Good and evil

There can be no doubt that Morgoth and Sauron are "evil". Their actions have no better goals than destruction and darkness, and many other characters become evil by their domination, in particular the majority of mankind.

The point I want to make is that I do not see a corresponding priciple of "good" in the stories. Iluvatar is a "cold" god. He stays outside the world after its creation, and his only active action - the catastrophe of Numenor with the drowning of thousands (millions?) of innocent women an children - cannot be regarded as positive in my opinion, although the sin of Ar-Pharazon and his fellows was great of course. The valar appear helpful to Elves and Men at some points, but in general their job only is executing fate or predestination. There is no point in the story where a "higher power" introduces law or ethics. Given all this, to me the question is not why there are so many evil characters in Middle Earth, but how such a world can produce good persons at all. Among many examples, I would mention Aragorn, Faramir and Hurin as people who really show humanity - in its best meaning - and altruism at decisive points.

I also wonder about the kind of philosophy that is behind all this. The attitude of Elves, Dwarves, Dunedain - and even more of the Hobbits - appears to me as a kind of "innocent atheism", where ethics and moral do not need a religious justification and death can be accepted as natural by the mortal races. I do not regard this as negative, but it is known that J.R.R. Tolkien was a quite faithful Christian, and so the origin of these ideals is difficult to understand for me. Let me know what you think.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Your question is somewhat confusing, but I think I've worked it out: Tolkien certainly personifies the Ultimate Evil, i.e. evil deeds performed with no end other than the dominion of evil itself, in Morgoth and Sauron. Yet nowhere does he singly personify the Ultimate Good, i.e. good deeds performed with no end other than the dominion of good itself. Even with no ulterior motive, no single character devotes their entirety to the destruction of evil: they grieve for each other's deaths, they hesitate and make mistakes...

I would argue (rather simplistically) that while the Professor channeled "evil" into one or two characters, he spread the "good" out through the races, into multiple characters with seperate functions. We see some goodness in the Noldor as much as in the Riders of Rohan. Why? My still-simple argument would be that while absolute evil is easy to believe in, there's a tendency in society, at least ours, to reject the totally good as unbelievable. Melian comes close, but we are distanced from her as not to know how close. Perhaps the Professor just didn't want to personify God in his fictional works: you did mention that he was a Christian.

I can see your frustration at this, because I myself am feeling it in trying to explain my own feelings. Are we left with one Ultimate Evil, and a huge array of middling Good-But-Weak characters, and no Great Good? I hate to cite Harry Potter at a time like this, but the world isn't split between good guys and Death Eaters. There are so many inbetweens like Maedhros and Thingol, who are on the whole meant to be great and good but somehow fall spectacularly; who are neither Valar nor Morgoth's servants. Also, I will certainly cede that Iluvatar seems to be a laid-back sort of Creator, creating and then sitting back to watch, but does that mean he is not a Great Good? If Tolkien was a Christian, the destruction of Beleriand can be no more evil than the Great Flood (of Noah), and Eru therefore no less of the Great Good than the Christian God.

My greater question would be whether or not Good means Perfection. Can you still be Good if you make mistakes, or have weaknesses? I certainly wouldn't consider Boromir to be the Ultimate Good in the books, but he was only flawed, not evil. And if you had to classify him, he would have been wholeheartedly on the side of Good: only the presence of ultimate evil led him astray.

[edit] P.S. If this thread is meant to be argued in context of Tolkien's beliefs, I'll quietly withdraw... but for now I just hope I didn't do more confusion than good.

[Sir Kohran]

Now this is a very interesting point. I've thought about this often yet have never been able to put my thumb on it. Thanks for making it clear.

As a 'semi-Christian', I've always been slightly disturbed by the general atheism of Middle-Earth's people. Whilst there certainly are references to higher powers, there's no 'belief' in them - the people never pray before battle or anything of the sort. Despite often being in great despair they never seem to even think of putting their faith into anything greater than themselves. There are a few points - Frodo's use of the name of Elbereth, or Damrod's shouting for the Valar to turn the Mumakil away from him - but these are essentially little more than cries for help, soon forgotten once the situation is resolved (never by divine means, it seems) unless there is cause to say it again. There's no feeling of worship or spiritualism.

I think this ties in with the big complaints against Harry Potter by certain religious groups - I think the real reason it is rejected by some religious people is the complete lack of religion or divinity in any way, in a world of witchcraft and sorcery - demonic activities. Ironically the being that comes closest to being God is Voldermort - he appears unkillable and is possibly the most powerful character in the books. The world of Harry Potter features the devil but no god - and the thought of a world with Satan but without God is frightening.

I find this lack of religion very strange, especially considering Tolkien's Christian point of view and the very Christian themes in his work. Could someone shed some more light on this?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I find this lack of religion very strange, especially considering Tolkien's Christian point of view and the very Christian themes in his work. Could someone shed some more light on this?

I think Tolkien's representation of Eru Illuvatar is much in keeping with the Old Testament Yahweh, right down to god speaking through intermediaries rather than directly to man (in Tolkien's case it is the Valar who mediate, in Yahweh's it is the angel Metatron who is mentioned as the voice of God in Talmudic studies, and is the voice of the burning bush that speaks to Moses). The vengeful destruction of Numenor is not much different than the flood brought down by Yahweh (if anything, Yahweh was much more violent in his methods).

On the general lack of direct religious content, Tolkien eschewed such overt mention of religion much the same way he would, as an Anglo-Saxon scholar, attempt to strip the patina of Christianity off of Beowulf to derive the true source material. Per his letters, any religious symbolism is subsumed in the narrative. This is a good thing from the perspective of myth-making, and, whether consciously or not, it allowed for a much wider readership of Tolkien's work. This sublimation offers the reader a variety of interpretations of the text, and therefore it does not delve into the cloying allegory Lewis presented in the Narnia Chronicles, which would certainly have lessened the innate power of Tolkien's presentation.

[Boromir88]

Can evil exist without good? Generally, all evil is, is a rebellion against good. Morgoth and Sauron are set up as the 2 primary evils. Why were they the main evils? Because they were the 'satanic rebels' against Eru as Tolkien says:

But in this ’mythology’ all the ’angellic’ powers concerned themselves with world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the Absolute Satanic Rebellion of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the faineance of some of the other higher powers or ’gods.’~Letter 156

Just a quick question to mull over, with some thoughts to consider before I get into my reply here.

Beanamir, your post definitely was not a lonely one, but I am going to point out the one thing I disagree with:

Tolkien certainly personifies the Ultimate Evil, i.e. evil deeds performed with no end other than the dominion of evil itself, in Morgoth and Sauron. Yet nowhere does he singly personify the Ultimate Good

I agree that there is no 'ultimate good' in the stories, but disagree with the statement there is ultimate evil.

’In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any ’rational being’ is wholly evil.'~Letter 183

Tolkien talks about that even Sauron had 'relics of positive purposes' (his love for order and co-ordination)...and he would go on to say in Letter 183 that Sauron 'represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.'

One thing I love about Tolkien's stories is the way he portrays what good and evil is. In Letter 131, he defines evil as 'rebelling against the thoughts of the Creator' and the 'bull-dozing of others free wills.' So, those are 2 clear definition of evil in the story...however, what is not so clear to readers is what makes a person evil and what doesn't? This is the tricky question to answer and Tolkien also hated the criticism that his books were 'all these pure good guys' against 'all these pure bad guys':

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right…In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.~Letter dated 25 September 1954

Which sadly seem to reflect Tolkien's thoughts on WW2 in Letter 66:

For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed.But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn men and elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are so clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side...

That is the thing that interests me about Tolkien's books. He defines what is good and what is evil, but as far as what makes somebody good or evil is less clear and up to the reader. As, it's not so simple as 'you do good things you're good and you do evil things your evil.' Intent/motive plays a major role:

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.~Letter 181

Simply because good came out of Gollum's actions does not make him a 'good' person. In fact, Tolkien calls him wicked, and showing persisten wickedness. I think motive plays a major part in determining who is truly good and who isn't. Isn't it just so convenient that in a Letter when Tolkien was talking about magic in his stories he comes out and says what is the 'supremely bad motive'?

The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other ’free’ wills.~Letter 155

And I think this is what sets up the Morgoth's and the Sauron's as the prime evils in the story...their intent to dominate, enslave, or simply flat out destroy.

Let me conclude with making a comparison between Radagast and Saruman. Tolkien remarked that both wizards had failed their mission. The Istari's mission was to unite the Free People's of Middle-earth to guide resistance against Sauron. Both Saruman and Radagast fail at this mission, but they fail in different ways, and it's motive that makes Saruman the 'evil' wizard and Radagast a good, yet simply idle one:

Radagast was fond of beasts and birds and found them easier to deal with; he did not become proud and domineering , but neglectful and easygoing, and he had very little to do with Elves or Men although obviously resistance to Sauron had to be sought chiefly in their cooperation. But since he remained of good will (though he had not much courage) , his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments.~From: Tolkien Papers, Bodleian Library found in Hammond and Skulls LOTR Companion

Where Saruman on the other hand no longer resisted and flat out accepted Sauron's goal:

Saruman fell under the domination of Sauron and desired his victory; or no longer opposed it. Denethor remained steadfast in his rejection of Sauron, but was made to believe that his victory was inevitable, and so fell into despair.~Unfinished Tales; The Palantiri

This also just so happens to bring up a little nifty comparison between Denethor and Saruman as well.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I find this lack of religion very strange, especially considering Tolkien's Christian point of view and the very Christian themes in his work.

I'm not entirely sure what "Christian themes" you mean by this (though baseline societal mores could certainly suffice), but honestly? I have this feeling that Tolkien was attempting separate specifically Christianity from his works with Middle-Earth. Raynor gave lots of citations about Iluvatar as an active God, and frankly, if I were in Tolkien's place, creating an entirely new gods, goddesses, and hierarchy of power, I would try to leave existing religious frameworks out entirely. Given, as Boromir88 proved with a whacking direct quote, I don't quite think the same way as Tolkien but all the same...

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

The world of Harry Potter features the devil but no god - and the thought of a world with Satan but without God is frightening.

This is such a horrible digression, but after all, I started it: the powerful problem I have with the Harry Potter series (in terms of good and evil) lies in the fact that not a single person fighting against Voldemort is without an ulterior motive. Voldemort fights solely for possession of the magical world and the death of Muggles: yet even Dumbledore, our Good character, had ulterior motives.

In relation to Harry Potter/Dumbledore, I take back my comments from my last post, in light of Boromir88's introduction of the Istari and my brain waking up:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The Istari's mission was to unite the Free People's of Middle-earth to guide resistance against Sauron. Both Saruman and Radagast fail at this mission, but they fail in different ways, and it's motive that makes Saruman the 'evil' wizard and Radagast a good, yet simply idle one.

Gandalf, the third Istari, comes pretty darn close to a definition of "the Good who fights for only the dominion of Good." Gandalf seems to have no ulterior motives whatsoever, in terms of his own life or power. He does not wish to supplant Denethor for the power of the Istari; only to bring Aragorn to his rightful place. Gandalf gives his life to save the Fellowship in their quest against Sauron; he doesn't even hesitate when Frodo chooses the Mines of Moria over the Gap of Rohan, though he must know it will take his life.

One thing that convinces me of this is that Gandalf is definitely not my favorite character. I much prefer the Men of Gondor, with all their failings. The fact that Gandalf, to me, is an emotionally neutral character, does even more to convince me that he is about the closest we get (strictly in The Lord of the Rings, anyway) to a purely Good character.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

Iluvatar is a "cold" god. He stays outside the world after its creation, and his only active action - the catastrophe of Numenor with the drowning of thousands (millions?) of innocent women an children - cannot be regarded as positive in my opinion, although the sin of Ar-Pharazon and his fellows was great of course.

We have many indications, all throughout the works, that Iluvatar is an active god

Originally Posted by Ainulindale, Silmarillion

Yet some things there are that [the valar] cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past.

Originally Posted by Of Aule and Yavanna, Silmarillion

Then Manwe sat silent, and the thought of Yavanna that she had put into his heart grew and unfolded; and it was beheld by Iluvatar. Then it seemed to Manwe that the Song rose once more about him, and he heeded now many things therein that though he had heard them he had not heeded before. And at last the Vision was renewed, but it was not now remote, for he was himself within it, and yet he saw that all was upheld by the hand of Iluvatar; and the hand entered in, and from it came forth many wonders that had until then been hidden from him in the hearts of the Ainur.

Originally Posted by Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth, HoME X

He must as Author always remain 'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His design and His will for its beginning and continuance, in every detail and moment.

Originally Posted by Letter #156

[Gandalf] was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'.

Originally Posted by Letter #192

Frodo deserved all honor because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said)

These are some main highlights; plus, even in LotR, we have various characters referring to Him indirectly as inspiring, guiding, or protecting them. The hobbits colloquially refer to him as Lawks and Lore (IIRC).

Men and Elves also represent a continuous intervention of the One; while most of them more likely have a "free" fate, some of them (like Beren) have a great doom ahead of them.

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

The valar appear helpful to Elves and Men at some points, but in general their job only is executing fate or predestination

Well, I wouldn't put it that way; they have some knowledge of the future, deriving from their knowledge of the Music. But even with that, they are often in doubt, they consult each other and even Iluvatar. I guess a more correct formulation is that they are the most ready to follow the axani, the rules, that Eru sets forth.

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

There is no point in the story where a "higher power" introduces law or ethics.

Osanwe kenta makes reference to the axani, the rules that Eru put forth (as in ethics; there is another kind of "universal" rules, unati, that cannot be broken at all, no matter one's intent or power). The very meaning of axan is "'law, rule, commandment; as primarily proceeding from Eru'; adopted from Valarin akasan 'He says', referring to Eru". While LotR has no specific mention of this, it is understood from the greater work that the valar in turn taught the elves, who in turn taught the numenoreans, who were, in the beginning at least, teachers of humankind. Later on, the true knowledge of Eru is revived by Aragorn (as Tolkien implies in letter #156). More specifically, we know from the Atrabeth that Eru did indeed contact the Men, and taught them (until they became too preoccupied with their own thoughts, and later became thralls to Melkor).

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

Given all this, to me the question is not why there are so many evil characters in Middle Earth, but how such a world can produce good persons at all.

Well, first of all, as mentioned previously, all the Eruhini come directly from the One, and it is implied that all of them are good by nature. Furthermore, there also are the very foundations of the world are good, and they heal from "within", because at the heart of the world burns the imperishable flame of Iluvatar (as stated in Myths Transformed and the Athrabeth, IIRC). Even more, there is the ennoblement of the Men by the Elves, as a result of the special intervention of Eru:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

The entering into Men of the Elven-strain is indeed represented as part of a Divine Plan for the ennoblement of the Human Race, from the beginning destined to replace the Elves.

All in all, these, plus the existing knowledge of Eru, mentioned previously, ensure some good conditions for good Men to appear and manifest themselves as such.

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

The attitude of Elves, Dwarves, Dunedain - and even more of the Hobbits - appears to me as a kind of "innocent atheism", where ethics and moral do not need a religious justification and death can be accepted as natural by the mortal races.

Well, Tolkien was annoyed by the criticism that LotR contained no religion

Originally Posted by Letter #165

The only criticism that annoyed me was one that it 'contained no religion' (and 'no Women', but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of 'natural theology'.

I would attribute this to the fact that Tolkien avoided as much as possible any "overt" reference to real life religion, since he considered that this would be a fatal mistake for myths and fairy tales.

Originally Posted by Beanamir of Gondor

Are we left with one Ultimate Evil, and a huge array of middling Good-But-Weak characters, and no Great Good?

I wouldn't say so. Esspecially in the Silmarillion, where Melkor is a character, we have the valar who actively oppose him. And they still are active in the Third Age, at least through the Istari (who, at least initially, are said to be peers of Sauron). Tolkien states in Myths Transformed that Sauron is the last mythological evil person, so after that, even if the istari and the elves fade, it seems like a balanced match.

Originally Posted by Beanamir of Gondor

My greater question would be whether or not Good means Perfection.

I wouldn't say so; at least not in this world

Originally Posted by Letter #212

The Fall or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. Trees may 'go bad' as in the Old Forest; Elves may turn into Orcs, and if this required the special perversive malice of Morgoth, still Elves themselves could do evil deeds. Even the 'good' Valar as inhabiting the World could at least err

and even more generally:

Originally Posted by Note ** to Melkor Morgoth essay, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

I also wonder about the kind of philosophy that is behind all this.

The positive approach is put forth by Finrod:

Originally Posted by Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, HoME X

Estel we call it, that is "trust". It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from our nature and first being. If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy.

while the negative one is entertained primarily by Melkor, and is referred to by Manwe in the debate over Miriel:

Originally Posted by Of the severance of marriage, Version A, Quendi and Eldar, HoME X

[the]trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

[alatar]

Rereading the first thread and that of tumhalad2's (Welcome to the Downs, by the way ):

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

and many other characters become evil by their domination, in particular the majority of mankind.

The word 'become,' at least on this morning, grates on me. Not sure how it was intended, and I'm not saying that Menelvagor meant it in any particular way, but to me the word 'become' does not seem to connote 'choice.' One chooses to do evil or not. Maybe Melkor and Sauron became evil by the thousand slices of evil choices or one big choice - I don't know. But to me all cognizant beings are free to choose and do not simply wake up one day on the wrong side.

This same thinking applies when a person tells me that "so and so made me..." Children use this argument, but what of adults who are not threatened with harm in any way? When I'm feeling grumpier than usual, I will correct them and say, "No, you choose to let them do..."

Anyway...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Tolkien was at great pains to avoid a Manichaean world. It's inherent in his work that Power Corrupts- it's not really possible in Fallen Arda for there to be a powerful wholly Good being (except Manwe, who, tellingly, is very largely passive).

JRRT as above defined Absolute Evil as Zero- he indicated in one essay that Morgoth had reached a stage of 'nihilistic madness' and, left to his own devices, would have gone on raging until all Ea was reduced to chaos, and continued raging because the Chaos was not of his own making.

Evil in Tolkien is, I think ultimately Selfishness: greed, imposition of will, absence of compassion, ego, solipsism.

********

The absence of religious observance in LR (not Silmarillion) is really very easily explained: Tolkien couldn't conceive his Good peoples as being pagan or anything inconsistent with Judaeo-Christianity. Therefore he felt it was safer to make them largely cult-less 'pure monotheists.' Temples and priests and the like were for the minions of Sauron, who ruled as a God-King.

[Boromir88]

Great job alatar and William in bringing this topic up.

Tolkien was at great pains to avoid a Manichaean world.~William

For the most part I agree...although I think The One Ring is a different matter.

Tom Shippey makes the argument that Tolkien encorporates both Boethian and Manichaen types of evil in The One Ring. Although this has gone contested by others, I think Shippey's got a point.

The Ring has a lust and power that actually exudes evil itself:

'so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it...'~Letter 131

This is Tolkien's Letter to Milton Waldman, and he makes the point that the Ring has it's own innate evil that it exudes on people. There is further mentioning in Letter 246:

'It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power.'

Also from Letter 246, so great was the Ring's power (its influence would reach a 'maximum' when brought into the Sammath Naur) that it was impossible for Frodo (or anyone to destroy):

'I do not think that Frodo’s was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted.'

With that being said when dealing with the Ring, it is not purely Manichaen. If it was I think The Ring would be this all-corrupting force that just corrupts everyone that's around. I think what Gandalf says points to the duality of evil 'within' (Boethian) and evil without (Manichaen):

'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me!...'~The Shadow of the Past

The Ring would not only be able to use Gandalf's 'positive purposes' (pity and a desire to do good), to turn him into virtually another Sauron. But we see here Gandalf's rejection of the Ring ('Do not tempt me!'). Also, there were several others who rejected the Ring (Sam, Galadriel, Bilbo), and I don't think I can put it any better than Faramir's words to Frodo:

'But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.'~The Window on the West

So, there is also the factor of dealing within the person. Or how would characters like Gandalf and Faramir be able to reject the Ring, yet others (like Gollum and Boromir) fall to it?

I don't know about any other examples but with The One Ring I do think we see a duality of the two aspects of evil. Not only does the Ring exude evil itself on to others, but it is Boromir and Gollum's predisposition to greed, glory, and power, from within themselves which led to their corruption by the Ring. While others who did not desire such 'triumphs' were able to reject it.

[Bêthberry]

Surely "good and evil" means someone who is worse than someone who is just "plain old evil."

[davem]

The problem is the Ring gives the power to do good as well as evil. It wouldn't be so seductive to the Wise if it didn't. Gandalf fears that he would use the Ring to do good, so does Galadriel, & that's what they want to do. Gandalf would begin righteous & become self righteous. He would seek to bring about good & the end result would be evil. What the Ring would give him would be the power to defeat evil absolutely, but in this defeat he would become absolute dictator - an absolute dictator who would only do good, but who would have the power to stop anyone doing 'evil' (ie anything he considered 'evil'. And this is the point. Sauron (& Morgoth) probably didn't ever consider themselves 'evil' at all. They intended to re-shape the world in their own image. Hence, it could be argued that 'evil' is a label you stick on your enemy. Sauron quite probably considers Gandalf 'evil'. Remove Eru from the story & it all becomes subjective.

And yet, Eru makes the rules & lays down what is good & what is evil, & he does this with no better justification than that its 'his movie' - he's in charge & has ultimate power. Surely if Gandalf or Galadriel took the Ring they would do good. There's no reason to believe that they would behave like Sauron. Yet they would be evil simply because they had taken control & usurped the role of Eru. So, evil is not necessarily judged on what someone does, but on whether or not they attempt to be 'more' than Eru made them to be. If Galadriel took the Ring & made the whole of Middle-earth into Lorien that wouldn't be an 'evil' act in an objective sense - it would be quite a nice place to live. But it would be against Eru's plan. So, evil is whatever is against Eru's plan - even if the result was everyone living happily in peace & safety - not simply what Sauron (for example) did. Turning Middle-earth into Lorien is as 'evil' an act as turning it into Mordor. There's no way Galadriel, even with the Ring, would be responsible for the Mordorisation of Middle-earth.

Its not what most people would instantly think of as evil. Many readers of Tolkien would consider the Lorienisation of M-e as a victory for good. So, Sauron & Mordor are not 'ideals' of evil. Absolute power - whatever one does with it - is evil, because it is an attempt to take control away from Eru. Hence, if Eru destroys Numenor & slaughters thousands it is a 'good' act, because such destruction is Eru's prerogative. If Sauron had done exactly the same thing it would have been 'evil'. Its down to what you have an innate right to do rather than whether what you do makes things better or worse from a practical point of view. Gandalf with the Ring may have made the world a much nicer, safer, more pleasant place to live, but it would still have been 'evil', because he didn't have the right to do it.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

The word 'become,' at least on this morning, grates on me. Not sure how it was intended, and I'm not saying that Menelvagor meant it in any particular way, but to me the word 'become' does not seem to connote 'choice.' One chooses to do evil or not. Maybe Melkor and Sauron became evil by the thousand slices of evil choices or one big choice - I don't know. But to me all cognizant beings are free to choose and do not simply wake up one day on the wrong side.

But how much choice did the humans who first confronted Melkor had? I wouldn't discard the effects of dealing with higher evil power that cannot be resisted (the foremost case being Frodo). Even in a modern society, I would certainly give mitigating circumstances to a person that has been indoctrinated and brainwashed with evil since childhood, through various means. A good example of Sauron's hold on his servants was at the last battle:

Originally Posted by The Fields of Cormallen, RotK

The Power that drove them on and filled them with hate and fury was wavering, its will was removed from them; and now looking in the eyes of their enemies they saw a deadly light and were afraid.

Originally Posted by davem

The problem is the Ring gives the power to do good as well as evil.

I would call the power to do good one of the deceits that the ring filled the mind of others.

If Galadriel took the Ring & made the whole of Middle-earth into Lorien that wouldn't be an 'evil' act in an objective sense - it would be quite a nice place to live.

Taking all things into consideration, it is rather safe to assume that no such thing would be possible.

Surely if Gandalf or Galadriel took the Ring they would do good. There's no reason to believe that they would behave like Sauron.

This runs contrary to what we know of the ring; a good deal has been already quoted by Boromir.

Many readers of Tolkien would consider the Lorienisation of M-e as a victory for good. So, Sauron & Mordor are not 'ideals' of evil.

I disagree with that idea and reasoning, at least because Sauron and Melkor became nihilistic; I know of no reference that they strived for a Lorien-like M-E.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would call the power to do good one of the deceits that the ring filled the mind of others.

It depends what you mean by 'good'. The Ring enables one to make real one's fantasies. Hence Sam's idea of 'good' is to turn Mordor into a garden, & taht's what he would have done. Galadriel would have made M-e into Lorien. The 'evil' aspect of this 'good' would be that it would be forced on all the inhabitants - whether they wanted it or not. Its a bit like a war between those who believe that democracy is the highest good & those who believe that fundamentalist Islam is the Highest good. Both sides may be right - for themselves. But of they use force to impose that 'good' on others who do not want it it is 'evil'. In that case democracy forced on others who want an Islamist theocracy is 'evil' - its not that democracy is evil in itself (any more than a M-e turned Lorien would be evil in itself) its the imposition of a regime on those who do not want it that is evil. That's why Galadriel's M-e turned Lorien would be evil.

Behaving like Sauron, becoming another Dark Lord, is not about making the whole of M-e into Mordor - Galadriel clearly states that she would not be like Sauron if she took the Ring - she would be as bad - but in a different way - not 'dark' but beautiful & terrible. Sauron inspires hate & fear, while 'all shall love (Galadriel) & despair'.

I disagree with that idea and reasoning, at least because Sauron and Melkor became nihilistic; I know of no reference that they strived for a Lorien-like M-E.

No. Tolkien is clear. Morgoth certainly was a nihilist, & sought the absolute destruction of all things. Sauron, on the other hand, was a totalitarian. He did not want to destroy the world, but to gain absolute control over it. Of course Sauron would not desire a 'Lorien-like M-e. He desired a Mordor like M-e. Saruman desired an Isengard-like M-e (hence what happened in the Shire, Galadriel a Lorien-like M-e, Sam a M-e (by extention) made into a great garden & Faramir a M-e which was like Gondor of old. And if they took the Ring that's exactly what they would produce (to the extent of their innate power), & in that they would be as bad as Sauron. Its too simplistic to think that everyone who took the Ring would become nothing but a Sauron clone, building Dark Towers & employing Ringwraiths. Of course, in their own way they would be as bad, or worse, but they wouldn't be the same.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I'd agree with davem. I think the formulation that the usurpation of power is pretty correct. But, however true you are, davem, I think what you speak of would be just the "normal" corruption by power. That's what the people who made (or considered, cf. below) themselves the ultimate rulers would do, everyone putting the Middle-Earth into the shape of their own imagination, but that won't accord with Eru's plan and thus, be "evil". The Ring, I would presume, would break the last barriers of their conscience and so, even for people like Sam or Galadriel or Faramir or Gandalf, they will cease to care of the others and go after their own goals (even if the goals were to be seen as "good" by them). The moment of taking the Ring for your own is when it happens - that's why there's so much emphasise putting on it, that's why it's so important that Bilbo, Frodo, Sam... received (or came to, but "received", I think, is appropriate word here) it (and not took it by force), though later the former two declared the Ring as "their own and no one's". By taking the Ring for your own, you say "I have the RIGHT to have it and it is only mine, no one else has the right to relativise this" (the words "mine and no one else's" define it pretty well, but I want to make clear what I speak of). Simply said, Bilbo, you don't have the right on claiming the Ring, it's not yours. You cannot say "the Ring should do this and this and never anything else" - at any time, the Ring may pass to anyone else (like Frodo) and you cannot object it. That's the thing Melkor said about Arda:

Originally Posted by Ainulindalë

When therefore Earth was yet young and full of flame Melkor coveted it, and he said to the other Valar: "This shall be my own kingdom; and I name it unto myself!"

The point is that no one can ultimately say this about anything. Even Aragorn, let's say, does not have any right to say that he is the King and it can be never changed. Like Treebeard said, "'never' is too long even for me." Remember that first, Melkor did not want everything to become Darkness: he wanted to claim the Light and to make everything his own. He turned to that "nihilism" when he realized that he cannot have everything ("mine - or no one's!"), that there is still the will of Eru above him, whatever he would do.

In connection with this, maybe there's just only one thing I'd think about, and that's that from what we know, I think there are hints that ultimately the Ring (because it has part of Sauron's power in it) could lead even Galadriel (or these folks we speak of) into doing things that would remind us of Mordor, meaning now the real, "physical" Mordor - destruction and darkness. I think if she retained her status for some time, she'd ultimately start to fade into these "evil" things we know. First, as I said above, she could realize that even as the ultimate ruler there is the will of Eru above her, and she could decide then between just two things: to bow down and obey (diminish, go into the West, remain Galadriel - and leave her Mega-Lórien behind), or to oppose even Eru - and if she went into the extreme as Morgoth did, she would come to the state that the only thing she could do will be destroying everything. "Okay, Eru, I see I cannot control some things against your will, so I will at least destroy them". And here we go. The same path.

Or second, thinking in less extreme ways, maybe something else could happen, because the Ring could come to work here. That's something Raynor mentioned about the "higher evil forces that are uncontrollable"; when Galadriel would have reached the ultimate power in Middle-Earth, there will also be nothing else for her that she would consider "higher" than herself (at least to the point I mentioned above, when she would start to struggle against that what would oppose her), which means, she is the ultimate and despotic ruler, just as Melkor and Sauron at certain point of time thought they were. In this moment, in our Galadriel case, the Ring would come to work, because the person won't have any other things to hold to, and the Ring would probably convince her to "build Dark Towers and create Ringwraith". Why do I think so: Because there is a part of Sauron's personality in the Ring. It does not have anything to do with Galadriel's dreams or goals. But I think the personality of Sauron in the Ring would make her do things even she wouldn't like to do, and she would do them. Strange? I think not - just imagine it. "Hey, why could you not make a Nazgul from Elrond? You ask why would you do that? Well, why not? You are the ruler - you can do everything you want. No one can ban you from turning Elrond into a Nazgul. So prove it." It would take long, perhaps millenia, but I think even Galadriel could start to do things that would make her somewhat like the real Sauron, if she possessed the Ring - and ultimately, the Ring will possess her.

[davem]

I can't ever imagine Galadriel living in a Dark Tower, surrounded by Black Riders & Orcs. I can imagine her living in a Mallorn the size of Barad Dur, surrounded by Elves as enslaved as Ringwraiths & Orcs. And that's the point - for all Tolkien may have made reference to evil having a beautiful form we see very little of that in M-e. Evil is almost uniformly dark & ugly - stereotypical bad guys in the main. This leads many readers to associate beauty with goodness & ugliness with evil.

But take Lewis & Narnia. Narnia under Jadis is beautiful. Snowy landscapes, an Ice Palace, & all ruled over by a beautiful White Queen. Far more seductive than a Mordor ruled by Sauron & peopled by Orcs.

The point about Narnia when we first encounter it is that's its a realm ruled over by evil, but we don't realise that. Its not simply that there its 'always winter but never Christmas. Its that its always winter & never anything else. Jadis has absolute control over the land & has reshaped it in her own image.