Pity inspiring

[Evisse the Blue]

Tolkien has this gift of arousing such compassion for the bad guys, that at times I see myself emphatising with them: Gollum, Saruman and Wormtoungue mostly. I can't help wishing for a better fate for them, even if my reason tells me it's at the expense of the good guys. Maybe this is an art: the art of evoking compassion in your enemies, thus making them vulnerable to your wickedness.

[Aldagrim Proudfoot]

That's because he makes them human.

[The Fifth]

I agree on Tolkien making them human and more alive. They are not the clichéd "blow-everything-up" villians. You can actually hate them and yet feel sorry for them. I must be weird, because I felt sorry for Sauron when the Ring was destroyed. And I felt sorry for Gollum.

[Bêthberry]

Greetings Evisse the Blue,

And welcome to the Downs. *dances a welcoming jig*

If you don't mind, I would like to take a very different approach to yours.

Maybe this is an art: the art of evoking compassion in your enemies, thus making them vulnerable to your wickedness.

I think this approach misunderstands the nature of pity and compassion as they are portrayed in LOTR.

The crucial and relevant passage which looms so largely over the entire novel is Gandalf's talk with Frodo about Gollem in the chapter "The Shadow of the Past" in FOTR.

"Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand.... Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life, Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

This is the lesson Frodo has learnt by the end. Look at his attitude in the chapter "The Scouring of the Shire." It is the central issue in Tolkien's work and so very different from the blood thirsty epics which are part of the inspiration for LOTR.

Respectfully,
Bethberry

[littlemanpoet]

Good topic, Evisse the Blue.

'"Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand.... Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life, Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."'

[This]is the central issue in Tolkien's work

You got me thinking, Bethberry. The central issue? Perhaps. There have been many claimants as to what the central issue of LotR is, from 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' to 'the loss of human connection with nature' and on and on. I agree that it is a key issue, but to say that it's the central one claims too much, I think. Unless you'd like to make a case for it....
-lmp

[Bêthberry]

Hello littlemanpoet and Greetings again Evisse the Blue,

I would indeed be interested in making the case that pity is the central issue in LOTR, but I hope you will allow me to respond tomorrow, for too many things are going on in RL today to allow me to frame the kind of thoughtful reply you deserve.

*curtsies*

Bethberry

[theWhiteLady]

Greetings, Evisse the Blue! This thread immediatly caught my eye and I love the thoughts you bring out.

One of Tolkien's skills as a writer and a creator was being able to make his stories, characters, ect. believable. I think one of the essentiel factors he used in shaping his 'villians' was causing the reader to pity them. As stated above, it makes them human, so to speak, and helps us connect with them. The perfect example of this is Gollum. At first a revolting and disgusting creature we learn to pity his torment. We are able to see the war in his mind, and we learn that there is good combating the stronger evil. The same is with Wormtongue, he was enslaved by his greed and treachery; in the same way Saruman was enslaved by his pride and lust for power; we see such people daily. Their wills are not their own, their decisions are influenced by a power that was allowed to take over. We pity the man who can no longer be his own master and realize we could easily become that man.

Greetings, Bethberry! I am glad to be able to find your wisdom, even if it may not be at the White City. It is delightful to see you again [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] *bows* On the subject: I believe there to be many central themes or issues in the Lord of the Rings, but I agree that pity is definitly one of them. I look forward to reading your next post!

[Nevfeniel]

I can't help wishing for a better fate for them

I felt that way exactly when Wormtongue died. I thought he should have lived, even though he killed Saruman. If Saruman had died, but Wormtongue hadn't, Grima might have been able to "un-evil" himself, so to speak, since it was Saruman that "made" him evil.

Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand.... Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life, Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

That has been one of the most meaningful quotes in my life for years now. It didn't exactly jump out and grab me the first time or two that I read LOTR (I've been reading it once a year since I was 13!); however, about five years ago some rather major upheavals occurred in my life, and I just so happened to be reading LOTR yet again, and I stumbled across this quote. The meaning and significance of what Tolkien is saying, to both his characters and to his readers was so profound to me at the time - and (as corny as this may sound) it even helped me to manage my life for a while.

[Birdland]

I've thought often on Tolkien's emphasis of the virtue of pity, and the huge role it plays in the emotional growth of his characters.

Pity as a virtuous emotion or act has fallen out of favor in our modern world. Few people would offer pity to anyone these days, as it is almost considered an insult.

In fact, here are some definitions of the word that I have found in the dictionary:

PITY implies tender or sometimes slightly contemptuous sorrow for one in misery or distress...

Pity regards its object not only as suffering, but weak, and hence as inferior.

Do you think this was Tolkien's intention when he used the word back in the 30s and 50s? Frodo's pity was addressed towards his enemies (particularly Gollum and Saruman). Would he have pitied Boromir? Did Aragorn regard Eowyn with pity?

Nowadays, we would use the word "empathy" or "compassion", which seem to us to be much more non-judgmental terms. Would Tolkien have chose such words if he were writing for a modern audience, or would he have stuck to his guns?

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Tolkien would have stuck to his swords, my friend Birdland. * bows with good-natured humor *

[Orofacion of the Vanyar]

Interestingly enough, I've noticed this about who exactly most people pity. It seems the once human, "good" people seem to recieve far more pity than say... Sauron or the orcs. Perhaps it is this factor of them being once good that makes us pity them at all, we know what they once were was better than they are now. Interesting...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Birdland, I find Tolkien's use of the word pity one of the interesting aspects of the chapter "The Steward and the King", RotK.

He (Faramir) looked at her (Eowyn), and being a man whom pity deeply stirred, it seemed to him that her loveliness amid her grief would pierce his heart.
But I desire no man's pity. (Eowyn)
Do not scorn pity that is the gift of a gentle heart, Èowyn! But I do not offer you my pity. (Faramir)

I agree, we would use "compassion" today. There is certainly nothing of contempt or looking down on a weaker person in Faramir's pity for Èowyn; on the contrary, it is filled with respect that grows into love.

[Galorme]

Elin Síla Lúmenn' Omenielvo All! :-)

Recently i had a dream where I traveled to the South of Middle Earth (I am a sad boy therefore i dream about ME sometimes) and I came upon a colony of a rather twisted set of elves. It was a colony of Elves, Orcs and many half-breeds in-between. They explained to me how in the Ages of Stars a few Orcs escaped South from Melkor's pits, and as they came across roaming Nandor elves. And when they saw the Elves that they used to be there hearts were turned away from the evil that they had fled from. And some of the Nandor took pity of the Orcs, as they saw the Elven Beauty was still in their hearts, if not in their looks. And eventually love blossomed between these two people, and many elves married the orcs, and their children were Elvish at heart, loving beauty and song, though they looked much like orcs. But after the War of Wrath the host of Valinor came upon the colony, and thinking it an Orcish prison camp they slaughtered the Orcs and half Orcs and carried off the Elves, mistaking their tears and wails as tears of joy. Since I had this dream I have thought of the Orcs more as under a spell of evil than evil beings, and every time I hear read about great slaughter of Orcs I think that if they had been spared they could have become good again. I am sure this breeds all sorts of inconsistencies with the books, but it does show that pity can be felt towards any being no mater how evil their actions. Or maybe it just shows that I am a little weird.

[littlemanpoet]

That's a powerful dream, Galorme. I wonder how much of your dream got altered by the inevitable editing our consciousness does with the dreams we remember. Even so, the archetypes in your dream, and how they function, show that it was probably an important dream for you, especially as the 'powers for good' screwed up and destroyed what was essentially good, which they couldn't see because it was outside their realm of experience. Enough about dream interpretation.

LotR being fantasy, it deals in clear-cut distinctions. Good is good, evil is evil, and the Good may therefore have pity on the evil. Reality is different. And our age is different from Tolkien's too, I think, because back then people in England and Europe did indeed consider other humans in other parts of the world, if not right around the corner, to be inferior, for whom pity seemed natural.

Since this age does not tolerate such attitudes as the assumed inferiority of other people, there is less toleration for pity and we are required to think in terms of compassion and sympathy. After all, precisely what is it that keeps you and me from murdering our cousin in order to get that precious 'Ring' (whatever it represents in our own lives)? In many cases, very little indeed - especially if we're willing to look closely and honestly at our own hearts.

lmp

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Bêthberry]

Sorry to be so slow getting back to my reply to littlemanpoet. Events have been very hectic in RL.

I agree that [pity] is a key issue, but to say that it's the central one claims too much, I think. Unless you'd like to make a case for it....

My initial post was a response to the idea that pity is a weakness which makes one vulnerable to one's enemies. To make my case for pity as the central issue, I would like to suggest some criteria for identifying a central theme, out of many. I know I have a tendency to write posts that are too long, so I won't get into applying these criteria in this post, but I would happily welcome others doing so (or commenting on these criteria). [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

1. The central theme should be one which subsumes or encompasses other themes. That is, the other themes arise logically, analytically, or by historical precedent out of the primary theme. This primary theme is, then, the most inclusive theme.

2. The primary theme must play a critical, central, crucial role in the action/ plot. That is, in terms of the old dramatic idea of rising and falling action, the primary theme must be part of the climax and, I would even suggest, denouement of the action.

3. The primary theme must be significant to the character development of at least the main character and possibly other secondary characters as well.

4. The primary theme should be prominent at various points throughout the novel, or at least appear at significant points or intervals. I am not saying that every action and incident should involve it, but that there should be some form of recurring reference to it.

5. The primary theme should be voiced authoritatively in some form in the novel, that is, it shouldn't be found only by some esoteric fishing expedition. Nor should it exist by default.

As for the argument that nowadays we look down on pity as a contemptible emotion of superiority, I would like to offer an historical perspective. There has been much philosophical discussion about pity and mercy in the western tradition. The concern that pity is part of pride goes back at least as far as Saint Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica. His Question 30, article 2 asks, "Whether the reason for taking pity is a defect in the person who pities?" His answer is no, pity is part of compassion and recognition that the troubling afflictions, problems and ills of others could easily happen to oneself.

Aristotle also wrote about whether pity is a good emotion, so this discussion has a long history. It isn't something that contemporary culture has just discovered.

Within Tolkien's values, it is pity which creates sorrow for others, leading to aid or mercy in alleviating others' misfortunes. It is a union of affections.

I think I've gone on long enough for one post!

Bethberry

PS. Greetings indeed, theWhiteLady and many thanks for your gracious comments. I will in turn look forward to any ideas you wish to contribute here. *curtsies gravely*

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Wow Galorme. That's an incredible dream, and it would make a most excellent fan-fic piece, provided you wanted to pursue it.

As an interesting follow-up to all this pity vs. power, I recommend ya'll to read obloquy's opening post in the thread "The Powers of the Istari". It's fascinating, and while not directly related to this thread, it illuminates Gandalf's position and addresses some points that may be of interest to this discussion.

[Bêthberry]

Greetings Silver-shod Muse,

Are you implying that Gandalf's humility is part of his mercy? *inquisitive look, with the hope of drawing you on* [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

That, I think, would be consistent with Tolkien's values. *nods*

Bethberry

[littlemanpoet]

Bethberry: That was an excellent post on the criteria of a theme's centrality! I am going to copy and paste it somewhere on my home computer so I can keep it handy.

According to your criteria, and based on my faulty memory of LotR, pity may be argued convincingly to be the central theme, but so may providence (or so-called chance). Oh no. I just set up the old free-will versus destiny debate. Somebody please knock it down.... Nevertheless, there is a tension between the two, don't you think? And might it not be said that the tension between the two is in fact the actual central theme? Or am I being muddled here?

[Bêthberry]

Greetings littlemanpoet,

*curtsies a pleasant hello*

Funny how the old arguments keep recurring, eh? The value of tension in a novel (in any writing) is intriguing and important, I think--certainly it gets around a tendency towards a flat-footed approach to 'insert theme here'which my list of criteria could possibly lead to. Could you explain more fully what you mean by 'tension'? I'm not necessarily criticizing you,just asking for clarification so we're on the same wavelength.

I omitted any reference to the use of imagery and symbolism in developing themes.

I wonder, do you mean a tension between pity and providence, or free will and destiny?

Regards,
Bethberry

PS. On Saturday I leave for three weeks with only random and probably no computer access, so please don't be offended if you don't hear back from me until the end of the month. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[littlemanpoet]

Greetings, Bethberry.

::bows with a flourish of poet's cap::

Enjoy your vacation.

I'm being muddled here. I can tell because I keep writing stuff and deleting it because I can't make myself clear, which means this isn't at all clear in my mind.

I used "providence" because of my religious background, and I've often read that term as applied to LotR - which is why I added the corrective, "chance", which is mentioned frequently in LotR (providence isn't, is it?)

I thought I had set up the choice/destiny debate by bringing up providence as opposed to pity, because I apparently have not sufficiently jettisoned my old Calvinist categories (which I don't believe anymore).

The nub of the issue is that "chance" is indeed brought up frequently enough to warrant notice. You know the type of thing I'm referring to. It's in The Hobbit, too. "You're a very fine person, Bilbo, but you are just one hobbit after all."

Or in the Council of Elrond, one of the wise tells Frodo that (he thinks) Frodo was meant to bear the Ring. I think there are other such statements in The Shadow of the Past and elsewhere throughout the story.
If Frodo was meant to bear the Ring, precisely who meant him to bear it? It would have to be someone who had at least some influence on Bilbo's decision to relinquish the Ring to Frodo, the Ring's will to be lost by Gollum deep in the mountains, Smeagol's murder of Deagol, Deagol's accidental discovery of the Ring, the Ring slipping off Isildur's finger in the Gladden Fields, the orc arrow killing Isildur, Isildur being found by the orc party, Isildur choosing to keep the Ring rather than destroy it. Who had influence over all of these decisions? Did anybody? If not, Gandalf and Elrond were either wrong or lying, which is farfetched. If someone, we must refer to our knowledge of the Silmarillion and suppose this is talking either about the Valar or about Eru. Since the Silmarillin tells us that the Valar have little to do with humans, we are left to conclude that Eru is the one who meant Frodo to be the Ringbearer. Eru is the source, therefore, of the providence, that is, the providing. But there were so many choices in the above list. What influence does Eru have over these choices, if any? Does he control choices? A Calvinist would say he does. I say Eru does not, because it doesn't make sense. So all these choices, including that of having pity, are human choices, and even Eru is somehow at the mercy of his allowance for humans to have choice (much more so than Elves, who are more tied to doom). So it seems to me that there is indeed a tension between pity and providence, because Eru can provide and provide and provide, but if pity is not there in the heart of the one provided for, all is for nothing, or at least delayed yet again.

So I guess I'm saying that whereas Frodo's choice of pity was necessary for Sauron's fall, Eru' providence was a crucial part of the whole picture, but not enough. So providence cannot stand alone as the central theme, and neither can pity.

I hope that makes sense.

[Starbreeze]

It is certainly true that I, in no way evil or balck hearted, felt a certain affinity with Tolkien's 'baddies' such as I have not felt with any others. They are likeable, and pitiable becuase, I think, they are like us in so many ways.

[Evisse the Blue]

greetings, littlemanpoet - you spoke directly to my mind. Must be telepathy, because I thought about the providence theme in Lotr a lot lately, especially in connection to Gandalf's remark that Frodo was meant to bear the ring. Indeed that suggests a divine entity that would provide you with a starting point, and leave the rest up to you. The fact that pity is the feeling that puts the divine help into practice is a very Christian approach, and I believe it is also what Tolkien had in mind.
Bethberry, greetings. I understand your point. Tolkien really wanted to detach himself from the 'blood thirsty' fairy tales and create something more humane.
But, I have to stick to my idea that some forms of pity are more malefic then benefic.
for instance, sometimes my pity for Gollum would not content itself to sparing his life like Bilbo did, but even give him the ring just for him to stop whining and get back to his cave. No one would find him there, right? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Evisse the Blue]

seriously now, I've been brooding about the pity thing and I suddenly realized a very important thing. Gollum, Saruman and Grima were all once good people, who became corrupted. I think this is where this pity stems from. I don't feel any pity for Sauron, and I wouldn't, no matter how low he would sink in misery.
Another interesting thing is how their name changed after their 'personality' changed.(Grima became Wormtoungue, Smeagol, Gollum, and Saruman the White , Saruman of the many coulours). It's like Tolkien wanted to persuade us they were totally new persons, and feeling any pity for them is useless, as is trying to awake any of their lost good parts.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Are you implying that Gandalf's humility is part of his mercy? ...That, I think, would be consistent with Tolkien's values.

Salutations, Bethberry [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I am, and it would. I'm not quite sure how to pursue this, but I do believe that Gandalf's humility and his mercy are very much connected to the point of being one virtue (humicy? merility? [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]), and an intrisically Gandalfish virtue, at least in Middle Earth.