Unorthodox Heroes?

[Anguirel]

Of course, we can all tell when reading LOTR and the Silmarillion whom we are meant to like and whom disapprove of. Those who show humility and yet still courage, like Frodo and Sam, are feted to the skies. Those blinded by their own power, overweening and proud, like Saruman or Denethor, are doomed to ignominious disgrace or death. Then there are the contemptible, like Wormtongue and Gollum, Lotho Sackville-Baggins.

However, it seems to me that Tolkien is an author whose characters his readers feel free to disagree with him about. Many of us find Gandalf rather irritating; a few devotees want to marry Denethor. For myself, I idolise Celegorm, Caranthir, Curufin, and Maeglin. I know that none are nice, that all are dangerous, that perhaps inviting two of them to a Downer Dinner Party would be a bit risky; and first and foremost that Tolkien himself largely condemns them.

But in this way, Tollers really does act, not as an author, but as a mere guide to Middle-Earth, fully formed and chronicled already. We appreciate what he tells us, but we can disagree with him as we would with any other History tutor; I feel I have as much right to praise Celegorm as I have to praise Richard Coeur-de-Lion. (Lord-purely by accident, I've stumbled on how similar those two are...)

It is this, surely, that helps to explain the vast body of fanfiction and RPGing around Tolkien; other, probably lesser, historians at work, but even if inferior to the definitive scholar, still eager to get their theses across, their interpretations.

It might be said that this is a sign that, as critics so monotonously burble out, Tolkien's characterisation lacks power; that we can so easily agree and disagree with these paper figures, whereas in, say, Evelyn Waugh we have absolutely no choice, his masterful, bitter wit directing us exactly where he wants us. I would prefer to call it another kind of power; power to create a crossroads but let us pick the path.

What do you think? Do you regard going counter to the Prof as misreading or bounden right? Where are your blind spots, where your unusual passions? Or do you distribute admiration exactly where Tolkien does?

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I my self dont have these unusual passions (Not when it comes to Tolkien any how)
, but i have a strong pasion for Fingolfin. He is second to none for me. In fact i like all of his house.

But to the point: The heroe who i think is the most intresting is Turin Turambar.
I mean he was perhaps the mightiest warior of all the edain, save Hurin.
He became respected by elves and men for hes deeds with a sword, but he only brought grief and disaster upon those he loved. Of course he was coursed by Morgroth. So it is hard to blame him for all the dispare he brought too Beleriand.

This is a caracter witch i both love and hate.

I hate him for the part he played in the fall of Nargothrond where he becomes too proude and bold. First he abandons the tactical precept of Finrod by bridgin the Narog, then he dos not lisent to the message frome Cirdan (Ulmo). and in the end boldly went out too meet Glaurung and his host in battle.
(the slaying of Beleg)

I love him for the deeds he comided in the service of Thingol and for some of he's deeds in Brethil, but most of all for the slaying of Glaurung.

This is an unorthodox heroe in my eyes.

[Boromir88]

Well I'm a fond sympathizer of Boromir. A lot of people don't like him (and is understandable he nearly caused the destruction of the whole quest) but I think it comes down to some just don't understand him. I say Boromir, because though Tolkien does give him that fallen hero quality and redemption he's compared him to Saruman and Denethor before. And we know they aren't such good company.

I also tend to sympathize for Denethor as well. Once a good man, but in his later years he was becoming more and more like a tyrant. And Sauron was getting a hold over him. Foolishly believing he can beat Sauron and in the end Denethor learns his lesson. I still don't take away though the fact that Denethor is arguably the strongest willed person when it comes to men, even more than Aragorn.

Denethor loses his wife, his favorite son, his father liked Thorongil, he's about to lose his other son, his kingdom's on the verge of destruction, he's been using the palantir for 20+ years, and until the end when he finally does lose his mind he (for the most part) was able to keep his kingdom and his men together. Until he lost it, but that he brought upon himself.

[Gurthang]

Well, one person I think deserves a little more repute is Feanor. He was possibly the greatest elf ever to live, and he made the Silmarils. Besides that, he was very strong willed, stood up for himself, knew what he was about, and generally did a job to completion.

He's usually set up as a bad buy for being the scapegoat for the Kinslaying and for leading the elves out of Aman. Yet I think most people stop close to that and don't see the depth of his character. True, he was a bit of a hot-head, but so was Gimli for that matter, and Feanor had a great tactical mind. I think he was given a rather poor lighting in the Silmarillion, and if you knew him better, there is a lot of good under the initial badness.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Well i do not know if we ar supose to discuss each others post.
so i will try to make it quick.

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Feanor had a great tactical mind.

I agree that he was not so bad as he is made out to be, but a great tactical mind.
I do not think that leaving Fingolfin and the main Noldor host behinde and rushing agains Balrogs shows great tactical ability!

[the guy who be short]

Feanor is one of my "Unorthodox Heroes" too. I agree with a lot of what Gurthang said, but as Rune pointed out, he cannot be considered a good tactician. Note his death, please.

One of his particularly endearing aspects to me is his skill with words and minds. His beauty and skill in the arts and crafts also makes me look up to him. Add copious charisma, and voila - amazing character.

Yes, he represents the Fall of the Eldar. So what? He's still cool.

[the guy who be short]

Were others not equally poisoned, so to speak. Did not Finarfin have the same potential to believe the lies? No temptation to evil is a constant to all, it's how one handles said temptation that determines the strength of character. Feanor failed.

No.

Then Melkor lusted for the Silmarils, and the very memory of their radiance was a gnawing fire in his heart. From that time forth, inflamed by this desire, he sought ever more eagerly how he should destroy Fëanor and end the friendship of the Valar and the Elves

Fiercest burned the new flame of desire for freedom and wider realms in the eager heart of Feanor; and Melkor laughed in his secrecy, for to that mark his lies had been addressed, hating Feanor above all, and lusting ever for the Silmarils.

The hatred of Morgoth was particularly aimed at Feanor.

On the subject of Finarfin - he did fall by turning his back (even unwillingly so) on the Valar and accompanying Feanor and co. He was redeemed before too much damage could be wrought.

Tolkien even calls the slaying wicked.

Unorthodox hero.

I would disagree and call wrestling to protect ones property as simply that, protection of property and not violence.

Throwing people into the sea is a violent act. Life is more important than property - if the Teleri had realised this, perhaps the Kinslaying could have been averted. However, the Kinslaying is perhaps the lowest act Feanor commits (no matter how influenced he was at the time ).

So Feanor threatened Fingolfin with death. Morgoth made him do it. He rebelled against the Valar. Morgoth made him do it. He stole the ships of the Teleri, and then fought and killed them. Morgoth made him do it. He abandoned his brother Fingolfin to almost certain death in the Helcaraxe. Morgoth made him do it.

Exactly. The curse of Morgoth - if such it can be called - lay particularly heavily upon Feanor's head. Feanor was the target of Morgoth's lies and deceit, and Eve of Middle Earth.

The tragedy of Feanor is further reflected in the hints we receive of the power and majesty he could have had, had he not fallen.

Yet had he said yea at the first, before the tidings came from Formenos, it may be that his after deeds would have been other than they were.

The works of wonder for the glory of Arda that he might otherwise have wrought only Manwe might in some measure conceive.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Is Maedhros not an interesting character ?

Each time i read the Sil. i find my self constantly switching in opinion of him. He is of course a villian, but he seems to have a side to him that the other sons of Fëanor dos not have.

He opposes the burning of the ships at Losgar
He gives the high-kingship to Fingolfin
He formed the Union of Maedhros

And then he does all his evil deeds, one of them being the assult on the havens of Sirion

ofcourse driven by his oath.

[mormegil]

Maedhros would in my opinion be an unorthodox hero. Like Maglor I think he is really a good person at heart and would have been a wonderful being had he not become tangled up in the oath. He committed some evil things but it is different to me than Feanor.

Maedhros is one of my favorite characters and is what I think of as an unorthodox hero.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Maedhros would in my opinion be an unorthodox hero. Like Maglor I think he is really a good person at heart and would have been a wonderful being had he not become tangled up in the oath. He committed some evil things but it is different to me than Feanor.

Maedhros is one of my favorite characters and is what I think of as an unorthodox hero.

Quite. And if you think about it, he DID do some amazing deeds. The Union of Maedhros bears his name, and it was a great achievement, and failed only because of Men. Speaking of whom, the Sons of Bor, who served Maedhros and Maglor remained loyal- a testament to their more heroic nature, I say, whereas those who served Caranthir were the ones to be faithless- and Caranthis was known to be haughty.

And then there is his remorse over the sons of Dior, and although it is Maglor who raises Elrond and Elros, it must have been at the tolerance of Maedhros his lord and dominant brother.

A hero, if unorthodox, indeed.

[Child of the 7th Age]

What I'm saying is that Tolkien likes Sam, admires him without reservation. This makes him an "orthodox" hero....

Anguirel,

No, no. There are times when Tolkien was quite irked with Sam. Indeed, he was quite irked with hobbits in general. Just look at this quote from a letter written by the Professor in 1963:

Sam is meant to be lovable and laughable. Some readers he irritates and even infuriates. I can well understand it. All hobbits at times affect me in the same way, though I remain very fond of them. But Sam can be very "trying". He is a more representative hobbitthan any others that we have to see much of; and he has consequently a stronger ingredient of that quality which even some hobbits found at times hard to bear: a vulgarity--by which I do not mean a mere "down-to-earthness"--a mental myopia which is proud of itself, a smugness (in varying degrees) and cocksureness, and a readiness to measure and sum up all things from a limited experience, largely enshrined in sententious traditional "wisdom"....Imagine Sam without his education by Bilbo and his fascination with things Elvish! Not difficult. The Cotton family and the Gaffer, when the "Travellers" return are a sufficient glimpse....

Tolkien goes on to chastise Sam for his inability to understand what was going on between Frodo and Gollum: how Sam was unable to see the "damaged" good in Gollum that Frodo so clearly perceived.

All this is a farily harsh commentary on Tolkien's part. If Sam was indeed vulgar and cocksure with all the other "little" faults that Tolkien lists, and yet was still a hero, then surely he merits the title of "unorthodox hero" as well or better than any other in the Legendarium.