JRRT's closely balanced M-E arguments

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I've been musing on an aspect of JRRT's writings, specifically
his way of presenting closely reasoned and balanced
arguments on various arguments/situations. For example,
the various claims of groups to the treasure of Smaug/Erebor,
and Aldarion and Erendis and their discordant world views.
One wonders if there are other such instances and to what
extent such an approach aids or hinders story
developement in M-E. Are there other such instances that
come to mind?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I would toss in the careful ambiguity of the Turinssaga: is it Turin's own doing, or Morgoth's curse? He hints both and declares neither.

[skip spence]

Good point. Tolkien was well aware of the power persuasive rethorics and dialectics have on people. Sauruman's voice is the voice of a politician (though not nessesarily a lefty ) and a demagog. There were a few of them around for Tolkien to witness during his lifetime too, wasn't there?

Sauron, during his days as handsome Annatar, was quite a slick talker too.

The argument between Turin and Gwildor in Nargothrong regarding their war tactics is another good example of what you speak of. The main reason why Turin won the argument was his delivery, good looks and charisma, not the wisdom behind his words.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

This was an aspect of Tolkien's work I always admired greatly. One of the best examples of this sort of thing is probably The Council of Elrond. Many find the section boring and long winded, but I think it's cleverly crafted and painstakingly thought out. We get many differing opinions, each is given the chance to run their argument through. A rare occurrence these days

This is probably down to Tolkien's environment as an academic. Being familiar with each side of an argument is essential to constructing your own, and in reading Tolkien's essays one gets the sense he understood this very well. When this goes over into his creative work I think it compliments his world greatly and is one of the many things that makes Middle Earth come alive.

In cases such as the Erebor argument, Turin's 'bad luck' and even the voice of Saruman, I think we get the very subtle 'grey areas' of Middle Earth. Many people like their morally grey things to be played out in specific characters, but I think Tolkien's genius is right here in the unclear areas. Here Tolkien is pointing out that it's not always so clear cut as you may think; there are different opinions to consider, different angles to take and different attitudes sported.

It makes the world of Middle Earth that much more real. In real life there are the uncertainties and each opinion has its champions.

[alatar]

In regards to the Voice of Saruman, you get to hear the answer to your (the reader's) question regarding why Gandalf doesn't just exert all of his power and set things aright. Surely he could order Middle Earth to the benefit of all, even if he had to break a few eggs along the way. Or he may not even start with siding with Sauron, as does Saruman, but you hear the logical end of the process.

Everyone wrapped in bubble wrap?

[Aiwendil]

This is an interesting point. I've always thought that, contrary to the literary academics' charge that Tolkien's world is morally black and white, much of the strength of his work derives from his skilful use of ambiguity.

Some great examples have been mentioned - but I think that Tuor of Gondolin is on to something interesting with the point that in some of these cases we are not only shown that ambiguity but also given closely reasoned arguments from each side in the form of dialogue between characters. A favorite example that comes to mind (and which skip spence touched on) is Turin's arguments with Beleg and later Gwindor concerning his policy of open warfare against Morgoth. What's interesting to me here is that, though the position taken by Beleg and Gwindor is clearly "right", Turin's arguments are reasonable and persuasive as well. I particularly like this quote from Turin:

For victory is victory, however small, nor is its worth only from what follows from it. But it is expedient also. Secrecy is not finally possible: arms are the only wall against Morgoth. If you do nothing to halt him, all Beleriand will fall under his shadow before many years are passed, and then one by one he will smoke you out of your earths. And what then? A pitiable remnant will fly south and west, to cower on the shores of the Sea, caught between Morgoth and Osse. Better then to win a time of glory, though it be shortlived; for the end will be no worse. You speak of secrecy and say that therein lies the only hope; but you could ambush and waylay every scout and spy of Morgoth to the last and least, so that none came ever back with tidings to Angband, yet from that he would learn that you lived and guess where.

The thing about this is that Turin's prediction is very accurate, and his reasoning is quite correct, as far as it goes. Ultimately, the secretive approach advocated by Gwindor cannot achieve victory over Morgoth. The realms of the Elves and Edain are indeed defeated one by one and a pitiable remnant does indeed take refuge on the south-west coast. The only thing Turin does not foresee (which of course makes all the difference) is that Earendil will reach Valinor and persuade the Valar to go to war.