I have been thinking a lot lately about how morality is so interwoven into all of these stories, yet it is not something often discussed in class. Yes, we often talk about good and evil, but that doesnt entirely encompass morality per say. For instance, there is a difference between being amoral and immoral; one is the complete absence of interest (or understanding) in morality, while the other is knowing that you are breaking a moral compass and still choosing to go through with your decision. For me, this distinction is absolutely vital, since it can actually BE the line of where corruption can infiltrate a being.
Although it doesnt entirely line up with who they truly are, I will utilize three characters to make this distinction a bit clearer:
-Tom Bombadil, who cares nothing for the Ring or the problems that the world is obviously facing, would be amorality.
-Sauron, bent on having absolute power even if it means crushing others' backs, is immorality.
-Finally, Sam Gangee, who is willing to risk himself to facilitate other people's burdens, would be morality.
I acknowledge that this is a strange paradox, yet I would like to hear everyone's thoughts. Is this a valid way to think about it? Or is sticking to the typical dichotomy of good and evil sufficient?
{Nienna}
3 comments:
Nienna,
I personally hate dichotomies. I believe that they are terrible gross things that plague our lives. I believe that nothing is as black and white as the dichotomies make them out to be. So in terms of this moral dichotomy that you have discussed, I do not believe that it is sufficient. However, I also believe that there is more to it than just immoral, amoral, and moral. I view it as a kind of gradient. I believe that using these three is definitely a start. But there are so many more options.
While I don't think dichotomies are necessarily bad, I am definitely of the opinion that Tolkien probably would not have appreciated his books being interpreted in terms of good and bad. That dichotomy seems too simplistic for Tolkien and interpreting the conflicts in Lord of the Rings/the Hobbit/the Silmarillion as a matter of good vs evil undercuts the purposefully ambiguous morality of many of the characters. While I could go into detail about the Feanoreans or the men of Numenor or a number of other characters with poorly-defined-morals, I think the best example of this is Smeagol.
Smeagol is initially presented to the reader as an evil character or an obstacle for Bilbo to overcome. However, it is clear that his sense of right and wrong fluctuate depending on his relationship with the Ring. If Tolkien intended his works to be read under the lenses of good and evil, why create a character who's entire personality is dependent on his moral ambiguity? Because characters like Smeagol exist (in abundance), I think it's best that we read Tolkien's works under this lense of morality rather than as a dichotomy between evil and good.
-Varda*
Hi Nienna,
I really like your thought process. Even if others have a different view on dichotomies, I really love that you are thinking about the morality, amorality, and immorality of Tolkien's characters. Because many of his characters are extremely well developed and are not static, I think that their moralities change throughout time, which makes labeling them hard. The examples you provided, however, are extremely good for the point you are making.
Have you ever played Dungeons and Dragons and heard of alignment? Alignment classifies characters on a nine-point scale of good-evil and lawful-chaotic. The nine classifications are Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil. I personally don't think that Tolkien's work deserves to be classified in any sort of way, but this scale would be an interesting way to evaluate his characters. If someone is lawful, they would be trustworthy and honorable (Sam) towards their group where if they are chaotic they would be more adaptable and potentially reckless (Bilbo). If a character is good they are willing to risk themselves to help others (Frodo) where if they are evil they are willing to inflict harm and lack compassion (Sauron).
I really like this post and that you are thinking about morality! These are just my thoughts.
-Melian
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.