Were Men never truly evil? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Cazoz · 01-19-2003, 05:42 PM

The things that Tolkien sees as truly evil are generally born that way, and with a power greater than them holding sway over their behaviour.

For example, orcs are born evil we're to assume and they defile nature and stuff, simply for kicks. The same could be said about Dragons and Balrogs, as they were guided by Morgoth the whole time.

My question is; this never happened to Men. The creatures above were conceived by evil thought and evil measures whereas Men never were, and it seems that perhaps out of loyalty, Tolkien always gave him own race some sort of excuse or redemption.

Ar-Pharazon for example, cannot be called evil. Although the anti-West sentiment was already abound in Numenor, it never previously reached the extremities seen in his reign. And why? Because Sauron deceived him and brainwashed him. Thus? Not his fault really, he's more seen as a tragic hero, one valiant but yet not immune to the evil of Sauron.

Other slighter examples of this could be Denethor, for example. Not an evil man, merely stubborn and uncooperative and unwelcoming, at first read most people will take a dislike to his character, having built up a favourable stance on Faramir. However, once his desperation and dependence on the palantir are revealed, it is again a bittersweet situation where the dislikeable becomes a sad story.

Even the Easterlings and Haradrim are forgiven and pardoned because it is generally seen that they would have been no danger or threat without Sauron, and that it was only by his will that they had participated in the War of the Ring. Possibly not true, but again Tolkien explicitly goes out of his way to imply that Men can never fully be blamed for their bad deeds, that there is always a Morgoth, Sauron or Saruman cracking the whip behind them, and that they know not what they do. Hmm. I cannot think of a truly evil man who was evil of his own devices from Tolkien's work. Come to think of it, this is true for Elves and Dwarves as well, but it is with Men that I have noticed Tolkien's tendency to make fallen Men heroes in some way. Another prime example is that I didn't like Boromir on first reading the book, until his death. I didn't yet understand the power of the Ring and how it corrupted minds. So I thought Boromir was simply a bad Man. And I presume most first-time readers have feelings similar to this, and then when they read more, they realise Boromir was in fact, a great man and hey, nobody's perfect. And thus even though he has attempted to do a terrible thing, as a Man Tolkien has nicely brought us round to a favourable opinion of him.

Has anyone else noticed this bias? I'm not saying it's a bad thing (being of that race!) but I was simply thinking about it last night, and the trend sort of hit me. I don't even know what I'm asking here, I just wanted to post about it and see what you guys thought!

01-19-2003, 05:42 PM	#1
Cazoz Haunting Spirit Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 71	Were Men never truly evil? The things that Tolkien sees as truly evil are generally born that way, and with a power greater than them holding sway over their behaviour. For example, orcs are born evil we're to assume and they defile nature and stuff, simply for kicks. The same could be said about Dragons and Balrogs, as they were guided by Morgoth the whole time. My question is; this never happened to Men. The creatures above were conceived by evil thought and evil measures whereas Men never were, and it seems that perhaps out of loyalty, Tolkien always gave him own race some sort of excuse or redemption. Ar-Pharazon for example, cannot be called evil. Although the anti-West sentiment was already abound in Numenor, it never previously reached the extremities seen in his reign. And why? Because Sauron deceived him and brainwashed him. Thus? Not his fault really, he's more seen as a tragic hero, one valiant but yet not immune to the evil of Sauron. Other slighter examples of this could be Denethor, for example. Not an evil man, merely stubborn and uncooperative and unwelcoming, at first read most people will take a dislike to his character, having built up a favourable stance on Faramir. However, once his desperation and dependence on the palantir are revealed, it is again a bittersweet situation where the dislikeable becomes a sad story. Even the Easterlings and Haradrim are forgiven and pardoned because it is generally seen that they would have been no danger or threat without Sauron, and that it was only by his will that they had participated in the War of the Ring. Possibly not true, but again Tolkien explicitly goes out of his way to imply that Men can never fully be blamed for their bad deeds, that there is always a Morgoth, Sauron or Saruman cracking the whip behind them, and that they know not what they do. Hmm. I cannot think of a truly evil man who was evil of his own devices from Tolkien's work. Come to think of it, this is true for Elves and Dwarves as well, but it is with Men that I have noticed Tolkien's tendency to make fallen Men heroes in some way. Another prime example is that I didn't like Boromir on first reading the book, until his death. I didn't yet understand the power of the Ring and how it corrupted minds. So I thought Boromir was simply a bad Man. And I presume most first-time readers have feelings similar to this, and then when they read more, they realise Boromir was in fact, a great man and hey, nobody's perfect. And thus even though he has attempted to do a terrible thing, as a Man Tolkien has nicely brought us round to a favourable opinion of him. Has anyone else noticed this bias? I'm not saying it's a bad thing (being of that race!) but I was simply thinking about it last night, and the trend sort of hit me. I don't even know what I'm asking here, I just wanted to post about it and see what you guys thought!