Taters to Taters - II

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Grima Wormtongue – Probably my favourite, I have no good argument, it just corresponds well with my own view of Grima.
Mouth of Sauron – Definitly a contender, he certainly seem to derive pleasure from others suffering.
Gollum – The obvious choice and I think malice works especially well with the Gollum we encounter in The Hobbit.
Eol – Perhaps, though he clearly dislikes a lot of people, I am not sure I favour him for this title.
Glaurung – Malice is definitely present in Glaurung, but it is almost to mild a term for such wicked creature.
Ted Sandyman – Starts out as just being a stubborn and narrow-minded person, when we first encounter him in the Green Dragon. However there is proper malice in his person, when we meet him again in the Shire after the war has ended. I think that his exchange with Merry and the other hobbits show this clearly.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Anyways. I like them both, but I think that Fangorn Forest is mostly malicious because of the Huorns. If you take them away, the forest doesn't want to choke every bit on life in it. But the Huorns do. And the forest used to be quite welcoming before certain things happened. But the Huorns are just Huorns, they're always dark and creepy and malicious.

Interesting. I had been actually favoring Fangorn over the Huorns, just because it seemed somehow cooler. But I realise I had been thinking of forests as they are. It is not, one has to say, always huorns. It is something bad in some of the huorns that might be considered malicious. Huorns are only awakened trees (or sleeping ents), which is nothing problematic by itself... but they can be bad. (The more I think about it, however, the less and less does the choice of the word "malicious" seem appropriate to me. Still however, the more interesting that two people have chosen it. That's probably what makes it the most intriguing )

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

Grima Wormtongue – Probably my favourite, I have no good argument, it just corresponds well with my own view of Grima.

Gríma is perhaps, on second thought, not really that malicious. He is more like selfish, doing some things to reach his own goals. I am not sure if he takes any special pleasure in, say, putting Éomer into Théoden's disfavour.

Mouth of Sauron – Definitly a contender, he certainly seem to derive pleasure from others suffering.

I would say. I like Mouth of Sauron exactly because of this. He is a strong contender for me, one of the strongest.

Gollum – The obvious choice and I think malice works especially well with the Gollum we encounter in The Hobbit.

I never saw Gollum as really malicious, and even less so in the Hobbit. In LotR, there's possibly that one side to him, otherwise... he is a bit malicious, but sort of "petty-malicious". Just for further reference, somebody should have played some spiders for me on this account. They are malicious, I think, and I believe Gollum is likewise, but we do not really get to see it!

Eol – Perhaps, though he clearly dislikes a lot of people, I am not sure I favour him for this title.

The main thing about him is, probably, that he wasn't really intentinally malicious. He was bitter and all this, but probably not with much intentional malice. Again, had somebody played Mim for me, that could be what I might choose. Or Maeglin, rather than Eöl.

Glaurung – Malice is definitely present in Glaurung, but it is almost to mild a term for such wicked creature.

True. But for me, he is exactly the essence of malice. Like Smaug is a bit, too, but Glaurung is the essence of malice. For me, he is a very strong contender.

Ted Sandyman – Starts out as just being a stubborn and narrow-minded person, when we first encounter him in the Green Dragon. However there is proper malice in his person, when we meet him again in the Shire after the war has ended. I think that his exchange with Merry and the other hobbits show this clearly.

Well said. That's basically it. Another very strong contender for me. Effectively, any arguments especailly in his, Glaurung's or the Mouth's favor might make me decide.

Of the others - Dol Guldur is really out of question, the place itself was in no way malicious (its master would be a different matter!!). Dol Amroth I would not have expected here, or I would perhaps if Aganzir had been playing or something, then perhaps I could see some logic behind it. Fellbeast I like really a lot, but I think it was just, well, an "animal", not really malicious by itself. And King of the Dead, not really. In the movie, he acts a bit like that, but you know what I think about the movies.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Effectively, any arguments especailly in his, Glaurung's or the Mouth's favor might make me decide.

I would say that Ted Sandyman does not seem particularly selfish to me. Close-minded before Frodo leaves the Shire and drunk with power afterwards, maybe, but I don't know that he best fits malicious.

The Mouth of Sauron could definitely be seen as malicious, but is limited to what his master commands. He does not have a name nor, it seems, much of a sense of self (beyond apparently desiring to be Lord of Isengard), so I don't know that he could achieve as much maliciousness as possible.

Glaurung, on the other hand, is about as malicious as they come. He had the opportunity to kill Turin, but instead played games with him. He also, discovering Nienor's availability, actively sought her out to, again, play malicious games with Turin and Nienor. He, destroyer of armies, had no need of this underhanded trickery, so the fact that he used it indicates that he enjoyed it - malicious to his heart.

So, while all three are good candidates, for me, Glaurung is by far the most malicious.

[Nogrod]

Unless you need to decide right now, I'd like to give my take on the candidates as well Legate. It takes a moment...

[Nogrod]

Okay, I see Legate has already made some of the arguments I thought I'd make, so I'll just concentrate on the "top choices" as they seem to be at the moment...

Ted Sandyman - Well, sadly he reminds me more of these real life characters who have been given very little in birth and are brought up by their peers of the same kind. And those people may actually believe they are right in opposing the elite and their ways, especially if they feel they have been despised by the elite. So I'd say it is not so much malice as feeling of revenge or a pay-back time that sets things right. It might be petty, egoistic, stupid, narrow-minded etc. in content but I'd not say malice as such. In their own environments those people make good company and trustworthy friends; they just hate what is different or "better" than they are...

The Mouth of Sauron & Glaurung - I think there is a pretty fine fight between the two on being someone who embodies malice the best.

Glaurung clearly has the better "track-record" on a grand scale as to how many and malicious deeds he made. He is as malicious one can get.

But also, he is many other things too; like evil, mighty, terrifying, intelligent, cruel, primordial, the very concept of Dragons itself in physical form...

In comparison one could ask what do we know about the Mouth of Sauron? Nothing. Well, nothing short of that he is malicious. And that is the sole factor we kind of know about him... he is described by Tolkien basically just as through malice and there is more or less nothing else into his character we know about.


Well, a tough choice. Glaurung I think beats the Mouth of Sauron in the scope of his malice but he is also other things than that, while the Mouth is nothing but malice to a reader of the LotR.


PS. I iked the idea of both Huorns and the Fangorn as well, but agree that they are problematical choices - like Gollum, Grima and Eöl are.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Hmm... generally, good points about Ted Sandyman (even including Nog's treatise on the nature of Hobbit millers ). Also, the thoughts Nog brings about the Mouth being basically defined only by his malice is close to the spot... but I don't actually think it's entirely correct. The Mouth is defined also by other things, like his proficiency in sorcery, and in fact, now that I recall, his description includes cruelty and cunning, love of dark knowledge and much more. So he is defined also by other things, and therefore Glaurung might fill the idea of malice more, just as it's been said... Hmph. In fact, ha, I was just about to write that Glaurung fits much better, but now that I recall the description of Mouth, I am not so sure anymore. Flip-flopping time I might just choose the Mouth because I like him a bit more in some ways. Also, if the Mouth "knew much of the mind of Sauron". But.. okay, after all, Glaurung is Glaurung.

++Glaurung for Malicious

[Boromir88]

My internet is back, so everyone's new red taters I'm sending out now...

And excellent convo on malice. Tough decisions indeed.

Edit: And I cross with Legate.

The malicious one be...Lottie.

[Nogrod]

Four rounds, always soo close... but no points yet.

This calls for the Finnish "sisu".


And yes, Glaurung was a good pick.

[Loslote]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The malicious one be...Lottie.

Huzzah! Should I only get to win one, malicious is probably the most fun.