but unfortunately forbidden. One could wonder now if the rules set by God in real life are good (ok, not directly, but by Jesus and others in his place), and then consider that the same rules apply to Arda as well as coming from the same God.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I don't think being naughty is what makes her interesting; it is her struggle within herself. It isn't evil that is interesting, but the struggle against it.

Yet the only real 'struggling' she does is during/after her session at the Mirror - until she is confronted with the One Ring she is quite content to be a powerful Ring Bearer and to bear the perils that brings, as it also brings immense power. It's Galadriel's urge to lead which interests me, along with her attempts to make time stand still in Lothlorien.

[Rikae]

Regarding how to define "absolute good", this makes it pretty clear what the dude is looking for, and likewise clear that we won't find it in Lord of the Rings:

"Is there an overarching figure of good--a supreme being, for example, not necessarily God--whom Harry and his friends follow?"

He's referring to something like Aslan in Narnia - something (mercifully, I would say) absent in LOTR. Sometimes Gandalf approaches an Aslan-like leader role for the other characters, but he remains fallible and "human" (for lack of a better word). Whatever your verdict on Eru, we don't see anyone "following" Eru in any direct sort of way.

My conclusion is: this fellow is reaching a bit in his attempt to define fantasy and lump together Lewis and Tolkien.

[The Might]

Hmm, I disagree there, Boro.

Whilst I agree with you that Tolkien may have written different things in the letters due to the depth of his works, I believe most of these occasions concerned lore matters, pure information demanded by the inquirers.

What we have here is a very different thing, not a question about some lore thing, but rather directly questioning Tolkien's own belief.

And I doubt that Tolkien was the kind of person to have used a very Catholic devouted tone to just please a Catholic friend and would in such a case not speak his own mind so as to not offend the reader.

I think that when it comes to this question we must treat it as a special and different case as here The Professor is asked about his own beliefs and would surely know what he is talking. So I believe that when Tolkien writes that Eru is but another name for THE Christian God, he really means that Eru is but another name for THE Christian God. Nothing to do with works written 30 years before, revised and changed. Eru stayed the same, he was God.

And as I read above that God is apparently indeed perceived as an entity of absolute good, it means that Eru is absolute good. We have proof to say that based on the words of the Professor, so why challenge his idea? Think that he only wrote what Mr. Hastings wanted to read? I doubt it.


But, moving on to the true topic that I have somewhat missed whilst concetrating on absolute good in all the works, I believe that absolute good in LotR does not exist.

But some characters do appear to come close to it such as Gandalf as emissary of good and the only one of the Istari to continue to obey the will of the Valar.
I also see Arwen as a person fairly close to absolute good. She lacks the megalomaniac thoughts of Galadriel, she is not spoiled by anything in the world, and her love to Aragorn makes her decide to give up immortality.

EDIT: are the whole Narnia and HP comparisons really of interest to the topic at hand? Whilst I find them an interesting read I cannot help but wonder if they bring us closer to finding absolute good in LotR... after all different authors can have different opinions, opinions what have to be respected and can of course be criticised.