Absolute Good in Lord of the Rings

[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*

[Groin Redbeard]

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.

You cannot make a response like that and not get a response. A child of innocence is in God’s hands, but to kill an unborn child because the parents don’t want what the Bible describes as a blessing from God is no less than murder. I don’t expect you to get that though, life is so cheap in with all the relativism people nowadays.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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).

Heaven forbid!

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

Well if my parents worshipped a god who allowed human sacrafice, if they believed that they were entitled to the glories of God, if they believed that they could take Valinor by force and took steps to see these plans through, do you really think that that is a good house to live under? It would be far better to have that family destroyed and for the child to be called up to sit at God’s throne. You can argue it both ways Morthoron: is it more merciful to let the infant be raised by a clearly evil family in a clearly evil sociaty until he is old enough to actually take accountability and be damned, or is it more merciful for God to destroy that sociaty and for you, still as a child, to be brought to be in heaven? Remember, Sauron twisted the facts about death making it something to be feared while Eru gave it to Man as a blessing. That was pure genious on Tolkien’s part for writing that.

Sorry if I got off topic, I'll join in on the discussion if I think of anything.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

You cannot make a response like that and not get a response. A child of innocence is in God’s hands, but to kill an unborn child because the parents don’t want what the Bible describes as a blessing from God is no less than murder. I don’t expect you to get that though, life is so cheap in with all the relativism people nowadays.

Oh, I understand you more than you know, Groin: life is sacred on the inside, but cheap on the outside (where smug folks wash their hands in self-satisfaction, and say "Our job is done here, they are in God's hands now" -- a very Dickensian workhouse mentality). Perhaps if more folks cared for the latter, there would be less of the former.

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

Well if my parents worshipped a god who allowed human sacrafice, if they believed that they were entitled to the glories of God, if they believed that they could take Valinor by force and took steps to see these plans through, do you really think that that is a good house to live under? It would be far better to have that family destroyed and for the child to be called up to sit at God’s throne. You can argue it both ways Morthoron: is it more merciful to let the infant be raised by a clearly evil family in a clearly evil sociaty until he is old enough to actually take accountability and be damned, or is it more merciful for God to destroy that sociaty and for you, still as a child, to be brought to be in heaven? Remember, Sauron twisted the facts about death making it something to be feared while Eru gave it to Man as a blessing. That was pure genious on Tolkien’s part for writing that.

Wow, just...wow. It is that type of thinking that eventually leads to genocide. I am reminded of Robert of Geneva (nicknamed 'The Butcher', who, not surprisingly later became a pope). When his mercenary forces took the heretical city of Cesena, Robert ordered the butchering of every last man, woman and child. When one of his captains suggested that there were many innocents in the city, Robert shrugged and said, "What belongs to God He will take care of," and the slaughter continued unabated.

With your concept in mind, we should have slaughtered all the infants in Nazi Germany. After all, their country was waist-deep in the blood of human sacrifice. Would it have been merciful to wipe out every blonde-headed, blue-eyed German baby, Groin? Hitler, like Sauron, also twisted the facts quite masterfully.

Originally Posted by Andsigil

To be fair, the last time Christians did this in the name of Christianity was when, exactly?

If you're looking for Christian intolerance and the heartless slaughter that follows, one needn't go back to the Crusades to find Christian barbarity, Andsigil. Let's see, there were Christians slaughtering Muslims in Serbia, Christian Hutus committing massacres in Rwanda, Protestants and Catholics slaughtering each other in the name of Christ in Northern Ireland, Christians and Muslims butchering each other in the Lebanese civil war. Would you like me to continue?

Originally Posted by Andsigil

If you're looking for hearltess slaughter you'd find more results studying the proclivities of atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries. Under the guise of communism, and with modern weaponry, they've amassed quite a record.

Blind faith in any creed that will not allow mutual respect for another creed inevitably leads to genocide. It is the same among Stalinists and Maoists as with Nazis, Hindus (if you recall, it was because of religious intolerance that Gandhi was assassinated), Muslims, Christians and Jews. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans were just as culpable in the extermination of the Indians and the near elimination of their animistic religions.

I am sorry for the digression, I will not continue it further.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

If you're looking for Christian intolerance and the heartless slaughter that follows, one needn't go back to the Crusades to find Christian barbarity, Andsigil. Let's see, there were Christians slaughtering Muslims in Serbia, Christian Hutus committing massacres in Rwanda, Protestants and Catholics slaughtering each other in the name of Christ in Northern Ireland, Christians and Muslims butchering each other in the Lebanese civil war. Would you like me to continue?

Continue all you want. These are drops in the bucket. Besides,

-Hutus didn't slaughter in the name of Christianity. They slaughtered in the name of Hutu.
-Maronites were generally on the receiving end in Lebanon. That's why they're nearly extinct since that trouble began.
-And deconstructing the Balkan conflict into a simple religious conflict is rather oversimplified. One could just as easily argue that it was Christians who came to stop the conflict.

In any event, these are all candles next to the sun. Pol Pot, alone, accounts for more than this. We haven't even discussed China yet. Or the Soviets. I think more people died in Kolymaa and the Lubyanka than did in the Balkans. The atheist communists have indeed worked very hard to set the bar high.

To tie this in with Tolkien, I've already said that that kind of mechanical, systemic slaughter is reminiscent of Mordor to me. Perhaps Tolkien was as much a prophet as Orwell.

I am sorry for the digression, I will not continue it further.

Ahh, good. I got the last word, then. Since I made a Tolkien tie-in, I'll stop as well... just as soon as I get to this other post.

[Cailín]

I understand that the discussion of good and evil is of considerable interest and many may feel personally involved. However, I have to agree with davem and wish to stress that we are dealing with a fictional world, which is created by the author's voice alone and which is not neccessarily compatible with contemporary ideas of good and evil.

I see that there is some discussion over the term absolute as well. Rikae interprets the quoted article in the same way I did: it seems Pennington is looking for some divine entity. However - and please forgive me Morthoron, for again mentioning Harry Potter: I have no wish to cause psychological trauma - his insistence that Voldemort (who is human and surely not Satan himself) represents the darkest evil would lead me to believe that there is leeway for imperfection here.

My own thoughts were definitely Manwë, if the Silmarillion was included and Gandalf (the White and Improved Version) in Lord of the Rings. It seems sensible to say that Gandalf and Sauron, being equal in the hierarchy of beings, are pitted against each other in this battle. However, I am not too eager to simplify Lord of the Rings and it is difficult to see it as a stand-alone novel, because there are clearly so many other powers at work (the Balrog, Bombadil, Galadriel) to ignore them and focus on Sauron and Gandalf as the two extremes.

I will certainly include a link to this thread in my footnotes. There is a tendency to over-simplify fantasy in discussions on the genre in general. Thanks to all contributors so far.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

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.

To be fair, the last time Christians did this in the name of Christianity was when, exactly?

If you're looking for heartless slaughter, you'd find more results studying the proclivities of atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries. Under the guise of communism, and with modern weaponry, they've amassed quite a record.

Something about all of it reminds me distinctly of Mordor.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Andsigil

To be fair, the last time Christians did this in the name of Christianity was when, exactly?

If you're looking for heartless slaughter, you'd find more results studying the proclivities of atheists in the 20th and 21st centuries. Under the guise of communism, and with modern weaponry, they've amassed quite a record.

Something about all of it reminds me distinctly of Mordor.

To likewise be fair, and to stop an argument brewing, Stalin and Mao didn't cause the slaughter of millions because of Atheism, either; Hitler was a Catholic, but his murdering was because of Fascism.

Originally Posted by Groin

It would be far better to have that family destroyed and for the child to be called up to sit at God’s throne. You can argue it both ways Morthoron: is it more merciful to let the infant be raised by a clearly evil family in a clearly evil sociaty until he is old enough to actually take accountability and be damned, or is it more merciful for God to destroy that sociaty and for you, still as a child, to be brought to be in heaven?

Maybe in Tolkien's creation, but not in our own! Plenty of people have been raised in vile circumstances but must be joyful to grow into adulthood - like Josef Fritzl's children/grandchildren.

Though I have to say that whether Eru tipped Numenor on end because the people there were 'evil' is entirely debatable in the light of evidence given in recent threads on here. If he did it would have been the first and only time he interfered - and it seems he opened a rift in the world because of the pleading of the Valar to protect Valinor rather than any other reason. The drowning of innocents was purely incidental. It seems rather that Eru wanted to wipe out this failed experiment that the Valar had indulged in and he didn't much care who, if anyone, got away.

This is another reason why I think Eru is 'beyond' any idea of 'goodness', because he is outside the world, he created it, but isn't concerned with it. That's extremely different to the various Gods in the real world.

[Macalaure]

Why do threads like these always derail themselves so quickly here....

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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.

Hmm, then you say that in order to be absolutely good, one has to be perfect (in this case, all-knowing)? Of course a good person's actions would be better if he was omniscient, and Manwe certainly made quite a couple of mistakes in his career, but wouldn't this make the threesome of all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful partly redundant? My knowledge of theology is admittedly rather limited, but I always took the meaning of all-good to be only that a person's will and intentions are absolutely good (setting aside whether this is equal to absence of evil here). I don't see why it should be impossible to have a person that is all-good, but not all-knowing and all-powerful. In any case, this was at least my idea when I labelled Manwe absolutely good.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To likewise be fair, and to stop an argument brewing, Stalin and Mao didn't cause the slaughter of millions because of Atheism, either; Hitler was a Catholic, but his murdering was because of Fascism.

Actually, Hitler was an apostate who renounced the religion of his baptism.

I find it rather odd that Christianity is still such a bogeyman to so many overly nervous people. Other, horrible things are happening right now on a far greater scale in the name of other things, and have been for a while. I think it's just fashionable, not to mention politically correct, to rail against Christianity.

It's too bad Tolkien, or his friend CS Lewis, are no longer alive to argue against it. I'm certain they'd be appalled, or indignant at the very least.

Feel free to take the last word, if you feel compelled to do so.

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Might

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.

Eru cannot be the Christian God - at most he could only be Tolkien's own, personal (though informed by his Church's teaching) understanding of God. Further, what Tolkien is attempting to do is show how 'his' God would behave in the context of events in M-e - which events are Tolkien's own invention. Now, an old school Catholic & a modern day Quaker would both claim to worship God, but would, I suspect, have a completely different view on how that God would respond to the behaviour of the Numenoreans.

Thus, it seems to me too simple to argue that Eru = the Christian God, only that Eru, in his thoughts/acts within Middle-earth, does what Tolkien believed his God would think/do. Hence, Eru can only be considered a 'character' because M-e is not the Primary world. The other thing to keep in mind is that all the characters do what Tolkien 'tells' them to do - the Numenoreans 'sinned' precisely when & how Tolkien made them, & Eru responded to that 'sin' in exactly the way Tolkien chose him to. If God had been running things we may have had a 'Jonah' turn up & bring them all to repentance. The Numenoreans died because Tolkien had them misbehave & didn't give them any real desire to repent. And Tolkien did this for artistic reasons - everyone, from Eru 'down' is a character Tolkien manipulates for artistic reasons. Tolkien could not know what God would do in the situations he created in M-e - one could argue that by having his Numenorean characters so stubbornly commit to such inhuman behaviour he creates a situation where his 'God' character has no option but to zap them to atoms. But this is the point - LotR is not an allegory, let alone a 'parable'. It is a work of art, with no more hidden or underlying 'meaning' than the reader gives it. In the Primary world humans may or may not have free will (I'll avoid the philosophical tangent) but in M-e only Tolkien has free will, & his characters do what he wills them to do (however much he may claim to be attempting to 'discover what really happened' the truth is that 'what really happened' in M-e is what Tolkien decided worked best). He wrote a work of fiction which 'reflected' the primary world in some ways, but it was his world & its inhabitants were his to control.

Of course, if one's own concept of God corresponds to the character Eru one may not see things in that way, but not everyone (religious believer, or merely 'cultural Christian' like myself) will find Eru to be in any way like the God they worship (or like the God concept they have inherited as a result of growing up in a culture shaped & determined by Christianity).

[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.