back
to The Humble Hero
THE IRONY OF EVIL
SHADES OF EVIL
"[Tolkien's] good people are consistently good, his evil
figures
immutably evil; and he has no room in his world for a Satan
both evil and tragic"
– Edwin Muir, Review in "The Observer", (August
1954).47
As for the critique of unnuanced good and evil in Tolkien
– characters fixed either in their inherent "goodness" or "badness" –
this would indeed, if true, make for a dull read. However, Edwin Muir, the
critic responsible for this puzzling complaint, appears to have had his eyes
turned away in blind disgust when making this assertion. He is in any case
unable or unwilling to penetrate the setting of "the fantastic" and ponder
the profound moral depth of the work, as portrayed in the complex, fallible
nature of the characters and the all-too familiar universe which they inhabit.
Muir's reference is of course to Paradise Lost48
and Milton's iconic Satan. It may be noted that Milton's character and Tolkien's
equivalent Melkor have much more in common than meets the eye. Satan, though
corrupted and tormented, still possesses the wisdom and insight of his order,
but as a central point, the wisdom has turned to cunning and guile and the
insight is used for intricate schemes and the domination of lesser beings.
Clearly, the gifts of power and intellect have degenerated in terms of moral
value and integrity, but not in terms of potency; even after he is stricken
down and chastised for his rebellion, a certain mode of “greatness” and leadership
is retained by Milton’s antagonist. The range of reactions to this is wide;
sometimes turned against Milton for constructing such an equivocal antagonist
or, indeed, against God for “provoking” the rebellion and fall of Lucifer49 (notably by scholars
William Empson and John Carey). Close readings of the first books in Paradise
Lost may, however, turn the attention not to Satan’s greatness, but to
the base and corrupted ethos which lurks beneath the surface. Tolkien's view
of this comes across in Melkor's rise and fall in the Sil where the
chief causes of his moral degeneration (self-exalting pride, domination of
lesser wills, megalomania) echo those of Satan's. Though Tolkien may place
superior power and greatness on the side of Melkor (because the Valar do
not use their power unrestrained and destructively) he sees no heroic qualities
in evil, and none are needed in order to depict tragedy. In indirect response
to Muir's criticism, the comments of Tolkien's good friend C.S. Lewis on
Milton's Satan provide hints to understanding these shades of evil as they
appear in Middle-earth. Lewis is concerned not with Satan’s heroic features,
but with the absurdity inherent to his nature, his faulty self-deluding logic
and pettiness.50 He
goes on to argue that even if some readers may admire or sympathise with
Satan’s undeniable courage (or, arguably, ofermod…) or the "tragedy"
of his fall, Milton’s characterisation of Satan had a quite different purpose.
It was carefully crafted to illustrate Evil turning on itself; Evil inevitably
acting as its own downfall. Again, readers of both LotR and Sil
will recognise the anatomy of evil given here. Tolkien's characters Melkor
and Sauron are not "types" or "allegories" based on Satan, but complex individuals
in their own right. They are in a sense "Evil incarnate", however, and as
such they manifest related underlying philosophies.
However, on the smaller scale – which is just as central
to understanding the origins and manifestations of evil – Tolkien's highly
original character Gollum stands out. During their desperate journey to the
heart of Sauron's domain, the land of Mordor, Frodo and Sam encounter Gollum
whose self-destructive, yet unquenchable desire for the Ring has made him
track the Ringbearer all the way. When the two hobbits overpower him, tying
a rope around his leg, the readers get their first close look at Gollum's
character: "Gollum began to scream, a thin tearing sound, very horrible to
hear. He writhed and tried to get his mouth to his ankle and bite the rope.
He kept on screaming. … 'It hurts us, it hurts us', hissed Gollum. 'It freezes,
it bites! Elves twisted it, curse them!'". Knowing Gollum's value as a guide
through enemy territory (and feeling a strange pity for him) Frodo agrees
to remove the rope in exchange for his promise of loyalty. Gollum names the
only thing that he holds dear: "'Sméagol will swear on the Precious'"
. The passage darkens with the ominous tone of Frodo's reply: "'Think! One
Ring to Rule them all and in the Darkness bind them. Would you commit
your promise to that, Sméagol? It will hold you. But it is more treacherous
than you are. It may twist your words. Beware!'" Ironically, or rather tragically,
Gollum persists, thus precipitating his own downfall:
Then crawling to Frodo's feet, he grovelled before him,
whispering hoarsely: … 'Sméagol will swear never, never to
let Him
[Sauron] have it. Never! Sméagol will save it. But he must
swear on
the Precious.' 'No! Not on it', said Frodo, looking down at him with
stern pity. All you wish is to see it and touch it, if you can, though
you
know it would drive you mad. … For a moment it appeared to Sam
that his master had grown and Gollum had shrunk: a tall stern shadow,
a mighty lord who hid his brightness in grey cloud, and at his feet
a
little whining dog. Yet the two were in some way akin and not alien:
they could reach each other's minds.51
After swearing to "serve the master of the Precious"52 , Frodo's mercy in sparing
his life and trust in his guidance almost penetrate the darkness which has
all but consumed Sméagol's individual mind leaving only the corrupted
Gollum side of his personality. This wretched character, whose mind is enslaved
and almost utterly consumed by the Ring, amply displays both tragedy, evil
- and the potential of recanting. Frodo's mercy to him and the special bond
between the two Ringbearers (they share the burden of addiction to the Ring
and both struggle with the love/hate relationship to "their Precious") bring
Gollum tragically close to redemption. Short of stating the fact explicitly,
Tolkien could have found no clearer way of conveying varying shades of good
and evil than through the character Gollum.
Indeed, Tolkien also goes to great lengths to provide
his antagonists with the opportunity to recant. In the cosmogonic myth found
in the opening chapters of Sil, Melkor is pardoned by his brethren
for his revolt and devastating war against them. At the end of the "Quenta
Silmarillion", his servant Sauron is pardoned and avoids capture, only to
turn once again. In LotR Gandalf repeatedly offers Saruman a way out
other than evil, but he has lost the capacity for understanding true mercy53 - seeing only treachery
or condescension masquerading as generosity.
Now, given this pattern, it is plain that Tolkien consistently
emphasises the fact that evil characters are given the chance to recant,
but refuse it, either out of pride, fear or mistrust. In other words, this
important characteristic of evil is intimately connected with Tolkien's balanced
portrayal of free will vs. predetermination in Middle-earth. Nothing is evil
in the beginning, except by failure to choose good. Evil is not a "pre-determined"
condition – not even in Sauron.
Consequently, at no point are Good and Evil presented
as absolutes by Tolkien, quite the contrary. "Good" characters are never
so except by a continual effort of their free will – that is by personal
choice based on compassion, pity, preservation: essentially the conscious
pursuit of common good. On the personal level, resistance to temptation and
indomitable endurance are key concepts. In more existential (and modern)
terms, Tolkien's principle hinges on choosing the difficult or impossible,
but fundamentally moral answer to problems, over the easy and personally
satisfying solution. Also, evil is not irredeemable, but derived mainly from
conscious choices promoting the domination, suppression, or corruption of
others. In stark contrast to Mr. Muir's claim, there is more than ample evidence
that Tolkien's representation of evil is extremely nuanced and reveals a
philosophically structured universe whose fate depends, ultimately, on individual
choice. Middle-earth, through all its ages, is a constantly flexible tableau,
its characters enacting the existential tension between motives and
actions, ends and means. This supports the central argument of this section,
namely that Middle-earth is not a fantasy realm of stereotypes, rigid and
remote, but a fully realised Secondary World which allows for many shades
of both good and evil.
Muir's critique is further challenged by Shippey in his
essay "Orcs, wraiths, wights: Tolkien's Images of Evil"54 . Building on acute analyses, he traces
Tolkien's composite applications of evil as reflected through the three examples
cited in the title of the essay. The discussion is too extensive for the
scope of this paper, yet one aspect which deserves special attention is Tolkien's
juxtaposition of Manichean (or Dualist) and Boethian theories of evil55 . Traditionally, these are
irreconcilable concepts, evil as an absence and evil as a force56 , yet evidence of both seems
to abound in Tolkien's subcreative world. Boethian evil cannot create, but
only pervert or mock Creation, and this view is certainly reflected in LotR.
On the other hand, Manichean evil seems to be embodied in the reality of
the Dark Power (i.e. Sauron).
Evil in LotR is consistently associated with "the
Shadow". But what exactly is a shadow? The obvious answer would be a mere
absence of light, but the association offered by Tolkien clearly does not
end there. The metaphysical import lies in whether shadows really exist or
not. A shadow "is not a thing but an absence caused by a thing" which tips
the scale toward the Boethian view. And yet shadows do exist insofar as they
"have shapes, and physical effects like cold and dark"57 which implies Manichean substance. By
nature it seems that a shadow is the one thing which contains attributes
of both these opposite views. Tolkien's imagery here is anything but coincidental.
Applying this seeming paradox to the evils of LotR, we find that the
powerful Ringwraiths are partially incorporeal, and certainly invisible,
unless seen in the "wraith world" which Frodo does when wearing the Ring.
They are not strictly of this world, yet continue to operate in it and are
able to exert both physical effects (such as Frodo's stab wound on Weathertop
and the sudden chill brought on by their presence) and psychological effects
(such as the mind-numbing fear that seems to emanate from them.) Middle-earth
can thus be described as a "metaphysical experiment" which, in effect, fuses
two different concepts of evil in the sophisticated imagery of "the Shadow".
47Carpenter, Humphrey, J.R.R. Tolkien
- A Biography, HarperCollins, London, 1995, p. 222 back
48Milton, John, Paradise Lost,
in Abrams, M.H., The Norton Anthology of English Literature, vol.
1, New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 1993, 6th ed. back
49Revard, Stella Purce The War in Heaven
– Paradise Lost and the Tradition of Satan’s Rebellion, London 1980.
Revard quotes these views in the introduction, p. 23, paraphrasing views
in Carey, Milton, London, 1969 and Empson, Milton’s God, London,
1965, pp. 81-89. back
50Lewis, C.S. "Satan" in Barker,
A. E. (ed.) Milton, Modern Essays in Criticism, New York, Oxford UP,
1965, reprint 1972, p. 201 back
51Tolkien, LotR, p. 643 back
52Ibid., p. 643. This fateful oath contains
the key to the tragic completion of the Quest to destroy the Ring - a point
of great significance in the discussion of Frodo as the Humble Hero. back
53As seems to be a recurring attribute
of Evil in Tolkien: "but whereas the light perceives the very heart of the
darkness, its own secret has not yet been discovered. Not yet…", In Tolkien,
LotR, p. 370 back
54Printed in Flieger & Hostetter,
eds. Tolkien's Legendarium back
55Shippey, T.A., J.R.R. Tolkien: Writer
of the Century, HarperCollins, London, 2000, p. 214 back
56Briefly defined, Boethius asserted that
evil is, in itself, "nothing" - it is rather a lack of substance; the absence
of good. This situates evil in a subordinate role of non-existence, basically
imagined as a man-made state of vacuum rendered powerless in a surrounding
sea of divine Good. This is of course an orthodox Christian view. Conversely,
in a Manichean or Dualist universe, man is situated in the centre of an eternal
conflict between good and evil forces. This image is not dependent on the
fundamental difference in stature and essence stressed by Boethius. Rather,
evil is as much a force in the world as good. The cosmic struggle is between
equal powers of creation and destruction and the existence of one keeps the
other in check. back
57Ibid., p. 129 back
top
forward
to The Irony of Evil: One Ring to Rule them All