Other Titles > Short Stories & Others

On the goodness of evil

<< < (2/3) > >>

H:
I think this discussion requires two things of me, the first being a reread of that into by Bakker and the second being the full use of the good portion of my brain (i.e. the smaller part).

Let me see if I can remedy the first, then possibly direct the second.

H:

--- Quote from: Gorgorotterath on June 02, 2017, 02:06:10 pm ---Sauron is evil, no doubt on that. But Sauron is not absolutely evil. He may be irredeemably evil, at least within the framework of The Lord of the Rings, but he remains a creature God (in Tolkien's secondary world).
Tolkien does not explain away evil (otherwise he would be the ur-grimdark author!). The existence and persistence of evil is a core theme of his legendarium. However, Tolkien does not explain evil either, or if it attempts an explanation that is done in mythological terms (i.e. Ainulindalë).
Upon rereading LotR two years ago after decades, I was actually surprised to notice how the Dark Lord figure is quite relativized. There are many other evils, in Middle-earth and competing interests, and possibility of Falls that could turn good characters (Boromir, Galadriel, Gandalf) to evil.
--- End quote ---

I think we might be differing on what absolute means here though.  Bakker's point about LotR is that evil on Middle-Earth is pretty objective, that is, expressly not a matter of perspective.  In fact, the quote you give later seems to speak directly to this, since Sauron's transgressions are violations of Eru's design?


--- Quote ---In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the (economic) well-being of other inhabitants of the Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit. Sauron desired to be a God-King, and was held to be this by his servants, by a triple treachery: 1. Because of his admiration of Strength he had become a follower of Morgoth and fell with him down into the depths of evil, becoming his chief agent in Middle-earth. 2. when Morgoth was defeated by the Valar finally he forsook his allegiance; but out of fear only; he did not present himself to the Valar or sue for pardon, and remained in Middle-earth. 3. When he found how greatly his knowledge was admired by all other rational creatures and how easy it was to influence them, his pride became boundless.
--- End quote ---

-The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, 183 Notes on W. H. Auden's review of The Return of the King (Which I found here.

Domination, violation of allegiance and pride are his sins.  While I guess you could make a case for this being something of a perspective issue, it really isn't much of one.  The rules of Middle-Earth are pretty clear on who is evil and who isn't though.


--- Quote from: Gorgorotterath on June 02, 2017, 02:06:10 pm ---What I contest is that you can reduce the Tolkienian treatment of evil to a pure "Us vs. Them" dichotomy, or reducing evil in his work as a pure matter of perspective. It has be done, notably in a few rewritings, but you end up with something rather different from LotR at its kernel.
--- End quote ---

Do you mean can't in this sentence?  "What I contest is that you can reduce the Tolkienian treatment of evil to a pure "Us vs. Them" dichotomy."  If not, I think you are misunderstanding Bakker's point in bringing up LotR.  He is making the point that in Tolkien's world, evil is clear and certain.  There is no perspective issue at all.  The bad guys are bad, plain and simple.  Even the Orcs are not confused by this and no one ever thinks to question which side they are on.  It's all a moral certainty, an objective certainty.


--- Quote from: Gorgorotterath on June 02, 2017, 02:06:10 pm ---Sorry, maybe I am murking things even more. I guess you're right, it would require a way longer discussion to conclude that Bakker is wrong. I have to give up on Orcs, the matter is really convoluted and there would be too much to write. On one hand they are born of hate, but on the other Tolkien stated and restated that "the Shadow cannot make only mock".  I add two quotes on their nature, that could help to further the discussion.

From Letter 153, Tolkien's Letters

--- Quote ---[Eru/God] gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation. Of course within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions. But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be', even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other 'rational' creatures like Elves or Men. They would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making — necessary to their actual existence — even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.) But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them.

--- End quote ---

And this, about how to deal with them according to the "Wise" (Myths Transformed, section VIII, in Morgoth's Ring):

--- Quote ---But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty or treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost.* This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.
--- End quote ---

Tolkien wrote a lot of controversial statements on the origin and the nature of Orcs, and he could not find a proper solution that fit with his worldview. So there is room for ambiguity, but to insofar as to state they are outside the Law (of Eru/God).
--- End quote ---

Indeed, you end up in a place of asking the question of how can there be evil from a good god.  Which is a whole different can of worms though and one that is probably best left closed here for now.

I do think though, if I am reading your post correctly, that you are misunderstanding Bakker's position.

Gorgorotterath:

--- Quote ---Do you mean can't in this sentence?  "What I contest is that you can reduce the Tolkienian treatment of evil to a pure "Us vs. Them" dichotomy."  If not, I think you are misunderstanding Bakker's point in bringing up LotR.
--- End quote ---

Sorry, I was getting confused. I meant exactly what I wrote. I will have a more careful reread of the essay and your posts later after work to better comment or correct myself I got Bakker wrong. Thanks for the replies!

H:

--- Quote from: Gorgorotterath on June 02, 2017, 04:09:53 pm ---
--- Quote ---Do you mean can't in this sentence?  "What I contest is that you can reduce the Tolkienian treatment of evil to a pure "Us vs. Them" dichotomy."  If not, I think you are misunderstanding Bakker's point in bringing up LotR.
--- End quote ---

Yes, sorry I did mean can't. I will retcon that. It completely reverses what I was saying

--- End quote ---

OK, so your position is that one can reduce the evil in LotR to simply a matter of perspective?

Gorgorotterath:
I've had a reread of Bakker's essay, and I admit I was probably inferring too much from the text, on the wake of a personal bias on the subject, I guess. This attenuates my objections, and I must admit that the latest sentence of my first post was carried on the wake of the reading. Upon rereading I appreciated also how he identifies in demythologization one of the main tools used by Grimdark authors, and its limitations as well as the limitations of mythologization.

Tolkien and Bakker are my favorite authors, anyway.

I still maintain that Tolkien's message and the metaphysics of Middle-earth (or Eä if you like)  is quite distorted, to my understanding. Saying that "no orc can be murdered" is wrong; orcs are murdered in fact in the book itself, consider the killing of the unarmed and wounded Gorbag by Shagrat. That is a scene charged with a moral content. The reader is made to realize that Shagrat's act is "evil", even according to the Orcs'  moral yardstick (Shippey has written something on that, I think in JRR Tolkien, Author of the Century). The fact that no man/elf/good guy murders an Orc is accidental, not fundamental. It would happen, should a "good guy" kill an Orc in his sleep for instance. [This I suspect, happens in the Lay of Leithian, possibly] So I see an inversion of cause and consequence here.


--- Quote ---I think we might be differing on what absolute means here though.  Bakker's point about LotR is that evil on Middle-Earth is pretty objective, that is, expressly not a matter of perspective.  In fact, the quote you give later seems to speak directly to this, since Sauron's transgressions are violations of Eru's design?
--- End quote ---

Evil is objective in Middle-earth, but this does not simplify the problem evil represents. The Quest is much more than a mission to destroy Sauron as the absolute embodiment of Evil. It is also a mission for to preserve the goodness of the good guys, while trying to thwart the Dark Lord. Many possibilities of temptations are offered, of easier way to "destroy evil doing evil" (to Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, Aragorn, Boromir, Denethor, Sam himself). I some or all cases it may just have been a trick of the Ring to reveal itself to Sauron, but there is evidence for the contrary at least for the Wizards. So in "The Lord of the Rings" there is the awareness that the quest to "destroy evil" could turn good people to evil as well.


--- Quote ---OK, so your position is that one can reduce the evil in LotR to simply a matter of perspective?
--- End quote ---
This is interesting. Evil is not a matter of perspective, but possibly the irredeemability of evil is a matter of perspective. It is not in the powers of Man or Elves (and possibly of the Valar as well) to redeem the Orcs (and Sauron as well), but it would not be beyond the powers of Eru at the very least. Or maybe beyond the powers of Melkor if he had repented after being freed my Manwe (one of the reasons Manwë decided to trust Melkor was indeed that his help was needed to heal the world from the evils he had started). But here maybe I am philosophizing a bit too much.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page