Anti-Dwarves

[alatar]

Been thinking about this for some time now.

In Arda, there are 'peoples' on both sides of the eternal struggle. Some Melkor created (meaning changed from the original), some chose or were seduced by the 'dark side.' I would also posit that there are those in the middle who are just looking to get through their day, but they're not what I will be talking about.

So anyway, to show what I mean, here is a somewhat short list of example dichotomies (note that some of the 'opposites' are not of the same species but serve a similar function):

Valar (Manwe) - Valar (Melkor)
Maia (Gandalf) - Maia (Sauron)
Elves - Orcs
Ents - Trolls
Humans (Aragorn) - Humans (Mouth of Sauron)
Hobbits (Sam) - Hobbits (Ted Sandyman)
Dogs (Huan) - Wolves (Red Maw)
Horses - Wargs
Eagles - Fell beasts
Army of the Dead - Wrights
...


Now, you may or may not agree with the list above, but again this isn't my main point, which is:

What are anti-dwarves?

Melkor could not corrupt/pervert dwarves (thanks Aule!) and so was not able to 'create' a new species of baddies from the same (like he did with the Elves). Also, I've not read anywhere that there were a family of dwarves that were completely contrary to the others, fought alongside Melkor/Sauron etc, as the Black Numenoreans were in regards to humans. I would rule out the Petty-Dwarves as they didn't seem to amount to much. Also, just because some dwarves attacked other dwarves or elves or other free people does not make them anti-dwarves - elves slaughtered elves, humans, etc, yet are not 'orcs.'

In regards to enemies and function, the dwarves always fight orcs/goblins/trolls (is this Darwinism as they all live in the same type of environment/niche?), and also seem to be pitted against Dragons a lot (Glaurung, Smaug).

One caveat: Isn't it written that in one of the wars, either the War of Wrath or Dagor Dagorath yet to come, that there were 'peoples' fighting on both sides with the exception of one race? I don't think that those were the Dwarves...

Hopefully there is a clear thought somewhere in the above mess and you can see what I'm asking.

[Snorri Swifthammer]

There is nothing against dwarves because we are too tough to corrupt and too intimidating to stand against!

I would actually say that the true anti-dwarves are...

Dwarves.

Now let me explain, with the other races the good/evil dichotmy is an external struggle. The elves and orcs fight physically and externally. However, with the dwarves it is a fight of their noble self vs. their base desires (best represented by their greed.) Dwarven greed is the Dwarves' greatest enemy and leads to their greatest conflicts. It is greed that drove the Dwarves to kill elves and take the necklace (with the Simral) and it was greed that caused the dwarves of Bilbo's group to turn against the elves and humans which led to the Battle of Five Armies.

So it goes to show that since Dwarves are so impressive the only respectable enemy is another Dwarf.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Snorri Swifthammer

I would actually say that the true anti-dwarves are...

Dwarves.

So it goes to show that since Dwarves are so impressive the only respectable enemy is another Dwarf.

Sounds a lot like Star Trek's Klingons...

And though I understand your point, I'm not sure that the 'internal struggle' qualifies. It's known that Sauron used the Seven Rings to 'tip the scale' in the bearer's internal struggle, but these same did not turn them into wraiths, uber-orcs, dragons, etc - just greedier dwarves.

And there's a line in the books that says something like, "surely to other dwarves a greedy dwarf may appear different, but..."

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by Snorri Swifthammer

There is nothing against dwarves because we are too tough to corrupt and too intimidating to stand against!

I would actually say that the true anti-dwarves are...

Dwarves.

Now let me explain, with the other races the good/evil dichotmy is an external struggle. The elves and orcs fight physically and externally. However, with the dwarves it is a fight of their noble self vs. their base desires (best represented by their greed.) Dwarven greed is the Dwarves' greatest enemy and leads to their greatest conflicts. It is greed that drove the Dwarves to kill elves and take the necklace (with the Simral) and it was greed that caused the dwarves of Bilbo's group to turn against the elves and humans which led to the Battle of Five Armies.

I'd have to agree with this post. The only true anti Dwarf is a Dwarf himself.

I think we can see the dwarvish resistance in Gimli's account of "Sauron's offer." Sauron offered them land, wealth, and power, what dwarves supposedly want right? He was also using the element of fear (the black rider), but Dain said "ummm...no." Also, it is Gimli who first rejects the voice of Saruma in the...Voice of Saruman chapter.

Interesting point, but let us not forget the seven rings of power. Even when the Dwarves had the rings Sauron could still not bend them to his will, as he had hoped.

[Groin Redbeard]

Wait a minute, I think I have the answer!

I think the anti-Dwarf is the Easterling.

From what I know of Easterlings they were skilled in craftmen, skilled warriors, and may even be half Dwarf.

I was reading a book on the cultures of Middle Earth and it said that during the War of the Ring itself, Easterlings are described as perhaps belonging to more than one culture, plus the Variags of Khand. One group is described as a "new" kind of Easterling that the men of Gondor had previously not encountered; fierce bearded men with axes.

[zxcvbn]

The evil counterpart to the Dwarves are simply evil Dwarves. Yes, Dwarves were not as corruptible as Men, and few ever directly served the forces of evil(referring, I suppose, to Sauron and Morgoth). But they were still prone to evil sometimes and committed 'their fair share of rash and greedy acts'(quoting wikipedia which I know isn't all that accurate). In general, the Dwarves of the Western Houses(Longbeards, Firebeards, Broadbeams) were on the good side, but the Dwarves of the Eastern Houses did get corrupted. According the the essay 'Of Dwarves and Men'(sadly, I don't have it with me now) they fell into evil and some even fought for Sauron in the War of the Last Alliance. Also, some tried to enslave Men in early days.
The Hobbit makes this clear.

in some parts wicked dwarves had even made alliances with them

and

some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots

Note that in FOTR at the Council of Elrond Gloin says

we knew already that the power that has re-entered Mordor has not changed, and ever it betrayed us of old

indicating that the Dwarves were only friendly with Sauron.

Also, Gimli clearly distinguishes his Dwarf-House's status WRT Sauron

My folk have never had dealings with any of the servants of the Enemy

[Groin Redbeard]

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

The evil counterpart to the Dwarves are simply evil Dwarves. Yes, Dwarves were not as corruptible as Men, and few ever directly served the forces of evil(referring, I suppose, to Sauron and Morgoth). But they were still prone to evil sometimes and committed 'their fair share of rash and greedy acts'(quoting wikipedia which I know isn't all that accurate). In general, the Dwarves of the Western Houses(Longbeards, Firebeards, Broadbeams) were on the good side, but the Dwarves of the Eastern Houses did get corrupted. According the the essay 'Of Dwarves and Men'(sadly, I don't have it with me now) they fell into evil and some even fought for Sauron in the War of the Last Alliance.

I don't get this stuff with the opposite of the Dwarf race is the Dwarf race. You can use that type of logic for anything.

You could say that Grima and the Wild Men of Dunland fought against the kingdom of Rohan. Does that mean that the opposite of the race of men is the race of men? By all means no, it just means that a small part of the race was bad; that doesn't mean that they're the Anti-Men, and it's the same with Dwarves.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

From what I know of Easterlings they were skilled in craftmen, skilled warriors, and may even be half Dwarf.

Say what...?

[Groin Redbeard]

As in my previous post I explained on how the men of Gondor encountered heavily bearded Easterling men wielding axes. Now, as far as I know, Easterlings and Dwarves are almost always at war. It is my theory that maybe these races mingled and made a new type of race: DWARFSTERLINGS!

But that's just my own opinion.

[Kuruharan]

Melkor could not corrupt/pervert dwarves (thanks Aule!)

Dwarves are fantastically super-awsome, aren't they...

Also, I've not read anywhere that there were a family of dwarves that were completely contrary to the others, fought alongside Melkor/Sauron etc

Well, unfortunately, some from the eastern houses did fight on Sauron's side during the Last Alliance.

However, with the dwarves it is a fight of their noble self vs. their base desires (best represented by their greed.)

I like this a lot.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Well, unfortunately, some from the eastern houses did fight on Sauron's side during the Last Alliance.

Thanks - I thought that there was some mention of every race being split, but couldn't remember where/when. Could you point me to the source?

Still no elves to orcs, which is what I'd always would have liked to have seen.

[mark12_30]

Mim comes to mind.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Mim comes to mind.

Not sure what you mean. Wasn't Mim the last Petty Dwarf?

[Snorri Swifthammer]

Thinking about it, I'll put a vote in for dragons as the Dwarves external opposite.

Dragons are creatures of the air while Dwarves are being of the earth. Their common link is fire. I don't remember the specific battle but I do remember that at one point a dragon (or maybe many) was giving a hard time to an army of Men and Elves. Then to save the day a force of Dwarves, wearing masks to make them proof against the dragon's fire, showed up and drove the wyrm back.

Actually the Dwarves and Dragons have alot in common. Both are immune/resistant to fire, both value great craftsmanship, both make it a goal to collect great treasure hoards, and both are rather greedy.

For the record, Dwarves rock...

[alatar]

Great post Snorri .

Were the great worms Melkor's foil/bane for the Dwarves? Or, to put the egg first, were Dwarves Eru's counter for the coming of the dragons?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Snorri Swifthammer

Thinking about it, I'll put a vote in for dragons

Interesting points, Snorri!

Regarding Mim: he was shorter on virtues. Not that he was an orc; just that he wasn't a very good dwarf. Looking at your list (edit: in opening post), he's on the level of Ted Sandyman.

If you want the 'bad' side to be really eeeevil, then I'd say the opposite of hobbits is Gollum. Then Mim wouldn't ... quite... work.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Regarding Mim: he was shorter on virtues. Not that he was an orc; just that he wasn't a very good dwarf. Looking at your list, he's on the level of Ted Sandyman.

Agreed. Plus, to me Thorin Oakenshield was about the same as he was greedy, faithless, proud, overbearing, without honor, whiny - just what's a Hobbit to do to get a word of praise from a dwarf? Bilbo's writings don't paint a pretty picture of dwarves (sorry Snorri!).

If you want the 'bad' side to be really eeeevil, then I'd say the opposite of hobbits is Gollum.

I put Gollum (and others) in the 'other' category. Gollum was a rogue - sure, he ate babies, but he also would not work for Sauron unless it suited his own ends.

[Neurion]

Originally Posted by Snorri Swifthammer

I don't remember the specific battle but I do remember that at one point a dragon (or maybe many) was giving a hard time to an army of Men and Elves. Then to save the day a force of Dwarves, wearing masks to make them proof against the dragon's fire, showed up and drove the wyrm back.

That would be the Nirnaith Arnoediad, my gruff and diminuitive friend, a day the Eldar remember well.

The Dwarves of Belegost fought there, and their king Azaghal was responsible for wounding Glaurung, causing him to flee the field, as well as the remainder of the dragon host, who fled with their chief.

[Boromir88]

I think we can see the dwarvish resistance in Gimli's account of "Sauron's offer." Sauron offered them land, wealth, and power, what dwarves supposedly want right? He was also using the element of fear (the black rider), but Dain said "ummm...no." Also, it is Gimli who first rejects the voice of Saruma in the...Voice of Saruman chapter.

It mentions in the appendices (the language section), very few dwarves ever served the Enemy, willingly, despite what the tales of men say. Men lusted for the dwarves wealth, and so made up lies about how they served Sauron. The reference points that there were a few dwarves who did serve Sauron, but I suspect not many.

[Farael]

Well Alatar, there seems to be a mixup here, or I'm not understanding things correctly. You say:

Originally Posted by alatar

So anyway, to show what I mean, here is a somewhat short list of example dichotomies (note that some of the 'opposites' are not of the same species but serve a similar function):

Valar (Manwe) - Valar (Melkor)
Maia (Gandalf) - Maia (Sauron)
Elves - Orcs
Ents - Trolls
Humans (Aragorn) - Humans (Mouth of Sauron)
Hobbits (Sam) - Hobbits (Ted Sandyman)
Dogs (Huan) - Wolves (Red Maw)
Horses - Wargs
Eagles - Fell beasts
Army of the Dead - Wrights
...

However, you don't take "Dwarves-Dwarves" as an answer. Yet Valar-Valar, Maia-Maia are set there as opposites. Ok, so they are exceptions as they are higher beings. But then we have hobits-hobbits and I can't say that Sam and Ted Sandyman are as polar opposites as Elves-Orcs. Sandyman, even if a fool, was just that. Misguided and wrong, and possibly had a seed of "evil" in his heart. But he was still a hobbit and wouldn't have done unhobbit-like things (such as murder)

Finally, we have humans (Numenor) and humans (black numenoreans)... but what's the difference between that example and Dwarves (Good) and Dwarves (bad)? True, the black numenoreans were corrupted by Sauron, there's a house of men who was bought off by Morgoth... but what is "evil"?

To be actively corrupted by the "bad" guys, or to act in the bad guys' favour? Certainly, Boromir was not evil, but his ringlust was an evil feeling and it cost him his life. Conversely, we are told that the Easterlings were evil, and yet Sam wonders if they were trully evil to the last man or if they were misguided and lied to.

So if a house of dwarves is told that the Longbeards (who are fighting for the alliance) said that their halls are ugly and their beards are too short, and they decide to join in with Sauron, are they not just as "evil" and just as "opposite" as the Black Numenoreans, who were tempted with OTHER lies?

So if we say Sauron "Created" the Black Numenoreans, we can say that he "created" the evil dwarves as opposites of the good dwarves. It's just a different strategy he must've used after learning he could not corrupt them with "outside" influences like a ring.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Farael

Well Alatar, there seems to be a mixup here, or I'm not understanding things correctly. You say:

Me, not clear?!?

However, you don't take "Dwarves-Dwarves" as an answer. Yet Valar-Valar, Maia-Maia are set there as opposites. Ok, so they are exceptions as they are higher beings. But then we have hobits-hobbits and I can't say that Sam and Ted Sandyman are as polar opposites as Elves-Orcs. Sandyman, even if a fool, was just that. Misguided and wrong, and possibly had a seed of "evil" in his heart. But he was still a hobbit and wouldn't have done unhobbit-like things (such as murder).

Melkor 'took' certain creatures and twisted ("perverted") them as shown in the list, such as elves/orcs and ents/trolls. Men needed no outward disfiguration as they could be good or evil, and were apt to join Melkor without much - if any - twisting.

Melkor, though Valar - Valar, became something completely different. He was no longer 'holy' as proved by the touch of a Silmarillion. He also could no longer take on an angelic form (Sauron loses this ability as well). So, although he was from the same stock as the others, he devolved into something completely different.

But what of Dwarves? Sure, there were Dwarf - Dwarf wars, and nobody liked the petty ones (they were always being petty), but did Melkor lack the ability to pervert these beings? Or, as stated that these are beings of a completely different genesis, could twisting them not be possible, only persuading or breaking?

And to me, given time, Ted would end up like Gollum or Grima - these human cousins would be like other races of humans in Middle Earth.

[Farael]

But what defines "evil" if not Morgoth/Sauron? fighting for him is clearly "evil", no matter what your reasons are. Cruelty and lies are clear evil behaviours, but we see that elves can do it themselves, and I don't think anyone would say elves are EVIL.

So if we say that men could be swayed to be evil and needed no "corrupting" what's to say that Dwarves could not? Clearly they fought for the "bad guys" and if so, they at least condoned (if not partaked in) cruelty and "evil ways".

It is stated that dwarves could not be corrupted like elves-orcs or men-ringwraits, but then we can't hold evil men and good men in the same light as elves and orcs. After all, evil men weren't "corrupted" but rather talked into worshipping Morgoth and all those bad bad things.

IF anything, I just stumbled upon it myself... men-ringwraits or even men-orcs (there's some saying that there were orcs that descended from corrupted men). But if we take good men and evil men we have to take good dwarves and evil dwarves as a Dwarf/anti-dwarf comparison

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Farael

and I don't think anyone would say elves are EVIL.

I would. Individuals elves can be evil, and if one believes that Melkor used elves to create orcs, methinks that he started with the worst of the elves, then simply continued to nudge them further down the road.

So if we say that men could be swayed to be evil and needed no "corrupting" what's to say that Dwarves could not? Clearly they fought for the "bad guys" and if so, they at least condoned (if not partaked in) cruelty and "evil ways".

Plastic creatures that we are, we need take no other form to express our evil ways. I just wondered if Dwarves would display some outer sign of their perversion.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I see your point, alatar, but I don't think your arguments are very strong.

Reread them next week after they've spent some time at the gymnasium.

I mean, maybe at the Maiar-Maiar thing you can talk like that, but definitely not in the Hobbit-Hobbit thing. Not even in Sandyman's case and, in fact, not even in Gollum's. However the Hobbits may be in fact Men, there are no definite anti-hobbits as a whole faction, there are bad hobbits, but that varies from Sackville-Bagginses through Sandyman to Gollum. But to place the equation - or rather, X-mark between hobbits A and hobbits B you'll need first to find a hobbit society somewhere else that is "evil" in general, like some Easterling-hobbits or something. But that's based on the society, which I believe was not the point of view you took. Genesis-based you have either to place the Hobbits all under Men or you need also to find some counterpart to them. And this is the stance you took, or so I understood it, genesis-based, yet you are using individuals as examples in the case of hobbits.

I think that I understand what you think that I'm saying, but...My point regarding anti-hobbits is that, as posited above, if we were to start with the worst - Ted and Smeagol - then with time we could theoretically get an entirely different species. If Ted could go to the dark side, and Gollum could become a murderous cannibal, then it stands that I could get a bunch of the same, given the resources of Melkor/Sauron and time. And doesn't Gandalf state that, heretofore, the Dark Lord ignored or did not notice the hobbits? But what if he, or better, Melkor did?

And by the way, how do the Drúedain fit into the scheme?

Not sure, but I noticed in RotK that there's a subtype of orc that is used as a tracker, being good at sniffing and such, similar to Ghân-buri-Ghân and the other Woses.

Originally Posted by zxcvbn

I can't understand why so many people are saying "I can't accept Dwarves as evil counterpart to Dwarves!" And why not? We have good Men and corrupted Men. Similarly there can be Dwarves and corrupted Dwarves(Tolkien said that the Dwarves of the East were 'corrupted' in similar manner to the Easterlings).

My original question, or thought, was that Melkor used what was on hand to create his armies and help. He used elves for orcs, ents for trolls, dogs (or nice wolves) for wargs, and who knows what dragons. What could or did he make with the Dwarves? Was he at a loss regarding these creatures, or did he make something from them?

Dragons do seem to have similar traits as Dwarves, methinks...

[zxcvbn]

Originally Posted by alatar

My original question, or thought, was that Melkor used what was on hand to create his armies and help. He used elves for orcs, ents for trolls, dogs (or nice wolves) for wargs, and who knows what dragons. What could or did he make with the Dwarves? Was he at a loss regarding these creatures, or did he make something from them?

He MAY have succeeded in simply corrupting some Dwarves, like his successor Sauron(even though there's no mention of that in the Silmarillion).

Originally Posted by alatar

Dragons do seem to have similar traits as Dwarves, methinks...

Eh? You lost me there. I Can't think of any similarity apart from thae fact that they both love gold. IMO the closest counterpart to the Dragons,if any, are the Eagles.

[Farael]

Originally Posted by alatar

Reread them next week after they've spent some time at the gymnasium.

I'm sorry, I know I should add SOMETHING to the conversation, but this is just... ARGH!! Alatar, I don't know what's worse, your joke or the fact that I laughed about it

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I see your point, alatar, but I don't think your arguments are very strong. I mean, maybe at the Maiar-Maiar thing you can talk like that, but definitely not in the Hobbit-Hobbit thing. Not even in Sandyman's case and, in fact, not even in Gollum's. However the Hobbits may be in fact Men, there are no definite anti-hobbits as a whole faction, there are bad hobbits, but that varies from Sackville-Bagginses through Sandyman to Gollum. But to place the equation - or rather, X-mark between hobbits A and hobbits B you'll need first to find a hobbit society somewhere else that is "evil" in general, like some Easterling-hobbits or something. But that's based on the society, which I believe was not the point of view you took. Genesis-based you have either to place the Hobbits all under Men or you need also to find some counterpart to them. And this is the stance you took, or so I understood it, genesis-based, yet you are using individuals as examples in the case of hobbits. It works with the others, since you are not working with societies (like "good" Gondorians and "evil" Easterlings but "good" Aragorn and 99% of M-E and really corrupted Mouth of Sauron), but not with hobbits. Sandyman is still a hobbit. And Wormtongue, Wormtongue is still a Man! Watch out that you don't step off of your line. Because your theory and division, as you outline it, is acceptable as long as you observe it from this genesis-based POV, but that means leaving most of the "ordinary" Easterlings and Southrons on the left side, as "good" men. Or either you have to move all who commit evil deeds, but on the outside remain the same, to the right side, but then you also have to accept with the evil Dwarves as the Anti-Dwarves. You have to choose the point from which you are looking at this, but that means either agreeing with Dwarves or backing away with Hobbits.

And by the way, how do the Drúedain fit into the scheme?

(crossposted with Farael)