Tolkien and the Monsters

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

As usual, I have done a good search of the forum for similar topics, but not found one. If one exists, my apologies in advance and I await reprimand.

This thread is an ougrowth of a post I just put up in the Chapter by Chapter discussion (please, everyone who might come acros this post/thread, join the CbC discussion ) At any event. . .

There's been a lot of discussion in the forum about the different kinds or types of heroism and heroic virtue that are developed in The Lord of the Rings, but I'm wondering if there isn't a similar conversation possible about the monsters of LotR and the nature of evil. I've seen the threads asking "are orcs evil" or "is Gollum evil" and even "is Sauron evil". The commonality amongst all these threads is the idea of evil -- that is, the only question seems to be, "which characters fall into category E" (E being evil).

But what is evil in LotR? Again, there are a number of threads devoted to discussions like this, but they are all focussed (quite understandably) on the Ring, on Sauron, on Gollum and on Saruman. But what about the monsters that define the structure of the book? The journeys of the heroes are marked by a cyclical movement from danger to safety, so that there are along the course of all their journeys a number of safe havens (Farmer Maggot's, Tom Bombadil, Rivendell, Lorien, Ithilien), but in between these are the other part of the pattern -- the monsters:

The Black Riders
Old Man Willow
The Barrow Wights
The Black Riders (again at Weathertop)
The Watcher in the Water
Moria orcs
The Balrog
Gollum
lots and lots of orcs (and Uruks)
The Fell Beasts
Shelob
The ghosts of the unfaithful
The Mouth of Sauron
Sauron
(others I've missed?)

So I suppose there are a number of questions I want to ask about these monsters:

How are they alike? In what ways are they all similar?

How are they different?

Are they all 'evil' in the same way, or is the book presenting different kinds or forms of 'evil'?

What kind of pattern is being developed here (if there is a pattern)?

Different heroes are used to defeat different monsters: does this mean that there are different kinds or modes of goodness that are appropriate for different kinds or modes of evil? Or is this series of monsters simply a repeated pattern of Good defeating Evil?

For What It's Worth: My instinctive reaction is that there is a pattern here, and one that moves from relatively 'simple' forms of monstrosity (that is, things that are unnatural/perversions of nature: beasts) toward moral corruption (perversions of unnatural will or spirit). The Black Riders are the best demonstration of this -- they begin the book appearing as eerie Men who are frightening, but they end it as terrifying manifestations of the Ring's power and Sauron's domination: they 'grow' and become Nazgul.

The other pattern I see is one charted by the Barrow Wights, the Balrog and the Mouth of Sauron. Each of them is doing Sauron's work, but as we move through the novel each one is successively more and more aware of how he/it is doing Sauron's work. That is, the 'evil' of the Barrow Wights is unconscious and confined (they are just being Wights); the Balrog is working sort of with and for Sauron, although not as part of his conscious plan (its not 'there' to destroy Gandalf or hinder the Fellowship; I'm not even sure that it's a servant of Sauron); the Mouth of Sauron is so aware of his place in Sauron's works that he doesn't even know who he is anymore, beyond the fact that he's a cog in the machine.

What this pattern means about evil I'm not sure yet (hence this new thread), but it does seem to me that there is a pattern, and that it is doing something about the nature of evil as expressed by the monsters. . .

[Mithalwen]

My instinctive reaction is that choice is a significant factor....... most of the evil things you list are things that have been corrupted or have chosen a course through weakness ... orcs are corrupted elves in origin, Sauron and the Balrog corrupted Maia..... I know Tolkien had a bit of a problem with orcs ... because of the issue of creation and redemption .....

But The Nazgul, Gollum, Saruman etc were not born evil but fell from grace through greed for power or possession ....... they did not pass the test as Galadriel did......

[Imladris]

The Black Riders
Gollum
The Mouth of Sauron
Sauron

These evil characters in my opinion are all part of the Same Evil Clique because they all fell by greed. Sauron in the greed for power. Gollum the greed for the Ring. And the Black Riders (the Nine Kings of Men) the greed for power as well. Not sure how the Mouth of Sauron plays into this but I'm sure he does somehow just for the mere fact that he is a man and he seemed a wee bit anxious to take the place of Saruman.

Old Man Willow
The Barrow Wights
The Watcher in the Water

I find these characters not to be evil. Just...unpleasant in general and creatures that cause delays (often deadly delays). The reason that the Fellowship was put in danger was because it cossed their paths. I believe that the Watcher in the Water could be compared to your local shark. Whether it was driven by the power of the Ring to attack Frodo I don't know. It could have been an unfortunately coincidence.

Orcs and Fell Beasts

I believe that they are merely corrupted slaves. Rather like the Gwythaints in the Prydain chronicles.

Shelob
Balrog

I believe that these creatures associated themselves with Sauron, though they could be good if they wanted to. Though...I am not sure about the Balrog as I am not that good at the first and second ages of ME.

I think that Tolkien was showing that there is more than just one kind of evil...which is nice since this world is a lot more complicated than merely black and white. There are a few grey creatures here as well.

Cheers,
Imladris

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Imladris:

Shelob
Balrog

I believe that these creatures associated themselves with Sauron, though they could be good if they wanted to.

The interesting thing about Shelob (to me) has always been that she most emphatically did not associate herself with Sauron at all. I am working away from my books *sob* but as I can recall, we hear that Shelob "cared not for towers or rings" and that she did not acknowledge or care about Sauron's claims to sovereignty (which makes her a lot like the good guys, now that I come to think of it).

They are both of them rather "independent" operators in that they don't take orders from Sauron or do his will, unlike the first group you have:

The Black Riders
Gollum
The Mouth of Sauron
Sauron

with, of course, the notable exception of Gollum, who not only doesn't do what Sauron wants, but (like Shelob, with whom he forms an alliance) works to thwart Sauron's plans (again, like the good guys).

So within this framework you're developing we actually have at least two differnt and opposed 'camps' within the monolithic Evil grouping with Sauron and his servants on the one side, and Gollum and Shelob on the other. To pick up on the idea of greed, each group is greedy, but for different things. Sauron for the power to mock and mar Middle-Earth, Gollum and Shelob to 'eat' Middle-Earth; Sauron wants to rule over M-E, Gollum and Shelob wish to consume it (?).

In this respect, Shelob and the Balrog are a lot like the way you describe this group of nasties:

Old Man Willow
The Barrow Wights
The Watcher in the Water

I find these characters not to be evil. Just...unpleasant in general and creatures that cause delays (often deadly delays). The reason that the Fellowship was put in danger was because it cossed their paths. I believe that the Watcher in the Water could be compared to your local shark. Whether it was driven by the power of the Ring to attack Frodo I don't know. It could have been an unfortunately coincidence.

Mithalwen, you make a very interesting point about choice and corruption, but there is a wrinkle there: Gollum was corrupted by the Ring, which is Sauron -- so, what corrupted Saruon? Himself? Some other evil power? (Morgoth?) In which case what corrupted that evil power? Where does this end? If there is a trickle-down kind of evil here, what is the source or well-spring of the corruption you see afflicting those who make bad choices?

The other possibility in your idea is that they are all 'equally' evil in that they all corrupted themselves by making bad choices -- I can go along with this, but then did they all make the same choice? If so, what is this choice and why is that choice evil? Or did they make different choices (and this is what I would think is the case -- see above), in which case are they following different roads to the same Evil, or are there different kinds or versions of Evil? (a bunch of different evils?)

[Gorwingel]

Well in one way all these "monsters" are related because in the books Tolkien does not give a very good discription of any of them. We kind of are left to imagine them for ourselves (this is a connection in response to the method of writing Tolkien used in the books).

In my opinion Shelob wasn't really evil. She was just doing what needed to do to survive, and it seemed like the Balrog was just protecting his territory.

The Black Riders, and Gollum were both corrupted by the ring (or rings). So in my opinion they kind of end up evil by accident. Gollum does what he does because he wants the ring. The Black Riders do what they do because they were attracted by the rings that were given to them, and so thus they were brought under the dominion of Sauron, and are thus controlled by them, making them evil.

I will come back to this later

[Mariska Greenleaf]

The interesting thing about Shelob (to me) has always been that she most emphatically did not associate herself with Sauron at all. I am working away from my books *sob* but as I can recall, we hear that Shelob "cared not for towers or rings" and that she did not acknowledge or care about Sauron's claims to sovereignty (which makes her a lot like the good guys, now that I come to think of it).

In my opinion Shelob wasn't really evil. She was just doing what needed to do to survive, and it seemed like the Balrog was just protecting his territory.

I agree. In my opinion, Shelob stands outside any category of evil monsters, for one, because she didn't feel related to Sauron, and she was not only feared by the good guys, but also by the orcs, which she had for dinner... Just doing what was needed to survive, is very well put.

The other pattern I see is one charted by the Barrow Wights, the Balrog and the Mouth of Sauron. Each of them is doing Sauron's work, but as we move through the novel each one is successively more and more aware of how he/it is doing Sauron's work.

Good point. I believe that it symbolises the distance between the evil creatures and Sauron. The closer they are to Sauron's dwelling, the more they are aware of who they are "working" for.

[HerenIstarion]

In Shelob's case, the defining aspect of her 'evilness' is her hatred. She does not merely kill for survival - she hates all that is not herself. In this respect, she is even more Evil than Sauron himself, who (in the beginning, at least) does all the things he does for a purpose other than himself

[Lalaith]

Nonetheless, Shelob was extremely evil. Remember, her 'mother' Ungoliant, the ally of Morgoth. That alliance was based on their determination to destroy light and beauty. But it was only a temporary alliance as their aims were quite different. Morgoth, like Sauron, was a positive, proactive evil - he corrupts life but continues it - how else would he wield power? Shelob is like her mother before her a negative evil, a kind of black hole that aims to obliterate everything into nothingness.

edit: whoops, cross-post with HerenIstarion, who is clearly of a similar opinion...

[Osse]

Exactly! Shelob (and Ungoliant's) evil, centres around pure, complete and utter consumption. Especially Ungoliant, who craved power and nourishment so much that she devoured the Trees, as well as everything else in her path. It's a self preservatory evil perhaps, but still a great evil nonetheless. The spiders unlike the Dark Lords, didn't want to control others, they just wanted to consume others - a very different, yet equally malicious evil.

I always half-pitied the orcs - a revolting form of life spurred on by evil masters to do their bidding. Though repulsive, and rather nasty themselves, they always seemed to me to be the small-time-crims of Arda. As we can see in a few conversations, namely the one Sam overhears on the pass of Cirith Ungol, the orcs would rather get away from war, and make a 'quiet' life for themselves somewhere far from the whips and orders. Of course, this life would probably still consist of a fair amount of murder, pillaging and robbery, like we witness in the case of the Goblin colonies of the north, but that is largely due to the hateful nature of the creatures. I do not believe that they are altogether evil, but are built to live off killing and raiding - largely due to no fault of their own. Still they are of course somewhat evil, it's just a rather mild evil. (as far as murdering, burning and robbing is compared to say, taking over the whole of arda or killing the Trees...)

Balrogs, are rather hard to understand, as is the Watcher. One can assume one of two things - they are completely and magniliantly evil and are forever burning with hate and the desire to destroy life. OR that they are benignly evil and were just protecting a patch of their long-held territory, though of course stirred by the great evil of the East. One would be safe assuming either.


Evil itself (as this discussion is meant to outline) is very hard to define in itself. Evil or 'bad' takes many manifestations and personas, that can be percieved differently from person to person... one man's evil is another's... um?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by osse

Evil itself (as this discussion is meant to outline) is very hard to define in itself

um-m, let me doubt that maxim

Even without mentioning Eru and sin of pride (=root of all evil), evil may be defined simply as:

Something achieving its ends (even if ends are good at some point) on the expense of others:

To use the list provided by Fordim, it can be cast down to:

• The Black Riders - (end - service to their master/ means - slavery of all the rest of the world)
• Old Man Willow - (end - protection of the wood (?) / means - death of the hobbits)
• The Barrow Wights (end - revival of itself ~ preservation of memory (?) / means death/loss of own personality for the hobbits)
• The Watcher in the Water (end - protection of the gate/ means - death of all who pass by)
• The Balrog (end - unclear / means - burn them all)
• Gollum (end - freedom and being his own master~eat some fresh fish/ means - s-s-s-sstrangle nass-sty thieves-s-s-s)
• The ghosts of the unfaithful (end - keep the secret~find rest/ means - kill/drive mad anyone going in)
• The Mouth of Sauron (end - domination/means - kill 'em all)
• Sauron (end - order/ means - slave 'em all)

Only the Fell Beasts seem to behave like mere animals (and probably Watcher should be modified to fit the description) = (end - live on/ means - kill anything fit to eat)


Shelob is left quite apart from the list:

end - destroy everything but herself/ means - destroy everything but herself

But it is stated that nothing is originally bad - Good is the real thing, and Bad its' parasite, so even Shelob's paradigm can be modified to stand for:

end - exist in herself/ means - stop everything else form existing

[Osse]

Rather than hard to define, which of course if you take a bloody dictionary it is NOT... think of it as hard to compare, especially to itself. One person's sense of evil or wrong, is often warped by their beliefs, upbringing and values, as well as personal experiences. If you are going to be that blatant and word-abiding, HerenIstarion, one could say that anyone is EVIL... Aragorn is evil, he achieves his goals at the expense of all the forces of Darkness. Eru himself is evil, he achieves his goals at the expense of most if not all of Arda's inhabitants.... in fact, every single character in all of every writen work is Evil... I am evil, you are evil... even my cat is evil.


Also, your theory has a flaw: What about those creatures that are 'purely' evil...

Taking your simplistic formula:

Utterly Evil Character - end: death to all other life / means / death to all other life


Without trying to sound insincere, i do not believe that Evil is a word that should be thrown around lightly, nor does the definition you so kindly provided, outline it's real meaning... Evil is something far more sinister and intentional than just achieving something at the expense of others...

Evil is intense, it's often deliberate or at least self-observing if not intentional! Evil is a word thrown around too much in the world today... but i am not here to rant about things, I just vehemently resent the simplicity in which you have replied to my quite serious remark, a remark that I felt held truth and deeper meaning. Rather than play Devil's Advocate, as you perhaps are, maybe you should have looked at the meaning behind what I was trying to say?

I have great respect for you HerenIstarion, and your posts are always filled with insight and general freshness, I can only assume you were taking this in a humourous light, or picking up on an opportunity i myself might, yet I cannot understand why you would simplify something so intensly complex - over simplification itself dare I say it is... EVIL!

My regards nevertheless still go out to you HerenIstarion, and all you read this post, i am highly interested in hearing what you have to say on this superbly thought-out topic!!

Ossë

[Lalaith]

Perhaps the problem lies in trying to compare Tolkien's evil with real life evil.
I believe (although I know that probably others on the board do not) that there are no Saurons in our world.
In Middle Earth, thera are beings who are entirely evil and the only dilemma is how best to defeat them. In our world, no individual being is entirely evil in this sense, and our moral dilemmas are considerably more complicated as a result.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by osse

Also, your theory has a flaw: What about those creatures that are 'purely' evil..

But there is no ‘pure evil’ as such. That's (or, rather, it's opposite), what I've tried to bring across with simplified Shelob, for what is put down to as:

end: death to all other life / means / death to all other life

may be rendered as:

end: preserve own life/ means: death to all other life

And life preservation is the thing good in itself. Evilness of action is expressed by ‘death to all other life’ part of the fork. So, the origin of evil (death to all life) is good (preservation of own life)

I am evil, you are evil... even my cat is evil.

For one, cats are evil (I know it – as I do own two cats), it is just style they’ve got to them that masks their ultimate brutality and ‘bastardness’. For another (and you did lure me out into the deep, the thing which I tried to avoid with alleged ‘simplification’) – it is arguable that whole animal ‘strife for survival’ kind of life is as it is due to the Fall of Man

Let me confess that in watering the concept down, I rather hoped to work out definition to work for everybody, regardless their faith. I must admit the essay was not very succesful, as, I’m sure, you imply with the quote (I'm evil, you are evil) above, it is impossible to make moral choice – which action on what time is evil, and which not

But before rewriting the maxim of ‘on the expense of the others’ (let it be labelled as ‘maxim A’) let me explore the following:

Originally Posted by osse

One person's sense of evil or wrong, is often warped by their beliefs, upbringing and values, as well as personal experience

Verily so. But deviations are very minor. Generally, virtues are always the same, as vices are always the same. It is form they take that is different from culture to culture. To have an analogue – in all societies throughout the world courage was praised, not cowardice. But expressions of courage might be different. Similarly, ‘love for thy neighbour’ is praised everywhere, not only in Christianity, , the definition of ‘neighbour’ being different only. For Christianity, it is everybody, for Islam, Muslims only (though Jews and Christians are tolerated as opposed to Pagans), for some obscene tribe lost in the mountains it may be only members of the tribe who are considered ‘neighbours’, and than all the strangers get killed. But the main fact – that man should love his pairs, is one and the same for everybody.

Now, am I allowed to rewrite the ‘simplistic maxim A’? It may stand thus:

Something achieving its ends (even if ends are good at some point) by means of harming others (Let it be labelled ‘maxim A1’)

It says pretty much the same, but harm done to ‘others’ may be more explicit this way.

I’m aware what may pop up to anyone’s mind following such a maxim. “what about hunting tiger – is it evil?” In a way I render the issue down to this point, I have no answer to that question.

But if I were to let Eru into it, than I’d say – ‘tis for the Fall of Man only’ And, as ‘Fall of Man’ is not seen from LoTR in an explicit way, so the initial question was dealt with.

Final form, following the last paragraph, would sound like:

Evil’s is anything to put itself forward, to prefer its own will to the Will of its Creator

(Let me label it as maxim B (nailing it down in one word, it’d be Pride, and so the Fall of Man came about to pass))

Maxim B contains in itself, though is not filled up by, the A and A1 maxims

If you are ready to accept ‘maxim B’ as a whole, fine. If not, than I can contrive no better than maxims A and A1

So, having written all of the above without much consideration and in a hurry, I hope that it is moderately articulate, and fly off to meet pressing requirements of RL, with the promise to come back to the issue later on

PS. osse, I’m really flattered by your just revealed attitude to my musings on the fora. My gratitude and compliments in return

[The Saucepan Man]

Another classic thread from Fordim.

I’m aware what may pop up to anyone’s mind following such a maxim. “what about hunting tiger – is it evil?”

I think that we have to make a distinction between mere beasts and creatures of evil. Regardless of how one defines evil, I would say that a creature can only be evil if it acts intentionally with a motive other than simple self-preservation. A hunting tiger is not evil because it is doing what it needs to do for no other purpose than to survive. And I am sure that there are a variety of creatures in Middle-earth that fall into this category. The fox, for example, that wonders upon Frodo, Sam and Pippin sleeping under the stars in the Shire no doubt needs to kill to survive. We would not, however, class it as evil.

There are also creatures within this “beast” category which are employed in the service of evil, but which, since they have no choice but to do so, I would not class as intrinsically evil. Oliphaunts, for example, and the beasts that drew Grond to the Gate of Minas Tirith. Perhaps the Ringwraiths’ horses and fell-beasts fall within this category too. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to suggest that they were “independently evil”, as opposed to simply being employed as steeds by evil creatures.

Some might say that Orcs fall within this category too, since one theory has it that they have no will of their own but are simply pawns used by the forces of evil. I don’t personally hold with that theory, although one does then get into difficult questions of whether Orcs are inherently evil, whether redemption is available to them etc. I will steer clear of that topic since, as Fordim noted, there are enough threads that address it already.

And what about Wargs? Are they simply overgrown wolves that are pressed into service by Orcs and the like. Or are they in fact creatures with an evil will? The fact that they are made out in The Hobbit to be sentient creatures that have willingly formed an alliance with the Goblins, plus the fact that they seem deliberately to target the Fellowship in LotR, would strongly suggest the latter. Indeed, the fact that Gandalf refers to them as “Hounds of Sauron” is probably a fairly big clue.

The Watcher in the Water I find interesting in this context. Superficially, it would appear to be a simple beast. One that is simply protecting its territory, or perhaps looking for a tasty Hobbit snack. Yet, as Imladris has mentioned, there is a suggestion that there is something more than coincidence in the fact that it targets Frodo, the Ringbearer. If this is more than coincidence, is its attraction to the Ring internal or external? In other words, does the Ring attract it or is it innately attracted to the Ring? If the former, then it may indeed simply be a beast: one that the Ring is using to escape. If the latter, however, then this might suggest that it is itself a creature of evil.

Finally Shelob and her predecessor, Ungoliant. As others have suggested, the fact that their motive for destruction and consumption is more than simple self-preservation, but rather destruction for destruction’s sake, would suggest that they are in themselves evil creatures (even though neither are loyal to the Dark Lords that they associate themselves with). Their sentience adds to this impression, as it does with Shelob’s “spawn”, ie the spiders that Bilbo encounters in Mirkwood. Although the Mirkwood spiders no doubt capture the Dwarves so as to feed themselves, the delight which they appear to take in doing so tends to indicate that there is more to their actions than simple self-preservation.

(Off topic:

For Christianity, it is everybody, for Islam, Muslims only (though Jews and Christians are tolerated as opposed to Pagans)

I would not agree with this statement. Islam, of course, can take different forms. But, in its purest form, I understand it to be extremely accepting of other faiths, at least as much so as Chrisitanity.)

[Mithalwen]

Oh well I did say it was an instant instinctive answer.... I hadn't really established in my own mind a hierachy of evil........ I think evil is meant to be a consequence of the marring of Arda so the root cause would be Morgoth......and enough seeds of evil were sown to mean evil would continue even when Morgoth and Sauron were vanquished ..... largely in the hearts of men who saw the gift of men as a curse .... To answer other issues raises the issue of evil in the wider world - Nazi Germany and many more recent and current tyrannies....... does "the only following orders" defence have any validity ........ and evil as a religious concept ..... Gollum is so hard....... and part of the problem I have with him is part of the problem I have with Christianity - there is teh impression that Gollum is redeemable but in the end he "fails" but by his failure the world is saved...... similarly without Judas' failure the expiating sacrifice of Christ doesn't happen... sorry rambling now.....

[The Saucepan Man]

does "the only following orders" defence have any validity

It does when we are considering creatures without the capacity for independent thought, such as Oliphaunts. Whether it applies to Orcs is a matter of some debate. Otherwise, no it does not (in moral terms at least).

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

SaucepanMan, you wrote, in response to Mithalwen:

"does "the only following orders" defence have any validity" -- It does when we are considering creatures without the capacity for independent thought, such as Oliphaunts

Or the Nazgul? They at one time did have the capacity to think for themselves (when they were still Men), but they forsook that (willingly?) when they gave in to the temptation/seduction/possession of the rings of power. But this goes right to the enigmatic heart of the evil-question I am trying to work through: are they evil Men who chose Sauron (in which case, evil is defined by what one does rather than by what one is -- let's call this Option A) or were they Men who were made Evil when they were enslaved by Sauron (in which case, Evil is what one is -- Option B). I don't think that there's any way to really settle this enigma through the books -- that's kind of the point, I feel, for it forces us to come at the nature of evil in LotR from the perspective of the age-old nature/nurture (genetics/environment) debate.

That Tolkien was one very smart customer.

If we go with Option A, then the orcs, the Balrog, the Watcher in the Water, trolls, and all the nasties who oppose the Fellowship (that is, who do evil) are indistinguishable from one another in that evil -- they perform evil acts, in which case evil is defined by that which opposed good for whatever reason.

If we go with Option B, then the only 'truly' evil characters would be figures like Sauron and Shelob (in fact, I think I would confine the list to them alone, for this option) -- they are the only ones whose sole purpose in life is to defined by their evil intent, and their evil acts are only the putting into action of their evil natures. In this case, evil is not defined solely by its opposition to good, but as a more active and conscious presence.

[Bombadil]

Perhaps what defines what creatures are truly evil by nature and which ones are not could further be explored by observing their aggressiveness. What I mean is the Balrog doesn't stir from Moria, but when the fellowship disturbed it, it attacked them. So for every creature:

The Black Riders - Aggresive, leaving Minas Morgul to find the ring by any means.
Old Man Willow- Well since he can't physically move you could call him aggressive for going out of his way to mess with the hobbits.
The Barrow Wights- The Hobbits came into their land, so once again cold be disputed, but they aggressively took the party captive.
The Watcher in the Water- Minding his own business was disturbed by Boromir throwing a rock i his pool.
Moria orcs- Fellowship entered their domain.
The Balrog- As I said above, they disturbed it
Gollum- Aggressive, going out of his way to re take the ring.
lots and lots of orcs (and Uruks)- Aggressive, in terms of Parth galen and Helm's Deep.
The Fell Beasts- I suppose you would call them aggressive, as they bore the ringwraiths.
Shelob- Was disturbed in her domain
The ghosts of the unfaithful- disturbed
The Mouth of Sauron - at black gate he was called forth, but Lieutenant of aggressive army
Sauron- Very Aggressive

Now at this point you're probably wondering what my point is, after reaidng all those "aggressives." When an Orc strolls into Rohan, it's killed. When the group of (Aggressive) Uruks ran through the Ridder-Mark with Merry and Pippin, they were on the land of the horse people, and they killed the orcs for that reason. The Rohirrim were even hostile towards Legolas Gimli and Aragorn. So why label creatures as evil if they are only defending themselves from unknown creatures, or ones known to be their enemies in the past? My point may be a little far fetched but I'll throw it out there.

[Firefoot]

So why label creatures as evil if they are only defending themselves from unknown creatures, or ones known to be their enemies in the past?

I think the problem I have with that statement is the word "defend". In cases such as Moria, Parth Galen, etc, and in events including most of the examples of evil, they are not merely defending themselves. They are launching an out-and-out attack on the unknown creatures/ known enemies. In Rohan, the Orcs were killed because they had made battles with the Rohirrim in several occaisions, and recently, and lauched raids on their farms etc.

[The Saucepan Man]

Fordim

I was thinking of "capacity for independent thought" in terms of sentience. Oliphaunts are not sentient, but simply beasts pressed into evil service. To my mind, therefore, they cannot be classed as "evil". The same might apply with regard to the Fell Beasts.

I take your point with regard to the Nazgul, however. They are sentient. Yet, having been enslaved by Sauron, they have no choice but to carry out his will. In one sense, therefore, they are no longer independent creatures at all, but simply extensions of Sauron's will. Conceivably, it might also be said of Gollum that he had no choice in his evil conduct - at least while his will was subservient to the Ring. Perhaps the difference is that they had a choice at the outset whether or not to take the path that led to evil. However difficult, Gollum could have resisited the lure of the Ring when he first set eyes on it, but he gave in to temptation. Similarly, the Nine Kings of Men could have rejected the Rings offered to them by Sauron but gave in to their pride and lust for power. I am not sure off the top of my head whether they were aware of exactly who it was who offered them the Nine Rings. But, even if they were not, they succumbed to vices which, ultimately, led them onto the path of evil.

With Orcs, we come back to the eternal question: are they inherently evil, or do they have a choice?

Although they are not "monsters" as such, I would add Saruman and Wormtongue to your list of those who freely chose to commit evil acts.

[Noxomanus]

I do wonder,can a creature be called evil if it doesn't know that it's doing wrong? Fact is,the Watcher would be called evil though I suppose it wouldn't think so itself.

[davem]

Isn't Tolkien showing the effect of evil choices on the individual - The Nazgul are Kings who in all probability (as Shippey points out) took the Rings Sauron offered to them not because they wanted to be slaves, but because they wanted power, to have some degree of control over their lives & the lives of others. That desire could have originally been motivated by a wish to do good. But this very desire for control leads in the end to a loss of control. They become in the end nothing but manifestations of Sauron's will. Wraiths/wreaths (Shippey again) -twisted things. So Tolkien's concern is showing the consequence of our choices - because we can become 'wraiths' also. 'The end justifies the means' - if I can make things better for all concerned in the long run, then its ok if I cut a few corners now. If I have to 'remove' certain individuals to make the world a 'safer' place that's acceptable, etc, etc. But the end result is I become a wraith of 'Sauron' - of the state, of that single all encompassing vision. Tolkien's skill, though, is that, rather than going into a long philosophical discussion about such things, he just shows us the consequence. He doesn't try to argue us out of making such choices, which will just lead to long convoluted arguments on whether wraiths (or orcs, or giant spiders, etc ) are really evil or just misunderstood, or just a 'bunch of guys' trying to get on with their lives. He shows us - 'Frodo, if you claim the Ring you'll become a wraith. Do you want to become like them? Slaves with no will, no freedom? Ok, so don't claim the Ring'.

There's a real danger, as Tolkien pointed out, in 'studying the arts of the Enemy'. The difference between 'good' & 'evil'? Why choose Good over evil? Well, look at the consequences of the choice.

Or the Barrow Wight, who spends ages brooding on death, nothingness, till in the end it becomes simply a 'will to nothingness' it desires only the void which is what it gets in the end - I'm struck by the fact the the Barrow wight's great nemesis is Tom Bombadil, who symbolises its opposite - light, joy, life, being. The wight is another form of Shelob/Ungoliant to my mind.

Or Old Man Willow - 'evil' because he wants 'revenge' against all who go on two legs, not justice against those hobbits who hacked their way into the Old Forest & destroyed his trees. He has become obsessed with destroying all those not like himself, & so has turned himself into a monster.

In short, The characters in Tolkien's world who symbolise/manifest true evil have two things in common - they have all made the moral choice to become evil, & they are all ugly, deformed & cruel. Something in us is repelled by them - we know they are wrong - truly 'wrong', not just 'incorrect'.

[The Saucepan Man]

So Tolkien's concern is showing the consequence of our choices - because we can become 'wraiths' also. (davem)

But how does this tie in with the Christian idea of forgiveness? The Nine kings of Men made some pretty terrible decisions, yes. Their pride, greed and ambition led them to become instruments of Sauron’s evil will. But, being enslaved by Sauron, they were then wholly unable (during their “lifetime” at least) to repent. Doesn’t Christian doctrine hold that God will accept anyone who truly repents, whatever sins they have committed in their past? The Ringwraiths never got that opportunity.

The same may be said of Orcs (and I am veering into well-trodden territory here). From the moment that they become (or are born as) Orcs, they have no opportunity of redemption during their lifetime. They are condemned to commit evil.

It seems to me therefore that, by creating irredeemably evil creatures in order to avoid a philosophical debate, Tolkien just created more problems for himself. From what I know of what is said in the HoME series, Tolkien recognised this, since he began to rethink his ideas on the origin of Orcs. Logically, the only solution to the dilemma of having creatures which are born irredeemably and unchangeably evil is to portray them as mindless pawns, and this, I believe, is the direction in which Tolkien was heading. But it doesn’t sit well with the characterisation of the likes of Shagrat and Gorbag in LotR.

[HerenIstarion]

I’ve tried to deal with the issue in more, so to say, brief way, but eventually came to the conclusion that it should be taken as seriously as possible. In doing so, I will pass beyond boundaries set by the Lord of the Rings, but so be it. Some issues were dealt with separately in different threads across the Downs, as it is but, again, my goal here is to have as full a picture as I’m able of contriving. It may take quite a run to reach titular ‘monsters’ of the thread, but the journey is unavoidable, I believe. Any comments/corrections are welcome.

List of abbreviations to be used:

AT – Absence Theory
BT – Battlefield Theory
S77 – Silmarillion published in 1977
OK – Osanwe-Kenta
AFaA – Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth
MT – Myths Transformed


Concepts

It seems logical, before proceeding to individual cases, as listed above in Fordim’s initial post, to look into concepts of Evil as employed by Tolkien in his works. Ultimately, Tolkien draws on official Christian view on the subject. The whole concept of Evil with Tolkien originates with the concept of the whole world and its origins. So, the concept is simple enough – the world is created by ultimately potent, omniscient and benevolent God – Eru, for the benefit of his creatures – Ainur and Children (Men and Elves).

The Evil originates as corruption brought into the scheme by one of the Ainur, Melkor (later – Morgoth). So, the facts of cosmology support the main idea:

Only Good is original, Evil is its perversion or lack thereof.

And,

Good is eternal, Evil – temporary

And

Good does not need Evil to exist, but Evil can not be if there were no Good to start with

Furthermore, to avoid confusion with any ‘real-world’ concepts (i.e. Boethian, or Dionisis Areopagitus or whatever and whoever), I shall call it Absence Theory (AT for short)

In other words, as it is stated throughout Tolkien’s works, Evil can not create, it can only mock, and it barely exists – i.e. being an opposite of Good, it has its qualities in negative, and as existence is aspect of Good, the longer Evil exists, the less it exists. It maybe termed as shadow (and so it is done throughout LoTR), in a sense ‘thing not existent’, ‘lack of light’, or ‘thing caused by absence of something’.

Hence such a quotation as:

Silm77

But in after years he rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void.

It illustrates the principle so very acutely – whatever done, Evils is destined to ‘walk the ruinous path down’ into the Void (that is, nothingness)

But, if followed to its extreme, such a concept may lead to a conclusion that, as Evil is non-existent, and destined to eventually extinguish itself, each individual creature is free ‘to stand aside’, and entrust all to the general line of development (i.e. ultimately to Eru)

Not to let such a concept develop into opinion, there is opposite dualistic concept at work, which maybe put down as:

Evil has its own being, it is Force outside man’s [elf’s, dwarf’s, etc] mind and should be fought against
(To be labeled Battlefield Theory further on (BT for short))

Such a concept is never voiced directly throughout JRRT’s works, but hinted at here and there, as for the ‘should be fought against’ part of the maxim, it is self obvious – the whole bulk of the legendarium and LoTR is a history of such a fight.

Before I proceed on to embodiment of these two concepts, it should be noted that always, always, always the Absence Theory has the upper hand, though there are not paragons of Evil with Tolkien who would be pure expressions of one of the concepts.

Embodiment

The merging of these two concepts gave us what images of Evil we have with Tolkien. I call it merging for a reason – that being, that in no instance, in no piece of text, one is not channeled through without at least a bit of another there.

Per instance – the Evil itself in Arda is brought about by Melkor.

What conclusions may one draw when evaluating his actions from 2 concepts of evil point of view, would be the following:

1. Morgoth is perverting the Music of Iluvatar, but not creating his own (Absence Theory)
2. Morgoth is a person (Battlefield Theory)
3. Morgoth is able to put forth part of his own being (!) into Arda, tainting it and thus making it ‘Arda Marred’ (Battlefield Theory)
4. In doing so, Morgoth looses his being eventually, weakens himself to an extent of near annihilation (Absence Theory)

Both concepts are at work, though Absence Theory is predominant. (Even if he is a person, he is not able to create anything of his own, only mock)

Morgoth is furthermore viewed as Prime Evil – i.e. the cause of all Evil hereafter

Free People

Under free people, I, rather daringly, have united more that it is usually meant. In this particular post, the term means not only Children - Men, Elves and Dwarves, but spirits - Maiar, Valar and others too, i.e. all that have gift of Free Will granted by Eru. But there is categorization to be made, nevertheless. In Category A spirits are grouped, i.e. those ‘bodiless’, or bodily clad following their own choice, in Category B, spirits clad in bodily form not out of their own choice, but by their nature, i.e. Incarnates.

In both categories both concepts are at work.

For Category A, though spirits be free to choose (AT), some of them:

S77

that sang nigh him grew despondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered; but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which they had at first

I.e., are liable to outside impact (BT), the sheer force of Melkor’s disturbance makes them change their own music

Category B has it still more complicated. For one, their bodies come from the matter of Arda, and that is already ‘tainted’, ‘marred’ by Melkor. So, as it is stated that hröa and fëa influence each other (OK, AFaA), they have drawback to them from the start (BT), but their spirits are of Eru, so when the go bad, the do it ‘on the inside (AT)

The paragons of such a combined impact are a-plenty throughout the books. Per instance, Ringwraiths – they are overcome due to their own vices (i.e. power-greed etc), and becoming Evil, they by and by loose qualities inherent to Good – i.e. their life is less life but mere ‘going on’, they loose or almost loose their bodies and so forth, so the evil at work here falls under AT concept, but, and very grave but at that, they are overcome by the outside impact too – their rings (BT)

Frodo and the Ring, with all instances of ‘his own urge to put on the Ring’ and ‘there was no answer in his will any more, some outside force was moving his hand’ instances, and, especially, Frodo in the Sammath Naur, is one of the best channelings of both concepts Tolkien had written. If you look at the wording of his claim to the Ring, it is quite unclear ‘who doth quoteth’ – he, or the Ring itself.

Barrow-Wights are focus of two concepts again. There are theories that it is King of Angmar to blame that they are there, in the first place (BT), but, then again, Tom Bombadil sings quite a song to reveal a hint at the AT final to all the issue:

Lost and forgotten be, darker than the darkness,
Where gates stand for ever shut, till the world is mended

A-ha! one may utter – the world is to be mended, and than BW would be set to original plan, too! (AT)

But the most interesting is the issue of the Fall of Men, as dealt with in AFaA. Again, both AT and BT concepts are at work – The Fall is achieved with personal intervention of Morgoth (BT), but happens as Men cease to listen to the Voice-Eru (AT). It is lasting as it is hereditary and goes down the generations (BT), but can be repented off and set right (AT), and will be eternally set right in the End (AT)

And again, though both are at work, AT is predominant


Beasts/puppets

Under category of beasts fall all living creatures that haven’t got Free Will/Soul, that is, animals, orks (majority of them, as investigated here (All About Orks), balrogs with small b (see here (One Hand Tied Behind Their Backs), fell beasts, horses of the Nazgul etc.

The beast issue forms quite a difficulty. We have Arda Marred to deal with, and, as all matter is tainted by Melkor, all beasts have a drawback to them of being (at least partially) made of what has Morgoth’s will in it (BT)

But beasts do not have souls. Therefore, what is done by them for self-preservation, even killing of other beast, can not be surely put to their blame?

This situation is ascribed to Morgoth again:

S77

Forests grew dark and perilous, the haunts of fear; and beasts became monsters of horn and ivory and dyed the earth with blood. Then the Valar knew indeed that Melkor was at work again

I.e. the whole ‘strife for survival’ issue is designed by Morgoth, and is another expression of Evil as outside Force (BT). So, it may be said that no beast is personally to blame for killing (so hunting tiger is quite a fellow, unless it is the author of this post to be hunted ), but the order of animal strife is not ‘natural’ – in a sense not in accordance with the natural plan, therefore – evil.

But, as the original plan was perverted, so it is promised to be set right, when Arda is Remade (AT)

Monster

Monsters proper may be enlisted as – spirits abiding in bodily forms of their own choice, not like to housing of Children of Eru. That gives us Balrogs (capital B), dragons, Ungoliant and Shelob.

Balrogs and Dragons Evilness is like to that of Free Peoples. That is, they make their choice (AT), but may be influenced by Melkor’s disturbance of the Music too (BT)

Ungoliant and Shelob are ‘baddies’ apart. Though Melkor be Prime Evil, it is said that she does not acknowledge Him. Neither does Shelob in case of Sauron. But!

S77

and there in Avathar, secret and unknown, Ungoliant had made her abode. The Eldar knew not whence she came; but some have said that in ages long before she descended from the darkness that lies about Arda, when Melkor first looked down in envy upon the Kingdom of Manwë, and that in the beginning she was one of those that he corrupted to his service. But she had disowned her Master, desiring to be mistress of her own lust, taking all things to herself to feed her emptiness; and she fled to the south, escaping the assaults of the Valar and the hunters of Oromë

Again, both concepts at work – BT – for she was corrupted by Morgoth, but AT, for, even thoough she (or they) may seem ‘in love’ with Evil for the sake of Evil, another glance reveals it is not so. For what do they both desire – to preserve own existence. But existence is the quality of Good, so her Evilness, as all other evilness, has its root in Good, so is absence of one

Evil – where it comes from

Now, what is the root of Evil? The answer, throughout the works, rings the same bell always – pride. I.e. putting something less than Eru in His place.

I think, for the time being, this brief note suffices. It can be elaborated at will, if the need arises


Evil – what is it needed for at all

Returning to one of my first maxims of the post:

The world is created by ultimately potent, omniscient and benevolent God – Eru, for the benefit of his creatures

Why than, does such benevolent Creator tolerate Evil at all? (‘I’m evil, you’re evil, Eru’s evil’ quote of osse’s in one of the preceding post) More can be found here (Was Eru A Sadist). With the brief note, though, it may be said that Evil, originates out of Pride. But pride is possible only were freedom is. So, one can not have Free Peoples without letting in the possibility of Pride. But pride in itself is AT concept in its ultimate expression


This can also be (and have been) elaborated to the great length, but what is said is sufficient for the time being

With the hope I haven’t tired you overmuch

My regards

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Now davem, Heren Istarion and SaucepanMan, you just stop what you're doing right now. . .I mean it! davem put down that Bible. And you, H-I drop your copies of the HoME, I mean it! Do it right now.

Oh Saucie, please take that copy of the Letters out of your mouth.

Heavens to Besty, but you lot are such a handful. Don't you remember what happened when you three started like this on the Canonicity thread? Do you want that to happen again?

I didn't think so.

So now -- just get away from those windows and let's concentrate on the question at hand, shall we? Those are all very interesting points that you are making, and I would like to thank you all for them very much, but let's not get sidetracked into the "What Is The Nature Of Evil In Middle-Earth" debate again.

I know! My topic is what started this, and I have begun it all, but please try to move back to the issue of the monsters in LotR, and how they help us to think about the nature of evil in the book.

Now I don't want to have to say this again. If you can't focus on the assignment I'll have to send you down to Principal Estelyn's office where you can explain to her why you always want to talk about books and matters that aren't under discussion.

(Saucie, will you please stop making that noise with your armpit? It's disgusting.)

[HerenIstarion]

* sobs and tries to sound as plaintive as it may be

But, Mr. Hedgethistle, sir, I did mention Shelob there somewhere, did not I? If she's not a monster out of LoTR, who is?

*more sobbings

But, seriously, there were certain accusations of dealing with the issue in a light-hearted ways, so...

Well, promise, promise, not a word outside LoTR hereafter!

[The Saucepan Man]

My topic is what started this, and I have begun it all, but please try to move back to the issue of the monsters in LotR, and how they help us to think about the nature of evil in the book.

*Puts hand in the air* Sir! Sir! Please Sir! Isn't that what we are doing? Considering what the portrayal of the likes of Orcs and Ringwraiths tells us about the nature of evil in Middle-earth? if you take my meaning, sir.

Saucie, will you please stop making that noise with your armpit? It's disgusting.

Terribly sorry, sir. But these here pans can get awful uncomfortable, and that's a fact.

*Looks about for Mistress Bêthberry to enter and commence a lecture on the proper term of address for a thread-starter on a forum that is devoted to a book which is, at the same time, both Edwardian and Mediaeval in style.*

[Legolas]

Why do orcs present a problem with redemption? Tolkien said orcs and anyone else could be redeemed - even Morgoth, though he wouldn't.

Sauron and the Balrog are corrupted Maiar, but not "born" evil just like Saruman, Gollum, and the Nazgul weren't - they all fell to evil after desiring power. They all fall in the same boat.

The Barrow Wights are evil; they weren't just creatures that protected their ground. They were soldiers manning their post, as instructed several hundred years ago.

Old Man Willow isn't what I'd call evil. He's just grumpy and overprotective - for good reasion, I think. Look at the dwindling forests now. The Watcher of the Water is somewhat similar, but I don't think of it as a person or character with the sort of thought processes the others have.

and that she did not acknowledge or care about Sauron's claims to sovereignty (which makes her a lot like the good guys, now that I come to think of it).

This definitely doesn't make her good, though (not that you implied such). She isn't necessarily upset with Sauron and looking to destroy his empire. She just wants to eat. Remind you of someone? (; It's exactly the same case with her ancestor, Ungoliant, that did not care for Morgoth's power. She just wanted to keep her stomach full.

[davem]

But Fordim its difficult to think about the nature of evil as personified in the monsters in the book without asking what form the evil they personify takes. I'd say Tolkien is exploring different kinds of evil. Evil doesn't have a specific form, as Evil is not a 'force' coequal with good, it is, as others have pointed out, a corruption of good, & corruption takes different forms. There is not a single source of pure EVIL in Midddle Earth, so we can't analyse it as if there is - all the monsters manifesting some aspect of that source. The Barrow Wight, as I said, is for me a manifestation of a desire towards nothingness.

Shippey quotes from Lewis's Screwtape Letters:

Screwtape makes the transition neatly at the end of Letter 12 when he remarks that Christians describe God as the One 'without whom Nothing is strong'. They speak truer than they know, he declares:

Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man's best years not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what & knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them ... or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish.

I can see the long slow horror of the Barrow Wight's existence, & the nature of its evil spelled out right there. It is similar to the evil manifested by Shelob. The Wraiths manifest a different kind of perversion of good - desire to control the world. They are like beaurocrats, lost in simply 'doing their jobs' - I always imagnine them speaking in a flat monotone, just going through the motions:

'Ah, you are Eowyn, you say. I'll just make a note of that if I may. Right, I must inform you that if you attempt to hinder me I will have to have you removed from here & placed in the Houses of Lamentation where officials will devour your flesh & your mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye. Is that clear to you, or would you like someone to explain it to you? Now please sign here, in triplicate. You may keep a copy of the form.'

In other words, I see an absence of 'malice', of a relishing in cruelty. Its about control & order. And this is what drew them to take the rings in the first place. The most chilling thing (almost enough to inspire pity - almost) for the Lord of the Nazgul, are his words to Gandalf:

'Do you not know death when you see it?'

He's talking about himself! That's all he is. Death. He was once a King, a ruler, making laws, organising his realm, ruling others - perhaps in the beginning for their good. Now he's just this thing, this 'robot' that does as its commanded. He cannot see the world, living things - they just 'cast shadows in his mind'. What can he see, in his world? Others like him - pale, ugly, undead things. Living things can't look on his face, see him as a fellow creature, empathise with him, care about him. And the greatest tragedy is that he can no longer care that they can't. He is simply death, & all he can do is make other things dead - either literally dead or so enslaved & controlled, so without a will of their own that they will be as good as dead.

But that's the end of the road he chose to take. As the end of the road Morgoth chose to take was to become so absorbed in what he desired - Arda - that there was almost nothing of him left when the forces of the Valar came to take him. He became what he desired, & lost himself. Ungoliant, in the end became hunger, as did Shelob, & in the end devoured herself.

So, at the end of the road of the choice evil makes for itself is its own desire, waiting for it. What began as the individual's greatest desire becomes in the end its greatest horror, it becomes what it most desired to be, obtains what it most desired to have, & realises, too late, that it has made the most terrible mistake. But by then perhaps it doesn't really care, & the pain isn't really all that bad - who knows? Both Saruman & Sauron do make a half hearted attempt at repentance, but they're so far gone by then they probably don't much care either way.

Orcs, in the end, are most like us. They drift along, obeying orders, & enjoying the suffering they cause, because they can justify it by blaming the victims. We're all capable of orcish behaviour - & how many of us truly repent of it, even when we have the chance?

As Tadeusz Andrej Olszanski puts it in 'Evil & the Evil one in Tolkien's Theology' (essay in the Tolkien Centenary conference collection):

Evil results from resisting the Creator, from a desire for independence from Him, & especially from laying down one's own laws for ruling the world, & so from conceit. Evil is always the result of a choice or a giving in to temptation, which is also a choice'

[The Saucepan Man]

Why do orcs present a problem with redemption? Tolkien said orcs and anyone else could be redeemed - even Morgoth, though he wouldn't. (Legolas)

But can they repent during their lifetime? There is no example of one ever having done so, as far as I am aware. Even if they could in theory repent, it is unlikely that an Orc born and bred in brutal Orcish society would ever in practice do so. During their lifetime, they are effectively denied any shot at redemption. Perhaps they have the opportunity after death, but why should they not have that opportunity during life?

So, at the end of the road of the choice evil makes for itself is its own desire, waiting for it. What began as the individual's greatest desire becomes in the end its greatest horror, it becomes what it most desired to be, obtains what it most desired to have, & realises, too late, that it has made the most terrible mistake. But by then perhaps it doesn't really care, & the pain isn't really all that bad - who knows? Both Saruman & Sauron do make a half hearted attempt at repentance, but they're so far gone by then they probably don't much care either way. (davem)

But if Sauron and Saruman, having committed the most heinous of deeds, have the opportunity to repent, why should the Ringwraiths (and indeed Orcs) be denied that same opportunity?

[Bêthberry]

Well, I am late to the debate here. And I promise, Saucy, that I shan't engage in a formal lecture on literary definitions.

I think it is very tempting to constantly refer to the entire panoply of Tolkien's works. However, what interests me is a more limited question, the one which Fordim sets out initially: what is evil in LOTR?.

To draw in a literary allusion which I am sure will tickle Sauce no end, I want to throw out a comment from a fellow student back in the day when I was studying John Milton's [i]Paradise Lost[/b]:

Well, really a remembered paraphrase: God's problem is that everything He creates has a flaw. He cannot reproduce His perfection so that what he creates is perfect. He always fails and somehow evil comes into His creation. How can he allow this evil in his creation which is supposed to reflect Himself?

Now, in LOTR, as opposed to The Silm, we aren't given an original creation myth, so we have to rely on what the text actually leads us to understand about evil. In this context, I would suggest that it is intriguing to follow first Gandalf's warning about the Ring to Frodo and then the actual appearance of the Black Riders in The Shire, close on Frodo's heels.

The Black Riders are the best demonstration of this -- they begin the book appearing as eerie Men who are frightening, but they end it as terrifying manifestations of the Ring's power and Sauron's domination: they 'grow' and become Nazgul.

I would suggest that this is not quite what happens. We don't see their growth as Nazgul in LOTR at all. What we have is the growing awareness or recognition of the danger they represent. They are always Nazgul in the book; readers--and Frodo--simply are not initially aware of what that all entails. In fact, we don't know what the process was that brought them under the control of Sauron. Elsewhere, we learn that they succumbed through their desire for power, to control others, but we don't really experience their fall and we don't know what it was that motivated or prompted them to accepting the Rings.

I'd say that what we have in LOTr is Frodo's growing awareness of the influence of this very attractive desire. Except that for Frodo, I am not sure it is depicted as a desire to dominate others. Rather, in Chapter 3 at least, it is suggested that the Ring will provide safety, security for Frodo. This is the second appearance of the Black Riders at least.

A sudden unreasoning fear of discovery laid hold of Frodo, and he thought of the Ring. He hardly dared to breathe, and yet the desire to get it out of his pocket became so strong that he began slowly to move his hand. He felt had he had only to slip it on, and then he would be safe.

Now, Sir, may I be excused while I go answer some other assignments elsewhere? I promise to return before the bell rings.

[Legolas]

But can they repent during their lifetime? There is no example of one ever having done so, as far as I am aware. Even if they could in theory repent, it is unlikely that an Orc born and bred in brutal Orcish society would ever in practice do so. During their lifetime, they are effectively denied any shot at redemption. Perhaps they have the opportunity after death, but why should they not have that opportunity during life?

There's no account of one having done so, but we aren't really given much at all in the way of stories of orcs, especially outside of direct influence on the journey of the Fellowship. The point was just that they could repent, in theory and in practice. Redemption was available to all - no one could be denied his or her part in Eru's design. I posted this quote from Osanwe-kenta in one of your threads (over a year and a half ago, titled 'Is there any hope for redemption ...?').

Melkor had the right to exist, and the right to act and use his powers. Manwe had the authority to rule and to order the world, so far as he could, for the well-being of the Eruhíni; but if Melkor would repent and return to the allegiance of Eru, he must be given his freedom again. He could not be enslaved, or denied his part. The office of the Elder King was to retain all his subjects in the allegiance of Eru, or to bring them back to it, and in that allegiance to leave them free.

[davem]

Do Orcs have free will?

Ainulindale:

There [God] willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to fashion their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else.

(see also Damien Casey's essay, 'The Gift of Illuvatar: Tolkien's Theological Vision'
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/....htm#_ftnref38)

Humanity is uniquely free. If then the Elves are oriented towards immanence, mortal humanity is oriented towards transcendence. The natural limits of humanity are closely related to the very possibility of transcendence and freedom. But they are also the source of our weakness. Men are easily seduced because it is our nature to look and go beyond. The gift of God to Humanity is also the root of our fall, our restlessness, our jealously. The full meaning and significance of that gift however is yet to be realised.

Point being, if orcs were originally Elves, aren't they 'destined' to do what they do? Isn't it set out in the Music that they will become orcs - aren't orcs destined to be orcs? How much freedom do they have to act outside the confines of the Music?If they have no such freedom, they can't be held accountable for their choices, & so have no need to repent.

I'll leave it at that, as H-I have done that particulartopic to death in the Evil Things thread!

[The Saucepan Man]

I posted this quote from Osanwe-kenta in one of your threads (over a year and a half ago, titled 'Is there any hope for redemption ...?').

Hehe! I had forgotten about that thread. Preoccupied with the idea of redemption? Me? Nah!

Although that thread came to be more concerned with the idea of whether characters who act "wrongly" redeem themselves in the eyes of the reader, there are some points discussed there which touch upon this discussion. Here is the link, if anyone is interested: Is there any hope for redemption ...?

The point was just that they could repent, in theory and in practice.

It's all very well Tolkien saying this, but my point is that some beings appear to have had less opportunity to do so than others. Surely, an Orc who has been brought up to behave in a brutal and hateful manner has far less opportunity to repent of a wrongful deed than say a Hobbit who has been brought up with a firm moral grounding. Indeed, the Hobbit is infinately less likely to commit the wrongful act in the first place. They are not starting off on an equal footing. Is it fair to blame an Orc for not repenting when to do so is wholly alien to his culture?

aren't orcs destined to be orcs? How much freedom do they have to act outside the confines of the Music?If they have no such freedom, they can't be held accountable for their choices, & so have no need to repent.

But, assuming that Orcs have fea, isn't this again an indication that they are not starting out on a level playing field? Why should their spirits be denied the opportunity to repent simply because they happen to be born as Orcs?

(Sorry for labouring the point, Mr Fordim sir, but it does seem to me to be relevant to the portrayal of evil in Middle-earth by reference to Tolkien's "Monsters". Why should some creatures be born, or created, or become, in effect, irredeemably evil? What is it, in the context of "good v evil", that makes this "fair"?)

[HerenIstarion]

Assuming the role of the librarian (an not to stray off 'monsters' one time too many, so placing my head under closer inspection by mentioned principals), I suggest to your consideration following old, but worthy discussions:

Of Evil, Free will, and Fate (from 'Gollum') (thread author - Legolas)

The role of Fate in ME (thread author - Mithadan)

immortality (thread author - Matthew2754)

The Downfall of Numenor (thread author - Mithadan)

Frodo or the Ring (thread author - Mithadan)

Orcish fëar (thread author - HerenIstarion)

Already mentioned Evil Things (thread author - Nirvana II)

also All About Orks article may come in useful (having its origins in Orcish Fëar thread, but in a somewhat more refined, final, form)

There are loads of other threads dealing with the subject, I'm sure, I just can't remember them all

regards

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Sorry for labouring the point, Mr Fordim sir

That’s Professor Fordim, if you please.

It seems to me that we’re not going to get very far if we keep focusing our discussion on the extremely problematic figures of the Nazgûl and the orcs. As H-I’s rather impressive list of threads shows, there’s been plenty of back-and-forth on these points already, and we’re no closer to really understanding these issues. That, I would humbly suggest, is a good thing, in a way, insofar as Tolkien is not oversimplifying a complex issue in his presentation of evil.

That having been said… In reading through the posts to this thread, I’ve begun to think that of all the ‘monsters’ we can look at, the most illuminating might well be the Mouth of Sauron: not, strictly speaking, a monster, I know, but he certainly is monstrous. The reason I think we should single out this character is that the one thing we don’t know about the Nazgûl or the orcs – how did they become Sauron’s servants? – is the one thing that we are told about the Mouth:

The rider was robed all in black, and black was his lofty helm; yet this was no Ringwraith but a living man. The Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr he was, and his name is remembered in no tale: for he himself had forgotten it, and he said: “I am the Mouth of Sauron.” But it is told that he was a renegade, who came of the race of those that are named the Black Númenóreans; for they established their dwellings in Middle-earth during the years of Sauron's domination, and they worshipped him, being enamoured of evil knowledge. And he entered into the service of the Dark Tower when it first rose again, and because of his cunning he grew ever higher in the Lord's favour; and he learned great sorcery, and knew much of the mind of Sauron; and he was more cruel than any orc.

His motivation for joining with Sauron is pretty clearly laid out here: he was “enamoured of evil knowledge.” It is this desire to be evil that makes him the ally of Sauron willingly. The other thing we learn about him is that he is a “renegade,” but a renegade from what or whom is interestingly left unclear. I suppose at the most literal level he is a renegade Númenórean, but perhaps there is the sense also that he is a renegade from Good? (Dare I say, Eru?) In this respect I think we can pretty clearly put him ‘beside’ the Balrog. Interestingly, however, he is not like Shelob (the book’s other ‘renegade’ maiar), who doesn’t care a jot for “knowledge” be it evil or not: she just wants to devour. In this sense, I guess, she provides a useful foil to the Mouth, for he is Man whose own identity has been devoured by Sauron.

It’s in this respect that he is like the Nazgûl. Like them, he has no identity anymore. Even he doesn’t remember it and all he can say about himself is that he is “the Mouth of Sauron.” He is, however (I think) ‘worse’ than the Nazgûl (perhaps even, more evil?) in that he didn’t even need the power or excuse of a Ring to enter into the service of Sauron. He’s apparently of higher ‘rank’ in Mordor than even the Witch-King, since he is the “Lieutenant of the Tower of Barad-dûr”.

Where things really start to get interesting is, I think, the final line of this description when we learn that “he was more cruel than any orc.” His cruelty is here being presented not as the ‘source’ of his evil (that is, he does cruel things, therefore he is evil) but as the result of his evil (he knows “much of the mind of Sauron” and therefore is “more cruel than any orc”).

I would therefore like to float a tentative suggestion about monsters and how they develop the nature of evil in The Lord of the Rings *takes a deep breath*

The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” (this is still a bit ambiguous: what makes certain knowledge “evil”?). The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge". The consequence of this evil choice is two-fold. First, one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer. Second, one becomes cruel and bestial.

And from this, I think I can develop a ‘hierarchy’ of sorts of the monsters (bear with me):

“The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge”" – The most evil monsters in the book, then, would be Sauron, the Balrog, and Shelob(?).

“one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer.” – The next ‘order’ of evil monsters would be, according to this, the Nazgûl, Gollum(?), the Mouth of Sauron and perhaps Saruman.

“one becomes cruel and bestial” – The ‘least’ evil characters are the cruel “beasts”: orcs, the Watcher in the Water, wargs, etc.

Of course, I still don’t know what this “evil knowledge” might be that starts off the whole process! I think if we can figure that out, we’ll get a lot further than arguing about the potential for repentance upon the part of orcs…

[davem]

A few random thoughts:

Originally Posted by Fordim

The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” (this is still a bit ambiguous: what makes certain knowledge “evil”?). The most evil thing one can do, then, is willingly to seek after that “evil knowledge". The consequence of this evil choice is two-fold. First, one becomes like a Ringwraith insofar as the desire for evil overcomes one’s identity and reduces one to a small part (the Mouth) of the ‘chief’ evildoer. Second, one becomes cruel and bestial.

Can we say that: 'The root of evil is not Sauron or any other positivist ‘presence’ but the desire for “evil knowledge” '?

Perhaps 'the root (cause)of evil actions is the desire for evil knowledge' would be more accurate?
'Evil' knowledge is merely knowledge of evil, & someone must have practised/produced evil in order for knowledge of it to come into being, so 'evil' must have pre-existed evil knowledge. Yet if evil is not a thing in itself, but a myriad forms of corruption of something else - 'good', how can we speak about a desire for 'evil' knowledge as if it was a desire for knowledge of some specific subject - knowledge of 'evil' is not the same as knowledge of physics, or biology, or even of Quenya, say.

So, we could speculate that what the Mouth originally wanted was the knowledge of how to corrupt good. But why would anyone desire a corrupt form of something over its pure form- its like desiring a broken-down car more than one in working order.

So, we could speculate instead that the Mouth began under the delusion that there was such a thing as pure evil, equal & opposite of good. Probably, given he is described as a Black Numenorean, he was part of a group that had followed Sauron's worship of Melkor. In other words, he was the Middle Earth equivalent of a 'Satanist'. We could further speculate that the evil knowledge he desired was power over others, & over the matter of Arda - this is basically what Melkor desired, & Sauron also. We know worship practices instigated by Sauron in Numenor included human sacrifice. If the Mouth was crueller than any orc, perhaps we are talking not just about practices involving torture, burning alive, etc, but the kind of thing the Lord of the Nazgul threatens Eowyn with

"He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."

To be able to keep a victim's mind captive after their flesh has been devoured would be beyond the capacity of any orc. I suppose we could speculate that the Mouth rules the Houses of Lamentation, & has the capacity to destroy the Hroa & keep the Fea to torture (or should that be destroy the Hroa and the Fea & keep the sana to torture - I'm not up on Middle Earth metaphysics). This would come under the general heading of 'control over the matter & inhabitants of Arda', having the capacity to manipulate the physical & metaphysical dimensions, which would offer the possibility of overcoming death - which seems to have been the Black Numenorean's obsession.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course, I still don’t know what this “evil knowledge” might be that starts off the whole process! I think if we can figure that out, we’ll get a lot further than arguing about the potential for repentance upon the part of orcs…

OK. I'll try one more time to explain the point that I am trying to make.

Fordim, you place Orcs, Wargs and the like furthest down on your "heirarchy of evil". These creatures are not interested in seeking "evil knowledge" as you put it. They act in a cruel and wicked manner because that is their nature. So how can they truly be described as evil at all if they have no choice but to act in the way that they do? In other words, it might be said that these creatures are not in fact evil, but simply "beasts" pressed into evil service in the same way that Oliphaunts are.

Conceivably, the same could be said of Shelob. Did she ever have any choice in her insistent desire to devour, or is it simply part of her nature? I would suspect the latter, in which case perhaps she too is not really evil. (Incidentally, what makes you think that she is a maia? I appreciate that there is an argument for Ungoliant being one of the maiar although it is not clear, but I am not aware of any suggestion that her spawn were of that nature.)

To sum up, however, the point that I am trying to make is that, to my mind, evil requires some degree of choice. If a creature does not have that choice, can it truly be evil? And doesn't this question go to the very heart of the nature of evil in Middle-earth?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

To sum up, however, the point that I am trying to make is that, to my mind, evil requires some degree of choice. If a creature does not have that choice, can it truly be evil? And doesn't this question go to the very heart of the nature of evil in Middle-earth?

Couldn't agree with you more. But I think we can refine that by saying that evil is defined not just by any choice (i.e. an 'evil' choice) but by choosing to seek or take up "evil knowledge."

As to the whole Shelob v Sauron evil thing, it can be answered in two ways. First, the way you would appear to be answering it: Shelob is not truly evil, just doing her thing (that is, she is not Sauron-evil, which is real evil).

The other way to answer it is the way I prefer: she is evil but in a different way than Sauron is evil. Sauron does evil for the sake of the evil knowledge that he seeks/wants in his desire to overthrow the created world; Shelob is evil because of her desire to consume the created world. So closely allied, but not quite the same thing. The common element, I suppose, would be that they each put the fulfilment of their individual desires ahead of creation.

As to Shelob-Maiar: I admit, I don't really know this for a 'fact': but she sure isn't just some overgrown spider either!

[The Saucepan Man]

Just a quick point on the following:

Shelob is evil because of her desire to consume the created world.

I accept that it is said of Ungoliant that she had an all-consuming desire to consume. But is this actually said of Shelob too, or are we imputing it to her by virtue of her ancestry? Isn't Shelob simply hiding away in a mountain lair, keeping herself to herself and consuming only what she needs to survive? The again, she is a sentient being and has the capacity to choose who/what she consumes and who/what she does not. Perhaps that counts against her. Maybe the question depends upon what was agreed between her and Gollum. Did she know that Frodo and Sam were two good little Hobbits, or did she simply view them as small Orcs?