Tolkien and the Monsters

[davem]

Shagrat on Shelob:

Anyway my lads reported that Her Ladyship was having some
fun, and that seemed good enough for me, until the message came. I thought
her Sneak had brought her a toy. or that you'd perhaps sent her a present, a
prisoner of war or something. I don't interfere when she's playing. Nothing
gets by Shelob when she's on the hunt.'

[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks for the quote, davem.

I suppose that could just be an Orcish way of referring to the manner of her hunting her prey. But his words do seem to tie in with the delight taken by the Spiders of Mirkwood in capturing Thorin and co for later consumption.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Little she knew of or cared for towers, or rings, or anything devised by mind or hand, who only desired death for all others, mind and body, and for herself a glut of life, alone, swollen till the mountains could no longer hold her up and the darkness could not contain her.

I would suggest that Shelob is far more that just a hungry 'beast'! Shelob's hunger is more than just the pangs of a being that needs sustenance. So great is her "lust" to consume "all others" that she is very much on par with Sauron:

So they both lived, delighting in their own devices, and feared no assault, nor wrath, nor any end to their wickedness.

The more I look at Shelob, the more I see her as Sauron's equal in evil -- she is just another form of evil. And now I am going to take a flier: Shelob is the manifestation of feminine (note: not female) evil, and Sauron of masculine. Shelob is the complete perversion of femininity and the 'ideals' of the feminine (as embodied by Arwen?): she consumes and feeds and gluts rather than nourishes. Sauron is the perversion of masculinity and the 'ideals' of the masculine (as embodied by Aragorn?): he seeks dominion and control rather than inspiring love through his willingness to sacrifice himself.

[Legolas]

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.

No...this "destiny" you talk about seems to exclude freewill. Freewill is entirely the point here. Certainly people aren't destined to be bad or good - their good and/or bad decisions are what destine them. The Music isn't Predestination. Orientation and Predestination aren't the same thing.


The Saucepan Man - I'm afraid you're posing the age-old, kind of answerless question: Are those that don't know held accountable? I have an "answer," but I'm going to have to hold off until I've had more sleep to verbalize it comprehensibly.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legolas

No...this "destiny" you talk about seems to exclude freewill. Freewill is entirely the point here. Certainly people aren't destined to be bad or good - their good and/or bad decisions are what destine them. The Music isn't Predestination. Orientation and Predestination aren't the same thing.

So, we would then have to assume that Orcs could be good - yet, being orcs they are corrupt - their Hroa is corrupt, Fea & Hroa are one, so are they not, in their essence, corrupt beings? Certainly, they're not 'robots', they are sentient beings, with fea & hroa:

] Gorbag:'Those Nazgûl give me the creeps. And they skin the body
off you as soon as look at you, and leave you all cold in the dark on the
other side.

Which shows that they have some 'religious'/metaphysical understanding of their own nature - they concieve of themselves as 'spiritual' beings, whose body can can be 'skinned' off them & they themselves left 'cold in the dark on the other side'. They also seem to have a belief in some kind of after life - they can continue to exist after the death of their physical body. Can we infer some kind of reward/punishment scenario from this - offend the Nazgul (or the Mouth? - this seems to be a practiced 'technique' - not simply a nasty, groundless threat made by the Lord of the Nazgul to intimidate Eowyn) & you are punished by having the body skinned off you & left in the dark. Be a 'good' orc & you'll get some kind of reward?

Are we seeing some glimpse of Sauron the 'god-king' here, with a developed religion handed down to his 'subjects/worshippers'? If so, to what extent is their 'wickedness' based on 'religious' tenets/commandments?

[Bêthberry]

The more I look at Shelob, the more I see her as Sauron's equal in evil -- she is just another form of evil. And now I am going to take a flier: Shelob is the manifestation of feminine (note: not female) evil, and Sauron of masculine. Shelob is the complete perversion of femininity and the 'ideals' of the feminine (as embodied by Arwen?): she consumes and feeds and gluts rather than nourishes. Sauron is the perversion of masculinity and the 'ideals' of the masculine (as embodied by Aragorn?): he seeks dominion and control rather than inspiring love through his willingness to sacrifice himself.

Oh, I don't think this is a flier at all, Fordim. There is a reason why so many of the descriptions of Shelob refer to her gender--constantly and continuously is the pronoun 'she' repeated, even, of course, in her very name, Shelob. The female glutton whose appetites are so deadly and whose body is so foul and putrid. Even the orcs' mockery of "Her ladyship" is significant.

However, the text sets her up against Galadriel, rather than Arwen, don't you think? It is Galadriel's star glass which Sam recalls and which lights his and Frodo's way, the light of the pure feminine figure.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

There is a reason why so many of the descriptions of Shelob refer to her gender--constantly and continuously is the pronoun 'she' repeated, even, of course, in her very name, Shelob. The female glutton whose appetites are so deadly and whose body is so foul and putrid. Even the orcs' mockery of "Her ladyship" is significant.

(adopts Vienese accent): 'Sometimes a psychopathic giant spider is just a psychopathic giant spider'

[Bêthberry]

Now davem, I had expected it would be Sauce or Aiwendil who took that approach, not you. First of all, it was Fordim's idea first, so go tease him too.

More seriously, many ancient mythologies have figures of disgust similar to Shelob, perhaps not in spider-form, but certainly carrying all the imageries of loathesome appetite and revolting physicality and this gender attribute. Shelob is simply another example of how Tolkien extends old mythologies in very well done ways. After all, consider the Lilith--Eve distinction.

It's another literary reference, davem, not Freudian overkill.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

More seriously, many ancient mythologies have figures of disgust similar to Shelob, perhaps not in spider-form, but certainly carrying all the imageries of loathesome appetite and revolting physicality and this gender attribute. Shelob is simply another example of how Tolkien extends old mythologies in very well done ways. After all, consider the Lilith--Eve distinction.

Yet Tolkien's stories are full of monstrous spiders - from Hobbit, through Roverandom through to monsters like Ungoliant & Shelob. I think its in the notes to Roverandom that its mentioned that its one of Tolkien's sons - Michael?? who was terrified of spiders, so Tolkien put them in & described them with especial relish.

I do see the 'Loathly Lady'/Kundrie/Ceridwen/Morrighan symbolism - the 'Black screaming Hag'/'Sow who eats her own farrow. Its very common, as you say. The Goddess has a 'dark' aspect. In fact, in the Irish myths Sovereignty, the Goddess of the Land first appears as a Hag, etc. I can see this symbolism in Shelob, certainly, & there is a 'Twin-Goddess' thing going on with her & Galadriel But Tolkien does what he often does - whereas in the original myths these were two aspects of the same deity, he splits them off into separate figures - he does the same with the figure of Odin, whose 'positive' aspects are given to Gandalf, & whose 'negative' ones are split between Sauron & Saruman - there's an interesting essay on this in the Tolkien's Legendarium collection.

So, yes, mythologically Shelob/Galadriel are both aspects of the primal Goddess - Shelob as the Crone, Galadriel as the Mother (with Arwen as the Maiden) - confirmed in the fact that they are all 'weavers', which also ties them in with the Fates/Norns. The Spider was a creature associated with the Goddess as weaver - links to Arianrhod ('Silver Wheel') in the Mabinogion, & Ariadne in Greek myth.

Whether this is deliberate on Tolkien's part is the question - maybe it came through unconsciously (maybe he was part of some Christian conspiracy to 'twist' Pagan sacred symbols ).

To me all this is part of a deep undercurrent to the Legendarium - I'm just not sure that in the case of Shelob (as opposed to Lembas, for instance, which I think is a deliberate reference to the Host) that its intentional, or even conscious on Tolkien's part. I suspect that he just wanted something really terrifying, & being stuck in a pitch black tunnel with a giant spider is pretty terrifying. Plus there's the whole 'Spider in the Starlight' symbolism of the light of Earendel overcoming the last child of Ungoliant.

And I wonder how many people have followed all that! (And how many still think I'm a 'bible basher'!)

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

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".

Professor Hedgethistle, sir, I would rather say (repeat) it's pride, but I can not back myself up unless you let me pick up the copies of HoME I so prompty hid under my desk when requested. The short summary of my argument may be stated thus:

*H-I mumbles quickly unless he's stopped by Severus Hedgethistle

Melkor's corruption starts with his seek for the Fire, but it is not knowledge he is after. The rest of the baddies* as I argued in my previous but one, take after him.

Originally Posted by davem

Whether this is deliberate on Tolkien's part is the question - maybe it came through unconsciously (maybe he was part of some Christian conspiracy to 'twist' Pagan sacred symbols

Have you been reading much of Dan Brown lately?

(ultimate speculation warning alert (USWA) running red at this point):

Um, um, Mother Goddess, you say? May well be the case - after all, Tolkien was going to some pains to reconcile pre-Crhistian world of 'good pagans' with his own faith. Ungoliant/Morgoth pair** (besides Morgoth (by himself) being analogy to Lucifer) were opposed to Manwe/Varda. Latter may be representations of Earth Mother and Sky Father (not that direct, for Varda was "Queen of Heaven" too). That'd be in accordance with ancient mythology.

And than, moving on with the times (as in our world too it replaced ancient mythology), we transfer to Maiden/Mother/Crone. But if you go for MMC triple Goddess, you'll need another Mother, for Galadriel seems more into Crone business, as Shelob is way too horrible to fit in. May it be Celebrían to fill the vacancy? Than there will be direct line to fill all of the aspects, and Shelob would oppose all three.

But, as USWA indicates, we may be reading too much into it. And yet again, maybe not. I would not be surprised to learn that all of what we muse over in our 'symbolism' discussions is just an upper level of Tolkien as onion (to use Child's wonderfull expression)

___________________________

*(Ungoliant and her spawn included)
** (I wonder what Freud would have rumbled out concerning the black spear and killing of the trees (and sun and moon born as a result of it)***
*** Not that I believe a word out of Freud****
**** Except some few

[davem]

Originally Posted by H-I

Have you been reading much of Dan Brown lately?

Haven't heard of him - my 'inspiration' here is RJ Stewart & Caitlin & John Matthews.

But if you go for MMC triple Goddess, you'll need another Mother, for Galadriel seems more into Crone business, as Shelob is way too horrible to fit in. May it be Celebrían to fill the vacancy? Than there will be direct line to fill all of the aspects, and Shelob would oppose all three.

Without wanting to pursue this too far, there isn't really an 'opposition' of Goddesses in the ancient mysteries. There is an interesting old 'romance' of Thomas the Rhymer, where Thomas, lying under a tree, is met by the Fairy Queen, riding on a white horse. When she first appears she is incredibly beautiful (he mistakes her for the Queen of Heaven at first). When she tells him she is 'The Queen of fair Elfland', he asks to lay with her. She is transformed into a monstrous hag, & takes him off to fairyland to serve her for seven years. On the journey, they stop at a tree, & thomas offers to pick an apple for her to eat. She warns him off, telling him 'All the plagues that are in Hell light on the fruit of this country'. She then offers him bread & wine, which they share, & she transforms back to her beautiful self. But she is both the queen & the hag. Similar thing in the Wife of Bath's tale, where Gawain marries a terribly ugly, deformed hag, but when they retire to his room on the wedding night, she appears to him as a beautiful young maiden. Gawain is amazed, & asks her what's happened. She tells him that he can choose to have her ugly by day & beautiful by night, or the other way about. He says it will be up to her. At that point the 'spell' she was under is broken, & she is beautiful all the time from that point. Also, as I mentioned, in the Irish Goddess figure of Sovereignty - she appears to the potential king as a foul hag who, if kissed, is suddenly transformed into a beautiful maiden who confers the Kingship on him.

(Back to the plot) Shelob is not 'way too horrible' to symbolise the 'Dark' Goddess - actually she's perfect for the role. Its the whole Anabolism/Catabolism, 'building up/breaking down' thing. The Goddess was creator & destroyer, weaver & unweaver of all creation. In the 'Prophecies of Merlin' (included in Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'History of the Kings of Britain - the medieval bestseller which introduced Arthur to Europe) it is the Goddess Ariadne who unravels the worlds & draws everything back into the Void from which it arose. If you check out figures like Morrighan & Ceridwen (mother of Taliesin, the Shining Brow) you find that many ancient Goddesses have a 'horrible aspect', simply because in the Pagan world there wasn't the Christian opposition - creation/destruction, beauty/ugliness = Good/Evil. It was more like a Yin/Yang view.

But that is way off topic.

I did wonder if anyone was going to pick up on my earlier speculations about Orcish metaphysics - but maybe that's been dealt with in another thread?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Actually Bêthberry, I don’t think that Galadriel is Shelob’s ‘opposite’ in the manner that I think you are suggesting, although she is certainly the primary opponent of Shelob, through her ‘champion’ Sam. I think that this is because Galadriel is not wholly defined as a ‘feminised’ figure in the text, insofar as she is tempted by the Ring. She overcomes this ‘masculine’ desire (please note, I am not saying that this is a desire of men, but a desire that is directed toward the masculine desire for rule that is expressed negatively by Sauron and positively by Aragorn), but she still does possess it. Arwen, on the other hand, has no such desire and is instead possessed by her ‘feminised’ desire to nourish and support those who are pursuing the quest to overthrow Sauron (it is telling, I think, that Arwen is who provides the happy ending for both Aragorn and Frodo, who goes to Elvenhome because Arwen gives up her place to him). This is the opposite of Shelob, whose only desire is to consume the world and take it into herself, not rule over it.

But on another tack…

I’m beginning to think that another way of working through monsters and evil might be to focus on their lasting effects. I come to this after thinking about Arwen and how she tries to give the heroes their relief after their struggles (she gives Aragorn the green stone that announces his kingship and his bond to her; she gives Frodo the white stone that he clutches in his moments of despair back in the Shire). Frodo says at the end of his journey that he is “wounded with knife, sting and tooth, and a long burden.” I think that this statement tells us a lot about the nature of evil in the book. The other dangers of the journey, once over and done with, are revealed to be just that – dangers, or obstacles toward the goal. The only real and lasting damage that has been done has been inflicted by the Nazûl, Shelob, Gollum and Sauron (the Ring). This is a nice shorlist of the evil beings who might help us to understand what that evil is. Without being too programmatic it might be possible to use each wound as a sign of a different ‘type’ of evil:

The Nazgûl, are the faceless and banal doers of evil; people who have willingly forsaken the obligation of men to think morally and make decisions of their own. They have made the evil choice to let the logic of power and domination determine what is right for them, rather than exercise their own consciences and engage with the difficult and disturbing issues of what is right. (I love davem’s image of them as soulless bureaucrats in an authoritarian state – it was Shippey who likened the Wraiths to the Nazis, wasn’t it?).

Shelob is the ‘feminised’ form of evil: she devours and wants to consume all life and creation. She is the feminised form of pride that puts her desire for self-fulfilment before all other considerations.

Sauron is the ‘masculinised’ form of evil: he seeks to dominate and control all life and creation. He is the masculinised form of pride that puts his desire for self above all others.

Gollum is the evil that comes when the self is corrupted by evil choices, and by the desire to do evil. He is the flip-side to the Nazgûl insofar as he has not given up his right and duty to choose, he has just chosen to continue to make the same evil choice over and over again. He isn’t the suspension or loss of conscience, but the corrupted conscience. This is why, I think, he bows down to Shelob and becomes kind of her Nazgûl (her servant who brings Frodo to her); just as the Wraiths have given over their sense of self to the power of Sauron (they have submitted to his desire for control), Gollum has allowed his-self to be consumed (as Shelob wants to do to the world).

[Bêthberry]

davem,

Whether this is deliberate on Tolkien's part is the question - maybe it came through unconsciously ...

To me all this is part of a deep undercurrent to the Legendarium - I'm just not sure that in the case of Shelob (as opposed to Lembas, for instance, which I think is a deliberate reference to the Host) that its intentional, or even conscious on Tolkien's part. I suspect that he just wanted something really terrifying, & being stuck in a pitch black tunnel with a giant spider is pretty terrifying.

Well, here we are back on some unresolved Canonicity issues, I think. Just what constitutes evidence for authorial 'intentionality'. What is authorial intentionality? Must it always be conscious and deliberate? What kinds of things in the text would persuade you that Shelob is supposed to represent one of these ancient wicked female figures? or archetypes? Is it just happenstance that the gender attribute given to this terror is female? And happenstance that the terror is given such intense physical traits of appetite?

(Aside: Doesn't Carpenter tell a story of Tolkien being bitten by a tarantula while a child i South Africa?)
Would you need to see a long line of literary references to decay, rot, corruption and how they are linked to females? Medieval literature fairly reeks with such descriptions and attributes. A initial line about Shelob capitalises 'she':

But other potencies there are in Middle-earth, powers of night, and they are old and strong. And She tht walked int he darkness had heard the Elves cry that cry far back int he deeps of time, and she had not heeded it, and it did not haunt her now.

And is it just happenstance that Shelob is given disgusting details of parturition?

and she served none but herself, drinking the blood of Elves and Men, bloated and grown fat with endless brooding on her feasts, weaving webs of shadow; for all living things were her food, and her vomit darkness. Far and wide her lesser broods, bastards of the miserable mates, her own offspring, that she slew, spread from glen to glen, ...But her lust was not his lust. Little she knew of or caref for towers, or rings, or aything devised by mind or hand, who only desired death for all others, mind and body, and for herself a glut of life, alone, swollen till the mountains could no longer hold her up and the darkness could not contain her.

Does Tolkien ever use 'lust' in any other context in LotR?
Fordim,

Well, there certainly is a contrast between Shelob and Galadriel in terms of who gives in to her appetite and who does not, who luxuriates in it and who is so distanced from her mate that he stays behind when she sails West.

In terms of your opposition between consuming and controlling, where would you put a figure like Goldberry, who controls the weather but who certainly sustains and supports others? Or are you suggesting that this consuming and controlling are merely flips sides (ying/yang) of those who lack self-control?

[HerenIstarion]

Without wanting to pursue this too far, there isn't really an 'opposition' of Goddesses in the ancient mysteries

That's precisely the reason to suggest Celebrian as a Mother. For, if Shelob be Crone, than there would be inside oppositiong between Crone on one hand and Mother and Maiden on another. But if Galadriel be Crone - i.e. the most proud and most 'mindy' of the three, than all three as one would oppose Shelob - focus and image of Feminine perverted.

cheers

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

What is authorial intentionality? Must it always be conscious and deliberate? What kinds of things in the text would persuade you that Shelob is supposed to represent one of these ancient wicked female figures? or archetypes? Is it just happenstance that the gender attribute given to this terror is female? And happenstance that the terror is given such intense physical traits of appetite?

I would tend to speak of 'authorial intentionality' only when it is conscious & deliberate - otherwise we're speaking of what Tolkien called 'the author of the story, by which I do not mean myself'. I wouldn't say that 'Shelob is supposed to represent one of these ancient wicked female figures? or archetypes?' - I wouldn't say those archtypes were 'wicked' - they were the 'dark' face of the Goddess, who was the source of all things to the ancient mind. Yes, in the medieval view that 'negative' view of the feminine was commonplace, but that was due to the 'demonisation' of Eve, & the Christian tendency towards dualism, which misunderstood the Goddess had both dark & light aspects, & split her in two - Virgin Mary & Eve/Mary Magdalen. Perhaps Tolkien's 'worship' of Mary, manifested in Galadriel/Varda, caused the 'Dark Mother' aspect to be split off into Shelob. But I don't think that symbolism was put in there deliberately. Certainly Tolkien idealised women, put them on a pedestal, & probably repressed anything that didn't fit. And repressed contents tend to become twisted & perverted, swallowed up into the 'Shadow'. But I don't think that was in Tolkien's conciousness when he wrote, I don't think he would have recognised it, simply because it had been repressed. I do think though, that even if Lembas had popped into his head as he was writing, he would immediatley have recognised that as a form of the Host, & recognising it, he would have made a concious decision to keep it in.

Would you need to see a long line of literary references to decay, rot, corruption and how they are linked to females? Medieval literature fairly reeks with such descriptions and attributes. A initial line about Shelob capitalises 'she':

And couldn't you also provide an equally long list of literary references linking females to birth, nurturing, compassion. The mediaval period was also the time of the Troubadours & Trouvieres, of Courtly Love & the idealisation of the female. Woemn were personified in extreme ways, both bad & good. And so were men - we see men lionised & denigrated in the literature of the time. I think there's a danger in focussing on Ecclesiastical sources, which is mainly where we find the really venomous attacks on woman. Its rarer to find anything of that kind in vernacular literature.

Is it just happenstance that the gender attribute given to this terror is female? And happenstance that the terror is given such intense physical traits of appetite?

No, probably not, but Shelob is far from the worst villain in the book, or the most monstrous. I think a case can be put for Tolkien, conciously at least, simply trying to create the most extreme sensation of horror & fear in the reader at this point. And she is the only female baddy (unless we count Lobelia). Yes, we have lust, gluttony, cruelty, a whole list of 'sins' walking around in female form, but draw together all the male villains of the book into one figure, & I think you'd have a worse & more monstrous villain. The Male comes off far worse than the female.

Well, there certainly is a contrast between Shelob and Galadriel in terms of who gives in to her appetite and who does not, who luxuriates in it and who is so distanced from her mate that he stays behind when she sails West.

I think a case could be made for Galadriel giving in to her appetites - using Nenya to make for herself a realm, where she can halt time, prevent death, rule uncontested - different appetites, but she gives in to them nonetheless.

And can't we have one female bad guy, just so we men don't feel we're completely at fault - its not like we're dealing with the real world

Originally Posted by H-I

But if Galadriel be Crone - i.e. the most proud and most 'mindy' of the three, than all three as one would oppose Shelob - focus and image of Feminine perverted.

No, because the Crone is an ugly, deformed, destructive, cruel, foul, etc, etc 'witch' who eats liitle children all up . And that's because the Crone is not a seperate figure, but an aspect of the Goddess, who is also Maiden & Mother. Its only when you seperate the aspects that you fall into the trap of either seeing it as a male conspiracy to denigrate women, or into presenting the Crone as a wise, kindly old lady. The Crone symbolises death, & its attendant horrors. As Mother she gave life, as Crone she takes it away. All things spring from her womb, & all things, in the end, are swallowed up by her gaping maw. Galadriel & Shelob are perfect symbols of her two faces, & it only becomes a problem if you view them as seperate figures, unconnected to each other. Brigid & Morrighan are the same Goddess. All the positivity which Bethberry finds missing in Shelob is manifest in Galadriel & Arwen & (Goldberry) - whether Tolkien intended that or not.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, I admit I'm stretching things a bit all the way, but Galadriel is going away she is oldest lady present, and she takes away (death) all things she has given (or gave birth to). I.e birth = time preservation/stainless Lorien, taking away = 'I will diminish and go into the West. But with this "I will go" she takes Lorien away not from her only, but from those she had given it to in its time - from elves living there. Was there general referendum? No, the whole of the choice lies with Galadriel only. She is like Goddes to her own people, forming their fate to its ultimate end, she decides for them would they fade here or go to Aman.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Or are you suggesting that this consuming and controlling are merely flips sides (ying/yang) of those who lack self-control?

Uhhh. . .sure. . .yes. . .that was precisely what I was suggesting. (Yeah, that's it, this was my idea!)

There is a tweak I would suggest to this however: that Sauron and Shelob do not lack self-control, but wish to control others according to the desires of the self. For them, there is no other except insofar as the other exists for the self.

Goldberry is an interesting character in this regard, I admit (and how surprising of you to introduce her here ). The control she weilds is not for the purposes of domination, however, but -- as you say -- to nourish and protect (which is what makes her 'magical' and not 'monstrous'). The ying/yang (I prefer to stick to the feminine/masculine terminology or, picking up on Renaissance formulations of this -- as I am hip deep in Shakespeare at the moment -- Mars and Venus; not as divisions between men and women, but as the two forms or modes of living for all people) at any rate, this interdependent relation of Sauron and Shelob is mirrored by Tom Bombadil and Goldberry on the mystical plane, and by Arwen and Aragorn on the historical plane (and by Sam and Rosie on the domestic?).

Hmmmm. . .it occurs to me that perhaps one possible definition of evil we might apply is that in LotR, the more a being is out of balance with this essential kind of interdependence, the more evil that being becomes. . .?

[davem]

Of course, we have Goldberry & her mother, the River Woman - aspects of a primal nature goddess? Goldberry is the maiden aspect, & the River woman the crone. Does Goldberry love her 'mother'. Whether Old Man Willow is in a similar relationship to Tom is something I think has been mentioned before.

Its almost like Tolkien is creating 'mirrored images' - Tom/OMW, Goldberry/RW, Galadriel/Shelob, Frodo/Gollum, Gandalf/Saruman,Aragorn/Boromir- showing the outcome of moral choices. So its not simply good guys vs bad guys, Good vs Evil, its a depiction of the consequence of moral choices. And those who make the wrong moral choice become 'monsters' - physically as well as pyschologically. Its not a case of 'well, he makes all the good guys handsome so we can identify with/admire them & all the villains ugly so we'll hate them. Its that he's saying evil choices make us ugly - in this world only on the inside, but in Middle Earth on the outside too. His evil characters have made themselves ugly & foul ...

(Bang!! Davem's argument slams into the 'orc question' - ouch!)

Perhaps this is the reason Tolkien agonised so much in later writings about the origin of orcs. All the other villains are self made monsters, ugly & cruel because they've chosen to be. Orcs, however, are made into monsters by an external force. But I suppose this is what happens when you start out writing fairy tales & & end up writing high mythology. Faerie contains monsters, who are just 'monsters'. In Faerie Goblins, Trolls & Ogres simply exist, & have as much right to exist as Elves, Gnomes, & talking foxes! There's no 'moral' dimension as such. Ogres simply exist there & always have. They aren't explained, because they don't need to be. An ogre in a fairystory is just 'there'. He has as much 'right' to be there as the most beautiful Fay.

But in Middle Earth the moral dimension is a force, it affects individuals. There, all were once good, but some chose to become monsters - except the Orcs & by extension the Trolls. So, they must be 'robots', mustn't they? Yet, they have a metaphysics of their own - the Nazgul can strip them of their bodies & leave them (their 'spirit') naked in the 'dark' on the 'other side', so how can they be 'robots'?

Could it be possible that the Elves originally corrupted into Orcs made a moral choice to serve Morgoth - without realising the ultimate consequence? Who knows.

I think SpM's problem with Orcs' moral status still stands unresolved.

[The Saucepan Man]

But I suppose this is what happens when you start out writing fairy tales & & end up writing high mythology. Faerie contains monsters, who are just 'monsters'. In Faerie Goblins, Trolls & Ogres simply exist, & have as much right to exist as Elves, Gnomes, & talking foxes! There's no 'moral' dimension as such.

Spot on, davem. That, I think, summarises the problem of the existence of Orcs (and also Trolls) in Middle-earth in a nutshell. As you say, in "Faerie", these creatures have a right to exist as much as any other. Evil is just another "way of life". A rather banal, but nevertheless illustrative, example from my own (alas now historical) experience is the concept of alignment in role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons. Every creature has its own alignment which is a combination of opposing concepts: Good v Evil, Lawful v Chaotic. Races are ascribed their own generic alignment. For example, Orcs are lawful Evil (living within an ordered but inherently evil society). No one alignment is, objectively, the "correct" way to behave.

In this kind of a world (similar to the world of "Faerie"?), evil is an end in itself. Evil creatures have their own Gods and pursue their own evil ends. Neither their Gods nor the Gods of the creatures of good alignment were responsible for the creation of the world, but are vying for control of it. In contrast, however, evil in Middle-earth is objectively "wrong", a corruption of the plan set in motion by the being responsible for the world's creation. But, if evil is objectively wrong, it seems inherently unfair that creatures such as Orcs have no choice but to be evil.

As you say, davem, I think that it is the tension inherent in combining the world of "Faerie" with a Christian world-view that give rise to the difficulties that we have with the moral status of Orcs. And it is this, I think, that led to Tolkien revisiting his ideas on the origins of Orcs in his later years. Portraying them as simple "beasts" or automatons resolves these problems, but does not sit well with the characterisation of the likes of Shagrat and Gorbag in LotR (nor, indeed the quasi-independent Goblins of The Hobbit).

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Portraying them as simple "beasts" or automatons resolves these problems, but does not sit well with the characterisation of the likes of Shagrat and Gorbag in LotR (nor, indeed the quasi-independent Goblins of The Hobbit).

Indeed. In the later writings, he tries mightily to extricate himself from this dilemna, & ends up with orcs produced from men, elves, Maiar & animals, as 'robots' with no will of their own, driven by the will of Morgoth. But it doesn't work. I suspect that its a problem which he faced in his own psychological lfe - he was a committed Catholic, yet he loved Pagan myths. He wanted (needed?) to create a mythology, but it had to conform to Catholicism. Catholicism demanded a moral universe, in conformity with the tenets of his faith. Myth required that universe to have its roots in Faerie. This lead him to 'split' Pagan gods in two - Odin cannot be translated into Middle Earth simply by giving him an Elvish name. Odin's 'good' side manifests as Gandalf, his 'dark' (I won't say evil) side as Saruman. The Pagan Great Goddess is split into Galadriel & Shelob, & instead of balance & complementarity you have conflict & antagonism. And the 'good' tends towards perfect GOODNESS, & the bad towards absolute EVIL. This, I feel, is the reason for the 'Manichaeanism', which he struggles with. He doesn't believe in it (its heresy from the Catholic viewpoint), yet it comes across - especially to readers unfamiliar with the rest of the Legendarium - as the way Middle Earth works.

The Pagan worldview is more like the D&D one, yet ultimately there is no 'moral' dimension in the Christian sense. Life & death are seen as part of a cycle, not as opposites in conflict. And, again, Death is the great theme of LotR - the love of the world in those doomed to leave it, & the wearness & yearning for escape in those destined to remain within it. Yet the Pagan view was that the two worlds, this one & the Otherworld, intermingled & anyone could pass from one to the other.

And the orcs, as you say, are the great problem - the great problem. They are born orcs, but they are, as Tolkien admits, moral beings. They have souls, & when they die (this is a later thought of Tolkien's) their souls go to Mandos. Yet the Halls of Mandos are a place for reflection & judgement. If they can reflect on their lives, & be judged for their actions, they must have had the capacity for moral decisions. Yet they don't. Indeed, the Mythology would lose its impact if we were always uncertain about the orcs' behaviour. If we felt that any orc that appeared might decide to help the heroes, or could be won over to the good side, they wouldn't be so powerful & frightening. Its the very fact that we know they are irredemebly 'evil' that makes them the terrifying beings they are. Its also what justifies our easiness with their slaughter. We don't feel sorry for the orcs because we know they are heartless, cruel & beyond 'salvation'. Our 'heroes' remain heroes in our minds no matter how many orcs they slaughter, because we know that 'the only good orc is a dead orc'. Ths can only be if we feel they are evil incarnate. While the Dunlendings who attack Helm's Deep are spared, the orcs aren't - & we agree that that is a correct policy. But 'Nothing is evil in the beginning' Tolkien tells us through Elrond. But he must be wrong, mustn't he - maybe the first Elves, twisted & corrupted into orcs, weren't evil, but those born orcs were bad from the start - from the moment they were born. They cannot be 'saved', cannot 'repent' - or if they can, our 'heroes' are not heroes when they slaughter them without compunction. Unless its a case of 'Kill them all, Eru will know his own'.

You're right. Orcs are the problem. The Nazgul chose to take the Rings. Saruman chose to pursue power. Even Shelob, while she must eat, chooses to 'play' & 'make sport' of her captives. But orcs don't choose to be orcs. They've been brought into Middle Earth from Faerie, taken from a world where they were evil simply because that's what goblins in Faerie are like, & placed in a moral universe, where salvation or damnation are, for everyone else, the consequence of a moral choice, a choice which they are denied.

[The Saucepan Man]

Its also what justifies our easiness with their slaughter. We don't feel sorry for the orcs because we know they are heartless, cruel & beyond 'salvation'. Our 'heroes' remain heroes in our minds no matter how many orcs they slaughter, because we know that 'the only good orc is a dead orc'. Ths can only be if we feel they are evil incarnate.

That is a very good point. And it differentiates the Orcs from the Men amongst the "forces of evil". The Haradrim made a choice to join forces with Suaron's army (although some were no doubt deceived into to doing so, while yet others were "only following orders"). Yet we can see from Sam's reflections on the dead Haradrim soldier that perhaps not all of them made that choice. Further, we receive the impression that they are capable of repentance (and thus redeemable), just as the Dunlendings repent and are redeemed following the Battle of the Hornburg. No such suggestion is ever made with regard to Orcs. Even such "compassion" as they show (such as Shagrat providing Merry with Orc Draught) is simply directed towards furthering their ends (in Shagrat's case, bringing the captive Hobbits alive to Isengard). And, although Shagrat and Gorbag express a desire to be away from the War, the alternative lifestyle that they see for themselves is no less morally reprehensible than that which they are bound (by duty and fear) to pursue.

I suppose that the only way to resolve the issue satisfactorily would be to have the Orcish commanders as fallen Maia or corrupted Men and/or Elves who originally had a choice and have long since chosen evil and brutality, while the vast bulk of Orc-kind are simple "robotic beats" with no fea of their own. Yet the quasi-independent Orcish communities of the Misty Mountains, including those led by Bolg, Azog and the Great Goblin, would still perhaps stand out as anomalies. These communities seem to have some kind of culture (shown, for example, in their capacity to create songs) which would suggest that they are more than mere automatons. Although that, I suppose, could be explained as an instinctive, or "pre-programmed" aspect of their robotic nature.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

That is a very good point. And it differentiates the Orcs from the Men amongst the "forces of evil".

The most interesting in this respect, to my eye, was a question of Saruman's half-orks. If the orks he used were of beast origin, would it be that crossing those with men brought about fertile specimen? And would uruk-hai produced (usage of the verb intentional) out of such breeding posess fëar?

May it be that he used orks of human origin? Than the question is settled, and uruk-hai are more men than orks, so posses fëar, so are moral beings, so are sinners.

May it be that he used orks of elven (if such ever existed) origin? Assuming Saruman might have gone to some ends to find for his service not mere automaton orks, but those with fëar, and, assuming that some of them were of elven origin, would the co-breeding of those with men bring into being creatures similar to half-elven? Those who would have to choose which side their fate would fall? For properties of fëa can not be withdrawn save by Eru, so, fëa of Ugluk, per instance, may have found itself summoned to Mandos and than, maybe, set to make a choice - repent, rebuild hroa and remain, or go beyond the circles of the world?

But these are all [speculative] questions no one has answers to.

[Mithalwen]

Err having read a kind comment on my CP (which I visited for the first time since registering recently) I have returned to this thread, despite feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the erudition displayed by other contributors . As to my theory about choice it relates to the higher life forms mainly - Galadriel is clearly aware of the consequences of her making a different choice and of her own vulnerability to the desire for power ....... Saruman's choice was exposed by Gandalf...... The Balrogs were Maia but were erhaps corrupted so early to be relatively ignorant of the consequences..... they seem reduced to being spirits of absolute fury, hatred and destruction incapable of choice ......it is impossible to imagine a Balrog redeemed where it is possible to imagine Saruman being redeemed even at the end. Orc seem to be merely acting according to their brutish nature as Osse said...... I am not sure this is really very useful ......

But the question of acting according to "nature" is interesting in relation to evil ..... I did a course on Criminal psychology a couple of years ago and it was fascinating and 2 cases are particularly pertinent here I think.. There are people who have extra chromosomes which have various consequences. As you no doubt all know the genetic difference between men and women is that men have an XY pair of chromosome and women have XX. Some women are XXX - they tend to be super girly girls who on no account be allowed to drive your car....... men who are XYY (ie extra male men) have incredible likelihood of being psychopathic killers.......I will resist the temptation here toi make flip comments... (ssoo hard)
and there is a theory that the chromasome makes them freakishly tall and a bit wierd looking which may lead them to become isolated and alienated .... but it does raise the question of how responsible their are for their crime if they are the victims of their biology? They also had tehse children who were absolutely and remorselessly violent with no sense of wrong, who had been shown to have abnormal brain waves .......it was really terrifying....

[wilwarin538]

Id like to say something about one of Bethberry`s first quotes. God doesnt make mistakes, he makes us with free will, to do as we please, we make are selves evil. Perhaps it is the same in middle-earth, orcs are made with a free will to be evil or good, which ever they please. Perhaps they are raised to be evil and thats all they know how to be. Im sure everything on that list could be good but just choosed to be evil, maybe because of how they were raised or just by the way they wish to live there life.

I`m sure most of this was said but I just wanted to give my own opinnion on this matter.

thanks for reading,
Wilwarin

[Osse]

I would like to bring another factor into the fray here, after i've sat back and watched for a while...

That being the upbringing of those who 'choose' to become evil. Let us take orcs as an example...

Reared for a soul purpose, they are dealed with with an 'iron hand'... beaten into submission from conception, indeed concieved for the purpose of hate, death and suffering... their lives mean nothing to those above them, around them and below them... they hate themselves, their comrades and their lot. They become spiteful, hateful beings almost immediately. What then can this person do. One orc who refuses to fight is beaten, then if it continues, is killed. Die fighting, or just die in pain!

It's a vicous cycle... they cannot escape, they cannot live for themselves, and they cannot refuse. This cycle, so cunningly percieved by Morgoth, has enthralled the race completely - there is no hope for the orcs i fear.

[Evisse the Blue]

Mithalwen and Osse brought up the role that genetics and upbringing might have in determining one's goodness/badness. Sadly this question is not solved in your world, let alone in Middle Earth. The 'super males' and 'super females' have a lower IQ, therfore a tendency to solve problems using physical violence and a short attention span. That makes them prone to relatively minor crimes like robbery and assault. A good upbringing will guarantee that desirable behaviours will be enacted if as long as they are reinforced. In other words, I'll have nice table manners because daddy promised me a pony ride. That does not exclude the latent existance of undesirable behaviours that will rear their ugly head when opportunity knocks.
Alright, enough of that. After all, this is only a story and real life can be much more complicated. The bottom line is - if one can prove, based on Tolkien's own assumptions, that, if a kindly Elf had reared Shelon since she was an teeny weeny baby spider, she would not have become the 'Dark Goddess of gluttony', than the question's settled: she's not a monster, the true monster is society. Same with orcs.

As an afterthought, I always get the impression, based on absolutely no cannonical sources at all, that Tolkien was feeling more kindly towards orcs than he let show, and similarly, more pessimistic towards men.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Evisse

As an afterthought, I always get the impression, based on absolutely no cannonical sources at all, that Tolkien was feeling more kindly towards orcs than he let show, and similarly, more pessimistic towards men.

They are necessary - within the story as Sauron's 'dog soldiers', the 'poor bloody infantry' that has to do the dirty work - & for Tolkien himself as a writer. He needs the threat that they represent. They must be a stupid, cruel, & obedient 'force'. Yet, they have to be explained. And he can't ever quite do it. They simply don't belong, as they are, in a moral universe, & he is never able to explain, within the 'laws' of that universe, how they came to be there. He struggles in the same way with trolls, & to an extent with dragons. In oreder for them to exist in his proto Christian moral universe they have to be explained in a way that corresponds with Christian moral values - ie, everything must originally be good, as proceeding from the mind of a Good creator, & evil must be something which is external to the creator, but it must not require another force, because that would be dualism, & dualism is heresy. So, evil can only be corrupted good, & the evil individual must have made the moral choice to seek 'evil knowledge'. Even a monotheistic creation with a dualistic-seeming world is not acceptable, so no-one can be forced into choosing evil. They must make a free choice - accept the Rings, bow down to Sauron willingly.

But the orcs don't fit. They don't choose to be orcs. Even if Osse is right:

Reared for a soul purpose, they are dealed with with an 'iron hand'... beaten into submission from conception, indeed concieved for the purpose of hate, death and suffering... their lives mean nothing to those above them, around them and below them... they hate themselves, their comrades and their lot. They become spiteful, hateful beings almost immediately. What then can this person do. One orc who refuses to fight is beaten, then if it continues, is killed. Die fighting, or just die in pain!

This can hardly constitute true freedom of choice. Its interesting that Tolkien himself never proposed this as an explanation for orcs - bred from Elves, or Men, or animals, Maiar, robots, etc, but he never attempts 'blaming society' for their evil nature. In fact, he never uses that explanation for any of the other evil creatures/individuals in Middle earth. Evil is always a moral choice, made by an individual, & the individual is always fully responsible for that choice. Individuals can (obviously in Tolkien's view should ) always chooose the good, even if it means their death. But it doesn't account for them being born as orcs in the first place.

[Evisse the Blue]

I understand your point, davem. So this means there's a flaw, a crack in this otherwise brilliantly crafted structure that is Tolkien's world.
So if I understand correctly so far - there are three categories of 'monsters':
- the 'fairy story' beasts, for whom there is no good and evil, only the wild nature's ways - like Old man willow.
- those who have chosen evil (they could have chosen to be good only they didn't), like Bill Ferny, Smeagol
- and that indistinct category that was - shall we say - predisposed to be evil? - ; born in a society where evil is the accepted norm, but still, according to Tolkien's moral sense, could have still chosen to be good. The logic being the same In the same way that good guys, with every opportunity to be good, turn bad, like Saruman. Only of course, it's much easier to fall than to rise.
Please let me know if I don't understand correctly so far.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Evisse

Please let me know if I don't understand correctly so far.

Yes, & I think you sum it up better than me!

Question is whether the 'fairy tale' monsters are truly 'at home' in Middle earth. They certainly are in the Hobbit. The goblins & wargs are inhabitants of the world of fairy story, perectly at home there, because Bilbo has wandered into their world. They are 'monsters' pure & simple - as is Gollum - in the first edition particularly. Bilbo is a typical Edwardian gentleman who strays into Faerie, & meets people & creatures, good & bad, but we aren't really given an account of why they're good or bad. Its simply assumed - goblins & trolls are bad, because they are bad in all the fairy stories. Dwarves are basically good, but greedy. Elves are good but potentially dangerous, etc.

Then, as we begin the 'sequel' things start to change, because Tolkien decides to tie LotR into the Sil, eventually to make it the culmination of the Legendarium. At that point it all changes & explanations are required for good & evil. Tom Bombadil is basically a (brilliantly realised) fairy story character.* If he appeared in a stand alone fairy tale (as he does in the two Bombadil poems) we would simply accept him, & not require an explanation, because characters like that inhabit Faerie - if Smith had found him in faerie, dancing with the Fairy Queen, we'd have taken him as one of the inhabitants of that land. Put him into Middle Earth, make him a character in LotR, & we suddenly need to account for him, explain what he is. He must be a) a Maiar, b) one of the Valar, c) Illuvatar Himself, d) something else, a 'unique' one-off (but even then we try & analyse his nature & powers, & why he's not affected by the Ring.

In short, while any character in Faerie is accepted for the most part at face value, characters in Middle earth, existing in a 'moral' universe, must be explained, or we can't accept them. Tom doesn't fit into Middle earth precisely enough (even though many of us feel that he absolutely belongs there, because we can't fit him into the 'good' vs 'bad' scenario. So, for some people he's an insurmountable problem, & they won't even read that section of the book, jumping from leaving Crickhollow straight to Bree. The orcs of the Hobbit are the same kind of thing, & Tolkien gives us different orcs in LotR, more intelligent, more psychopathic, but he can't explain them, make them fit in to a proto-Christian Middle earth, any more than he can explain Tom - ironically, because he created Tom, & you'd expect him to be able to give an account of him that made him fit. With the orcs, its the other way around - he can't properly account for them, because he didn't invent them, he imported them. They're evil, because they're evil, because they're evil,.... But 'nothing was evil in the beginning'.

Faerie is a moral universe, only in the sense that some of its inhabitants are good & some evil. Its not a moral universe in the sense that good & evil are moral choices made by its inhabitants - the moral choices in Faerie are the choices made by those humans who stray in there. The orcs in Middle earth simply can't be 'explained' to fit into Middle earth, any more than Tom can, because they're inhabitants of an 'older', other, world.

Its like the Arthurian legends - wizards, fays, ogres, have all strayed into the courtly world of medieval Europe, but by the end, with Arthur's death, the magic. good & evil, goes away - same with Middle earth after the destruction of the Ring. Its the end of magic. The faerie world, into which the heroes have strayed, is eitehr ending, or 'splitting off' & going its own way. As the Fellowship leave Lorien they are unsure whether they are moving away from it, or whether the forest is drifting away from them, & they are standing still. At the end of the LotR, Sam watches the Grey Ship move away down the long grey firth, but perhaps the Elven ship, the elven world is staying there, & the Middle earth of the fourth age is drifting away from it.

If there is

a flaw, a crack in this otherwise brilliantly crafted structure that is Tolkien's world.

its perhaps Tolkien's need to make Middle earth a moral universe, with evil 'accounted' for by its moral choices. In a fairy story the moral choices would have been the sole prerogative of those who stray into that world: men & hobbits.

* same applies to Beorn.

[Encaitare]

Goodness me, this thread is getting long!

I'm just going to offer my personal opinions here. I think that there is evil, and there is malevolence, evil being the greater of the two. Evil is actively working to destroy and overthrow solely for the sake of it, just out of greed, jealousy, and spite. Malevolence is doing, essentially, "Other bad stuff." But then there are different levels of malevolence (M):

M1. in which someone is doing something bad for a justifiable reason (ie: survival, personal freedom, etc -- gain of power not included).
M2. in which someone is doing something bad because he/she cannot help it (ie: loss of free will)
M3. in the case of someone, as Evisse said, "for whom there is no good and evil."
M4. in which someone does bad things, but without a goal of ultimate destruction and enslavement.
M5. in which someone acts wrongly because he/she cannot/will not resist a stronger power delivering orders. This is not to say that he/she is acting unwillingly, but is still just doing what he/she is told.

To be truly evil requires a great amount of personal power, which most of Middle-earth's baddies lack.

I shall now classify! (Using Fordim's original list with a few more thrown in)

1. The Black Riders-- I would put these in category M2, because they have lost their free will.
2. Old Man Willow-- M3, because he's a tree. A nasty tree, but hardly something that is going to take over the world anytime soon.
3. The Barrow Wights-- M3, because they're rather undead and cannot be responsible for what they do.
4. The Watcher in the Water-- a tricky one. M4, I think, because its motivations are never really explained.
5. Orcs-- M5. They are dark creatures but do have the potential to be redeemed, although it is doubtful that they would use this potential.
6. The Balrog-- I would say that the Balrog is evil, simply because it and its kind were used for evil for so long. The Balrog can think for itself, and is so powerful that even the Moria Orcs flee from it.
7. Gollum-- M2, because the Ring has destroyed him so much that all hope of redemption is gone.
8. The Fell Beasts-- big and ugly, but basically like the Oliphaunts or Trolls (even though Trolls like to eat people on their own time!). They are put to evil uses by Sauron, and who can tell what they would have done on their own? They probably wouldn't be wreaking so much havoc, so I'd say M5.
9. Shelob-- I think that Shelob is indeed evil, because while she does eat to survive, she also eats out of hatred. She almost fits into the "above good or evil" category because it seems that she simply *must* eat, and she is not concerned with Sauron's personal motivations. However, the topic of Ungoliant was raised, and Ungoliant was definitely evil.
10. The ghosts of the unfaithful-- perhaps they were bad in their own time, cowardly at the very least, but as ghosts they're not that big of a threat. It's played up more in the movie so I won't go into them.
11. The Mouth of Sauron-- M2. He cannot recall his own name; he has no purpose other than to serve Sauron.
12. Sauron-- Evil all the way, but not as evil as...
13. Morgoth-- The original baddie, who is totally more badass than Sauron! Yup, he's evil, though.
14. Uruk-hai-- M4 in my opinion. They *are* just doing what they're told, but their also a lot more aggressive than regular orcs.
15. Saruman-- he definitely became evil, though he was not always so.

and....

16. Grima-- my poor favorite minor character, always neglected! And always an enigma, too. I could say M1, because he was promised Eowyn if he worked for Saruman, but that is a rather sleazy motive. So perhaps we could also say M5, because he's a pretty weak person by nature and probably fell victim to Saruman's voice quite easily.

I conclude with...
"For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." ~Elrond

Thoughts?

~Encaitare

[The Saucepan Man]

M25. in which someone does something bad because they have been stuck in a 20 mile traffic tailback for 5 hours.

[Osse]

Well summed up! Your points of manevolence and true even are justified, and I believe quite true.

But now (mwa ha ha)...

Are those manevolent beings manevolent because they are born that way, or because they choose to be? Can something be manevolent from birth?? (Forget Evil, lets just say it comes from general manevolence) And, how does Evil develop from manevolence, or can something be truly evil from birth rather than just midly manevolent?

[Mithalwen]

While I alas, have very "little Latin and less Greek", and apologise to any Classicists I would say that malevolence meant "ill will" or "wrong/evil intention" - so I would say that malevolence required mens rea...... so a psychopath may be evil and do evil things without being malevolent - it requires a degree of rationality and awareness that I would say preclude something from being born malevolent - I think it is something that one becomes. There may be a predispositon but wheter it is developed would depend on environment. However I think it is possible for something to be born evil - but then I may be allowing the fact that I think of "Village of the Damned/Midwych Cuckoos" every time I see my god-son warp my judgement on this one....

[Encaitare]

Response time!

To The Saucepan Man-- But of course! That's quite excusable.

To Osse-- Oh, you devil's-advocate-playing-Maia-spirit, you! Let me reread your tongue-twisting response and see what I get out of it... Okay. I have come up with some coherent thoughts! So, what I personally believe is that we have choices, and that no one is born "malevolant." It's the experiences we have which shape us, and after a while there is a point of no return which is Evil. When someone becomes so apathetic that they figure they've got nothing to lose and everything to gain by destruction, then malevolance changes to evil. So I'm gonna go with the "Tabula rasa" or "clean slate" theory and say that at birth, evil and good do not exist. They're just abstract concepts anyway... ::clutches skull at thought overload::

To Mithalwen-- I most certainly agree with you on this:

There may be a predispositon but wheter it is developed would depend on environment.

Hooray for people actually listening to my ramblings!

[Mithalwen]

I feel I may turn into a Wonga-Wonga bird imminently but I am not sure that there is an absolute clean slate because it disregards nature and leaves everything to nurture and we are slaves to our genes as much as our environment - I mean you are never going to teach a cow to sing even if you play it Mozart in utero and send it to Julliard...... Of course to an extent good and evil are socially defined concepts ... I think genes are important and they are selfish ...... there is usually an ulterior motive to social behaviour..... all in all we take as much as we can get away with ..... So in a way maybe we are born "evil" and trained (or not) to be good.....