Good and evil

There can be no doubt that Morgoth and Sauron are "evil". Their actions have no better goals than destruction and darkness, and many other characters become evil by their domination, in particular the majority of mankind.

The point I want to make is that I do not see a corresponding priciple of "good" in the stories. Iluvatar is a "cold" god. He stays outside the world after its creation, and his only active action - the catastrophe of Numenor with the drowning of thousands (millions?) of innocent women an children - cannot be regarded as positive in my opinion, although the sin of Ar-Pharazon and his fellows was great of course. The valar appear helpful to Elves and Men at some points, but in general their job only is executing fate or predestination. There is no point in the story where a "higher power" introduces law or ethics. Given all this, to me the question is not why there are so many evil characters in Middle Earth, but how such a world can produce good persons at all. Among many examples, I would mention Aragorn, Faramir and Hurin as people who really show humanity - in its best meaning - and altruism at decisive points.

I also wonder about the kind of philosophy that is behind all this. The attitude of Elves, Dwarves, Dunedain - and even more of the Hobbits - appears to me as a kind of "innocent atheism", where ethics and moral do not need a religious justification and death can be accepted as natural by the mortal races. I do not regard this as negative, but it is known that J.R.R. Tolkien was a quite faithful Christian, and so the origin of these ideals is difficult to understand for me. Let me know what you think.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Your question is somewhat confusing, but I think I've worked it out: Tolkien certainly personifies the Ultimate Evil, i.e. evil deeds performed with no end other than the dominion of evil itself, in Morgoth and Sauron. Yet nowhere does he singly personify the Ultimate Good, i.e. good deeds performed with no end other than the dominion of good itself. Even with no ulterior motive, no single character devotes their entirety to the destruction of evil: they grieve for each other's deaths, they hesitate and make mistakes...

I would argue (rather simplistically) that while the Professor channeled "evil" into one or two characters, he spread the "good" out through the races, into multiple characters with seperate functions. We see some goodness in the Noldor as much as in the Riders of Rohan. Why? My still-simple argument would be that while absolute evil is easy to believe in, there's a tendency in society, at least ours, to reject the totally good as unbelievable. Melian comes close, but we are distanced from her as not to know how close. Perhaps the Professor just didn't want to personify God in his fictional works: you did mention that he was a Christian.

I can see your frustration at this, because I myself am feeling it in trying to explain my own feelings. Are we left with one Ultimate Evil, and a huge array of middling Good-But-Weak characters, and no Great Good? I hate to cite Harry Potter at a time like this, but the world isn't split between good guys and Death Eaters. There are so many inbetweens like Maedhros and Thingol, who are on the whole meant to be great and good but somehow fall spectacularly; who are neither Valar nor Morgoth's servants. Also, I will certainly cede that Iluvatar seems to be a laid-back sort of Creator, creating and then sitting back to watch, but does that mean he is not a Great Good? If Tolkien was a Christian, the destruction of Beleriand can be no more evil than the Great Flood (of Noah), and Eru therefore no less of the Great Good than the Christian God.

My greater question would be whether or not Good means Perfection. Can you still be Good if you make mistakes, or have weaknesses? I certainly wouldn't consider Boromir to be the Ultimate Good in the books, but he was only flawed, not evil. And if you had to classify him, he would have been wholeheartedly on the side of Good: only the presence of ultimate evil led him astray.

[edit] P.S. If this thread is meant to be argued in context of Tolkien's beliefs, I'll quietly withdraw... but for now I just hope I didn't do more confusion than good.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

Iluvatar is a "cold" god. He stays outside the world after its creation, and his only active action - the catastrophe of Numenor with the drowning of thousands (millions?) of innocent women an children - cannot be regarded as positive in my opinion, although the sin of Ar-Pharazon and his fellows was great of course.

We have many indications, all throughout the works, that Iluvatar is an active god

Originally Posted by Ainulindale, Silmarillion

Yet some things there are that [the valar] cannot see, neither alone nor taking counsel together; for to none but himself has Iluvatar revealed all that he has in store, and in every age there come forth things that are new and have no foretelling, for they do not proceed from the past.

Originally Posted by Of Aule and Yavanna, Silmarillion

Then Manwe sat silent, and the thought of Yavanna that she had put into his heart grew and unfolded; and it was beheld by Iluvatar. Then it seemed to Manwe that the Song rose once more about him, and he heeded now many things therein that though he had heard them he had not heeded before. And at last the Vision was renewed, but it was not now remote, for he was himself within it, and yet he saw that all was upheld by the hand of Iluvatar; and the hand entered in, and from it came forth many wonders that had until then been hidden from him in the hearts of the Ainur.

Originally Posted by Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth, HoME X

He must as Author always remain 'outside' the Drama, even though that Drama depends on His design and His will for its beginning and continuance, in every detail and moment.

Originally Posted by Letter #156

[Gandalf] was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back – for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of thought and time'.

Originally Posted by Letter #192

Frodo deserved all honor because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named' (as one critic has said)

These are some main highlights; plus, even in LotR, we have various characters referring to Him indirectly as inspiring, guiding, or protecting them. The hobbits colloquially refer to him as Lawks and Lore (IIRC).

Men and Elves also represent a continuous intervention of the One; while most of them more likely have a "free" fate, some of them (like Beren) have a great doom ahead of them.

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

The valar appear helpful to Elves and Men at some points, but in general their job only is executing fate or predestination

Well, I wouldn't put it that way; they have some knowledge of the future, deriving from their knowledge of the Music. But even with that, they are often in doubt, they consult each other and even Iluvatar. I guess a more correct formulation is that they are the most ready to follow the axani, the rules, that Eru sets forth.

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

There is no point in the story where a "higher power" introduces law or ethics.

Osanwe kenta makes reference to the axani, the rules that Eru put forth (as in ethics; there is another kind of "universal" rules, unati, that cannot be broken at all, no matter one's intent or power). The very meaning of axan is "'law, rule, commandment; as primarily proceeding from Eru'; adopted from Valarin akasan 'He says', referring to Eru". While LotR has no specific mention of this, it is understood from the greater work that the valar in turn taught the elves, who in turn taught the numenoreans, who were, in the beginning at least, teachers of humankind. Later on, the true knowledge of Eru is revived by Aragorn (as Tolkien implies in letter #156). More specifically, we know from the Atrabeth that Eru did indeed contact the Men, and taught them (until they became too preoccupied with their own thoughts, and later became thralls to Melkor).

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

Given all this, to me the question is not why there are so many evil characters in Middle Earth, but how such a world can produce good persons at all.

Well, first of all, as mentioned previously, all the Eruhini come directly from the One, and it is implied that all of them are good by nature. Furthermore, there also are the very foundations of the world are good, and they heal from "within", because at the heart of the world burns the imperishable flame of Iluvatar (as stated in Myths Transformed and the Athrabeth, IIRC). Even more, there is the ennoblement of the Men by the Elves, as a result of the special intervention of Eru:

Originally Posted by Letter #153

The entering into Men of the Elven-strain is indeed represented as part of a Divine Plan for the ennoblement of the Human Race, from the beginning destined to replace the Elves.

All in all, these, plus the existing knowledge of Eru, mentioned previously, ensure some good conditions for good Men to appear and manifest themselves as such.

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

The attitude of Elves, Dwarves, Dunedain - and even more of the Hobbits - appears to me as a kind of "innocent atheism", where ethics and moral do not need a religious justification and death can be accepted as natural by the mortal races.

Well, Tolkien was annoyed by the criticism that LotR contained no religion

Originally Posted by Letter #165

The only criticism that annoyed me was one that it 'contained no religion' (and 'no Women', but that does not matter, and is not true anyway). It is a monotheistic world of 'natural theology'.

I would attribute this to the fact that Tolkien avoided as much as possible any "overt" reference to real life religion, since he considered that this would be a fatal mistake for myths and fairy tales.

Originally Posted by Beanamir of Gondor

Are we left with one Ultimate Evil, and a huge array of middling Good-But-Weak characters, and no Great Good?

I wouldn't say so. Esspecially in the Silmarillion, where Melkor is a character, we have the valar who actively oppose him. And they still are active in the Third Age, at least through the Istari (who, at least initially, are said to be peers of Sauron). Tolkien states in Myths Transformed that Sauron is the last mythological evil person, so after that, even if the istari and the elves fade, it seems like a balanced match.

Originally Posted by Beanamir of Gondor

My greater question would be whether or not Good means Perfection.

I wouldn't say so; at least not in this world

Originally Posted by Letter #212

The Fall or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. Trees may 'go bad' as in the Old Forest; Elves may turn into Orcs, and if this required the special perversive malice of Morgoth, still Elves themselves could do evil deeds. Even the 'good' Valar as inhabiting the World could at least err

and even more generally:

Originally Posted by Note ** to Melkor Morgoth essay, Myths Transformed, HoME X

Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations. It is not sinful when not willed, and when the creature does his best (even if it is not what should be done) as he sees it - with the conscious intent of serving Eru.

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

I also wonder about the kind of philosophy that is behind all this.

The positive approach is put forth by Finrod:

Originally Posted by Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, HoME X

Estel we call it, that is "trust". It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from our nature and first being. If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy.

while the negative one is entertained primarily by Melkor, and is referred to by Manwe in the debate over Miriel:

Originally Posted by Of the severance of marriage, Version A, Quendi and Eldar, HoME X

[the]trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair.

[Sir Kohran]

Now this is a very interesting point. I've thought about this often yet have never been able to put my thumb on it. Thanks for making it clear.

As a 'semi-Christian', I've always been slightly disturbed by the general atheism of Middle-Earth's people. Whilst there certainly are references to higher powers, there's no 'belief' in them - the people never pray before battle or anything of the sort. Despite often being in great despair they never seem to even think of putting their faith into anything greater than themselves. There are a few points - Frodo's use of the name of Elbereth, or Damrod's shouting for the Valar to turn the Mumakil away from him - but these are essentially little more than cries for help, soon forgotten once the situation is resolved (never by divine means, it seems) unless there is cause to say it again. There's no feeling of worship or spiritualism.

I think this ties in with the big complaints against Harry Potter by certain religious groups - I think the real reason it is rejected by some religious people is the complete lack of religion or divinity in any way, in a world of witchcraft and sorcery - demonic activities. Ironically the being that comes closest to being God is Voldermort - he appears unkillable and is possibly the most powerful character in the books. The world of Harry Potter features the devil but no god - and the thought of a world with Satan but without God is frightening.

I find this lack of religion very strange, especially considering Tolkien's Christian point of view and the very Christian themes in his work. Could someone shed some more light on this?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I find this lack of religion very strange, especially considering Tolkien's Christian point of view and the very Christian themes in his work. Could someone shed some more light on this?

I think Tolkien's representation of Eru Illuvatar is much in keeping with the Old Testament Yahweh, right down to god speaking through intermediaries rather than directly to man (in Tolkien's case it is the Valar who mediate, in Yahweh's it is the angel Metatron who is mentioned as the voice of God in Talmudic studies, and is the voice of the burning bush that speaks to Moses). The vengeful destruction of Numenor is not much different than the flood brought down by Yahweh (if anything, Yahweh was much more violent in his methods).

On the general lack of direct religious content, Tolkien eschewed such overt mention of religion much the same way he would, as an Anglo-Saxon scholar, attempt to strip the patina of Christianity off of Beowulf to derive the true source material. Per his letters, any religious symbolism is subsumed in the narrative. This is a good thing from the perspective of myth-making, and, whether consciously or not, it allowed for a much wider readership of Tolkien's work. This sublimation offers the reader a variety of interpretations of the text, and therefore it does not delve into the cloying allegory Lewis presented in the Narnia Chronicles, which would certainly have lessened the innate power of Tolkien's presentation.

[Boromir88]

Can evil exist without good? Generally, all evil is, is a rebellion against good. Morgoth and Sauron are set up as the 2 primary evils. Why were they the main evils? Because they were the 'satanic rebels' against Eru as Tolkien says:

But in this ’mythology’ all the ’angellic’ powers concerned themselves with world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the Absolute Satanic Rebellion of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the faineance of some of the other higher powers or ’gods.’~Letter 156

Just a quick question to mull over, with some thoughts to consider before I get into my reply here.

Beanamir, your post definitely was not a lonely one, but I am going to point out the one thing I disagree with:

Tolkien certainly personifies the Ultimate Evil, i.e. evil deeds performed with no end other than the dominion of evil itself, in Morgoth and Sauron. Yet nowhere does he singly personify the Ultimate Good

I agree that there is no 'ultimate good' in the stories, but disagree with the statement there is ultimate evil.

’In my story I do not deal in Absolute Evil. I do not think there is such a thing, since that is Zero. I do not think that at any rate any ’rational being’ is wholly evil.'~Letter 183

Tolkien talks about that even Sauron had 'relics of positive purposes' (his love for order and co-ordination)...and he would go on to say in Letter 183 that Sauron 'represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible.'

One thing I love about Tolkien's stories is the way he portrays what good and evil is. In Letter 131, he defines evil as 'rebelling against the thoughts of the Creator' and the 'bull-dozing of others free wills.' So, those are 2 clear definition of evil in the story...however, what is not so clear to readers is what makes a person evil and what doesn't? This is the tricky question to answer and Tolkien also hated the criticism that his books were 'all these pure good guys' against 'all these pure bad guys':

Some reviewers have called the whole thing simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only fragment to read, and, of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right…In their way the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only ‘hallows’ were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that I have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs.~Letter dated 25 September 1954

Which sadly seem to reflect Tolkien's thoughts on WW2 in Letter 66:

For we are attempting to conquer Sauron with the Ring. And we shall (it seems) succeed.But the penalty is, as you will know, to breed new Saurons, and slowly turn men and elves into Orcs. Not that in real life things are so clear cut as in a story, and we started out with a great many Orcs on our side...

That is the thing that interests me about Tolkien's books. He defines what is good and what is evil, but as far as what makes somebody good or evil is less clear and up to the reader. As, it's not so simple as 'you do good things you're good and you do evil things your evil.' Intent/motive plays a major role:

Into the ultimate judgement upon Gollum I would not care to enquire. This would be to investigate 'Goddes privitee', as the Medievals said. Gollum was pitiable, but he ended in persistent wickedness, and the fact that this worked good was no credit to him. His marvellous courage and endurance, as great as Frodo and Sam's or greater, being devoted to evil was portentous, but not honourable. I am afraid, whatever our beliefs, we have to face the fact that there are persons who yield to temptation, reject their chances of nobility or salvation, and appear to be 'damnable'. Their 'damnability' is not measurable in the terms of the macrocosm (where it may work good). But we who are all 'in the same boat' must not usurp the Judge.~Letter 181

Simply because good came out of Gollum's actions does not make him a 'good' person. In fact, Tolkien calls him wicked, and showing persisten wickedness. I think motive plays a major part in determining who is truly good and who isn't. Isn't it just so convenient that in a Letter when Tolkien was talking about magic in his stories he comes out and says what is the 'supremely bad motive'?

The supremely bad motive is (for this tale, since it is specially about it) domination of other ’free’ wills.~Letter 155

And I think this is what sets up the Morgoth's and the Sauron's as the prime evils in the story...their intent to dominate, enslave, or simply flat out destroy.

Let me conclude with making a comparison between Radagast and Saruman. Tolkien remarked that both wizards had failed their mission. The Istari's mission was to unite the Free People's of Middle-earth to guide resistance against Sauron. Both Saruman and Radagast fail at this mission, but they fail in different ways, and it's motive that makes Saruman the 'evil' wizard and Radagast a good, yet simply idle one:

Radagast was fond of beasts and birds and found them easier to deal with; he did not become proud and domineering , but neglectful and easygoing, and he had very little to do with Elves or Men although obviously resistance to Sauron had to be sought chiefly in their cooperation. But since he remained of good will (though he had not much courage) , his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments.~From: Tolkien Papers, Bodleian Library found in Hammond and Skulls LOTR Companion

Where Saruman on the other hand no longer resisted and flat out accepted Sauron's goal:

Saruman fell under the domination of Sauron and desired his victory; or no longer opposed it. Denethor remained steadfast in his rejection of Sauron, but was made to believe that his victory was inevitable, and so fell into despair.~Unfinished Tales; The Palantiri

This also just so happens to bring up a little nifty comparison between Denethor and Saruman as well.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

I find this lack of religion very strange, especially considering Tolkien's Christian point of view and the very Christian themes in his work.

I'm not entirely sure what "Christian themes" you mean by this (though baseline societal mores could certainly suffice), but honestly? I have this feeling that Tolkien was attempting separate specifically Christianity from his works with Middle-Earth. Raynor gave lots of citations about Iluvatar as an active God, and frankly, if I were in Tolkien's place, creating an entirely new gods, goddesses, and hierarchy of power, I would try to leave existing religious frameworks out entirely. Given, as Boromir88 proved with a whacking direct quote, I don't quite think the same way as Tolkien but all the same...

Originally Posted by Sir Kohran

The world of Harry Potter features the devil but no god - and the thought of a world with Satan but without God is frightening.

This is such a horrible digression, but after all, I started it: the powerful problem I have with the Harry Potter series (in terms of good and evil) lies in the fact that not a single person fighting against Voldemort is without an ulterior motive. Voldemort fights solely for possession of the magical world and the death of Muggles: yet even Dumbledore, our Good character, had ulterior motives.

In relation to Harry Potter/Dumbledore, I take back my comments from my last post, in light of Boromir88's introduction of the Istari and my brain waking up:

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The Istari's mission was to unite the Free People's of Middle-earth to guide resistance against Sauron. Both Saruman and Radagast fail at this mission, but they fail in different ways, and it's motive that makes Saruman the 'evil' wizard and Radagast a good, yet simply idle one.

Gandalf, the third Istari, comes pretty darn close to a definition of "the Good who fights for only the dominion of Good." Gandalf seems to have no ulterior motives whatsoever, in terms of his own life or power. He does not wish to supplant Denethor for the power of the Istari; only to bring Aragorn to his rightful place. Gandalf gives his life to save the Fellowship in their quest against Sauron; he doesn't even hesitate when Frodo chooses the Mines of Moria over the Gap of Rohan, though he must know it will take his life.

One thing that convinces me of this is that Gandalf is definitely not my favorite character. I much prefer the Men of Gondor, with all their failings. The fact that Gandalf, to me, is an emotionally neutral character, does even more to convince me that he is about the closest we get (strictly in The Lord of the Rings, anyway) to a purely Good character.

[Boromir88]

Beanamir, good points about Gandalf, and I think he is as close to 'ultimate good' as is possible. As he points out time and time again, he's not doing this for himself, but for Eru and the Valar:

'I am a servant of the Secret Fire...'~The Bridge of Khazad-dum

And his words to Denethor about being 'a steward.'

"Yet the Lord of Gondor is not to be made the tool of other men's purposes, however worthy. And to him there is no purpose higher in the world as it now stands than the good of Gondor; and the rule of Gondor, is mine and no other man's, unless the king should come again."
[...]
"But I will say this the rule of no realm is mine, neither of Gondor, nor any other, great or small. But all worthy things that are in peril as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything else passes through this night that can still grow fair or bear fruit and flower again in days to come. For I am a steward. Did you not know?"~Minas Tirith

Denethor's idea of his 'Stewardship' of Gondor, is a position of Rule. Gondor is his Rule, his command, and no one else's. Then he throws out this little 'well it's mine unless the King comes back.'

But, Gandalf has a very different view of what 'a steward' is to do. A steward is not a position of ruling, but one of caring, and that also makes Gandalf a steward. Gandalf makes clear, as a steward, he rules nothing, but he cares for 'all worthy things that are in peril.'

Gandalf implies time and again, he is not out for himselr (or any ulterior motives as you say) he is a servant, he is a caretaker for the 'higher powers.' It's really interesting how Saruman starts calling Gandalf power hungry:

Saruman’s face grew livid, twisted with rage, and a red light was kindled in his eyes. He laughed wildly. ’Later!’ he cried, and his voice rose to a scream. ’Later! Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dûr itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now.~The Voice of Saruman

In Saruman's anger and contempt he makes lofty claims that Gandalf is becoming too power hungry. Gandalf wants power over Sauron (The Keys of Barad-dur) he wants power over the Istari (The Rods of the Five Wizards), and he wants the power of Kings...the power over the people of Middle-earth.

I say this is interesting, because Saruman is making the lofty claims that Gandalf has become power hungry, yet it is Saruman himself who became obsessed with power, and who wanted to 'Rule' over the weak Middle-earthians. We can see exactly how foolish and silly Saruman's claims are because Tolkien ends Saruman's big rant with a silly remark that we all are familiar with:

'have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now'

Hmm...strikingly similar to someone saying 'you have become too big for your own boots.'

Saruman makes these lofty claims that Gandalf wants power over everything, but ends with a weak, silly comment, showing that Saruman's rant is simply that...a rant 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'

And after all this I got to thinking, why isn't Gandalf the 'ultimate good.' I mean there doesn't seem to be a blemish on his record, as everything he does is arguably in the name of the 'Valar' and 'Eru.' He is their servant, their steward. I guess it would have to do with something about how when Olorin was chosen as one of Istari to go to Middle-earth, at first he begged not to go, because he feared Sauron's power. That's the only thing I can think of.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

The only reason Gandalf didn't come to my mind at first, I think, is because of that Steward-like quality or position. Morgoth was second to none in his quest for Evil; in the Third Age, Sauron was the same. Both wanted to rule all. Gandalf, however, was more than happy to serve the King, as long as that King is on the side of Good. So we don't immediately think of Gandalf in terms of Eru, God, the Omnipotent.

Probably that's why Gandalf might be the greatest example of Good in Tolkien's works: because the Good does not wish for power, only the ability to use it properly, if it is offered. (I hate to draw too many Christian parallelisms, buuuuuut now that Sir Kohran brings it up...)

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

If I can meddle in, with the Gandalf-thing, that's exactly the "ultimate good" in its, well, real basis, or how should I call it. You can define Ultimate Good (like a, let's say, concept) as something that does not harm anyone. That can be Radagast, who in fact, did not harm anyone: he stood out of the other's way, did not desire for anything, did not hunger for power... even (as far as we know, but let's presume that it is like that, at least in my mind that's my image of him) whatever he did just for himself, did not harm the others. You see: you can have a person who does not hunger for power or anything else, but indirectly harms someone: let's say a rich man sitting in his palace, who does not wilfully harm anyone, but does not care that people out there starve. I think Radagast was not that far to just "not care" of anyone, but still he could have been a lot more active - he surely spent quite a lot of his time just by being idle. Had he not been given his mission, it won't be considered as "failure". The trouble is that he could also do something somewhere else. So just "meaning no harm" is not close enough to the "Ultimate Good", no way.
The closest to Ultimate Good is, therefore, shown for me in Gandalf. He gave his hand wherever he could, but he was not aggressive. He had these moments of "righteous anger", but I don't recall a moment when this anger would be wilful and evil-doing. It was always perfectly in place, helping in the circumstances. And, again, it was not meant to harm anyone. Gandalf heeded his own words about taking life (FotR II). Gandalf did not have a permanent home, so that he was not bound by anything - unlike Saruman (or even Radagast). Wherever was need, he could go. That's one part of the "ultimate devotion", not as easy as it seems when you just skim-read it. I also don't recall that he would ever do anything just for himself. Except for smoking a pipe, and that, as well as rare and short "regenerating" visits of the Shire, I think was the most comfort he ever gave to himself, and as he himself said, he only did it to relax and refresh because, as any living being, he needed it. In other words, he did this to prevent himself becoming a workoholic. (And not to speak of that even his visits of the Shire turned to be important for his mission - what do I say - even the most important of all! Isn't that wonderful? And now who says there was no power behind the events in LotR, look at this!)

And, to somewhat "step out" and answer (or react) to the very first post. I think, as it was said here, that Middle-Earth is influenced by "outer good power". Eru is not mentioned as giving the Elves or the Númenoreans any divine direction or law, however, it just may be that something like this is just manifested differently here - like many other things. Speaking of the divine guidance in general: The fact that it is not seen does not mean it is not there. And I'm convinced that sometimes you can indeed see it working behind. As for the counter-Morgoth figure that you say we are lacking, do we need it? Maybe it will make sense in some sort of dualistic universe which (and also for this reason) Middle-Earth surely is not. Even in Christianity, as you brought it up, the power of God does not show in having one Ultimately Good figure representing it and fighting all the battle for Good. Before you interpretate it wrong, see what I mean: Even Jesus, from the "wordly" point of view, does very little in his life on Earth. He does not go and persuade the Roman Emperor to lower taxes, free slaves or whatever, or claim his throne (and based on what we know, something like that is what many of the Israelites expected the Messiah to do!). Although, from some point of view, yes, God directs everything - but as in Tolkien's works, most of it cannot be seen (cf. f.ex. Luke 17,20n). And even what is seen, is often hidden from the eyes of those who do not believe (Matthew 13,11 and parallel). The Kingdom of Jesus Christ "is not of this world" (John 18,36), it is more like the "kingdom" of - yes - Gandalf. Jesus rejects Satan's offer of rulership of the world (Matthew 4 and parallel), which is from my point of view the exact image of what Saruman did not do - speaking metaphorically, he accepted this offer! But the humble characters are the ones who make the real difference. Big kingdoms rise and fall - Maedhros' Union, Gondolin, Doriath, even Númenor - but the true - yes, if I can use that name, "Kingdom of Eru" remains and builts its way through Bilbos and Frodos and Gandalfs and little changes that cannot be seen, but are.

[Boromir88]

Legate, I'm glad you brought up Radagast. It reminds me of what well-respected politician once said (and I'll keep it an unnamed politician to avoid any sort of political discussion ). Anyway he said:

'When good people sit back and watch evil happen; that is the greatest evil of all.'

It reminds me of Radagast, because as Tolkien remarks Radagast had always stayed 'good-willed'...and it is because of Radagast's good will that he is able to help at Gandalf:

But since he remained of good will (though he had not much courage) , his work in fact helped Gandalf at crucial moments.~Hammond and Scull's LOTR Companion (taken from Tolkien's Papers; Bodleian Library - Radagast the Fool)

Radagast always remained good and I think it's echoed in Gandalf's words that it would have been useless for Saruman to try and 'win over the honest Radagast to treachery' (The Council of Elrond).

The failure of Radagast must therefor be that he isn't 'evil,' he still fails, but it's a different failure from Saruman's. Radagast fails precisely because of his 'idleness.' He becomes fond of the birds, beasts, and plants of Middle-earth and starts neglecting the very reason he was sent to Middle-earth:

"Indeed, of all the Istari, one only remained faithful, and he was the last-comer. For Radagast, the fourth, became enamoured of the many beasts and birds that dwelt in Middle-earth, and forsook Elves and Men, and spent his days among the wild creatures."~UT; The Istari

Radagast gave up and pretty much said 'forget you Elves and Men.' When as I think Gandalf points out not only for himself, but the task for all the Istari (note Gandalf says he is 'a steward' not 'the steward.') was to care for everything that 'lies in peril.' And to especially guide the resistance of Elves and Men against Sauron. Radagast does not do this and that is where he fails. That is also where I agree he is not a good figure of 'ultimate good,' eventhough Radagast always remained good.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

You precisely elaborated on what I had in mind about old Radagast.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The failure of Radagast must therefor be that he isn't 'evil,' he still fails, but it's a different failure from Saruman's. Radagast fails precisely because of his 'idleness.' He becomes fond of the birds, beasts, and plants of Middle-earth and starts neglecting the very reason he was sent to Middle-earth

I would only note one thing. Someone may take it like that Radagast was actually doing something good: that he was caring of the animals instead, someone could say "Hey, and so what? Everyone cared of the people, but Radagast cared of the nature, he was a 'Good Greenpeace Guy'." But the point lies in that a) he was not actually much active (from what we know), he was just fond of beasts and plants, and mainly, it was more like being idle - a hobby, nothing more. He would of course care of those he liked, if for example Orcs attacked them, he will probably protect them - but nothing widespread, he did not wander the Middle-Earth and make animal reservations or something like that. It was not even his job to do so. Even if he did that, it will be - well, yes - procrastinating And that's b) he was just idle, collecting bugs or with similar hobbies, but doing nothing really constructive. Though, it is said (UT) Yavanna probably talked Saruman to take him so that even the animals and plants are cared about, but it was not the main reason... it would sort of crystalize itself if all the Istari did all what they were sent for; they would make a harmonic whole.
Imagine it: the White Council, and (good) Saruman comes with an idea of defeating Sauron with the use of force by making all these forges at Isengard and everything... and Radagast is there, as is his job, and warns him that he can't just do it, that he will disturb the Ents. Bingo! And the Wise sit and think of something else...

[Boromir88]

a) he was not actually much active (from what we know), he was just fond of beasts and plants~Legate

Interesting you say this, as I think you have a point. Also from Hammond and Scull's LOTR Companion Tolkien writes:

'it is clear that Gandalf (with greater insight and compassion) had in fact more knowledge of birds and beasts than Radagast, and was regarded by them with more respect and affection'

I was wondering about this because afterall 'birds and beasts' are supposed to be Radagast's specialty here. Yet, Gandalf knew more about them and got more respect from them then did Radagast. Why's that? As you point out all it really was, is Radagast was 'fond' of the birds and beasts and Gandalf tells Radagast to warn his 'friends.' But, I think when we see the interaction between Gandalf and Gwaihir we see the great respect Gwaihir has for Gandalf.

First off, Gwaihir rescues Gandalf from Orthanc. All Gwaihir was sent for was to act as a messenger, he wasn't expecting to have a passenger, yet because of his respect for Gandalf he gets him off Orthanc:

"How far can you bear me?" I said to Gwaihir.
"Many leages," said he, "but not to the ends of the earth. I was sent to bear tidings not burdens."~The Council of Elrond

Then later when Gwaihir fetches Gandalf off Zirak-Zigil:

"Ever am I fated to be your burden, friend at need," I said.
"A burden you have been," he answered, "but not so now. Light as a swan's feather in my claw you are. The Sun shines through you. Indeed I do not think you need me any more: were I to let you fall, you would float upon the wind."~The White Rider

And finally to rescue Frodo:

'Twice you have borne me, Gwaihir my friend,' said Gandalf. 'Thrice shall pay for all, if you are willing. You will not find me a burden much greater than when you bore me from Zirakzigil, where my old life burned away.'
'I would bear you,' answered Gwaihir, 'whither you will, even were you made of stone.'~Field of Cormallen

Eventhough we never see Radagast interacting with the animals he is 'fond' of. I think we do see what he meant that Gandalf did know more about the 'birds and beasts' than Radagast's did, and he had more respect from them. As we see a long list of one rescuing the other (though Gwaihir's list of rescuing Gandalf is much longer! ).

And we can kind of see that whitty friendly banter going on, with Gwaihir calling Gandalf a 'burden.' However, it all ends with Gwaihir saying 'I would will bear you wherever even were you made of stone.' What a happy ending.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

Even though we never see Radagast interacting with the animals he is 'fond' of. I think we do see what he meant that Gandalf did know more about the 'birds and beasts' than Radagast's did, and he had more respect from them. As we see a long list of one rescuing the other (though Gwaihir's list of rescuing Gandalf is much longer! ).

Is it that Gandalf's knowledge comes from a more active research than the suspected more passivity of Radagast? Note that Gandalf somewhat aggressively goes searching for knowledge (i.e. Hobbits); did Radagast observe just those flora and fauna that were outside his window?

And, concerning the failure of Radagast, he erred as in the Three Laws of Robotics:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

It's not that the Brown Bomb actively tried to harm anyone, but that, as stated in #1, his inaction resulted in harm. He failed #2 as in not following the original plan, and we know that he would have (or may have) failed #3 as he was terrified of the coming of the Nine. Gandalf was fearful too, and yet he drew some of the Nine off in an effort to help Frodo, Strider etc.

A bad robot Radagast would have made.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is it that Gandalf's knowledge comes from a more active research than the suspected more passivity of Radagast? Note that Gandalf somewhat aggressively goes searching for knowledge (i.e. Hobbits); did Radagast observe just those flora and fauna that were outside his window?

I wouldn't say so. Gandalf shows the best, the "middle point" between Radagast and Saruman. Where Radagast was passive, Saruman was active to that point that he took charge of other beings rather than just aiding them, helping them understand and letting them choose, as Gandalf did. Also, this is that it's not Gandalf who goes "aggressively searching for knowledge", that one is Saruman: yes, aggressively searching for knowledge. Gandalf searches just out of curiosity, or (more often) what he needs: the Scroll of Isildur, for example, he searches for only when he is in need of it (which could be considered even a little setback). But Saruman...

Originally Posted by Elrond's Council

"(...) The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."
"In which case it is no longer white," said I. "And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

Emphasise mine, of course. I think that's one very important thing to consider. Or the same chapter:

Originally Posted by Elrond's Council

"It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill."

As Saruman did this, hungry for knowledge (and so later, for power).

And finaly, we have the testimony of Treebeard:

Originally Posted by Treebeard

[Saruman was] always eager to listen. I told him many things that he would never have found out by himself; but he never repaid me in like kind. I cannot remember that he ever told me anything. And he got more and more like that; his face, as I remember it – I have not seen it for many a day – became like windows in a stone wall: windows with shutters inside.

So I think where Radagast shows passivity, Saruman shows - as alatar said - aggressivity in seeking knowledge; and Gandalf, therefore, presents the "mild middle point", the best alternative.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

So I think where Radagast shows passivity, Saruman shows - as alatar said - aggressivity in seeking knowledge; and Gandalf, therefore, presents the "mild middle point", the best alternative.

You state it much better than I. I thought that the word' aggressively' was too strong, but the alternate - assertively - seemed not right.

A note about Saruman, who you rightly place in the too much pile: In science, there are times that you have to break things to figure out what's going on. Think that what Tolkien meant was research that wasn't carefully done, nor done with any thought or respect or consideration of the means and cost/benefit ratio. If you had one palantir, it would not be wise to cast it into Sammath Naur just to see what happens. You have to step back a moment and ask, "What will I learn, and what price am I willing to pay for that knowledge?" Saruman fooled himself thinking that the price that he payed was small compared to what he learned, but actually it was the reverse. "Can you cross Orc and Man?" may be an interesting question, but just how did Saruman get his subjects and perform the experiments?

Such callousness to the suffering of others eventually did him in.

[tumhalad2]

Personally, I think that there is not necisarilly any absolute 'good' in middle earth, rather Evil and non-Evil. both these are ultimately choices, and the closest that good can come to may be Gandalf, but ultimately, even in Middle-earth, it is to a degree "relitive"-according to circumstance etc. For example, in the story Tal-Elmar, the Numenorians come upon a tribe of natives in (what will become) Gondor, and however sail away with slaves and bounty. Tolkien is showing the reader, first hand, the ability of Men of all sorts, even the great Numenorians, to choose the "Evil" road. 'Non-evil' is therefor a wide ethical spectrum, and as the moral zeitgeist changes, so it does as well. There is no Ethical Standard in Middle earth, ultimately, there is Evil, which is less of a moral thing than a desire for entire nagation of creation, and non evil.

[alatar]

Rereading the first thread and that of tumhalad2's (Welcome to the Downs, by the way ):

Originally Posted by Menelvagor

and many other characters become evil by their domination, in particular the majority of mankind.

The word 'become,' at least on this morning, grates on me. Not sure how it was intended, and I'm not saying that Menelvagor meant it in any particular way, but to me the word 'become' does not seem to connote 'choice.' One chooses to do evil or not. Maybe Melkor and Sauron became evil by the thousand slices of evil choices or one big choice - I don't know. But to me all cognizant beings are free to choose and do not simply wake up one day on the wrong side.

This same thinking applies when a person tells me that "so and so made me..." Children use this argument, but what of adults who are not threatened with harm in any way? When I'm feeling grumpier than usual, I will correct them and say, "No, you choose to let them do..."

Anyway...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Tolkien was at great pains to avoid a Manichaean world. It's inherent in his work that Power Corrupts- it's not really possible in Fallen Arda for there to be a powerful wholly Good being (except Manwe, who, tellingly, is very largely passive).

JRRT as above defined Absolute Evil as Zero- he indicated in one essay that Morgoth had reached a stage of 'nihilistic madness' and, left to his own devices, would have gone on raging until all Ea was reduced to chaos, and continued raging because the Chaos was not of his own making.

Evil in Tolkien is, I think ultimately Selfishness: greed, imposition of will, absence of compassion, ego, solipsism.

********

The absence of religious observance in LR (not Silmarillion) is really very easily explained: Tolkien couldn't conceive his Good peoples as being pagan or anything inconsistent with Judaeo-Christianity. Therefore he felt it was safer to make them largely cult-less 'pure monotheists.' Temples and priests and the like were for the minions of Sauron, who ruled as a God-King.

[Boromir88]

Great job alatar and William in bringing this topic up.

Tolkien was at great pains to avoid a Manichaean world.~William

For the most part I agree...although I think The One Ring is a different matter.

Tom Shippey makes the argument that Tolkien encorporates both Boethian and Manichaen types of evil in The One Ring. Although this has gone contested by others, I think Shippey's got a point.

The Ring has a lust and power that actually exudes evil itself:

'so great was the Ring's power of lust, that anyone who used it became mastered by it...'~Letter 131

This is Tolkien's Letter to Milton Waldman, and he makes the point that the Ring has it's own innate evil that it exudes on people. There is further mentioning in Letter 246:

'It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power.'

Also from Letter 246, so great was the Ring's power (its influence would reach a 'maximum' when brought into the Sammath Naur) that it was impossible for Frodo (or anyone to destroy):

'I do not think that Frodo’s was a moral failure. At the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach its maximum - impossible, I should have said, for any one to resist, certainly after long possession, months of increasing torment, and when starved and exhausted.'

With that being said when dealing with the Ring, it is not purely Manichaen. If it was I think The Ring would be this all-corrupting force that just corrupts everyone that's around. I think what Gandalf says points to the duality of evil 'within' (Boethian) and evil without (Manichaen):

'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me!...'~The Shadow of the Past

The Ring would not only be able to use Gandalf's 'positive purposes' (pity and a desire to do good), to turn him into virtually another Sauron. But we see here Gandalf's rejection of the Ring ('Do not tempt me!'). Also, there were several others who rejected the Ring (Sam, Galadriel, Bilbo), and I don't think I can put it any better than Faramir's words to Frodo:

'But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo.'~The Window on the West

So, there is also the factor of dealing within the person. Or how would characters like Gandalf and Faramir be able to reject the Ring, yet others (like Gollum and Boromir) fall to it?

I don't know about any other examples but with The One Ring I do think we see a duality of the two aspects of evil. Not only does the Ring exude evil itself on to others, but it is Boromir and Gollum's predisposition to greed, glory, and power, from within themselves which led to their corruption by the Ring. While others who did not desire such 'triumphs' were able to reject it.

[Bêthberry]

Surely "good and evil" means someone who is worse than someone who is just "plain old evil."

[davem]

The problem is the Ring gives the power to do good as well as evil. It wouldn't be so seductive to the Wise if it didn't. Gandalf fears that he would use the Ring to do good, so does Galadriel, & that's what they want to do. Gandalf would begin righteous & become self righteous. He would seek to bring about good & the end result would be evil. What the Ring would give him would be the power to defeat evil absolutely, but in this defeat he would become absolute dictator - an absolute dictator who would only do good, but who would have the power to stop anyone doing 'evil' (ie anything he considered 'evil'. And this is the point. Sauron (& Morgoth) probably didn't ever consider themselves 'evil' at all. They intended to re-shape the world in their own image. Hence, it could be argued that 'evil' is a label you stick on your enemy. Sauron quite probably considers Gandalf 'evil'. Remove Eru from the story & it all becomes subjective.

And yet, Eru makes the rules & lays down what is good & what is evil, & he does this with no better justification than that its 'his movie' - he's in charge & has ultimate power. Surely if Gandalf or Galadriel took the Ring they would do good. There's no reason to believe that they would behave like Sauron. Yet they would be evil simply because they had taken control & usurped the role of Eru. So, evil is not necessarily judged on what someone does, but on whether or not they attempt to be 'more' than Eru made them to be. If Galadriel took the Ring & made the whole of Middle-earth into Lorien that wouldn't be an 'evil' act in an objective sense - it would be quite a nice place to live. But it would be against Eru's plan. So, evil is whatever is against Eru's plan - even if the result was everyone living happily in peace & safety - not simply what Sauron (for example) did. Turning Middle-earth into Lorien is as 'evil' an act as turning it into Mordor. There's no way Galadriel, even with the Ring, would be responsible for the Mordorisation of Middle-earth.

Its not what most people would instantly think of as evil. Many readers of Tolkien would consider the Lorienisation of M-e as a victory for good. So, Sauron & Mordor are not 'ideals' of evil. Absolute power - whatever one does with it - is evil, because it is an attempt to take control away from Eru. Hence, if Eru destroys Numenor & slaughters thousands it is a 'good' act, because such destruction is Eru's prerogative. If Sauron had done exactly the same thing it would have been 'evil'. Its down to what you have an innate right to do rather than whether what you do makes things better or worse from a practical point of view. Gandalf with the Ring may have made the world a much nicer, safer, more pleasant place to live, but it would still have been 'evil', because he didn't have the right to do it.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by alatar

The word 'become,' at least on this morning, grates on me. Not sure how it was intended, and I'm not saying that Menelvagor meant it in any particular way, but to me the word 'become' does not seem to connote 'choice.' One chooses to do evil or not. Maybe Melkor and Sauron became evil by the thousand slices of evil choices or one big choice - I don't know. But to me all cognizant beings are free to choose and do not simply wake up one day on the wrong side.

But how much choice did the humans who first confronted Melkor had? I wouldn't discard the effects of dealing with higher evil power that cannot be resisted (the foremost case being Frodo). Even in a modern society, I would certainly give mitigating circumstances to a person that has been indoctrinated and brainwashed with evil since childhood, through various means. A good example of Sauron's hold on his servants was at the last battle:

Originally Posted by The Fields of Cormallen, RotK

The Power that drove them on and filled them with hate and fury was wavering, its will was removed from them; and now looking in the eyes of their enemies they saw a deadly light and were afraid.

Originally Posted by davem

The problem is the Ring gives the power to do good as well as evil.

I would call the power to do good one of the deceits that the ring filled the mind of others.

If Galadriel took the Ring & made the whole of Middle-earth into Lorien that wouldn't be an 'evil' act in an objective sense - it would be quite a nice place to live.

Taking all things into consideration, it is rather safe to assume that no such thing would be possible.

Surely if Gandalf or Galadriel took the Ring they would do good. There's no reason to believe that they would behave like Sauron.

This runs contrary to what we know of the ring; a good deal has been already quoted by Boromir.

Many readers of Tolkien would consider the Lorienisation of M-e as a victory for good. So, Sauron & Mordor are not 'ideals' of evil.

I disagree with that idea and reasoning, at least because Sauron and Melkor became nihilistic; I know of no reference that they strived for a Lorien-like M-E.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would call the power to do good one of the deceits that the ring filled the mind of others.

It depends what you mean by 'good'. The Ring enables one to make real one's fantasies. Hence Sam's idea of 'good' is to turn Mordor into a garden, & taht's what he would have done. Galadriel would have made M-e into Lorien. The 'evil' aspect of this 'good' would be that it would be forced on all the inhabitants - whether they wanted it or not. Its a bit like a war between those who believe that democracy is the highest good & those who believe that fundamentalist Islam is the Highest good. Both sides may be right - for themselves. But of they use force to impose that 'good' on others who do not want it it is 'evil'. In that case democracy forced on others who want an Islamist theocracy is 'evil' - its not that democracy is evil in itself (any more than a M-e turned Lorien would be evil in itself) its the imposition of a regime on those who do not want it that is evil. That's why Galadriel's M-e turned Lorien would be evil.

Behaving like Sauron, becoming another Dark Lord, is not about making the whole of M-e into Mordor - Galadriel clearly states that she would not be like Sauron if she took the Ring - she would be as bad - but in a different way - not 'dark' but beautiful & terrible. Sauron inspires hate & fear, while 'all shall love (Galadriel) & despair'.

I disagree with that idea and reasoning, at least because Sauron and Melkor became nihilistic; I know of no reference that they strived for a Lorien-like M-E.

No. Tolkien is clear. Morgoth certainly was a nihilist, & sought the absolute destruction of all things. Sauron, on the other hand, was a totalitarian. He did not want to destroy the world, but to gain absolute control over it. Of course Sauron would not desire a 'Lorien-like M-e. He desired a Mordor like M-e. Saruman desired an Isengard-like M-e (hence what happened in the Shire, Galadriel a Lorien-like M-e, Sam a M-e (by extention) made into a great garden & Faramir a M-e which was like Gondor of old. And if they took the Ring that's exactly what they would produce (to the extent of their innate power), & in that they would be as bad as Sauron. Its too simplistic to think that everyone who took the Ring would become nothing but a Sauron clone, building Dark Towers & employing Ringwraiths. Of course, in their own way they would be as bad, or worse, but they wouldn't be the same.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I'd agree with davem. I think the formulation that the usurpation of power is pretty correct. But, however true you are, davem, I think what you speak of would be just the "normal" corruption by power. That's what the people who made (or considered, cf. below) themselves the ultimate rulers would do, everyone putting the Middle-Earth into the shape of their own imagination, but that won't accord with Eru's plan and thus, be "evil". The Ring, I would presume, would break the last barriers of their conscience and so, even for people like Sam or Galadriel or Faramir or Gandalf, they will cease to care of the others and go after their own goals (even if the goals were to be seen as "good" by them). The moment of taking the Ring for your own is when it happens - that's why there's so much emphasise putting on it, that's why it's so important that Bilbo, Frodo, Sam... received (or came to, but "received", I think, is appropriate word here) it (and not took it by force), though later the former two declared the Ring as "their own and no one's". By taking the Ring for your own, you say "I have the RIGHT to have it and it is only mine, no one else has the right to relativise this" (the words "mine and no one else's" define it pretty well, but I want to make clear what I speak of). Simply said, Bilbo, you don't have the right on claiming the Ring, it's not yours. You cannot say "the Ring should do this and this and never anything else" - at any time, the Ring may pass to anyone else (like Frodo) and you cannot object it. That's the thing Melkor said about Arda:

Originally Posted by Ainulindalë

When therefore Earth was yet young and full of flame Melkor coveted it, and he said to the other Valar: "This shall be my own kingdom; and I name it unto myself!"

The point is that no one can ultimately say this about anything. Even Aragorn, let's say, does not have any right to say that he is the King and it can be never changed. Like Treebeard said, "'never' is too long even for me." Remember that first, Melkor did not want everything to become Darkness: he wanted to claim the Light and to make everything his own. He turned to that "nihilism" when he realized that he cannot have everything ("mine - or no one's!"), that there is still the will of Eru above him, whatever he would do.

In connection with this, maybe there's just only one thing I'd think about, and that's that from what we know, I think there are hints that ultimately the Ring (because it has part of Sauron's power in it) could lead even Galadriel (or these folks we speak of) into doing things that would remind us of Mordor, meaning now the real, "physical" Mordor - destruction and darkness. I think if she retained her status for some time, she'd ultimately start to fade into these "evil" things we know. First, as I said above, she could realize that even as the ultimate ruler there is the will of Eru above her, and she could decide then between just two things: to bow down and obey (diminish, go into the West, remain Galadriel - and leave her Mega-Lórien behind), or to oppose even Eru - and if she went into the extreme as Morgoth did, she would come to the state that the only thing she could do will be destroying everything. "Okay, Eru, I see I cannot control some things against your will, so I will at least destroy them". And here we go. The same path.

Or second, thinking in less extreme ways, maybe something else could happen, because the Ring could come to work here. That's something Raynor mentioned about the "higher evil forces that are uncontrollable"; when Galadriel would have reached the ultimate power in Middle-Earth, there will also be nothing else for her that she would consider "higher" than herself (at least to the point I mentioned above, when she would start to struggle against that what would oppose her), which means, she is the ultimate and despotic ruler, just as Melkor and Sauron at certain point of time thought they were. In this moment, in our Galadriel case, the Ring would come to work, because the person won't have any other things to hold to, and the Ring would probably convince her to "build Dark Towers and create Ringwraith". Why do I think so: Because there is a part of Sauron's personality in the Ring. It does not have anything to do with Galadriel's dreams or goals. But I think the personality of Sauron in the Ring would make her do things even she wouldn't like to do, and she would do them. Strange? I think not - just imagine it. "Hey, why could you not make a Nazgul from Elrond? You ask why would you do that? Well, why not? You are the ruler - you can do everything you want. No one can ban you from turning Elrond into a Nazgul. So prove it." It would take long, perhaps millenia, but I think even Galadriel could start to do things that would make her somewhat like the real Sauron, if she possessed the Ring - and ultimately, the Ring will possess her.

[davem]

I can't ever imagine Galadriel living in a Dark Tower, surrounded by Black Riders & Orcs. I can imagine her living in a Mallorn the size of Barad Dur, surrounded by Elves as enslaved as Ringwraiths & Orcs. And that's the point - for all Tolkien may have made reference to evil having a beautiful form we see very little of that in M-e. Evil is almost uniformly dark & ugly - stereotypical bad guys in the main. This leads many readers to associate beauty with goodness & ugliness with evil.

But take Lewis & Narnia. Narnia under Jadis is beautiful. Snowy landscapes, an Ice Palace, & all ruled over by a beautiful White Queen. Far more seductive than a Mordor ruled by Sauron & peopled by Orcs.

The point about Narnia when we first encounter it is that's its a realm ruled over by evil, but we don't realise that. Its not simply that there its 'always winter but never Christmas. Its that its always winter & never anything else. Jadis has absolute control over the land & has reshaped it in her own image.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I think it's clear what you mean, and as I said I agree with it. However, I am now speaking only of the thing that probably the Ring will ultimately make Galadriel, let's say, build the Dark Tower. Of course she (herself), even corrupted with power (and the more) would prefer a titanic Mallorn tree. But I think that someday the Dark Tower will come - it seems strange and as I said, it would have to take millenia. But it is the Sauron's will in the Ring, thus HIS image of the world, that will leak through. I am not saying Galadriel's mega-Lórien won't be evil, but I am only pointing out one aspect of the Ring that we know about. This is not about power any longer, it is about Sauron's will leaking through. Galadriel will create the Megalórien, a tyranny of itself, different from the stereotypical tyranny of Sauron, but then, I think Sauron's personality stored in the Ring will gnaw its way through and could lead Galadriel to do some of these stereotypical evil things. Against her own, albeit tyrannic wishes, to be absolutely clear.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

I think Sauron's personality stored in the Ring will gnaw its way through and could lead Galadriel to do some of these stereotypical evil things. Against her own, albeit tyrannic wishes, to be absolutely clear.

My feeling is that while the Ring may contain some of Sauron's Will, it doesn't contain so much of his 'taste' that it will make a possessor of it ever want to live in a big tower in a blasted landscape - unless that desire was there in the first place. I think a 'megaLorien' is at the same 'extreme' of evil as Mordor - both are 'effects' of the utilisation of absolute power.

In short, while the Mordorisation of M-e is uglier than the Lorienisation of M-e, it isn't more 'evil' (unless judged purely aesthetically). Or in other words, Mordorisation is not the 'final step' beyond Lorienisation - the latter is equally an 'ultimate' manifestation of evil, & would equally demonstrate the absolute victory of the Ring.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm not sure what I think. Galadriel sees herself as 'beautiful and terrible.' Sam imagines a garden swollen to a realm. But is this accurate, or the Ring's deceit? Sauron could once appear beautiful.

I suspect that for Tolkien Beauty was in large part dependent on natural harmony (and allowing the Music to take its course). The exercise of forceful interference introduces disharmony- the discord of Melkor, if you like. Sauron's inability after the Fall of Numenor to take on a fair form indicates that with the diminishment of his power he was unable to maintain a *disguise*- that his outward form reflected his true nature. Note also Saruman in death- rags of flesh over a hideous skull. There is something about the Will to Power which brings inherent ugliness along with it. Since temporal power of the sort the Ring promises involves coercion and enslavement, the process almost ineveitably involves the evocation of Fear- and terror involves using the ugly and the hideous. I believe Galadriel+ Ring would ultimately, like Saruman, have recruited Orcs.

For an Augustinian Catholic beauty on Earth is a distant echo of Divine perfection, and so I think for Tolkien the rejection of Eru's purpose (embodied in the moral law) means abandoning that echo- this can be seen even in the case of Aule and the Dwarves, who are not evil, but are indeed unlovely.

[davem]

It is part of the essential malady of such days— producing the desire to escape, not indeed from life, but from our present time and self-made misery— that we are acutely conscious both of the ugliness of our works, and of their evil. So that to us evil and ugliness seem indissolubly allied. We find it difficult to conceive of evil and beauty together. The fear of the beautiful fay that ran through the elder ages almost eludes our grasp. Even more alarming: goodness is itself bereft of its proper beauty. In Faerie one can indeed conceive of an ogre who possesses a castle hideous as a nightmare (for the evil of the ogre wills it so), but one cannot conceive of a house built with a good purpose—an inn, a hostel for travellers, the hall of a virtuous and noble king—that is yet sickeningly ugly. At the present day it would be rash to hope to see one that was not—unless it was built before our time. On Fairy Stories

So Tolkien lectures us. And yet, doesn't he fall into the same trap himself - allying ugliness almost solely with evil & beauty with goodness. Yes, there are examples of evil having a beautiful face (Annatar), & good having an ugly one (the Woses), yet in reality these are exceptions that prove the rule. In M-e not only do "evil and ugliness seem indissolubly allied" they are so. If we do find it "difficult to conceive of evil and beauty together" Tolkien himself could be said to have exacerbated that problem.

Or perhaps its simply because LotR, indeed the Legendarium as a whoie, is not actually a 'Fairy Story' at all?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

My feeling is that while the Ring may contain some of Sauron's Will, it doesn't contain so much of his 'taste' that it will make a possessor of it ever want to live in a big tower in a blasted landscape - unless that desire was there in the first place. I think a 'megaLorien' is at the same 'extreme' of evil as Mordor - both are 'effects' of the utilisation of absolute power.

Surely. But what I want to say is that when we speak especially of the Ring in particular, and not any other form of corruption by power, the Ring's effects are two: first, boosting the original lust for power, second, leaking Sauron's thoughts through. As I said, it would have to take millenia for Galadriel to start breeding Orcs, but ultimately, I believe it would come. That would happen at the moment, when the Ring would have destroyed the wielder's prior identity. Technically, the person would become a Nazgul himself.
(Please note - and I hope it was clear even from what I posted earlier, just want to make it sure - that I do not speak of profiling the evil in general, I speak only of the one particular case of the Ring, which had a little bit of Sauron's personality in it.)

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

For an Augustinian Catholic beauty on Earth is a distant echo of Divine perfection, and so I think for Tolkien the rejection of Eru's purpose (embodied in the moral law) means abandoning that echo- this can be seen even in the case of Aule and the Dwarves, who are not evil, but are indeed unlovely.

Originally Posted by davem

So Tolkien lectures us. And yet, doesn't he fall into the same trap himself - allying ugliness almost solely with evil & beauty with goodness. Yes, there are examples of evil having a beautiful face (Annatar), & good having an ugly one (the Woses), yet in reality these are exceptions that prove the rule. In M-e not only do "evil and ugliness seem indissolubly allied" they are so. If we do find it "difficult to conceive of evil and beauty together" Tolkien himself could be said to have exacerbated that problem.

Or perhaps its simply because LotR, indeed the Legendarium as a whoie, is not actually a 'Fairy Story' at all?

The question is, what did Tolkien himself think - what did leak into his image of Middle-Earth, was it more like, as William said, the Augustinian Catholic point of view, or did he see it as a "Fairy story"? I believe he was not himself sure at certain points, or subconsciously, some things just pushed him to portray the evil as ugly (exactly as in the quote davem provided - a brilliant example!). Yet, I think at certain moments, like that in the "Mirror of Galadriel", he managed to get past this and show that even beautiful can be "evil".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Surely. But what I want to say is that when we speak especially of the Ring in particular, and not any other form of corruption by power, the Ring's effects are two: first, boosting the original lust for power, second, leaking Sauron's thoughts through. As I said, it would have to take millenia for Galadriel to start breeding Orcs, but ultimately, I believe it would come. That would happen at the moment, when the Ring would have destroyed the wielder's prior identity. Technically, the person would become a Nazgul himself.
(Please note - and I hope it was clear even from what I posted earlier, just want to make it sure - that I do not speak of profiling the evil in general, I speak only of the one particular case of the Ring, which had a little bit of Sauron's personality in it.)

But if evil can be beautiful then an evil Elf would be as bad (morally) as an Orc. Hence we're only dealing with outward appearance, so Galadriel could have beautiful Elves serving her who were as evil as Orcs. If she could corrupt their nature there would be no need to twist their outer appearance. In short, at that point of absolute corruption I'm not sure appearances would come into it. As I stated, it would be merely a question of aesthetics. Galadriel (or any other wielder of the Ring) would not have Sauron's appearance (she would not, for instance, be nine fingered. She would not necessarily ever develop an ugly form - those are, in Sauron's case 'accidents'). Hence, I don't see that just because Sauron lived in a tower that Galadriel necessarily would - however corrupted by the Ring she became. The choice of whether one lives in a massive tower or a great tree is not a matter of how 'evil' one is. Both are effectively 'towers' - one of stone, one of wood. If a 'beautiful' servant is as capable of evil as an ugly one, what difference does that appearance make?

The question is, what did Tolkien himself think - what did leak into his image of Middle-Earth, was it more like, as William said, the Augustinian Catholic point of view, or did he see it as a "Fairy story"? I believe he was not himself sure at certain points, or subconsciously, some things just pushed him to portray the evil as ugly (exactly as in the quote davem provided - a brilliant example!). Yet, I think at certain moments, like that in the "Mirror of Galadriel", he managed to get past this and show that even beautiful can be "evil".

He does - yet this is, to me, another case of the exception proving the rule. Lewis depicts evil as beautiful. One can see Jadis as equivalent to Galadriel with the Ring. Lewis seems far more concerned to show that physical beauty is neither here nor there in moral terms. For Tolkien outer appearance does seems to reflect inner 'grace' - in most cases. Hence, the 'spirit' reshapes the form. The more one succumbs to evil the uglier one becomes. Which is, of course, a potentially dangerous message. Beautiful people are good, ugly (dark, swarthy) people are evil. Not in every case, & the Woses are a clear warning against such a simplistic view - and yet, in M-e those who judged the Woses as evil because of their appearance could be said to be judging on general experience within M-e.

Yet, Tolkien actually goes against the 'lesson' of Fairy Stories, in that while the Rohirrim may think that the Elves of Lorien are wicked (or at least 'dangerous) that os shown to be a judgement based in ignorance. The 'fays' of Lorien are not evil at all.

Of course, this comes down to the rules of M-e - if the inner evil does ultimately manifest in outer ugliness then Galadriel would have to become ultimately foul & her realm ugly. But the question is whether this 'rule' would have to be obeyed? And if it does it leaves me, personally, with a bit of a dilemma - if ugliness = evil, then aren't we left with the conclusion that all those who are ugly in M-e are evil? And if we are to conclude that then we're very close to a bit of an unpleasant conclusion - that beautiful people are 'better' (morally) than ugly ones. It seems to me that Tolkien himself never came out clearly on this. He may have Frodo state that a servant of the Enemy would feel fouler but seem fairer, but (apart from the exception of Annatar & Morgoth in his early years) do we ever actually see a real example of this?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

(I believe to the second part of davem's last post I have nothing to add, I think I voiced all my thoughts on this matter in the previous.)

Originally Posted by davem

Hence, I don't see that just because Sauron lived in a tower that Galadriel necessarily would - however corrupted by the Ring she became. The choice of whether one lives in a massive tower or a great tree is not a matter of how 'evil' one is.

Only to this, I think you still misunderstand what I am trying to say - it is NOT a measure of how evil one is. Galadriel could live in the mallorn tree and be as "evil" as Sauron. And of course, I am not speaking literally here, it could be building the Tower, as well as making the Orcs, as well as making Ringwraith or anything else. But, 1. Sauron preferred the tower, hence, when Galadriel would become largely tainted by Sauron's will (meaning personality, not just lust for power), she would - let's say - build the tower. And 2., Tolkien shows us that, at least in Middle-Earth, one of the main traits of evil is that it is uncaring, reckless destruction - Sauron wreaks destruction just "by the way", because he does not care. His Orcs need to get past the valley, and they do not care that they destroy the flowers blossoming there. It has something to do with the image of "industrialism", as we know, and with Galadriel it would, of course, go differently. But I believe not that much differently. Galadriel, in her plans - or Sam, for example - could make great wonderful gardens (the much as Sauron or Saruman made great forges and roads), but could, for example, lay ruin to Minas Tirith (or Orthanc - make the Treegarth of Orthanc, or Treegarth of Dale, or whatever else, not caring that someone else lives there who would prefer living in a "normal" city). So, "destruction" in this case does not necessarily need to mean utter destruction (even Sauron built something when he lay waste to the original place). But, such events would take place, and it could very well end in something similar to Mordor - even if it were only in the general feeling, this would be a Mordor of wild vegetation and flooded woodlands.