What do we talk about when we talk about characters?

[Bêthberry]

How do we talk about characters and characterization so that Lord of the Rings is opened up for us, so that we come away with a better understanding of how the book works its wonders rather than simply talking about our own ideas?

Maril has provided a link to a good article about writing characters on the RPG Resource thread in the Freestyle RPG Forum. For reference, here's her link:

"Strong Characters versus Weak Character" by C.J. Cherryh

I think we can take Cherryh's ideas and use them to analyze Tolkien's characters. Cherryh's main idea is that a character's virtue must be won by experience. Here's the basic idea:

So, 'well-drawn' and 'morally strong' adult characters of whatever gender carry swords and banners only for local colour. More importantly, they carry principles or hypotheses of behaviour as the useful and significant tools of their trade, and they test those principles for validity constantly against the situation posed ....

This main idea allows us to ask many different kinds of questions about Tolkien's characters. I don't intend to answer them here, but I would like to raise them to see what kind of discussion they engender.

1.) Is Saruman morally weak but strongly drawn? Does he have a "tragic virtue" or a "tragic flaw" or does his characterization depend upon the bad application of a "moral virtue"?

2.) Are there any "weasels" in LOTR? That is, are there characters who don't pay the consequences for their actions?

3.) Who are the foils in LOTR and how does this function limit or proscribe what the character can do?

4.) How many characters face dramatic vulnerability? Do we fear for them? If we don't, is this a way of identifying a character who is not well-drawn?

5.) How are the characters' traits useful or detrimental to their cause?

6.) What are the proportions of weakness and strength in the characters? Does this proportion vary depending on the role the character plays or the particular narrative thread the character inhabits?

7.) How does Tolkien create sympathy for his heroes? Does he create sympathy for his villains?

8.) Is LOTR an event-driven novel or a character-driven novel?

Essays are due in two weeks. Value: a ticket to your own barrow. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Bethberry

[onewhitetree]

1.) I think it is pretty obvious that by the time LotR rolled around, Saruman was fairly morally weak. This is not to be confused with intellectually or interpersonally weak because he was clearly lacking little in either of those areas. It's really an ambiguous choice to surmise whether he was so weak "back at the ranch," so to speak. At first thought, surely he must have been of strong character to be chosen as leader of his little Istari expedition, but then, that Valar lady who was into Gandalf (bad with names? me?) never did like him much. Rather like a jealous mother, or was it more? Maybe Saruman was weak to begin with because, after all, Fate In Middle-Earth is a force to be reckoned with.

2.) This is one of my favorite things about Tolkien: his sense of justice! Really, I don't think there is a solitary soul in any of the books that I have read that was not treated righteously. I think what I like best about it is that his justice is not "good guys die and go to heaven, bad guys die too, and go to hell," but more based on the premise the people get what is coming to them while they are still alive (albeit for a few seconds in some cases, but a few seconds is all it takes for a warrior to realize that he was crusading for the wrong cause, or that true allegiance is not what it was perceived to be, etc, and a change of heart is never too late).

3.) I must beg a clarification of this one before I venture a statement.

4.) When I think of vulnerable, I think of Eowyn. She witnessed her family fall into relative darkness compared to what it had been once upon a time; her very existence as a woman was a source of pain to her; her future seemed as bleak as an eternal trudge over dead, barren land. It's enough to make anyone touchy. I think she really retreated into herself to deal with all the emotional hurt she received, and she put up a front as Tough Girl (not to say she wasn't tough, but we all have soft sides as well) in order to mask her vulnerability. Her physical strength especially was what she relied upon. I think, considering the way Eowyn was written, that we believe in the power of her strength until the worst is over, and as we look back, we realize what amazing feats she actually did accomplish. I don't think this makes her character poorly drawn -- I think it is how the people of Rohan would have reacted as well. Also, it is telling that she only finds true love when her physical strength is finally made inferior. Once the Tough Girl front is stripped to reveal Sensitive Girl, she realizes what it is she really wants.

That's all for now. Really, only 400 posts in over two years -- you can't expect too much of me.

[Helkasir]

Super long post coming: those of short attention spans, beware.

1.) Saruman, I believe, falls to the fate of a recurring theme in all middle earth: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once put into power as lead istari and head of the council of the wise, saruman probably got his first taste of power, reference to "Back at the ranch" above. It seems that all those who die tragically in ME die in a lust for power; boromir, morgoth (In the case of the void and wanting to have the flame imperishable), sauron, gollum, Feanor, and even Lotho Baggins got in over his head. Saruman succumbed to his desire for power, the fatal flaw. That's what makes Aragorn, gandalf, Sam and Frodo such great heroes; Each had a chance at greater power and turned it down. To add to the list of doomed people, isildur. To add to the good, Galadriel. Those under the "Bad or doomed" list just didn't take sam's advice; the less can be more and small can be wonderful.

2.)Not that many. The best I can see in this case is that Bill Ferny only gets knocked out by a well thrown apple. Not much justice. But every character pays.

3.) Gollum was such a great foil character. Both sides in the war of the ring viewed him as both an asset and a danger. To Frodo he was a danger because he might be volatile enough to attack at any minute, but he alone could have led them to mordor (And, as it seems, to shelob) To sauron, he had informaiton on where the ring was, and could work as a potential spy, but was paid by gollum's suicidal dance over the edge of orodruin.

4.) The best well drawn vulnerable character is Frodo; think about it. He's a hobbit! He's not a great adventurer, and not that many people have the guts to infiltrate mordor, carrying a potential beacon (aka the one ring) to the enemy himself. Not only is unprepared meotionally for the strain of the ring and the journey ahead, but he is unprepared for the realization of what sacrifices has to make for his friends. reading through the entire book, I was stricken in pain with the description of how thin and drawn he had become. After all, the ring had lasting effects. Frodo was always on a knife's edge.

5.) One example of a person whose character traits aid his cause is Aragorn. Rising from the distant past, in an age with no elves or vala to help him, he alone needs to lead a stricken race of men to dawn against a power that defeated his predeccsors. No easy feat. But he's been tempered by LONG years of experience. e's no leonardo decaprio or gusto driven poet's hero; he's been out in the wild in his own solitary pursuits where he learned to make decisions; he's a veteran campaigner; he had the finest mentors, Gandalf and Elrond, and he had goals (Arwen). His steadfast charactertha made him such a pillar of confidence made the paths of the dead possible as route for him.

I'll post more later. Right now, I'm tired.

[Gandalf_theGrey]

I rolled an eight on a ten-sided die.

8) Is LOTR an event-driven novel or a character-driven novel?

Ring-driven. Though the Ring does not have the last word, nor had it the first.

* bows *

Gandalf the Grey

[Helkasir]

profound, GTG.

[Elenna]

7) Tolkien creates symapthy for his heroes by making them very much like us. For instance, Aragorn is facing what seems to be an insurmountable problem. But Tolkien offers hope to us through the choices of his character - Aragorn sticks it out.

I don't believe that Tolkien gives sympathy to his villains, however. Throughout the book, it is very clear who is inherently evil. Even Saruman, though it is admitted that he was once great, is cruel and sadistic. Not even for a second does it seem like he could be anything but a villain.

[Helkasir]

^But Gollum tends to be a villian, yet he gets sympathy.

[Elenna]

I don't class Gollum as a villain. He is more of a pawn. He does both good and bad, depending on what side he's on at the moment. Plus, he doesn't have nearly as much power as any of the other true villains.

And call me heartless, but I never sympathized with Gollum.

[lathspell]

Well, Bethberry, here's my opinion on things.
I hope you've got some time, it's quite long.


Is Saruman morally weak but closely drawn?

Yes, Saruman is morally weak, but he hasn’t always been like that. It all began with the study of the Rings of Power: learning about them and their powers and at last desiring that thing which he so long studied, the One Ring. He lusted for it and for a kingdom of his own, yet I don’t think he had either a “tragic virtue” or a “tragic flaw”. He made a tragic flaw, yet none other could know that he was making one, for no one knew that he was morally weak, except maybe the Ones on the High Seats of Aman.

Are there any “weasels” in LotR?

Yes, there are characters in LotR who don’t pay heed to the consequences of their actions. Except from Orcs, who intentionally do or do not pay heed, Bill Ferny is an example of a “weasel”. He does everything as long as it is for is own profit, but doesn’t (or won’t) see what it does to others. He spies for enemies, works for Saruman as a ruffian; thinking himself great and invulnerable. Yet when you seem to win from him he shrieks and runs. He is a “weasel”.

Who are the foils in LotR?

How many characters face dramatic vulnerability?

There are some characters that seem to face such a thing. ‘Onewhitetree’ already answered with mentioning Eowyn, yet I thought of Frodo in the first place. Both of them are in great pain. Eowyn because she saw all she loved fall into ruin and darkness. Frodo because of his quest and leaving all that he loved to save it. Yet in my eyes there is one more that faces dramatic vulnerability, though not in LotR, but in the Silmarillion. This is Turin, son of Hurin, his life was one great row of happy times ending very sad. Beginning in his childhood, when the Easterlings gain control of their lands.
Now that I think of it… Frodo, Eowyn and Turin (all of them facing vulnerability) are remembered as heroes and men of honour, for all of them did great deeds: Frodo and the Ring, Eowyn and the Witchking, Turin and Glaurung.

How are the characters traits?

I don’t quite get this question. Ain’t this otherwise for every other character, and ain’t that why they are so well-drawn?

Proportions of weakness and strength

I think the proportions are devided in a good manner. It’s a question of race, gender and size. If you ask this (and with this take your own ideas about what you want the character to do), you can give him/her the virtues he/she needs to have for the story and which is also ‘legal’ to the limits of the three subjects said above: race, gender and size.

How he creates sympathy

I think the greatest thing about the sympathy of those heroes is that they have no great flaws. If they had flaws it was because of love for other things, i.e.: Boromir wanted the Ring, which was his flaw, but he wanted it because he thought he could save Gondor with it. There are also heroes in M-e for which there’s no sympathy, anyway not from me, and one of them is Feänor. I think the greatest reason for this is that he had a flaw: pride. So, in my eyes, he gave his heroes no great flaws, so that the chance was smaller that they would do great mischief.
Tolkien was able to create sympathy for his villains, remember old Lotho Sackville-Baggins. In the beginning of the time that Saruman marred the Shire, Lotho thought it quite good that he came. That Saruman wanted to go that far as said in the LotR, was not his intention. But it was too late for he had nothing to say anymore in the matter. Gollum is another class villain and earns sympathy in other ways, especially while helping Frodo into Mordor.

Event-driven or character-driven?

I think that it’s a combination of these two, and with it the magnificent description of the places that they go to and the items that are carried, even the places and items of less importance. Greatest of all these things, I guess, is the excellent description of the characters and the places and the items.


That's it!...
greetings,
lathspell

[Fleance Stoneycroft]

I just wanted to add that Saruman (and Grima Wormtongue) are my favourite characters in LotR. And I think Saruman is a great personality. He had got the One Ring, I am sure, if he had just had someone to help him (Gandalf, for example). He is lonely in his heart.
Horror and LotR

[Rimbaud]

With apologies to Bethberry for uncustomary tardiness on my part.

First, a note. Within this answer lies a study of Lord of the Rings and that as a stand-alone work. By this, I wish to state that auxilliary texts such as The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, the HoME series, Unfinished Tales and even Letters (after much deliberation, for there was much to be gleaned) are not examined or referred to. Therefore, any subsequent mention of depth refers only to the words that constitute the Rings series, not the greater picture of Tolkien’s Middle-Earth.

Saruman

Tolkien, the Archetype Devourer (borrowed [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ). Saruman is a stereotype of morally weak characterisation. He is easily tempted, his heart is swiftly darkened and he fails (until the very last sentence describing him) to exhibit any saving graces. No moral fibre, to paraphrase bad modern journalists. Spin the story around a little and some qualities emerge. He does not give up easily; even after his liege-lord had fallen and his own plans were in ruinous disarray, he continues along his plot-driven path, that of causing maximum damage to our diminutive heroes. Though petulant, his repulsive rape of the Shire is a strident note at the footnote of an otherwise unremarkable curriculum vita. However, his transformation (unseen, and therefore unknown in scope and depth to the Reader) is callously treated. Snared rather easily by the chap in Barad-Dur, one might say. He is not only morally weak but poorly drawn, as well. The scope and pacing of [I]Rings[/] - in flux though it is, usually – do not allow us to understand or sympathise with Saruman, although there are some rather machined attempts to do so near the end, particularly when the triumphant host encounters him after the War is over, as he trudges down the road with Grima Wormtongue.

(It is worth noting however, that Saruman’s addition to the story line is invaluable, since the other villain of the peace is the king of all stereotypes. Ever. Anywhere. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

That said, as so often with Tolkien’s work, the end improves perception of the means.

For a moment it wavered, looking to the West; but out of the West came a cold wind, and it bent away, and with a sigh dissolved into nothing.

This powerful line adds depth to Saruman, a good and oft-employed trick of Tolkien’s, implying a certain depth to the character when really there was little extant in the text. Saruman is gifted thus a “tragic virtue”, his apparent penitence or at least realisation of mistakes made, lending him a swift and almost eucatastrophic pathos. Sharkey’s previous position as Head of the White Council and his angelic nature do not count as “moral virtues” since the reader does not encounter them and anyone with half a brain knew he was rotten egg, early on.

Insofar as “tragic flaws” go, Saruman is strangely lacking. We are told that he is seduced by the power of the Dark Side and little else. There is some bitter humour in his involvement with the spring-cleaning of Mirkwood in Bilbo’s time, when paired with his subsequent position as Lieutenant Bad Guy, but it is quite insignificant. His treatment of Boba Fe…Grima Wormtongue lends him little audience sympathy. The lack of strong characterisation for Saruman, who as a fallen angel, could have been one of the most moving and powerful figures in modern ‘mythlore’ is a central weakness of the text.


More to come, after I’ve endured the rotten fruit soon to be flung.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Rimbaud ]

[Bêthberry]

Not so, Rimbaud, not so. Only encomia.

*gracious, sweeping curtsy*

My own apologies to all who have replied with wit and insight and timely thoughts. Other work has kept me from this thread, to which I shall endevour to return.

Bethberry

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Bêthberry]

With all the new Downers around these days, perhaps it is time to revisit an old discussion, from which RL rudely called me away so I was unable to provide the deserved replies.

And with such thoughtful and interesting posts, perhaps it is best if, rather than responding individually, I bring the comments together into a single focus. I will use Kate's comment to do so:

Maybe Saruman was weak to begin with because, after all, Fate In Middle-Earth is a force to be reckoned with.

Does LOTR work only because Saruman is not fully developed, nor give empathetic writing? What should be spent on Saruman is given to Gollem. A narrative slight of hand?

Bethberry

[Aratlithiel]

I don't agree that Saruman is under-developed...of course this opinion comes from also having read Unfinished Tales and learning of Saruman's jealousy of Gandalf at the council of the Valar. That small chapter ( The Istari) told me everything I needed to know about Saruman's character and allowed me to fully appreciate the motivations behind his actions in LotR.

Saruman is one of those guys who achieves a certain level of respect and has the opportunity to do great good with his powers and knowledge (for which he would be 'canonized' for lack of a better word) but always has that seed of insecurity in him which gnaws at him and drives him to desire to prove himself the wisest, most powerful and most worthy of praise. It was this desire that led to his undoing and Gandalf's lack of it that led to him taking Saruman's place after his fall to evil. So instead of 'canonization' Saruman dies in the dirt and is reviled in history.

Saruman knows all too well that Varda places Gandalf above him. I believe the turning point for Saruman was when he came to realize that Cirdan had entrusted his ring of power to Gandalf and not to him. To him this must have been insult added to the injury already inflicted by Varda. Everything Saruman does after that seems be an effort to prove to Varda that he was the better choice and to gain confidence in himself that he is indeed "better" than Gandalf. He has always had a sneaking suspicion that's he's inferior to Gandalf (although I don't think his pride would allow him to admit that to himself outright) and I believe his choices are an effort to prove to himself that he is in fact superior.

I see Saruman as akin to Iago in Othello. Really, everything he does is in an effort to bring down one he knows is superior to him simply so that he can stop feeling inferior.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

For the most part, I concur, Aratlithiel.

One point that generated interest in Saruman for me is the question of whether or not he really believed he was in the right in accepting Sauron's offers.

There are people that have known from the beginning that their actions are wrong, but they convince themselves so thoroughly that they are right, so completely reverse the shades of their world, that they truly believe that wrong is right (this works in reverse too). Was it so in Saruman's case? Could he turn that voice of persuasion inward to his own intellect, or were his actions the result of his jealousy of Gandalf, a jealousy he was aware of and knew to be sinful?

That last look to the West - was it remorse, despair, or was it confusion and hatred?

I don't believe that Tolkien gives sympathy to his villains

I certainly felt sympathy for Saruman. His terrible, bitter words to Frodo in the Shire stirred deep sadness and regret. It wasn't until then that he became more than a plot device. It was only in his ruin that he could become, suddenly and poignantly, a character.

[Aratlithiel]

That's a good question, Muse and I think you've probably hit upon some truth. I find it very likely that Saruman really did think that if he possessed the Ring that he could throw down Sauron and order ME properly and to his designs. He 'seems' to believe that that scenario would turn out to be the best for everyone as evidenced in his arguements with Gandalf @ Orthanc. (Isn't that how most politicians get in trouble - thinking they know what's good for you and you don't? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

[doug*platypus]

Garden of the Octothread

8 questions in one? Can you do that??

Just for starters...

1. Yes, Saruman is a strong character with weak moral fibre, and was probably an excellent source of inspiration for Cherryh's thoughts on character. Indeed, Tolkien draws excellent characters, but I'm sure most people (myself included) only start to realise this on the third reading or so, once the events have been assimilated into their heads. I don't believe there is any element of the tragic in Saruman (although I'm sure Gandalf would disagree, especially having come from a similar background). I feel pity for the wretch that Saruman became (jsut as Frodo pitied him, and showed him mercy), but I cannot feel any sympathy for him, because his fall from grace came from his own pride and greed, and not like Gollum from some dominant outside force.

2. By weasels it looks like you mean people who go unpunished for their sins. In which case there are none. Even Bill Ferny is punished for his wickedness, but only in just proportion to it. Had Merry run him through and Sam thrown his body into the ditch, it would not have been just. Bill got what he deserved (eviction and a kick up the bum), since his deeds were not as evil as those of Saruman or of Wormtongue (both of whom get exactly what they deserved, as does Sauron). No evil character goes unpunished, but also none is punished more than they deserve. In the Lord of the Rings, Eru sees justice done, at least on that side of the coin (Frodo, Hama, Forlong are examples on the other side whose ends were perhaps unfair).

3. It is difficult to name foils in LOTR, much more than in almost any other work of fiction. Tolkien's pedantry ensured that everyone had a story and a history, at least. Gimli and Legolas are the least complete characters, but I am not sure in what way they may work as foils, unless to each other to show the bond of friendship that shared hardships may bring. A little thinking brings the name Frodo to my mind, as foil to Sam. Frodo's own (inner) journey would have stood on its own, but for Sam to become a more responsible hobbit he needed the love of his master as his guiding light. Sam eventually takes over as the main character of the narrative (and the Master of Bag End), and as the New Bilbo his role in the book as the everyman is at least as important as Frodo's (though not as central to the actual quest).

4. I assume by vulnerable that you mean not in the physical sense (otherwise the answers are numerous and obvious). onewhitetree makes an excellent example of Éowyn, who like Denethor was dangerously vulnerable to despair and eventually suicide. Of course the possible suicide of Éowyn is a far more horrible thought than that of nasty, old Denethor. But poor Faramir! Daddy kills himself, and then wifey later reveals she has had a history of suicidal tendencies and depression, as well. Too much like the shocking realities of our own world, and a little unnerving to delve into. Sméagol is of course the other vulnerable character, who like Denethor succumbs in the end, in his case not to despair but to the lure of the Ring. Frodo could not save his life, but at least he managed to save the quest, and Gollum did not die in vain. Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond and Galadriel may have been open to temptation, but they were hardly very vulnerable, having all decided years previously that they would not take the Ring. They were all of sufficient strength to pass the test. So was Faramir, but his brother was not, and is another example of vulnerability, which seems a good way to arouse sympathy for a character.

5. All the characters seem to have traits that are either useful or detrimental to their cause. Frodo is strong but only mortal, Sam is undaunting but not as ready to pity, Aragorn is a great leader but prone to indecision or unconfidence. Even Gandalf seems weary at times. That is the beauty of Tolkien's characters - nothing comes easy for them. A possible exception is Elrond, who at first glance seems to be Mr Perfect, although being an Elf (like Gildor) he could not persuade Isildur to destroy the One Ring when he first had the chance. Probably not the best time to say both "yes" and "no".

6. I think that the proportion of weakness and strength does vary noticeably, and that it is dependent on the role of the character. Actually, in the case of Frodo and Sam it is dependent on their place in the narrative, too - Bethberry, you already knew this!! The trip to Mordor is exactly the kind of place where a character's weaknesses will come out, and be judged against their strengths. If Elrond and Glorfindel were attempting the quest rather than Frodo and Sam, the result would be less rewarding for the reader, and the chief peril would no doubt have been how stinky the orcs were, and what an unpleasant two weeks that was. Gandalf, as the representative of Eru and the person who is supposed to know what is going on, cannot afford more than a little weakness. At the Black Gate we see him truly despair for a few moments, and frankly it scares buggery out of me. If we didn't already know that Sam and Frodo had escaped, this would be a great and terrible moment in the book (it still is, though). There is a similar contrast between Gollum and Saruman. As has been pointed out, if the narrative followed Saruman more closely we could have felt more sympathy towards him. But I think that Gollum deserves it more, as I outlined in my answer to 1.

7. Sympathy for the heroes is generated by showing firstly the dire circumstances that they are in, and secondly the fact that they are 'only human' and have inherent weaknesses. Aragorn is not immune to tiredness, and Gandalf is subject to fear, as we all are. Disregarding animalistic villains such as Shelob or the Balrogs, Sauron I think is the only evil being that we cannot feel either sympathy or pity for. Even Morgoth had a great capacity for good in the beginning. It is possible to feel sympathy for Gollum and pity for Saruman, and possibly in some way for Wormtongue, as being nothing more than a sinful man, a criminal, who sinks much lower than he needed to, under the command of a tyrant.

8. Character-driven, without question. Tolkien himself stated in Letters that the use of a journey or quest was simply one device that could have been employed to tell the story. The characters weren't there to facilitate the events - quite the opposite. He also stated in reference to the Animated Version that if either Helm's Deep or The Cleansing of Isengard (not only its destruction by the Ents, but mainly Saruman's "excommunication") had to be cut, it should be the battle at Helm's Deep.

[Bêthberry]

lol, doug, you wouldn't be making an allusion to Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil would you? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Must reply at length later...

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Somehow I missed this discussion when it was first posted, and when it was revived. Perhaps I can rectify that oversight now by attempting to respond to at least some of Bêthberry's teasers.

Firstly, I think that when it comes to morals, Tolkien knew almost instinctively that he could not afford to be ambiguous. Moral health is central to ultimate happiness and success in his world, and those who allow their moral weaknesses to rule their behaviour are as destined to fail as those who overcome them are to succeed. Saruman is, I think, a perfect example of one who embodies moral and psychological weakness: he can see no way to carry out his mission without recourse to brute strength. Although blessed with a Voice that can be used to persuade those whom he addresses of almost anything, he prefers to make his headquarters in Isengard and allow himself to become an authority, to whom people can come for help as supplicants. Saruman sees himself as a superior being, whose grand purpose is to save the weak mortals of Middle-earth from an enemy who is their utter superior; to seize power and order matters 'for their own good'. This arrogant pride is his first mistake, but it is his second mistake, that of choosing the One Ring as the instrument of his reformation, that brings about his downfall.
In this way, Saruman is a perfect foil for Gandalf. Where Saruman accepts political authority and seeks to dominate the enemy, Gandalf travels about among the peoples that it is his duty to protect. He takes an interest in races too small to be of interest to his proud colleague and utterly rejects the concept of forcing his protection on others. Often at times of conflict he disappears from the action altogether, trusting his protegés to find their own way; to be the heroes of their own stories without interference. His humility, which had led him to doubt his ability to defeat Sauron, makes him better able to recognise the virtues of smaller characters, such as Bilbo, Frodo and Sam. The juxtaposition of these two characters reaches its acme in The Voice of Saruman, in which we see the former leader of the White Council reduced from the appearance of wisdom and benevolence into a frank exposure of his bitter contempt for all but his own order. His moral weakness is arrogance, and it is his distrust of the Free Peoples' ability to save themselves that leads to his eventual alliance with Sauron and fall into petty evil.

Of course, the pettiness and misery of evil are two of its main characteristics in Tolkien. In Gollum we see the ultimate wretchedness of avarice, reduced almost to animalism by centuries of evading responsibility, and of slaking lusts instantly and brutally. In a sense, he is one of the greater 'weasels' in that he refuses utterly to admit to himself that he has done anything to deserve the misery and squalor into which he has plunged himself. Although we might believe that his is a tragic story of manipulation by the Ring, Tolkien is at pains to point out that it could only gain such a hold by his initial murderous act, which places him in the power of a merciless and implacable force that is beyond his comprehension, let alone his control. Gollum also acts as a foil, however. His disgusting habits and appearance; the many stories of his wickedness, and his relentless pursuit of the Ring all make him a dangerous and untrustworthy companion; and yet it is precisely this sort of character that is required to bring out Frodo's own compassion and empathy, allowing the reader to be shown what good should do when confronted by evil. Frodo's first instinct when faced with the reality of Gollum is mercy, instinctive and unflinching, which contrasts dramatically with Sam's violent, although entirely justified, mistrust.

Tolkien also plays characters off against one another in more comic situations. In The Houses of Healing we see Gandalf locked in a battle with that paragon of learning without wisdom, the Master. Having treated Ioreth, whose prattlings have been to a purpose, with indulgence, we see a very different character as he is confronted with a string of academic inconsequence: "Then in the name of the king, go and find some old man of less lore and more wisdom who keeps some in his house!"

Naturally a foil in its most simplistic sense is a character who reveals the strengths of another, usually the hero, through their own weakness. However, Tolkien uses this more subtly than does Conan-Doyle, for whom every character seemed to have provided an opportunity for Sherlock Holmes to prove his astounding abilities. Tolkien uses characters as simple foils in one scene that are showing great strength of character in others. Pippin's theft of the Palantír, in which Gandalf's wisdom and understanding are demonstrated in his dealing with the miscreant, contrasts nicely with his sensible and prompt action in The Pyre of Denethor (in which he demonstrates a great deal more wisdom than Denethor himself). At one time Frodo's bungled attempt at inconspicuousness in the Prancing Pony shows up Aragorn's discretion and insight, whereas at another his decisiveness actually forces the future king into taking the path to his kingdom. In the Master of the Houses of Healing, we see a rare example of a character who really is just a foil: a man whose abilities do not match his pretentions. Bill Ferny is another such, demonstrating by his cowardly and cynical behaviour the courage and integrity of the Hobbits. Note that Aragorn is passive in the apple scene, Ferny being as beneath him as it is possible to be, and that the humblest of the walkers, Sam, is the active party in providing a satisfying comeuppance. It is this same quality of intolerance that comes out in the pivotal scene on the stairs of Cirith Ungol in which Gollum's die is cast.

Sympathy for villains in The Lord of the Rings is fairly thin on the ground, but we do see it. Commensurately with Tolkien's view of evil as something weak and lacking, it is the weaker characters of Gollum, Wormtongue, and in an absent sense Lotho Sackville-Baggins that inspire this because they have been pulled into evils more terrible than they would have conceived for themselves by evil minds of greater power. Although this view is possible of Sauron, it requires a knowledge of exterior texts to receive this impression, so that for the purposes of the work under discussion it is largely evil defeated or evil so small as to pose virtually no threat that is intended to inspire our pity. Who could not pity Gríma's utter inability to make peace with Théoden and to take part in his people's finest hour; his self-imposed exile with a character who holds him in contempt? Who could not pity Saruman's inflexible insistance on carrying his fall to its utmost depth; falling further than his Valinorean self could have dreamed possible? But this is not the pity of understanding, but the pity of one who sees the right course and witnesses pride taking the other wilfully. It is the pity of knowing what might have been, rather than that of empathy with the motives of the character. It is the pity of a saint for a sinner, and very revealing, I think, of Tolkien's spiritual beliefs.

I am by no means sure that I have covered these points in sufficient detail, but tempus is fugiting mercilessly. I hope that my efforts can serve to put some life back into an old topic that deserved more responses.