New blog feature time: I’m gonna join in with the Fantasy With Friends discussion meme (hosted at Pages Unbound) whenever I get chance through 2026!
I ran across this discussion meme on another blog, and was tempted to take part last week when the discussion topic was dragons, but life got away from me. But could I really miss the opportunity to stick my oar in about Tolkien? For that’s this week’s discussion topic:
What do you think of the arguments that The Lord of the Rings presents good and evil as black and white?
Now, I’m going to apologise in advance both because I studied Tolkien’s work during my master’s degree, and because it’s been a long time since then and I’m definitely rusty. The thing with Tolkien that I think is a really important starting point is to remember that he was writing what he thought of as mythology: “a mythology for England” (though this is a phrase used about his work and not something he actually said himself). He was writing a mythology/history to go with and explain languages that he’d come up with before he created the world, and which grew and changed as he built the world as well.
It’s not too unusual for mythology to be pretty one-sided, presenting things in terms of black or white. There are definitely places where Tolkien does this: there are no good orcs or goblins, they are only capable of destruction and hateful acts, and we see no hints that they could ever be otherwise (although it is implied in The Silmarillion that they were originally elves who were twisted and corrupted). Sauron himself is unequivocally evil, as is the Ring… though further back in the mythology, you find that Sauron was a Maia who became corrupted by Melkor, so it’s not even 100% straightforward there. At the very least, it seems like Tolkien is giving us characters who have been corrupted beyond redemption, with whom there can be no reconciliation or compromise — and depending on which version of his notes and stories you believe, they may have simply been created evil (as Treebeard says trolls were, in envy and mockery of the Ents).
At the same time, there is some nuance: if you look at the characters — particularly the humans and hobbits — they’re actually pretty split, not just down race lines (though this happens with the Southrons for instance) but within racial groups and even individual characters too. The elves tend to be all good, but among hobbits you’ve got your Ted Sandyman, among humans your Grima Wormtongue and Bill Ferny… And of course there’s characters like Denethor, Boromir and Gollum who fall in various ways, but also served good in ways large and small along the way.
There’s also Treebeard, who stands a bit apart and comments on the sides being drawn up in a fairly ambivalent way: despite them being clearly delineated as good and evil, he feels he’s not on either side, because neither side has care for him and his trees. Tom Bombadil is similarly ambiguous: the Ring has no power over him, but neither has the argument that he should serve the greater good.
Some characters are given second chances, too, opportunities for redemption: Boromir shakes off the madness of the Ring and defends Merry and Pippin to his death, Théoden is shaken out of inaction and doubt, Denethor has the chance to help Gandalf and avoid succumbing to despair, Grima is offered a chance to turn back from serving Saruman, Gollum is offered a second chance by Frodo, and Gandalf even offers a substantial second chance to Saruman himself.
I don’t know how persuasive I’d find that argument, though, since only Boromir and Théoden take those second chances, and Théoden was substantially bewitched into that state — bewitchment removed, his doubts and fears are pretty much gone. Boromir served good once temptation was removed, and it’s unclear that he could or would have done so if the Ring had still been present. Sure, not everyone will take a second chance when offered, but most of the characters seem inherently unable to accept it. Gollum tries (under fear of death), and succeeds for a time, but can’t stop himself falling into evil again. Does he choose, or is he just built for evil? The Ring almost immediately corrupted him, driving him to murder his best friend to possess it…
And for the other side, you have a lot of characters who are simply incorruptible, including many or all of the elves (depending on what you believe about the creation of orcs), Aragorn, Gandalf, Faramir, Sam, etc. So you get the sense that for Tolkien, at the very least some people are inherently corruptible (Gollum, Grima, Boromir) and some are inherently incorruptible no matter what temptation befalls (Aragorn, Faramir, Sam). Frodo’s example pushes against that a little bit — ultimately he decides to keep the Ring for himself — but then that’s forestalled so quickly by his own past decision to spare Gollum (because he’s a Good Person) that you might feel it barely counts: he’s saved from falling to it because he’s inherently a good person.
(As a side note, as a lover of Faramir’s character, I hated that he was genuinely tempted in the movie version. I reconciled myself to it because narratively it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the movie: the Ring is supposed to be able to tempt just about anyone, and then Tolkien gave us a lot of characters who see the danger and refuse to be put in positions where they’ll be tempted beyond their power to resist. Faramir’s ability to lightly refuse the Ring when he has Frodo in his power in Ithilien undermines the Ring’s power. For Tolkien, that’s fine: we’re meant to understand that Faramir would be corrupted if he took it, but he has the power to refuse it due to being built more than a little like Aragorn, with references repeatedly tying him closer to his Númenórean descent than Boromir or Denethor are. Cinematically, that’s a lot harder to convey.)
As all the wordage implies, it’s definitely a bit more complicated than just Black And White, Good And Bad, at least in some places in the story. I think mostly my first point is the important part, though: Tolkien was writing in a mythic register that needed big clashes between good and evil. He wove in moments of ambiguity and humanity, but much of his intent was to write about characters larger than life, heroes and villains like the Norse and other mythological heroes that inspired him, so I think the lack of nuance is baked in quite a bit by the fact that he wasn’t thinking in terms of writing a modern novel with believable characters, believable stakes, etc. Some of his decisions in that light sit incredibly badly, and are rightly critiqued, but the picture is a bit more mixed and muddled than some commentators have said.
I feel like I could’ve written about a thousand words more clarifying my points and going deeper into various thoughts about it (such as how genuinely tempted Galadriel was when tested by Frodo), but I’m going to stop here. Looking forward to other people’s answers to this question!
I agree the decision to write in a more mythic register changes the book. Typically, when reading myths and legends, people don’t really ask about the characters’ interiority. You have heroes and villains, and that’s the main point. Your heroes can, of course, be flawed. But I can’t say I’ve ever really seen someone ask directly something like, “Is Beowulf a Good Person?” You just accept that he has good qualities, but he also has some pride and some other flaws people might want to discuss. But I don’t see people wanting to neatly label him, generally. Readers tend to accept that he is filling a role for the story.
So it’s probably a testament to Tolkien that readers are so interested in his characters’ interiority. But also a recognition that his works are often mixing registers and genres. The sort of middle class world of The Hobbit and the Shire are rubbing up against the more legendary world of Gondor, for instance. This is probably confusing for readers. Why do some characters seem so vividly drawn and others are sort of filling stock roles out of myth and legend?
Because I think Sauron, for instance, is filling the role as Villain–so neatly, in fact, that I think generations of fantasy writers have been inspired by him. So it is interesting that his backstory shows him falling. And I think Tolkien’s writings can suggest that there were multiple times over the years when he could have repented. But he doesn’t. This is something that many other writers wouldn’t take time to incorporate–they would just need a villain to act villainous to forward the story, and leave it at that.
But a writer can’t really have a character like Sauron show that he’s “good” still. I think here Tolkien is writing realistically. Sauron is so far gone at this point that having him repent at the last minute wouldn’t feel true. I think readers would roll their eyes if he did because I’m sure we all know people who just seem incapable of change in much smaller matters than their commitment to world domination. So, yeah, at this point in the story he’s the Bad Guy. But, in Tolkien’s world, perhaps the more important point is that he wasn’t always.
I am always intrigued by the characters like the orcs and trolls, though. If they were born and bred of evil, is Tolkien saying they are naturally inclined that way? The story seems to suggest so, but I think Tolkien also didn’t fully work out the implications.
Krysta @ Pages Unbound recently posted…Does The Lord of the Rings Present Good and Evil as Black and White? (Fantasy with Friends)
Yeah, I think The Hobbit (which is much more like an oral story told by a grandparent or something) also causes blurring of the lines there: the register of the start of The Lord of the Rings bridges with it, while the middle and beginning-end of the story is much more mythic (getting down to earth a bit more again as they get back to the Shire).
Sadly, I think Tolkien could’ve kept tinkering with the world for another hundred years and not fully worked out everything, because there’s just so much going on. It’s part of what gives the imagination so much to work on, and readers so much to talk about — but it can be frustrating too, because he didn’t work out the implications of a lot of things, and sometimes he wasn’t sure which version he liked yet. I think he might kind of like how much people debate about it, though: we piece through and piece together his texts and notes in much the same way as we have to analyse mythology and sagas!
I think Faramir is interesting because you can sense he’s a bit like Tom Bombadil in that he’s not really interested in power. That’s of course complicated by the fact he DOES hold a position of power in Gondor, but it’s like a duty he got because of his birth and he does it faithfully because he is a good person in many ways, but he doesn’t care about power for the sake of power. And it’s very easy to imagine people who do not care too much about power! Think about all the people who, say, never run for any political office in our world. So it comes across as Faramir is a Good Person, but really he is a person not obsessed with power. He could of course have other flaws. :p
I’ve been thinking lately that the accusations of the story being “too black and white” may be based on the fact that, yes, there is a side that is Bad. The story does not make excuses for it or say it’s a gray area or that Sauron might have a point or that it’s kind of bad but really it’s due to something that happened in his childhood or whatever. Sauron is wrong. And you can see with the secondary characters that it’s a real danger that evil can make itself SEEM “complex” and “gray.” Saruman studies evil so much he starts thinking it has a point. Boromir thinks he can use something bad to do something good. The story is in some ways warning us against what some readers seem to want, the idea that bad things might be “nuanced” and “not as bad as they appear.”
Briana @ Pages Unbound recently posted…Does The Lord of the Rings Present Good and Evil as Black and White? (Fantasy with Friends)
Hmm! Interesting. I’m not sure I’d compare him to Tom Bombadil, because I think Bombadil is very whole in and of himself, and thus doesn’t crave (more) power because he simply doesn’t need it, he’s sufficient unto himself. Faramir’s case is a bit different: he doesn’t see himself as a wielder of power, he’s happy to hand over to Aragorn, because I think he preferred to be a second son, a younger brother, and the son of a steward rather than a king. He wants to serve Gondor, and will faithfully complete his duty, but he’s happier following than leading (even if he’s good at it and much beloved, as we see in Ithilien!). He finds his wholeness in being a good servant to Gondor, not in being a leader or ruler… and I think that’s part of why he’s able to resist the Ring. It’s like the whole “those who most want power for its own sake are the ones who absolutely shouldn’t have it” thing.
It’s an interesting point re: evil making itself seem complex and have grey areas. I’m not sure what I think about that entirely, because I do think that some evil things are nuanced (someone being abused as a child matters, even if they turn around and perpetuate abuse; it doesn’t excuse it, but it explains it, and it does tell us how to potentially intervene and end a cycle of abuse and violence). Though I agree the act itself remains evil…
Great topic to jump into this weekly discussion! The ambivalent/ambiguous characters you note add another dimension to argument that I hadn’t considered much before. I think anyone who argues in favour (“yes, it’s black and white”) has not really read the book. For my part, good and evil themselves may be defined in black and white but many characters fall into grey with their decision making. This is one of those big questions that I would love to hash out with Tolkien directly. For example, if he had all the time in the world to refine his mythology, how might that change how he portrayed orcs and other creatures/races who seem to be purely evil?
Ah, now this bit strikes me as a good point: “good and evil themselves may be defined in black and white but many characters fall into grey with their decision making”.
I think there’s also a thing where certain characters belong more to the mythic side of things (like the elves and orcs) where things are a bit more simplistic/clear-cut, while hobbits and men are more ambiguous… The fact that Tolkien was marrying the two scales in one book doesn’t always work well, because it leaves us not quite sure how to interpret some of the characters that straddle the line.