Can anything good come from Men?

[Kuruharan]

Kuruharan, what do you think it is in particular that Elves are able to do to change Men's evil ways?

I think there are two different things operating. The first one is that elves do seem to be more predisposed to goodness (whether that be due to something within or because they were better protected and instructed in the days of their race's infancy is a matter of debate). The second thing is the elvo-centrist paradigm of the books themselves. It must be remembered that all of Tolkien's works are written from an elven or at least elven inspired point of view. This is sometimes a very subtle but always foundational aspect of Tolkien's works. It is clear in some places, like the instance cited by Tuor that Tolkien himself saw and understood flaws in the elven worldview but such things don't creep much into the books themselves.

How does this relate to humanity and the topic at hand? Elves saw themselves as being the natural instructors and examples to humanity and thus the more elven like the particular group of humans the more "good" they were. And, naturally enough, the elven-like (or elven-lite) humans thought the same thing of the elves and thus carried this tradition on down through the ages.

But, on the other hand, it is also true that humanity's interactions with the elves *did* elevate Mankind above what they could have been on their own, especially with the constant influence of Morgoth pulling upon them.

[littlemanpoet]

I can imagine a series of conversations between various folk of Middle Earth.

One elf (call him Finrod) to another (call him Daeron): "We know we're good for them."

Daeron to Finrod: "They know we're good for them."

Later, Finrod to Beleg: "You know we're good for you."

Beleg to Finrod: "You know you're good for us."

Later, Beleg to Turin: "They're good for us and you know it."

Turin to Beleg: "They're good for us and they know it."

Later, Turin to Mim: "They're good for us and they know it."

Mim to Turin: "They think they're good for you and you believe it."

Later, Mim to an Easterling: "Those Elves think they're the best thing since sliced pie."

Easterling to Mim: "Those Elves are good for nothing but trouble."

[Selador]

littlemanpoet. There's always a "Mim", isn't there?

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

I think there are two different things operating. The first one is that elves do seem to be more predisposed to goodness (whether that be due to something within or because they were better protected and instructed in the days of their race's infancy is a matter of debate). The second thing is the elvo-centrist paradigm of the books themselves. It must be remembered that all of Tolkien's works are written from an elven or at least elven inspired point of view.

I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that the Elves were better protected and instructed than were Men. I also think it may be true that they were by nature better disposed to be "good", although I am not certain. The Silmarillion (Of the Beginning of Days) tells us that Elves have the "greater bliss in this world", while Men "would not use their gifts in harmony". So maybe Elves just know right from wrong more naturally than Men? I don't know.

Of course (it suddenly occurs to me) the Silmarillion is ostensibly a translation of Arda's history as recorded by the Elves. Tolkien may well have been writing their bias against Men into the descriptions in the text. The Noldor, at least, proved that Elves themselves were capable of terrible evil.

But I think you are mistaken, Kuruharan, when you say that all Tolkien's works were elvo-centric. I think he was referring only to the history of the Elder Days - the Silmarillion. I am sure that he describes Lord of the Rings as anthropocentric.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Selador

But I think you are mistaken, Kuruharan, when you say that all Tolkien's works were elvo-centric. I think he was referring only to the history of the Elder Days - the Silmarillion. I am sure that he describes Lord of the Rings as anthropocentric.

By elvo-centric I didn't necessarily mean that the story was (purportedly) written by elves from an elven perspective. I meant it in a more encompassing way to include people writing under the influence of elvish culture and mores and largely looking to elvish culture as the source of their inspiration. The Lord of the Rings qualifies on that score.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

Also elvishcentric in that LOTR is sort of a bookend to
those elves returning to Middle-earth in the First Age
to fight Melkor and leaving it after the Third Age with
the definitive defeat of Morgoth's lieutenant Sauron.

[littlemanpoet]

Now I step out on a limb. The people of Haleth and Beor and the other clan whose name I don't recall, were of northern stock. The Eorlings were of northern stock. The Breelanders were of northern stock. The Beornings were of northern stock. The Men of Dale were of northern stock.

The Dunlendings, Haradrim, and Easterlings were .... not of northern stock.

It can safely be argued from the tales spun by Tolkien in regard to each of these people groups, that if you're a northerner and a human, chances are you have a disposition tending toward goodness, and contact with Elves or lack of such contact does not obtain. That is, it doesn't matter if northerners have contact with Elves or not; they'll still most likely not be evil. So this tells me that Tolkien's system has it such that northerners have some special quality that the other people groups lack. What is it, and why does Tolkien single northerners out as somehow more capable of withstanding the onslaught of evil?

Take this one step further. The Numenoreans were descended from a combination of Elves and the northern people groups. Those that settle in Umbar, the furthest south of any, descended into evil. Gondor, in the middle, has a middling history of both good and bad: they withstood Sauron but had the kinslaying and other such evils. The people of Arnor did have some groups that fell to the sway of evil in Cardolan and Rhudaur, so it could be said that these are exceptions to the rule of northerness - but so is the Witch Kingdom of Angmar an exception to the rule of evil being southern; so these can be considered the dual exception that proves the rule.

There you have it: why are southerners prone to evil and northerners likely to be good, Elves or not Elves?

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

There you have it: why are southerners prone to evil and northerners likely to be good, Elves or not Elves?

Considering that Angband, Utumno and Carn Dum stood in the North, the theory can hardly be accepted. Dol Guldur was not much to the South either.

The Breelanders were close kin to Dunlendings and to Men of the White Mountains - the people who provided all the Dead of Dunharrow. The Hillmen of Rhudaur who fought for Angmar were likely their kin as well.

I can't see any North-South pattern here.

[littlemanpoet]

I don't think this can be dismissed quite so easily - in terms of Men.

Angband and Utumno were established as the mythical reason for cold. I'm a little vague on Carn Dum, but was that not associated with the Witch King? And Dol Guldur is Sauron's northernmost outpost, and it is in the south end of Rhovanion.

Obviously, when dealing with maps, there will be some fluidity, but the basic pattern holds. Again, why the special status of northern Men in Tolkien's legendarium?

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Selador

I don't think anyone could argue against the fact that the Elves were better protected and instructed than were Men. I also think it may be true that they were by nature better disposed to be "good", although I am not certain. The Silmarillion (Of the Beginning of Days) tells us that Elves have the "greater bliss in this world", while Men "would not use their gifts in harmony". So maybe Elves just know right from wrong more naturally than Men? I don't know.

Well, they're meant to be more bound to the Music, and as the music comes from Eru, then this would make them intrinsically more "good".

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

There you have it: why are southerners prone to evil and northerners likely to be good, Elves or not Elves?

Originally Posted by Gordis

Considering that Angband, Utumno and Carn Dum stood in the North, the theory can hardly be accepted. Dol Guldur was not much to the South either.

I think that actually here the answer is staring us in the face:

Melkor= Master of harsh climates.
Harsh Climates= Evil.

So I would presume that Morgoth had more influence through his "marred earth" in such areas with harsh climates.

I suppose though, that this idea would work better with elves, as they are more tied to the earth itself, but we never hear of the Southern and Eastern elves that may have existed so we can't know much about this.


And following on from that (forgetting that Valinor is in the West), the people in the West would naturally be more "good" because of the power of Ulmo (closer to the Sea- he also has power over other non-"poisoned" waters, but it would seem that he can keep water "good" when it is nearer to him).

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The people of Arnor did have some groups that fell to the sway of evil in Cardolan and Rhudaur, so it could be said that these are exceptions to the rule of northerness - but so is the Witch Kingdom of Angmar an exception to the rule of evil being southern; so these can be considered the dual exception that proves the rule.

Well, there is also the idea that in each side there always is a little of the other- just look at the evil that happened in Valinor. Simple Yin and Yang:



There is also the idea that there was a "Divine calling" to the West, and all those that were destined to the West answered the summons.




EDIT:

Originally Posted by Mnemosyne

This whole north/south thing is really odd, because the Elves have traditionally associated the North with evil (when you go through the cardinal directions it's supposed to go West, South, East, North because North was the seat of Angband).

MAybe after the initial stronghold in the icy cold North was completed, evil had to move to the next best, which would be scorching hot (another of old Morgy's specialities)

[mark12_30]

Perhaps we should be differentiating between "Temperate northern" (England, Beowulf) and Arctic Northern (the grinding ice ).

Perhaps also we should be differentiating between real north, and, what seems like northern to them southrons (Rohirrim came 'from the north', but are the banks of Anduin really all that far north?)

[littlemanpoet]

I think there are two more aspects to "why north".

First, the Celtic and German people groups (throw in Finnish because of Tolkien's preferences) are northern and western. Therefore, in a meta-story sense, he's writing from the perspective of all the mythologies he studied by way of his linguistic/philological pursuits. Thus, the Germanic and Celtic people groups have a bit more going for them. The entire legendarium has as its subject northern Men, Elves, and Dwarves. Since it's about them and from their pov, it makes sense that Tolkien would make them more prone to virtue (as it were).

Second, it's interesting to me how Tolkien's legendarium - myth, really, compares and contrasts to the ancient mythologies, northern and otherwise, with which he was familiar. In point of fact, I don't think there are any myths that have the villainous evil deity in the north (there may be one or many, but I don't recollect them). There is, however, in many of the primary myths with which we are these days familiar - - Mayan, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek/Roman, etc. - - an interesting correlation to the north, in that the primary deity is understood to be at the north, literally at the north pole, and is associated with the ancient sun god, be it Ra, Saturn, Quetzalchoatl, or whoever. That Tolkien has his northern power be evil is at odds to most of these, but there's one exception: Lucifer in the Hebrew "mythos", written by one Isaiah. The description of Lucifer matches that of Saturn, Ra, etc. in other cultural myths except that Lucifer is evil, like Morgoth.

I realize the second point strays a little bit from the "from Men" bit, but I'm attempting to dig up original causes at a story/myth-writing level.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Second, it's interesting to me how Tolkien's legendarium - myth, really, compares and contrasts to the ancient mythologies, northern and otherwise, with which he was familiar. In point of fact, I don't think there are any myths that have the villainous evil deity in the north (there may be one or many, but I don't recollect them). There is, however, in many of the primary myths with which we are these days familiar - - Mayan, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek/Roman, etc. - - an interesting correlation to the north, in that the primary deity is understood to be at the north, literally at the north pole, and is associated with the ancient sun god, be it Ra, Saturn, Quetzalchoatl, or whoever. That Tolkien has his northern power be evil is at odds to most of these, but there's one exception: Lucifer in the Hebrew "mythos", written by one Isaiah. The description of Lucifer matches that of Saturn, Ra, etc. in other cultural myths except that Lucifer is evil, like Morgoth.

Actually, the North is - sometimes - associated with the place of evil, with some northern cultures, simply because it is cold and dark. But that is not a rule, of course, as you say.

Nevertheless, the idea with Lucifer occured to me before as well. I think it is very likely that Tolkien was thinking of this one. Indeed, the verses in Isaiah 14

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

fit for Morgoth perfectly, I think.

Just as a side note, though, as you mentioned it - the original mythos does not come from Isaiah and in fact, it fits those "god in the North" patterns. Isaiah was intentionally using a myth, at that time well-known among the common folk (possibly as common as let's say King Arthur nowadays) of this "Heylel" (meaning "Bright One" or "morning star", indeed Lucifer, as translated from Greek into Latin and further into lots of other languages) called "son of Shachar" (also "morning star" or "dawn", or rather, the darkness just before dawn), who both were gods in the Canaanite pantheon, and in the Canaanite pantheon, the North was once again the seat of gods - so, in our terms, again Valinor, not Angband. And even Isaiah, when using this mythos, was not speaking of the North as of evil: he was just metaphorically speaking of the guy (the Babylonian king) who was usurping the throne (and thus, the place of god) for himself.

Nevertheless, even though the mythology itself (nor Isaiah when using it as illustrative example) was not depicting the North as evil, but rather the opposite, it's the reading of it that matters, and I believe Tolkien might have gone with the parallel of Lucifer = evil usurping the throne in the North = Angband. I find it very likely that at least a bit of inspiration was here, indeed.

[Mnemosyne]

With regards to the idea of the chief deity in a number of mythologies being from the north (which I can't corroborate), in one sense Melkor was the chief deity of Middle-earth, since he worked so much of his evil in the land itself. All too often the good Valar seem to be doing nothing but sitting on their kiesters in the West; the only Vala who seems to do the same sort of "power running through the land" is Ulmo calling through his waters (and incidentally, he's the one who got most involved in the Exiles' and Men's affairs).