|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jpospich3
The Shire
Aug 1, 11:44pm
Post #1 of 28
(1595 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Does The Rings of Power subvert Tolkien's work?
|
Can't Post
|
|
This is something I've been wanting to explore for some time. The question under consideration is the relationship of Amazon's The Rings of Power to the spirit of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.
You may remember this line from the show: "Sometimes, To Find The Light, We Must First Touch The Darkness." It is expressed by both Finrod and Galadriel, and clearly serves as an overarching theme of the story.
The problem, I believe, is that it stands in complete antithesis to Tolkien's myth.
Let's dwell on these words for a moment: "Sometimes, to find the light, we must first touch the darkness." What exactly is being said here?
The line seems to assert that evil, or darkness, must "sometimes" be embraced, experienced, or otherwise explored before the light, or good, can be discovered and known as such. But is there anywhere in Tolkien's myth where such a maneuver -- i.e. the embrace or experience of evil -- is recommended? In fact, can such a thing even be imagined? (I can imagine the character of Saruman expressing such a sentiment, but that merely reinforces my argument.)
On the contrary, in Tolkien it is the constant resistance to evil and its temptations that is emphasized -- even when that resistance is bound to falter or fail. As Elrond tells the fellowship: "There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it."
Nowhere, moreover, is there any doubt as to the essential rightness of the fellowship's quest. Indeed the very notion that we cannot know what is good without experiencing evil seems completely foreign to the whole of Tolkien's myth. After all, the very basis of Lord of the Rings is the clear opposition between Light and Darkness; never is there a suggestion that one must get close to, or even "touch" Darkness in order to perceive or know Light.
This is what I fear has happened. Amazon has taken Tolkien's work and twisted it into its stark opposite. Instead of a constant struggle against evil, we are now enjoined to embrace or explore evil in order to effect a kind of Jungian alchemy within ourselves, a la Star Wars. But this is not the Tolkien I know.
I welcome any intelligent discussion on this question.
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Rohan
Aug 2, 1:10am
Post #2 of 28
(1554 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The difference between touching the darkness and evil
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I believe that the error here is confounding "touching the darkness" with "doing evil". The former was the main theme of the first episode, with the synchronicity connecting Finrod's speech to young Galadriel with her eventual decision to turn away from the light and make her leap of faith-- a leap into the unknown, or into darkness. But this is not the same as doing evil.
I would argue that Galadriel experiencing this epiphany makes sense given Tolkien's presentation of her character. Her most famous scene in the books involves her looking darkness in the face when she is offered the One Ring, only to finally reject this dark ambition and turn back toward the light. So no, I do not believe that The Rings of Power subvert's Tolkien's themes.
Don't mess with my favorite female elves.
(This post was edited by DwellerInDale on Aug 2, 1:10am)
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Rohan
Aug 2, 2:28am
Post #3 of 28
(1542 views)
Shortcut
|
This is what I fear has happened. Amazon has taken Tolkien's work and twisted it into its stark opposite. Instead of a constant struggle against evil, we are now enjoined to embrace or explore evil in order to effect a kind of Jungian alchemy within ourselves, a la Star Wars. But this is not the Tolkien I know.
Nice. I was thinking Star Wars before you mentioned it, but I don't get a positive or negative sense of your meaning behind "a la Star Wars." Star Was has been subverted most recently by The Acolyte, rendering the Jedi more or less the bad guys, even dragging Yoda into the whole dishonest mess. Yoda should sue for defamation. Maybe you mean that's good, or maybe you use it as an example of subversion? I really don't understand the need for newer generations of writers to deconstruct and graffiti their elders' stories and heroes. For Star Wars, I see it as writers of revisionist or made-up history, bad characterization, and getting the facts wrong about what actually (fictionally) happened, like a badly written history book. Presented as history retold is how Middle-earth is framed.
The best evidence against this thesis applied to Star Wars and the Jedi that "sometimes, to find the light, we must first touch the darkness," might have been made by Palpatine himself, as written by George Lucas:
ANAKIN: How do you know the ways of the Force?
PALPATINE: My mentor taught me everything about the Force . . . even the nature of the dark side.
ANAKIN: You know the dark side?!?
PALPATINE: Anakin, if one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force. Be careful of the Jedi, Anakin. They fear you. In time they will destroy you. Let me train you.
The Jedi eschew the darkness for the light. Only a Sith, and perhaps a misinterpretation of Lord of the Rings, would suggest touching the dark side.
(This post was edited by DGHCaretaker on Aug 2, 2:33am)
|
|
|
jpospich3
The Shire
Aug 2, 3:43pm
Post #4 of 28
(1449 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for your comment, DwellerInDale, but I'm afraid your argument makes little sense. You say I conflate "touching darkness" with "doing evil," and that "touching darkness" means only "entering the unknown," or something.
However, you note that Galadriel "turns away from the light" to enter this "darkness", when she avoids Valinor and jumps into the sea. This seems very symbolically significant, but perhaps it can be argued that the light of Valinor, in this instance, is a false light, of the kind suggested in the original dialogue with Finrod. (But would Tolkien ever symbolize Valinor's light as false?)
Anyway, one reason I remain unconvinced by your argument is that in Episode 8, Sauron (appearing as Finrod) whispers to Galadriel: "Touch the darkness once more." Now, do you mean to suggest that "darkness" in this context does not mean "evil"? I think it fairly clear it does. But if "darkness" means evil in this context (whatever verb you want to put in front of it), why wouldn't it mean evil in the original?
And that leads me back to my initial argument. Why would it be necessary, in Tolkien's mythology, to "touch evil," in order to know light? Again, I posit that this notion is totally foreign to the spirit of Tolkien's work, and indeed, so much as it serves as an overarching theme of the show, vitiates The Rings of Power as a legitimate extension of that work.
In fact, my argument can easily be pushed much further. In Episode 6, a very revealing scene involving Adar, the dark elf, occurs. Galadriel, if you recall, here indulges in a rather startling outpouring of hatred. She utters in Adar's face:
GALADRIEL: Your kind was a mistake. Made in mockery. And even if it takes me all of this Age, I vow to eradicate every last one of you. But you shall be kept alive, so that one day, before I drive my dagger into your poisoned heart, I will whisper in your piked ear that all your offspring are dead and the scourge of your kind ends with you.
To which Adar responds: "It would seem I'm not the only Elf alive who has been transformed by darkness. Perhaps your search for Morgoth's successor should have ended in your own mirror."
Now this is very strange indeed! First, note that we (the audience) are evidently meant to agree (to some extent) with Adar's evaluation of Galadriel. I say that because Galadriel herself clearly recognizes that she went too far in her hatred, and thanks Sauron (of all people!) for pulling her back. ("Thank you... For pulling me back.")
But let's consider Adar's words more closely: "It would seem I'm not the only Elf alive who has been transformed by darkness." This is a very interesting choice of words: "Transformed by darkness." Would Tolkien ever use that phrase? It seems more likely he would use a word with a negative connotation in this context: "Corrupted by darkness," or something.
For it is one thing to be tempted by evil, and to resist (however ineffectively). It is quite another to be "transformed by darkness," not as an unfortunate failing, but rather as a necessary element of the process of self-realization. The Lord of the Rings, I posit, presents the former occurrence, The Rings of Power the latter.
(This post was edited by jpospich3 on Aug 2, 3:58pm)
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Rohan
Aug 2, 4:12pm
Post #5 of 28
(1436 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There definitely is a difference
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Actually, your response seems to corroborate my opinion, especially the recounting of the scene between Galadriel and Adar. This scene underscored the fact that Galadriel has indeed "touched the darkness", and that this is manifested in her obsession to have revenge on Sauron, but this is (to my mind) significantly different from "doing evil", as most would define it. Adar, in contrast, is a murderer many times over, killing innocent Southlanders in order to seize their land and create a home for his orcs. Thus, while Adar compares himself to Galadriel, I believe there is a clear difference: Adar is lost to evil without the possibility of redemption.
The point you try to make concerning Adar's speech seems, then, to be purely semantic: "Would Tolkien ever use that phrase [transformed by darkness]? It seems more likely he would use a word with a negative connotation in this context: "Corrupted by darkness," or something.". Why? Is there anything in Tolkien's writing that would justify this assumption?
The value of touching the darkness, as I discussed in my posts immediately after the first episode, lies in gaining the perspective concerning the superficiality of one'sbeliefs, and thereby realizing that it is possible to turn away from darkness. This is why the theme can be found in disciplines from existential philosophy to Buddhist canon. Since this is an aspect of self discovery that the show has used for Galadriel's character arc, my opinion remains the same, that The Rings of Power illustrating such universal wisdom does not in any way subvert Tolkien's work.
Don't mess with my favorite female elves.
|
|
|
jpospich3
The Shire
Aug 2, 5:11pm
Post #6 of 28
(1420 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks DwellerInDale for continuing the discussion.
You first argued that "touching the darkness" meant nothing more than "leaping into the unknown". Now you seem to concede that "touching the darkness" involves evil, but you still wish to make a strong distinction between "touching the darkness" (whatever that means to you now) and "doing evil". So the million dollar question is: what does "touching the darkness" mean, exactly?
You say: "The value of touching the darkness... lies in gaining the perspective concerning the superficiality of one's beliefs, and thereby realizing that it is possible to turn away from darkness." So it seems we must "touch the darkness" in order to realize it is possible to turn away from the darkness. But this sounds like a tautology, as of course it is trivially true that one cannot "turn away from the darkness" if one never turned toward it in the first place.
And yet, I think you would still insist that "turning toward darkness" is somehow not the same as "doing evil", and therefore would not involve a "transformation by darkness," as Adar suggests. Would you say that "turning toward darkness" and "touching the darkness" involves embracing evil in any way? Would you say it involves getting in touch with ones "dark side," or something like that? Interested to hear you clarify your thoughts.
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Rohan
Aug 2, 6:17pm
Post #7 of 28
(1414 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Palpatine, Saruman, Pippin and Gandalf
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Palantir.
It ruined Saruman, hurt Pippin, and Gandalf was wise enough to chastise both for touching the darkness and avoid it himself.
Does anything more than Palpatine and Gandalf really need to be said on this?
(This post was edited by DGHCaretaker on Aug 2, 6:18pm)
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Rohan
Aug 2, 6:28pm
Post #8 of 28
(1410 views)
Shortcut
|
So it seems we must "touch the darkness" in order to realize it is possible to turn away from the darkness.
Absurd. I'll just leave you with this in my own cultural reference style of retort. I think it applies:
McCoy : C'mon, Spock, it's me, McCoy. You really have gone where no man's gone before. Can't you tell me what it felt like?
Spock : It would be impossible to discuss the subject without a common frame-of-reference.
McCoy : You mean I have to die to discuss your insights on death?
Spock : Forgive me, Doctor. I am receiving a number of distress calls.
McCoy : I don't doubt it.
|
|
|
jpospich3
The Shire
Aug 2, 7:55pm
Post #9 of 28
(1396 views)
Shortcut
|
Good to see you still around and kicking, DGHCaretaker. In regards to Star Wars, I agree that the original vision has been "subverted" in some significant ways by the new generation of filmmakers. But I'd argue that we must force ourselves to look at the original trilogy with clear eyes. It simply cannot be denied that Luke Skywalker, in the final scenes of Return of the Jedi, embraced the Dark Side to defeat Vader. This is actually made quite clear in the novelization of the film ("Return of the Jedi" by James Kahn):
"In the numbing grip of despair, with the hollowest of voids devouring his heart, Luke’s eyes, alone, glinted—for he saw, again, his lightsaber, lying unattended on the throne. And in this bleak and livid moment, the dark side was much with him."
Only by embracing the Dark Side is Luke able to defeat Vader and realize his fundamental identity with the Dark Lord:
"Luke stared at his father’s twitching, severed, mechanical hand—and then at his own black-gloved artificial part—and realized suddenly just how much he’d become like his father. Like the man he hated."
"Luke stared at his father beneath him, then at the Emperor, then back at Vader. This was Darkness—and it was the Darkness he hated. Not his father, not even the Emperor. But the Darkness in them. In them, and in himself."
Only by realizing that the darkness is inside him -- a part of him -- is he able to fully renounce it and transcend it (symbolized by Vader killing the Emperor).
This is Jungian alchemy, and while I don't wish to argue that Star Wars is fundamentally problematic because it contains this element, I do think it's worth pointing out that this element is definitely present. I also think it worth pointing out that this element doesn't seem to be present at all in Tolkien.
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Rohan
Aug 2, 9:45pm
Post #10 of 28
(1380 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you for the response. Your post has two important misconceptions concerning my argument.
First, I did not in any way, shape, or form state that "touching the darkness" meant only leaping into the unknown, and nothing more. There are a million ways in which one's personal darkness can be manifested. I used that example because it is the focal event that began discussions of this topic (see the link below) after episode 1 of ROP.
The second misconception is that I stated that one must explore the darkness in order to turn away from it and find the light. Again, my exact words were "it is possible". In the words that the writers gave to Finrod, it is important that he says "Sometimes we cannot know until we have touched the darkness" (my emphasis). A person who is seeking the light (i.e., a form of enlightenment) may not need to touch the darkness. If Galadriel could have overcome her grief at the death of her brother without developing a dark obsession for revenge, then good for her. The point is that some may need to explore their darker side before they can be enlightened. This doesn't mean that they must perform evil acts. One of the books I referenced from my original post almost two years ago was "The Zen Path Through Depression", by Philip Martin, a book that pointed out how many people suffering from "darkness" such as severe depression will try to resist it and turn to quick fix remedies such as drugs to get them through it. However, the Zen path would involve greeting their darkness and exploring it so that they could understand it and eventually realize its superficiality. Again, that path wouldn't be for everyone. The second book I referenced, "If You Meet The Buddha On The Road, Kill Him!" by Sheldon Kopp, has the metaphor of a man in a prison cell always looking to the light coming in from a barred window and hoping to escape that way, never realizing that the door to the cell is open in that dark corner.
What exactly does "touching the darkness" mean? I can't give an exact definition, but to me it means that something in one's life is out of balance, in the way that the Navajo people speak about the loss of hozho, a word that means something akin to "walking in beauty", in other words being in harmony with the world. When people lose hozho they may become "witches" and no longer walk in beauty.
Here is the link from the discussion almost two years ago:
http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=995260#995260
Don't mess with my favorite female elves.
|
|
|
jpospich3
The Shire
Aug 2, 10:31pm
Post #11 of 28
(1375 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for the explanation and the reminder about the old thread. I think the problem here is that you're linking these themes in The Rings of Power with what you know about systems like Buddhism and existentialism without stopping to consider whether those systems actually pertain to, are present in, or accord with Tolkien's original works. You did this in the old thread, and you are still doing it 2 years later.
But that's the very point of contention!
The whole question of this thread is whether "exploring ones dark side" makes any sense from the perspective of Tolkien's original body of work. You say it does, but you've yet to offer any compelling reasons as to why, and we are now 3 replies in. If I had to infer your thought process based on what you've written, it would look something like this:
1) There is a "universal wisdom" tradition found the world over.
2) Tolkien's books seem wise and therefore he must have participated in this "universal wisdom" tradition.
3) Therefore Tolkien, Buddha, Jean-Paul Sartre and Navajo medicine men all agree and there's nothing to worry our little heads about!
But when was it established that the Lord of the Rings is Buddhist, existentialist, or whatever?
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Rohan
Aug 3, 6:56pm
Post #12 of 28
(1307 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you for the response. I believe I understand the problem now. In your OP you asked whether the theme "Sometimes, to find the light, we must first touch the darkness" subverts Tolkien's work. But based on your response, you would like to see examples of this theme in Tolkien's writings, or perhaps counterexamples that argue against such a theme being appropriate. This is a separate question than the one I wrote about two years ago. At that time, some members were a bit confused about the meaning of this theme, and thus my post was in the form of an explanation, not a comment on whether the theme was appropriate for a show based on the writings of JRR Tolkien.
Before providing my thoughts on this, I would politely ask that my arguments not be placed in the form of the three-point "cartoon" in the previous response. Doing this commits the "straw man" fallacy, where one reinterprets an argument into a form that can easily be attacked. Certainly I wrote nothing remotely like "Tolkien's books seem wise and therefore he must have participated in this "universal wisdom" tradition" or "Therefore Tolkien, Buddha, Jean-Paul Sartre and Navajo medicine men all agree and there's nothing to worry our little heads about!".
I believe that Tolkien very much understood the concept of perhaps needing to touch the darkness in order to find some sort of salvation. Tolkien's contemporaries went off to war full of confidence that "The Hun" could be defeated in a few weeks' time; the reality of the Somme where Tolkien fought in 1916 introduced these idealistic young men to the absolute horror of war, where they needed to transform themselves into stone-cold killers just to survive. Many such men who touched this darkness were never quite the same after the war. Thus, "touching the darkness" and surviving, coming back to the light, doesn't automatically mean "everybody happy". In LOTR, I believe this happens to Frodo: he succeeds in his quest, but the experience that included being led into darkness by the One Ring has made it impossible to resume a quiet life in the Shire, hence his decision to leave Middle-Earth.
In his writings concerning the early history of Middle-Earth, most of Tolkien's individual characters who have touched the darkness never fully recover ("Maeglin watched Idril, and waited, and his love turned to darkness in his heart "). Since books like The Silmarillion are a kind of ur-fantasy written in a historical style, most of the characters appear either good or evil. In the trilogy, I would count Galadriel, Boromir, and the aforementioned Frodo as characters who (perhaps briefly) touch the darkness within themselves but turn away from that darkness. Boromir succumbs to his misguided temptation to take and use the ring; Galadriel considers taking the ring and ruling all of Middle-Earth as a dark queen. This scene from the book may have inspired the writers of The Rings of Power to include the theme in Galadriel's character arc.
It seems, then, that where we disagree lies in the statement in your OP, "But is there anywhere in Tolkien's myth where such a maneuver -- i.e. the embrace or experience of evil -- is recommended?". My response is the same: "darkness" is not the same as "evil", and thus I do not believe that "Sometimes, to find the light, we must first touch the darkness" subverts Tolkien's work.
Don't mess with my favorite female elves.
|
|
|
jpospich3
The Shire
Aug 3, 8:32pm
Post #13 of 28
(1287 views)
Shortcut
|
Thank you for the response and clarification. You have now explicitly argued that "'darkness' is not the same as 'evil'." I have to say, it is a very strange argument to make in connection to Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings, and I'm afraid almost every serious Tolkien scholar, reader and commentator would disagree with you. Let me quote a few:
"For Tolkien, the word to describe good is light and the words to describe evil are dark, black, or shadow." (Jyrki Korpua, The Mythopoeic Code of Tolkien)
"The legendarium is, without doubt, colour-coded black-and-white in a Manichean dichotomy of white/good and black/evil." (Robert Stuart) (He goes on to state that the legendarium "systemically equates blackness and evil".)
"The story of The Silmarillion is about the struggle between light and darkness, where light symbolizes good whereas darkness symbolizes evil." (Dr. N. Ravikumar)
"Clearly, Tolkien associates the Dark Power with evil and the forces of light with goodness." (McMahon and Csaki)
This is not extraneous imagery, either. As Auden, C.S. Lewis and others have argued, "the clear demarcation between Good and Evil is the foundation for the structure of The Lord of the Rings." (Daniel Timmons)
Furthermore, "the Light-Dark dichotomy extends through all the physical and moral nature of Middle-Earth." (Robert J. Reilly)
So in the context of Tolkien and Lord of the Rings, to argue that "'darkness' is not the same as 'evil'" is, well, a very radical argument to make, to put it lightly. In fact, even in the context of The Rings of Power itself, darkness clearly means evil. Let's take a look:
Episode 1: "Some dark sorcery of old."
Episode 2: "Where there is love, it is never truly dark."
Episode 4: "The Valar gifted us this isle in a day of virtue. They can take it away should we turn to the paths of darkness."
Episode 5: "If the Elves abandon Middle-earth now, the armies of darkness will march over the face of the earth."
Episode 6: "It would seem I'm not the only Elf alive who has been transformed by darkness." (Adar to Galadriel)
"Touch the darkness once more." (Sauron to Galadriel)
"The Moriondor. The Sons of the Dark. The first Orcs."
Episode 7: "It darkens the heart, to call dark deeds 'good.'"
I think that's quite enough evidence to dispose of your argument that "'darkness' is not the same as 'evil'", so I will leave it there.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Grey Havens
Aug 4, 12:54pm
Post #14 of 28
(1202 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Evil is necessary to beauty...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's an interesting point, but I think it overcomplicates a very simple line...
Duality is important in Tolkien. In a wholly flat world, for a mountain to rise it must also have a descent. If we didn't have heat, we wouldn't know cold. Everything must have its opposite for us to recognise its existence or it's absence. And in the absence of evil, morality would be a flat plane and nothing would be good or we wouldn't recognise it as such. The greater the darkness one experiences the better they can appreciate the light and the easier it becomes to distinguish between light and dark.
If Tolkien believed evil were truly unnecessary, then Illuvatar would not have created Melkor to begin with, and Tolkien would have written a story where nothing bad happens at all...
But this is Melkor's part to play in the story. To create the darkness and enhance the beauty of the world. As Illuvatar says:
"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.’"
The darker things get, the more joyfully we experience the good - this is very much Tolkien's philosophy of storytelling and in creating the eucatastrophe. He intentionally pushes his characters to a point of apparently irredeemable hopelessness only to turn things around at the end by the grace of God. The joyful finale of RotK would be no where near as effective had we not seen these characters at their most despairing. - this is what is meant by 'touching the darkness'. It is not about being evil, but about experiencing and accepting the worst with a sense of amor fati.
When Galadriel is in Valinor she lives at a peaceful time: the moral flat-plane, where it becomes difficult to distinguish between right and wrong. There is no evil to compare the good to, other than annoying kids sinking your paper boats. It's only when Melkor attacks that Galadriel first experiences evil on that scale. Finrod's advice is simply that this evil is necessary to Illuvatar's plans, it is a part of the beauty of the world, that Galadriel must experience herself to fully appreciate and understand it - and as long as she keeps her head looking up - towards light - then she will not sink into the darkness like the rocks (servants of evil) who only look down.
I agree it's a lame metaphor, I don't know if it's in line with Tolkien's philosophy, but it is in line with how he tells a story. Most of his characters touch the darkness to some extent, because it is necessary for their character's growth. The only ones that don't tend to stay at home in their safe bubbles and learn or contribute little to nothing.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Aug 4, 1:01pm)
|
|
|
jpospich3
The Shire
Aug 4, 8:23pm
Post #15 of 28
(1138 views)
Shortcut
|
Hello AshNazg, thanks for your contribution. What you have explicitly ascribed to Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings in your post is the Stoic doctrine that "evil is necessary," and good and evil are relative.
In arguing that evil is necessary, you are in effect claiming with the Stoics that it is a necessary factor of the good. But if evil is a necessary factor of the good, then it is not really evil. Now when I read The Lord of the Rings, I am not struck by the notion that good and evil are relative. On the contrary, almost every page seems to cry out in deep conviction that evil is evil, and good is good.
Let me quote from an old book by James Drummond as proof of my statements regarding Stoicism. According to the Stoics, Drummond says, "Just as the true implies the false, so good and evil, happiness and misery, pleasure and pain, must exist concurrently, like two objects supported each by the other's vertex, so that if you remove one, you remove both. To this view it may fairly be objected, as it is by Plutarch, that by parity of reasoning a chorus could not have harmony unless some one in it sang out of tune, and there could not be health of body unless some member were diseased."
And yet we know the chorus of Ainur was harmonious before the addition of Melkor's discord. In no way are we given to understand that Melkor's discord -- his fall -- was required or necessary to achieve divine harmony.
(This post was edited by jpospich3 on Aug 4, 8:23pm)
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Rohan
Aug 6, 3:12am
Post #16 of 28
(1010 views)
Shortcut
|
A word of advice to the newbie: using language like "your argument makes little sense" and "that's quite enough evidence to dispose of your argument" won't do you any favors here. It signals that instead of wanting to have a discussion, the object is to win an argument.
So, what to make of a handful of quotations from The Rings of Power that contain the words "dark" or "darkness"? The only possible relevance that I can see is to construct the following argument. Both J.R.R. Tolkien and the writers of The Rings of Power often use the word "evil", and sometimes use the word "dark" or "darkness" in context as a synonym for evil, as in the phrase "dark sorcery". Therefore, every usage of the words "dark" or "darkness" (aside from the literal sense) means "evil". Therefore, when Finrod Felagund tells his young sister Galadriel one of the "most important truths", that "Sometimes we cannot know...until we have touched the darkness", what he means is that she must "embrace or experience evil" (quote from the OP). Therefore, Dweller's interpretation that this was actually referring to a universal bit of wisdom or "truth" is wrong; the actual meaning is "Sometimes we cannot know...until we have embraced evil".
One can easily see the logical flaw in this argument; it is called "the fallacy of faulty generalization" ("Here are six cats, and all have short hair. Therefore, all cats have short hair"). In the current context, this assumption (evil = dark) produces some laughable results; just pencil in "evil" for "dark" or vice versa:
Rian: "My hand is past feeling".
Galadriel: "No. This place is so dark our torches give off no warmth".
Rian: "WTF?"
Elrond: "Where there is love, it is never truly evil."
Disa: "WTF?"
So if "darkness" is the same as "evil", there are no grey areas: everything is either good or evil, or "without doubt, colour-coded black-and-white". This would seem to go against the writing of both Tolkien and the showrunners of The Rings of Power. Tolkien created many "grey" characters (Fëanor, Denethor), and even characters that were 100% "good" had experiences that made them question their naive belief in absolute good or evil:
"It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men and he did not like it much. He was glad he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies and threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not rather have stayed there in peace."
So, the only way I can see out of this is to say something like "Yes, there are grey characters, but every individual action by the characters is either good or evil".Therefore, Galadriel can still be a "good" character, but if she follows Finrod's truth and touches the darkness, she must then "embrace or perform evil". But then the whole argument falls apart, because all Galadriel does on recalling her brother's words is to make a "leap of faith" from the ship and resume her search for Sauron. She doesn't perform anything like an evil act. So, either the writers completely screwed up because they forgot to close the loop on this beautiful synchronicity arc that they had written, making the whole thing meaningless, or perhaps the "darkness" in Finrod's "important truth" actually meant something different.
Ben Linus: "Yes, I heard you've been flying on passenger planes. Hoping that you'd crash. It's dark, Jack, very dark."
Jack Shepard: "You mean...it's evil, very evil?!".
Don't mess with my favorite female elves.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Aug 6, 5:20pm
Post #18 of 28
(912 views)
Shortcut
|
To which I have little to contribute except to say that I didn’t take the "touch the darkness" speech to mean to embrace evil. Rather, I felt that Finrod was saying that it's important to see the darkness within oneself, to know it and understand it, in order to really see and understand oneself. And probably the world.
The episodes of Season 1 were written by several different people so unless "darkness" was precisely defined in a show-runners manual and its usage policed by them, it may mean different things in different contexts. As words often do.
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Rohan
Aug 6, 5:58pm
Post #19 of 28
(903 views)
Shortcut
|
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for the reminder that Season 1 was written by different people- I do think it showed. Episodes 1, 2, and 8 were primarily written by Payne and McKay, and I think it shows: those episodes were more allegorical and theme-heavy, and in my opinion were the best episodes of the season. I hope they did the lion's share of the writing for Season 2.
Rather, I felt that Finrod was saying that it's important to see the darkness within oneself, to know it and understand it, in order to really see and understand oneself.
Don't mess with my favorite female elves.
|
|
|
jpospich3
The Shire
Aug 6, 8:39pm
Post #20 of 28
(849 views)
Shortcut
|
This touches on a very ticklish subject in Tolkien studies -- namely, the question of the nature of evil. Tom Shippey famously argued that a "deep-seated contradiction between Boethian and Manichaean opinions" on evil was present in The Lord of the Rings. But I agree with Tim McKenzie in his paper from the 2005 Tolkien conference that Shippey is incorrect in positing such a contradiction:
"The difficulty with Boethius," McKenzie writes, "is that his view runs the risk of making evil sound illusory. If 'all fortune is plainly good,' as Lady Philosophy says, then it is all to be embraced as part of what God dispenses. It is better for good people to have their virtue exercised by trials than for this not to be the case, and this needs to be grasped with a sort of stoic acceptance. The corollary of this would seem to be that a fallen world is better than an unfallen one."
McKenzie goes on to argue that this view is alien to Tolkien and -- again contra Shippey -- St. Augustine:
"[F]or Augustine, evil is not ultimately justifiable through 'some curious mental gymnastics' in which 'the beauty of the whole outweighs the deficiencies of the parts'... For Augustine... evil consequences and actions in the world are not illusory but very real."
The real solution to the problem, I would argue, can be found in an old article on Augustine by Paul Elmer More. Here More identifies a deep-seated dualism in Augustine that is eventually expressed as a dualism of two opposed wills, or personalities. Here is More:
"Seeing the mechanical insufficiency of this system [i.e. the Manichean dualism of two substances], Augustine had passed to the Neo-Platonic idea of evil as a partial participation or negation of the supreme infinite good. But still the craving of his heart was not satisfied. Abstract ideas meant little to him ; personal relationship was all in all. This was the point on which his conversion turned : God's will became the supreme being, man's will, in so far as it differentiated itself from God's, the voluntary inclination to not-being. He now had a dualism of two personalities, God and man ; the tincture of Manicheism that remained with him, or more exactly, the imperative consciousness of sin that had made him a disciple of Manichaeism, now came to array these two personalities against each other as completely hostile forces — God infinitely good, man totally depraved by the very definition of his finiteness, nay, rather infinitely evil as tending to absolute death. To be sure, his conception of God as all-responsible creator compelled him to believe that man was originally created a free will perfectly good in the image of God, and that the evil of his nature was to be explained by that monstrum, his voluntary secession from God. But this was, so to speak, the mythology of his creed, a matter of revelation and not of present consciousness. As he saw the actual world, it existed apart from God and lost in depravity; the very assumption of free will meant a division from this infinite will and consequently sin. The evil of man depends therefore not on particular deeds, but is the essence of his personality; he is totally depraved in so far as his personality is a total indivisible entity. To look upon a man's acts as partly good and partly evil is to disregard Augustine's fundamental conception of a dualism of personalities."
Transported into Tolkien's legendarium, this "dualism of personalities" becomes the great war between good and evil, with Sauron and the Ring symbolizing the "totally depraved" personality of fallen man that constantly tempts us to turn away from God's will and embrace evil. As to the question of salvation:
"Salvation cannot result from a mere predominance of good or from a gradual growth in virtue ; but must spring from a total change of a man's nature into conformity to the divine nature. It is a self-surrender which cannot be volitional, because volition is the essence of self and of sin. It must proceed from a miraculous power outside of man, by the outstretched arm of God. Conversion is the result of God's free Grace working miraculously upon the soul, and comes to us with no choice or foresight of our own."
Is this not exactly what is shown in the climax of Tolkien's myth? Frodo cannot willingly give up the Ring, symbol of his fallen personality or will. Only by the grace of God does he finally give it up.
Evil, then, is presented in Lord of the Rings as an external force in the form of the will of Sauron. That is why I don't understand this talk of "the evil within", or "the darkness within us" in relation to The Rings of Power. The whole point of the myth, it seems to me, is to externalize evil (and good) for the purpose of dramatizing the conflict between the divine will of God and the (fallen, absolutely depraved) will of man.
(This post was edited by jpospich3 on Aug 6, 8:46pm)
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
Aug 6, 9:28pm
Post #21 of 28
(839 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Characters who experienced the dark but had redemption in LOTR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Crediting this source: https://www.quora.com/Who-had-the-best-redemption-story-in-the-Tolkien-universe
Boromir
Sam
Frodo
Gimli
Galadriel
Pippin
Arwen
Aragorn
There is the distinction of active participation in the dark - willingly....and those who erred and did not realize their decision or actions until a later event.
|
|
|
jpospich3
The Shire
Aug 7, 4:38am
Post #23 of 28
(793 views)
Shortcut
|
|
“A world with a strong moral alignment”
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
From your link:
“I think Tolkien has a very clear white and black morality - much more so than we've seen in fantasy for a good long while, and definitely moreso than GRRM. Good and bad, wrong and right are clear in every story of Arda. Where people go wrong, though, is in thinking that such a world must lead to black and white characters. You can have a world with both a strong moral alignment and a morally gray population.”
I agree.
“Essentially, the warning is that Good cannot be achieved via Evil means. I would argue that the intentionalism here pertains to those means - intending to use the Ring is morally wrong unto itself, even if it can defeat Sauron (the consequence). By contrast, seeking to destroy the Ring is morally correct, even if it goes bad in consequence.”
I agree, and I don’t see how any of this contradicts my previous arguments.
Let’s dwell on this phrase for a moment: “A world with a strong moral alignment.”
I’m reminded of Adar’s speech in Episode 6 of The Rings of Power. Speaking of the orcs under his command, his “children”, he declares (to a hate-filled Galadriel): “We are creations of The One, Master of the Secret Fire, the same as you. As worthy of the breath of life, and just as worthy of a home.”
Of course, as we well know, the origin of the orcs was something of an embarrassment to Tolkien. Why was it an embarrassment? Because giving the orcs a soul, giving them the capacity for good, suggesting they are “people just like us,” etc. — effectively diminishes the “strong moral alignment” of the world. So it’s quite strange to see this brought out so openly in The Rings of Power. Imagine the Balrog in The Lord of The Rings, after Gandalf curses it, and commands it to go back to the darkness, saying, “Actually, I’m a creation of The One, same as you, and really, you trespassed in my home first, so who’s actually in the wrong here?”
(This post was edited by jpospich3 on Aug 7, 4:47am)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Aug 7, 10:20pm
Post #24 of 28
(721 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The three ages are very different
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In the third age we have hind sight we know about the rings,we know that Sauron ensnared the 7 and the 9 by deceit.
Both Gandalf and Galadriel know the one ring is wholly evil. The one that deludes himself and falls from his high purpose dressed in the deceits of Man is Saruman.
The story is black and white.
In the first age when the Rings of Power begins there is no darkness and the young Galadriel has no sense of it, though there is a chilling anticipation of it in the behaviour of the children. Finrod is acting as an oracle and foreseeing the future, and his sisters challenges; thats a story telling device..
When we arrive in the second age, the Elves in Middle earth and Men in Numenor are portrayed as living in a second eden in the ROP. The only character that is unconvinced driven by that prophetic statement is Galadriel.
That is the false floor that has been constructed and is not Tolkien. It may not be Tolkien's story but that does not mean its not Tolkien's philosophical world.
However it creates an opportunity to provide the second age with more nuance and character motive.
This is not a world of black and white. It is a pre rings world.
Gilgalad believes there is no black whereas Galadriel remains unconvinced. Her return to middle earth is nothing to do with rejecting the light it is because she believes evil has not been banished and is merely hiding.
One can argue that the Ainu agree with her because as she swims back to middle earth they hurl the first Istar to middle earth. There can only be one reason for that decision, it is the Tolkien choice to be a force for good when evil appears. The Ainu and Galadriel are singing from the same hymn sheet.
What the ROP team have done is add a good deal more nuance to certain characters in order to avoid some (Sauron) from being one dimensional and others to flesh out their journey of rejection of Sauron (Galadriel). By almost going there they have added to the sense of psychopathy of Sauron and the much more substantial rejection of him by Galadriel. They have made her angry, which pushes the matter and show that her wilfulness, though right, is dangerous, but that does not make her evil, it makes her vulnerable, and the lack of Celeborn aids that notion.
In Season 2 the edenic age of innocence is well and truly over and Celebrimbor,, Durin senior and many others will "touch the darkness" and fall from grace and thats Mr Tolkien's story. But the one person that will not, but will constantly be challanged is Galadriel. Once the Stranger is clearer about whom he is he to will be faced with dilemma's, his dialogue with Tom indicates that.
And of course the men of the blessed realm will touch the darkness and begin their fall.
Galadriel's dialogue with Adar was vicious driven by her anger and something which has been invented but she was right in Tolkien's world.
One of the interesting qualities that Mr Tolkien always relies on as a kind of plot device or is part of his basis book for his myth making is that evil can only produce sad broken counterfeits. AI was along way off. How that fits between Adar and his children has not been resolved and I am not entirely comfortable with that at the moment, because we are close to being encouraged to feeling sorry for the orcs. But then the show runners would say that fits with some of Frodos dialogue to Sam in Mordor.
In amongst this very interesting discussion drawing in a lot of heavy weight analysis by others (whether it overdoes what Mr Tolkien intended is another matter), much of which I disagree with, is the point that Frodo was redeemed by God in the end.
Frodo failed because he was trying to control something which is far beyond him and was saved by Sméagol who suffered the same problem. That plot choice was a statement about how very powerful the small are in their own way and that the very wise and proud cannot see everything. Mr Tolkien anticipated and reminded us of our history that the concentration of great power can lead us to hell and its now getting very very serious.
In his sub created world that may be the lesson, that God wants to offer, which will lead to a very interesting conversation with the elven ring bearers when they once more climb Mount Taniquetil.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Aug 7, 10:35pm)
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Aug 8, 4:57am
Post #25 of 28
(675 views)
Shortcut
|
Just to make it clear the point of my post was to take all of the discussion, which has been driven by philosophical arguments, about the writers choices and return to them, from a writers a point of view, to the bold facts of the history of the three ages and the use of certain techniques to develop characters arcs.
I am not suggesting discussions like these should not take place but to look at some of the story telling choices made by the writers through the lens of philosophical arguments alone can lead to overlooking some other more important points which a writer considers.
We all have matters which fascinate us more than others because of our own specialisms, mine as a writer is to look at another writer and see what they were trying to do at a story telling level.
It's interesting to note, and well known, that one of the reasons the stories of the Silmarillion never received a final form was because Mr Tolkien, towards the end of his writing life, was overwhelmed by some of the philosophical and mythological questions he was grappling with.
Galadriel's highly complicated historical palimpsest of plot ideas a perfect example of this.
I would just add as an aside her independent decision to leave Aman for middle earth separately from the rest of the disobedient Elves is echoed in her decision to return in ROP. When i first watched the show the single mindedness of both actions seemed to echo one another, though very different in circumstance, but then my preoccupation is character and motive.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Aug 8, 5:06am)
|
|
|
|
|
1
