The Ring & the Curse

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

How about starting a new thread in Books on this so that anybody who's interested in this particular aspect can find it without having to dig 6 pages into a movie thread on Split Personality?

And this is the spark - a post of mine in the Split Personality thread:

Just occurs to me, on the subject of evil - is evil depicted differently in CoH to the way its depicted in LotR - if we take them as stand alone works? In short, the main force/source of evil in LotR is defeated & the tale ends in hope, while in CoH evil has total victory.

I'm thinking here of the CoH review in the Church Times http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=42450

Of course, this perhaps takes the thread off topic, but if we only had CoH from Tolkien would we take a different message from Tolkien about the nature of evil? The most interesting thing to me about CoH is that there is no Ring to either claim or reject.

Or what about this one http://www.sfreviews.net/tolkien_children_of_hurin.html

Is Turin 'evil' or is he really a 'frightened child' trying to do his best & failing because of some inner fault - or is it simply a 'fault' - is it some inner 'darkness'/evil'? How different is Boromir to Turin - is it the Ring which corrupts him, or is the Ring equivalent to Morgoth's curse?

So, is evil portrayed differently in the two books? Can we compare the corrupting influence of the Ring & the destructive influence of Morgoth's curse?

Of course, the Ring will corrupt one into a new Sauron if one is strong enough, & the Curse is meant merely to destroy & all that, but the question is 'Is there a difference in the nature of evil as portrayed in the two books? Certainly, taken as stand-alone works the stand out difference is that in CoH evil wins & in LotR it loses. What interests me - & I've addressed this before - is that while in terms of (original) composition & of internal chronology CoH came first, in terms of publication it comes last. And its more complicated than that too, because the CoH we have now was written after LotR. In Tolkien's 'final' published M-e novel evil wins.

But what of the Ring & its corrupting influence - when one succumbs to the Ring & thus to evil one has fallen to a physical thing, but can one 'fall' in the same way to a 'curse'? Both Boromir & Turin seek glory - Boromir through the Ring, Turin in spite of the Curse.

In LotR we are presented with the moral: 'If you strive hard enough, are prepared to sacrifice enough, evil can be defeated' - the tale ends in hope. In CoH the 'moral' seems to be: 'Whatever you do, evil will win out'

I ended my original post:

"Sorry - a lot of rambling musings there...."

I fear that's still the case.

[Bêthberry]

An interesting addition might be to include The Hobbit here. What is the nature of evil in Bilbo's tale of the ring before it became The Ring?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

So, is evil portrayed differently in the two books? Can we compare the corrupting influence of the Ring & the destructive influence of Morgoth's curse?

Yes. The Ring is the evil lying beside the road that one must go over and pick up - choose - to be affected. Just by walking over and reaching down, you are already giving in to whatever flaws are inside you, and the Ring uses those flaws to, later, bring you down even further. The Curse, if it's really real, is something that you've not specifically chosen. Regardless, the Curse works with the flaws that it finds within the cursed one. And what I mean by real is: Did Morgoth have the power to actively change a person's fate, or was he just so powerful that he could make sure that some misadventures in grand style fall in one's path?

Turin made many bad decisions, and I would say that these were a result of his pride and not so much the curse - though that would provide a very convenient excuse. When exactly was he ever humble or repentant? Seems that he goes from one bad decision to another; kills friends, boasts, brags and repeatedly (from memory) takes what is 'owed' him. He also is a thorn in Morgoth's side; the price of creating the curse? Changing a free agent's fate costs Morgoth many orcs and Glaurung at the least. Turin marries his sister, which is icky, but at the time he did not know that he was doing so, and so cannot be held responsible for that one. And, sick is that is, didn't some dynasties maintain power by having siblings intermarry? And what of Adam and Eve's children?

Of course, the Ring will corrupt one into a new Sauron if one is strong enough, & the Curse is meant merely to destroy & all that, but the question is 'Is there a difference in the nature of evil as portrayed in the two books? Certainly, taken as stand-alone works the stand out difference is that in CoH evil wins & in LotR it loses. What interests me - & I've addressed this before - is that while in terms of (original) composition & of internal chronology CoH came first, in terms of publication it comes last. And its more complicated than that too, because the CoH we have now was written after LotR. In Tolkien's 'final' published M-e novel evil wins.

I would not say that there is a difference in the nature of evil. The stories are different; one ends in catastrophe and the other in eucatastrophe. It's not like the Rocky (boxing) movies where you always know how they'll end.

But what of the Ring & its corrupting influence - when one succumbs to the Ring & thus to evil one has fallen to a physical thing, but can one 'fall' in the same way to a 'curse'? Both Boromir & Turin seek glory - Boromir through the Ring, Turin in spite of the Curse.

Interesting. And if the Curse and Ring are similar, then how much 'good' would have Boromir done (like the Black Sword) before the Ring finally won out?

In LotR we are presented with the moral: 'If you strive hard enough, are prepared to sacrifice enough, evil can be defeated' - the tale ends in hope. In CoH the 'moral' seems to be: 'Whatever you do, evil will win out'

I didn't see in CoH that 'evil wins.' It's a tragedy, surely, but never did I think that Turin had a chance of winning as he's at times a jerk. Frodo is more humble and has Sam; Turin tempts the very gods - "I am the master of fate" - and has a lot of blood on his hands. Such things come at a high price.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

One reasonably perceptive critic termed Turin the "failed Aragorn." Discuss.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

One reasonably perceptive critic termed Turin the "failed Aragorn." Discuss.

Isildur is the failed Aragorn. Peter Jackson spake thus.

[Wanderer of Light]

Originally Posted by alatar

I didn't see in CoH that 'evil wins.' It's a tragedy, surely, but never did I think that Turin had a chance of winning as he's at times a jerk.

Reading through the former posts my fingers just itching to type the same. In fact, this tale could be considered just one of the many Chronicles of the First Age, though it is a very important one, evil hasn't actually won yet in the end of this Tale. In fact, evil is going to be butt-kicked in the end....

Now off course even though it's only a small and quit unimportant happening, when you look at the big picture, whether the curse will be fullfilled or not could also be considered a battle between good and evil. But even here, isn't this a bit of a Phyrric victory? I mean, Morgoth, besides the gallons and gallons of orcs he lost as well, lost Glaurung, which could be considered one of his greatest trump-cards.... I don't think Morgoth was very happy with the outcome of this either, eventhough the curse was fullfilled.



Now... Túrin as a failed Aragorn... I don't think this is a very valid comparison, due to the difference in the role they play in the tale. Either it is horribly off-topic, or you're talking about Aragorn not accepting the ring, knowing he would fail.... Túrin didn't quit come into a very similar situation, he didn't have the choice to be cursed by Morgoth or not. I think Túrin's biggest problem was his pride.....
Now Cursed by a Dark Lord & Pride vs. Temptation of Evil doesn't seem like a good comparison to me?

[Kuruharan]

Can we compare the corrupting influence of the Ring & the destructive influence of Morgoth's curse?

I think the difference, such as it is, lies in the different intents behind the evil. The Curse wanted to destroy. The Ring was interested in self-preservation and in returning to its master. It’s awkward to say, but it seems the Ring had something more of a goal it was working toward.

This may, to some extent, reflect the differences between Morgoth and Sauron. Morgoth wanted to reduce everything to a nullity (Curse = Destruction). Sauron wanted to rule everything and be worshiped as the world’s god…i.e. he had a purpose beyond destruction, reflected in the Ring, while it would destroy its bearers was not doing it simply for the sake of destruction…it was trying to do something.

Perhaps when viewed from the different ends that the Curse and the Ring had in mind, maybe this does show different types of evil.

[A Little Green]

I'd like to stick to the point in the very first post that said

Is Túrin 'evil' or is he really a 'frightened child' trying to do his best & failing because of some inner fault

I'd say Túrin was by no means evil (which might be due to how I hate the words good and evil...). OK, he had really bad luck and he made mistakes, a whole lot of them in fact, but can he really be called evil because of that?

What comes to the comparison of Túrin and Aragorn, I just can't make a connection between those two. Actually, I'd rather compare Túrin to Sméagol, because of the 'evil' they do, and because neither of them I think is to be called evil...

And, finally, I must say that

Certainly, taken as stand-alone works the stand out difference is that in CoH evil wins & in LotR it loses. What interests me - & I've addressed this before - is that while in terms of (original) composition & of internal chronology CoH came first

made me instantly think about the Bible

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Can we compare the corrupting influence of the Ring & the destructive influence of Morgoth's curse?

In my opinion: hardly. We have little evidence to figure out how much difference did the curse make, other than some self-fulfilling prophecy. It just may be that the curse it is a scarecrow and nothing more. Moreover, it doesn't look like one can escape a curse - other than being released. We could try to compare this curse to the curse on Isildur's Dead Men, though the stone of Erech might have played some part in the curse's power, or the morality itself of the wrongdoers deed (or even their self conscious) - it's a rather complicated comparison. On the other hand, it looks like at least one person was able to escape from the power of the ring, Bilbo (and Sam, to a lesser extent, since he bore it far less time).

Both Boromir & Turin seek glory - Boromir through the Ring, Turin in spite of the Curse

Hm, I wonder if achieving glory for Turin wasn't somehow helped by the curse, since it would make his fall all the harder..

In CoH the 'moral' seems to be: 'Whatever you do, evil will win out'

I would say evil winning out is a close call. I believe it is a pertinent question if Turin didn't inflict far more damage on Melkor because of the curse - than if there weren't any curse at all. In that case, Melkor's opportunity cost may be far greater by inflicting the curse, thus losing overall. Turin's dire conditions might have proved to be a powerful motivator.

"Sorry - a lot of rambling musings there"

My post follows that path too...