The greatest of its kind is doomed to evil?

[Mirkgirl]

The greatest of the Ainur, Melkor, turns evil… the greatest of the Istari, Saruman, turns evil… the greatest of all elves (well maybe not, but the most gifted), Feanor, brings evil, even if not being evil.

What’s going on when one is the greatest of its kind? All living creatures always try to perfect themselves. But how to do it when they are the greatest of their kinds, when there are no criteria, when they are the criteria, so to say? And when they are on one step of the hierarchy and they are superior to all the others on this step, isn’t it logical that they want to go up?

They feel aimless and underestimated… from here to the rebel is only one step… and rebel under these conditions, with these reasons always brings evil.

When they can’t perfect themselves in their area, where to do it if not in the “dark side”, where there are challenges, where there is new hierarchy, which depends on you and your powers only?

This is the way the great evils are born IMO… and they do deserve respect and maybe even pity… because what made them evil wasn’t the malice of the small creature, who doesn’t want to reach the greatness of the others, but to lower them, to make them his or her slaves; to have power, not to deserve power (good example for this is Grima).

However some do not take the path of evil, but they need new area where to find their place. They usually create something grand, as one is not only himself, but what he has created as well. This is the choice of Feanor, who creates the Silmarils. The evil here usually comes by two sides. First, the creator is very attached to his creation… second the evil side has lost the battle for the creator, but turns its attention to the creation. We see both in Feanor’s example… he doesn’t want even to show the Silmarils to the Valar and Melkor desires the Silmarils more than anything.

Hmm comments?

[Throrin]

good point...but i think that Maedhros wus more evil than Feanor wus...but Maedhros was Feanor's most powerful son person...you know whut they say...power corrupts...

[Querarien]

Noooooo... Maedhros was not corrupt, just... confused... and not thinkings straight at the end of it all.... not evil, he cant be evil....

But that is fairly standard about power corrupting, Sauron was one of the most powerful Maiar too, but I agree that it is sad. Thinking about Orcs always makes me sad too, that so much can go wrong that once was beautiful.

[Catz]

well........look at Gollum also, tho i know he wasnt a Sil character.......he wasnt a great one exactly.......but he had a quick mind.........and he was a seeker and delver after knowledge........who simply let the seeking take him over, very much like Saruman, tho on a smaller scale........i think the danger is not so much power.....thats more a consequence.......but obession.........even obession with good can cause evil.........Feanor is a great example
:catz:

[Gorsnak]

For what it's worth, here's my take on the matter. I don't think that the greatest of any given kind is doomed to be evil in Tolkien's works. The salient feature your examples have in common is not that they are each the greatest of their kind, but rather that each of them lust after power of a specific sort - power to control, as opposed to power to guide or shape. They all wish to subvert the creative process to their own ends (perhaps this is a tad strong in Feanor's case, but I'll get to him in a bit); they wish to assert their own will against Eru's.

This is, I think, one of the primary themes that pervades all of Tolkien's writings. Some real world examples of this sort of thing would be the excessive industrialization that turned parts of England black with soot, or the quest to unlock the power of the atom. (On Aug 9, 1945, the day after Hiroshima was bombed, he writes to Christopher, "The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of these lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world!") Tolkien, so far as I can tell, despises the human tendency to seek and to use the power to place our feet squarely on nature's neck and enslave her for our purposes. In the stories, this can be seen in the form of Melkor's creating his own themes in the Music, instead of singing in harmony with the rest of the Ainur. It can be seen in Saruman's use of industrial machinery to fuel his war machine. It can also be seen in Saruman's fascination with the Ring, the ultimate tool for imposing one's will on creation.

It's this theme in Tolkien that was seized upon by Brin in his ridiculously shallow article in Salon a while back. (I expect it was warmly received :trout: by these forums, though I wasn't posting here at the time.) Brin was certainly correct in noting this anti-technology theme in Tolkien, but his problem is that his reading of Tolkien had all the subtlety of Gimli's battle axe. (Well, actually, my going theory is that he's just jealous that Tolkien could write a superb story in a beautifully created world, and he can't - but that's beside the point.) What Brin misses is that Tolkien isn't anti-technology per se, but against a certain attitude towards technology.

Feanor will provide us with a lovely example of this. Feanor's greatest work, the Silmarils, was a masterpiece of "technology", or in the terms used in the books, of lore and power and skill. Yet they are not anything bad - indeed, they were acclaimed by all, including the Vala themselves, as wondrous beyond telling. Feanor's fall isn't the result of his great skill, but rather of the attitude he comes to take to it - largely in response to Melkor's whispering. He becomes greedily possessive of his masterwork, to the point of refusing to grant their use to restore the trees (a moot point, since they'd been stolen, but at the time of his refusal no one knew that). He chafes under the authority of the Vala in Aman, listening instead to Melkor's suggestions of ruling great realms in Middle Earth. In short, he wishes his own will to be dominant, and to use his technical prowess to effect that wish.

This desire to use technology to dominate is in sharp contrast to the use of technology to create in harmony - witness, for example, Gimli's discussion with Legolas about the Glittering Caves of Aglarond (btw, did anyone else notice the shot in the movie where the cave walls sparkle? :)), where Legolas expresses the opinion that dwarves might destroy the beauty of the caves if they got near them with chisels. Gimli responds with an almost religious speech about how dwarves would expand such caves with great care, adding to rather than diminishing their beauty. In fact, dwarves generally personify Tolkien's approved approach to technology, except where they succumb to greed. Technology used to enhance in harmony with the earth is good, technology used to dominate is evil.

Now, on the specific question regarding the greatest of a kind, I think we'll find it doesn't hold up. Naturally, all the major baddies are greatest or close to it, but this is no surprise. When the weak succumb to the desire to have their own will dominate, they don't really make the news. You get Ted Sandyman or Bill Ferny instead of a Dark Lord. It takes someone with a bit more stature to be evil in a noteworthy sense. But Saruman was not the greatest of his kind - his kind was Maiar, and he was by no means the greatest Maiar. He falls because he is of a "craft and art" type to begin with (his association is with Aule), and he is seduced by the lure of the sort of power available through the rings. But Celebrimbor, who wrought the Three and who was equally a "craft and art" type and the greatest craftsman left in Middle Earth in the Second Age, while deceived by Sauron, did not become evil. When Sauron created the One Ring, Celebrimbor immediately hid the Three and prepared for war against Sauron.

So, I think the character element which puts one most at risk of turning to evil of a noteworthy stature in Tolkien's world is not skill or power, but pride, and the desire to use what power one has to dominate.

Well, that got a little more long-winded than I planned. :blush:

[Yar]

I say only: When you are the greatest you have power and you want it more and more.. And to get power you sacrifice some things and when those things will be good things then only bad remains.. It's all about sacrificing... power and hate!

:dragon:

[Querarien]

obsession leads to evil.... I'm dooomed!

[Tar-Ancalimë]

The salient feature your examples have in common is not that they are each the greatest of their kind, but rather that each of them lust after power of a specific sort - power to control, as opposed to power to guide or shape. However, they are the greatest of their kind... why don’t you consider that lusting after power comes from being the greatest of their kind? that’s what this thread is trying to say here...

Tolkien, so far as I can tell, despises the human tendency to seek and to use the power to place our feet squarely on nature's neck and enslave her for our purposes. I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make your point against mirky's thesis. you’re considering power dooming people but not that being the greatest of their kind leads to this.

Brin in his ridiculously shallow article in Salon a while back. (I expect it was warmly received by these forums, though I wasn't posting here at the time.) i strongly suggest you look around the forums before bashing threads you don’t know about or generalizing everyone on the forums. in this case there was such a thread (started by me) and if you took the trouble to read it you’d find out that its better to have a look around then automatically jump to conclusions and make some people furious.

Tolkien isn't anti-technology per se, but against a certain attitude towards technology. this is your opinion; however don’t you think that the attitude comes with the technology and its always easier to erase the technology than the attitude? plus tolkien most certainly was against technology-- people's attitude towards it, peoples misuse of it, call it how you will, it remains the same.

Feanor will provide us ... to use his technical prowess to effect that wish.

This desire to use technology ... used to enhance in harmony with the earth is good, technology used to dominate is evil. do you mind staying on the topic? this is seriously off topic. we aren’t talking about technology or whatever... i mean, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, either supporting it or bashing it. maybe if you had made a connection it would make more sense.



but this is no surprise. When the weak succumb to the desire to have their own will dominate, they don't really make the news. You get Ted Sandyman or Bill Ferny instead of a Dark Lord. I’m sorry, but this actually supports mirky's contention. these small people were not the greatest of their kind-- they were not the greatest evil-- they are not worthy of much mention anywhere-- they were not doomed to evil, rather they chose it. is it a general rule in tolkien's works that small people are doomed to evil? heck no. is it a general rule that the greatest of their kind are far more susceptible to this? thats what were trying to prove.

But Saruman was not the greatest of his kind - his kind was Maiar, why dont you look around a bit? his kind was maiar, but only in a very general sense. we're talking about istari... saruman's kind. plus most maiar don’t even enter this story... who knows what the greatest maia was doing

So, I think the character element which puts one most at risk of turning to evil of a noteworthy stature in Tolkien's world is not skill or power, but pride, and the desire to use what power one has to dominate. but this does not disprove mirky's point here. perhaps having such skill and power leads to this pride? i think that it does.

[Gorsnak]

I'm not quite sure what I've done to incur such animosity, but allow me to attempt a reply to a few points.

First, a couple of your points seem like tirades against me, not my post. Again, I'm not sure why you're angry with me, and I apologize for any offense I've inadvertantly given. But to be honest, I think the problem in both these cases is yours, not mine (if you like, you can take offense at this comment - it provides you with far more justification than either of the following instances).

i strongly suggest you look around the forums before bashing threads you don’t know about or generalizing everyone on the forums. in this case there was such a thread (started by me) and if you took the trouble to read it you’d find out that its better to have a look around then automatically jump to conclusions and make some people furious.

Before you go off half-cocked, you should realize that the forum's search feature returns just one hit for 'brin' (this thread). Searches on other likely terms turn up nothing relevant either. I'm not about to read every thread in the archives to try to find something the search feature can't. Suggesting that I'm obligated to do so before I am allowed to make any comment on the subject is ludicrous. Anyways, since I don't know what your position on Brin's article was, I don't know whether you were a passionate defender of it, or a passionate critic of it, though it seems unlikely you were anywhere in between given your vehemence here. If you were a critic of it, I should like to point out that my own quip about it receiving a warm welcome was sarcasm, as I thought the trout smilie made clear. If you were a defender, I should like to point out that in my opinion Brin's reading of Tolkien was superficial and verging on being insulting so, and thus the presumption that a forum dedicated to Tolkien fans should dislike it doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

do you mind staying on the topic? this (distinction between moral status of differing attitudes towards technology) is seriously off topic. we aren’t talking about technology or whatever... i mean, this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, either supporting it or bashing it. maybe if you had made a connection it would make more sense.

I apologize if my writing in the previous post was so unclear that you couldn't find a connection between them. The entire thesis of my post was that it is not being the greatest of your kind that leads one to evil, but that it is instead the desire to impose one's will on creation that does it. Since this desire is manifested in one of the attitudes towards technology I mentioned, I'm at a loss as to why you'd think that this is off topic.

Anyways, I had not realized that it is a capital offence to run off on a tangent for a bit in a lengthy post here. I suggest you count to 10 and reconsider your attitude. I may occasionally be somewhat dismissive and patronizing towards the opinions of others when I think I'm right and they're wrong (though I don't think I have been in this thread), but I don't make a habit of slamming someone on points that at best have to do with posting etiquette, though are more likely completely and utterly irrelevant to the debate.

And, now on to the salient bits of your post. Your central point seems to be that I haven't adequately considered the possibility that the reason the big baddies desire to impose their will is because they are the greatest of their kinds. That is, while I might have accurately described the nature of the evil of the big baddies, I haven't sufficiently considered the source of it.

Well, then, let's consider it. You object to my saying that Saruman wasn't the greatest of his kind (Maiar), saying "why dont you look around a bit? his kind was maiar, but only in a very general sense. we're talking about istari... saruman's kind. plus most maiar don’t even enter this story... who knows what the greatest maia was doing"

Well, if we read the Valaquenta, we see that the greatest of the known Maiar are Ilmare, handmaid of Varda, Eonwe, herald of Manwe, and Osse and Uinen, vassals of Ulmo. None of this group succumb to evil. If there are Maiar greater than them, they are not mentioned, and we may deduce that they did not succumb to evil, else we would have heard of them. So, we have a counterexample - the greatest Maiar wasn't doomed to evil. We have plenty more, as well. The greatest dwarf - Durin the Deathless, probably? Not evil. The greatest man? Open to debate, but the chief candidates, Tuor, Huor, Hurin, Beren, etc were none of them evil. Turin would be the best bet, but even he wasn't evil, just tragically cursed. Greatest ent? Treebeard. Not evil. Greatest hobbit? Frodo - not evil, though in the end not great enough to oppose the will of Sauron manifest in the Ring - no great shock there.

Now, as to the second part of your objection - Istari isn't really a kind. The Istari were simply a small group of Maiar who happened to be sent to Middle Earth as emmisaries of the Vala. There is no particularly interesting distinction between the natures of Maiar who were sent and Maiar who weren't sent. If "Maiar who were sent" is a kind, then any other interesting grouping of individuals is also a kind. And where does this get us? Greatest Vanyar? Ingwe - not evil. (Incidentally, Ingwe is also described as "the most high lord of all the Elvish race," which might put Feanor's claim to the position of greatest elf in some doubt.) Greatest elf remaining in Middle Earth in the Third Age? Galadriel - not evil. Greatest grandson of Feanor? Celebrimbor - not evil. Greatest member of the Thirteen Companions? Thorin - not evil. Greatest person staying at the Prancing Pony on the night of September 29, 3018 TA? Aragorn - not evil. Greatest member of the Fellowship? Gandalf - not evil. Greatest resident of the Old Forest? Tom Bombadil - not evil (though possibly a pervy hobbit fancier). In fact, one can produce an arbitrarily large number of groups, the greatest of which was not evil. One can also, of course, produce an arbitrarily large number of groups, the greatest of which was evil, but this does nothing to support the thesis that the greatest of any group is doomed to become evil.

So, either way you cut it, it seems that there are a great many counter-examples to the thesis that the greatest of a kind is doomed to evil. It just isn't true. What is true is that noteworthy evil-doers are powerful prior to their seduction by evil. This, however, isn't the cause of their seduction by evil, as we can see by the many other powerful beings who do not become evil. Instead, it is the cause of their being noteworthy evil-doers. (This was the point of my example of Ted Sandyman - he too becomes evil, and obviously not because he's the greatest of his kind, unless 'Millers from Hobbiton' count as a kind the way Istari do.) It's just not surprising that the most significant evil characters were very powerful. If they hadn't been, they wouldn't have been significant - but they might well have been evil anyways.

Now, it is certainly true that Tolkien sees access to power as a risk factor for falling to evil - power can corrupt. But it doesn't always, and so thinking that 'being the greatest' dooms one to becoming evil is oversimplifying.

You might still complain that my alternative, that it is the desire to impose one's own will on creation that leads to evil, and not being great, is merely describing the nature of evil, and not pointing out a cause. To this I can only say that, first, it is true to an extent, I don't know what makes people turn to evil, and second, that it provides at least some illumination to the source of evil, both that of the big baddies, and the many lesser baddies.

[Tar-Ancalimë]

i havent time to read your whole post but i will later.

i feel the need to reply to your first paragraph though-- i didnt mean it to sound as strongly as it obviously did! i apologize that youve taken offence to it ... really, i didnt mean it to be a personal attack! if it sounded that way to you all i can do is apologize ... and i do :huh:

...or have mirky delete my post :naughty:

[Gorsnak]

No, it's okay then. I guess I just took it wrong.

[Rumel]

I dont think feanor was actually evil i think he was confused and blinded for the lust of the silmarils, which he made with so much hard work and pride. Pride i think pride is a good disguise for evil, feanor turned from the valar even though he knew that the journey to beleriand might kill him, but he wouldnt not turn back and ask for forgiveness of the valar.
Melkor was absolute evil right from the core, even before arda was created he was out and about within the darkness of Ea looking for the flame imperishable because he wanted to have the power of life which only illuvatar holds, so he had a meddling mind even from the beginning.

[Mirkgirl]

Originally posted by Gorsnak
Tolkien, so far as I can tell, despises the human tendency to seek and to use the power to place our feet squarely on nature's neck and enslave her for our purposes. In the stories, this can be seen in the form of Melkor's creating his own themes in the Music, instead of singing in harmony with the rest of the Ainur. It can be seen in Saruman's use of industrial machinery to fuel his war machine. It can also be seen in Saruman's fascination with the Ring, the ultimate tool for imposing one's will on creation. I gave reasoning for this... he doesn't have anything more to achieve in his area, he goes searching for something more... and as there is no criteria, he goes off the 'path of good'.

Feanor will provide us with a lovely example of this. Feanor's greatest work, the Silmarils, was a masterpiece of "technology", or in the terms used in the books, of lore and power and skill. Yet they are not anything bad - indeed, they were acclaimed by all, including the Vala themselves, as wondrous beyond telling. Feanor's fall isn't the result of his great skill, but rather of the attitude he comes to take to it - largely in response to Melkor's whispering. He becomes greedily possessive of his masterwork, to the point of refusing to grant their use to restore the trees (a moot point, since they'd been stolen, but at the time of his refusal no one knew that). He chafes under the authority of the Vala in Aman, listening instead to Melkor's suggestions of ruling great realms in Middle Earth. In short, he wishes his own will to be dominant, and to use his technical prowess to effect that wish.
....
But Celebrimbor, who wrought the Three and who was equally a "craft and art" type and the greatest craftsman left in Middle Earth in the Second Age, while deceived by Sauron, did not become evil. When Sauron created the One Ring, Celebrimbor immediately hid the Three and prepared for war against Sauron. Well yes, that's the second way, not being evil, but bringing evil, not delibarately. The evil comes because Feanor is attached to his work, but can we blame him as its his work, the area in which he has proved himself... logic says give them to the Valar, but people are more complex than logic... second is 100% undeliberate... its that the evil wants everything great... so Melkor desires and gets the Silmarills.. Same with Celebrimbor... he's no evil, but his work is desired and used by evil

This desire to use technology to dominate is in sharp contrast to the use of technology to create in harmony - witness, for example, Gimli's discussion with Legolas about the Glittering Caves of Aglarond (btw, did anyone else notice the shot in the movie where the cave walls sparkle? :)), where Legolas expresses the opinion that dwarves might destroy the beauty of the caves if they got near them with chisels. Gimli responds with an almost religious speech about how dwarves would expand such caves with great care, adding to rather than diminishing their beauty. In fact, dwarves generally personify Tolkien's approved approach to technology, except where they succumb to greed. Technology used to enhance in harmony with the earth is good, technology used to dominate is evil. Yes they want to change it for good... yes they not always do good, but Im not goign to comment this as its about the technology, not the greatest of its kind....

But Saruman was not the greatest of his kind - his kind was Maiar, and he was by no means the greatest Maiar. He falls because he is of a "craft and art" type to begin with (his association is with Aule), and he is seduced by the lure of the sort of power available through the rings.
....
Now, as to the second part of your objection - Istari isn't really a kind. The Istari were simply a small group of Maiar who happened to be sent to Middle Earth as emmisaries of the Vala. There is no particularly interesting distinction between the natures of Maiar who were sent and Maiar who weren't sent. If "Maiar who were sent" is a kind, then any other interesting grouping of individuals is also a kind. And where does this get us? Greatest Vanyar? Ingwe - not evil. (Incidentally, Ingwe is also described as "the most high lord of all the Elvish race," which might put Feanor's claim to the position of greatest elf in some doubt.) Greatest elf remaining in Middle Earth in the Third Age? Galadriel - not evil. Greatest grandson of Feanor? Celebrimbor - not evil. Greatest member of the Thirteen Companions? Thorin - not evil. Greatest person staying at the Prancing Pony on the night of September 29, 3018 TA? Aragorn - not evil. Greatest member of the Fellowship? Gandalf - not evil. Greatest resident of the Old Forest? Tom Bombadil - not evil (though possibly a pervy hobbit fancier). In fact, one can produce an arbitrarily large number of groups, the greatest of which was not evil. One can also, of course, produce an arbitrarily large number of groups, the greatest of which was evil, but this does nothing to support the thesis that the greatest of any group is doomed to become evil. Saruman is the greatest of the Istari, who are an important group of Maiar, the only ones who really take part in the War of the Ring... and they are the most powerful group and the group consists of almost equal members in Middle Earth opposing Sauron, which makes them significant, tho there are other groups as you said.
Not every greatest one is evil, but every one is tempted greatly... and is close to it... I disagree about Frodo being greatest and he;s a special case anyway... so are the dwarves as a group... they aren't so affected of good and bad, as they are race created under strange situation... but we have an example there as well... under the creations, the indirect way of bringing evil - the Nauglamir...
So, either way you cut it, it seems that there are a great many counter-examples to the thesis that the greatest of a kind is doomed to evil. It just isn't true. What is true is that noteworthy evil-doers are powerful prior to their seduction by evil. This, however, isn't the cause of their seduction by evil, as we can see by the many other powerful beings who do not become evil. Instead, it is the cause of their being noteworthy evil-doers. (This was the point of my example of Ted Sandyman - he too becomes evil, and obviously not because he's the greatest of his kind, unless 'Millers from Hobbiton' count as a kind the way Istari do.) It's just not surprising that the most significant evil characters were very powerful. If they hadn't been, they wouldn't have been significant - but they might well have been evil anyways. I have just one question here... do we ever hear of a great evil with was the second or third in its kind? Why wasnt it Manwe or Aule who turned evil?
So, I think the character element which puts one most at risk of turning to evil of a noteworthy stature in Tolkien's world is not skill or power, but pride, and the desire to use what power one has to dominate. I agree about pride... but what causes pride? When speaking of the best of its kind pride is somehow natural... don't you think?

[Mirkgirl]

Originally posted by Catz
well........look at Gollum also, tho i know he wasnt a Sil character.......he wasnt a great one exactly.......but he had a quick mind.........and he was a seeker and delver after knowledge........who simply let the seeking take him over, very much like Saruman, tho on a smaller scale........i think the danger is not so much power.....thats more a consequence.......but obession.........even obession with good can cause evil.........Feanor is a great example
:catz: Well that's not for Silm only... but there is no better place to post it as most of the examples are from the Silm
Smeagol is an interesting example tho... he was the greatest of his kind, but he wasnt appreciate at all... he was away from his world... looking down, being isolated, only friend Deagol... in his case there was a lot of anger as well... because he was the best, but he wasnt recognized as such... he was and he knew he was more than the ones who are in charge (the grandmother) thats why the evil gets him so easy and fast....

[Mirkgirl]

Originally posted by Rumel
Melkor was absolute evil right from the core, even before arda was created he was out and about within the darkness of Ea looking for the flame imperishable because he wanted to have the power of life which only illuvatar holds, so he had a meddling mind even from the beginning.
He was on the path of evil before Arda indeed... but was he born evil? I doubt that... it was just that he saw that he was better than all the other Ainur.. and, of course, he went searching for something which coresponds to his powers.... The Flame Imperishable was a good choice.....

[Gwaihir]

Nah. Melkor wasn't made evil from the very beginning. I think it was much like Lucifer in the Bible. I think he made himself evil through his own pride and action. Too bad... if only Melkor was good, Arda would've been a perfect place!

[Rumil]

I suppose I keep reading Tolkien in terms of the catholicism that was so dear to him. Throughout the myths of middle earth we see the story of the 'fall'. There are two significant biblical falls; Lucifer and Adam. Lucifer is clearly the 'greatest of his kind' and very closely related to Melkor. I think there is something in the 'greatest' theory in relation to the Melkor/Lucifer stories. Almost that they were too close to the absolute divinity. I am not entirely sure that the theory plays out in all of the subsequent falls.