The visual of Tolkien's "good" and "evil"

[Firawyn]

I was thinking a bit today about what Tolkien saw and described asd good and evil, and I was wondering why he (and other authors) have made the "bad/evil" characters so physically ugly, and the "good" characters, so beautiful.

Look here:

Belrogs, Shelob, Sauron = very evil, very ugly.
Orcs, Men of Dundland = evil, ugly.

Dwarves = Tempermental, but good, rugged, but not ugly.
Men = Overall good, but often flawed in some way, and fairly good looking.
Elves = Almost always good, and very fair to look upon.

I am generalizing here, I know, but I thought it was intersting that the more evil something Tolkien created was, the less fair to look upon it was.

Why do you think this is?
Did Tolkien do this purposly or out of societal influence?

Anyway, thought this would make a good discussion topic. Discuss away!

 

[Uminya]

Actually, Sauron was considered beautiful to the eye until his physical body was destroyed during the Akallabeth. After that, he was only able to assume a frightening form because his powers had diminished, just as he was unable to assume a physical form again after his body was destroyed during the Last Alliance.

Many elves did evil things, such as the Noldor, and dwarves are arguably "good looking" and certainly had a capacity for wickedness.

 

[Sauron]

Actually, Sauron was considered beautiful to the eye until his physical body was destroyed during the Akallabeth. After that, he was only able to assume a frightening form because his powers had diminished, just as he was unable to assume a physical form again after his body was destroyed during the Last Alliance.

Actually I was able to once again assume a physical form. Gollum/Smeagol certainly seems to indicate that when he describes me as having only four (full) fingers on one hand instead of five when he was being interrogated. And the only reason I was able to assume physical form again was because Isildur had not cast my Ring into the Sammath Naur when he had the chance.

 

[YayGollum]

I don't remember a Dwarf ever being wicked. Seen as wicked plenty of times, but always justified, I'd say. Anyways, I thought that they were always described as ugly, though. Or, at the least, never pretty, like even the most evil and disgusting elf. They get praise for other decent physical traits, but I don't remember any compliments being tossed their way along aesthetic lines.

Neither do I remember reading much about the looks of Sauron or the Dunlendings. It only says that Sauron couldn't make himself look unnaturally pretty any more. It doesn't call him ugly, just obviously evil. The Dunlendings are mostly described as less sophisticated, yes? Mayhaps they didn't bathe as regularly, mayhaps, with elves seen as the ideal, their facial hair was considered unsightly, but I don't remember reading anything about them being seen as ugly under that sort of stuff.

Orcs were messed up elves, and since the apparently constant trend in Tolkien's universe for what is seen as pretty is all things elf, Mel couldn't resist messing that up.

I don't remember Shelob being described as ugly, but I wouldn't be surprised. Many don't think of spiders as pretty, but then, we aren't given information on how the average giant spider would have viewed her. I figure that her victims never got the opportunity to view her in any favorable lights. Same for balrogs, which you should know how to spell.

Mayhaps *adopts stereotypical psychoanalytical voice* you are the one who thinks that good and evil should be easily identified via whatever your current aesthetic values happen to be, at the moment?

 

[Alcuin]

First, I am not certain that this is what Tolkien always intended:

Frodo … said, “…You have frightened me several times tonight, but never in the way that servants of the Enemy would, or so I imagine. I think one of his spies would - well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand.”

“I see,” laughed Strider. “I look foul and feel fair. Is that it?”

There is also an interview to one of his former students about Queen Berúthiel. I will simply link it in this post; it can be discussed on its own at the link. Suffice it here to say that Berúthiel was exceedingly beautiful, but evil.

Sauron disguised himself as Annatar, and convinced the Noldorin smiths he was their friend, mentor, and ally.

That said, while evil can cover itself with a guise of beauty, masking its intent, and it can grow from small misdeeds in a beautiful person to gross proportions, evil often eventually exhibits itself, marring itself, its host, and its environment. In literature, this is presented for effect and emphasis.

Why would this be found objectionable? Because that which is not evil may also be marred in some way, so that the ignorant assume it is evil when it is not?

 

[Úlairi]

Another interesting thread. Now I don't know if this is supposed to be a "light-hearted" thread based on personal opinion; or if its of the more serious kind. I like to think that as Firawyn has titled the thread Tolkien's "good" and "evil"' that it would be interesting to hear Tolkien's (and my own ) perspective (and reasoning) on the matter.

Morgoth's Ring - Arda - was 'Marred' as Melkor distorted and corrupted the erma (the physical constituents or matter) of Eä through the passing of his inherent power into Arda. Many of the Ainur (Úmaiar in particular) arguably used the erma of 'Arda Marred' (Arda Sahta) to create physical habiliments. As many of these spirits reproduced they became more increasingly earthbound and thus were unable to return to their spirit-form. The other Ainur that weren't converted to the dark cleverly used their intrinsic knowledge of erma and Arda itself to create raiments based on the conceptualization they had of the Children of Ilúvatar that were to come; which was all conceived in the Ainulindalë. Ilúvatar created the Quendi and the Atani inherently perfect; but were also subject to 'Arda Marred' due to their hröa being fashioned from the corrupted erma. Consequently, this created discord in the cohesion of the Quendi's hröa and fëa. This is why they grew progressively weary in their bodies and invented the Rings of Power (and the Three in particular) to ward off the effects of this decay.

For the Ainur to clothe themselves in erma disfigured by the hand of Morgoth would be repugnant, profanely atheistic and ultimately sacrilegious. Morgoth, Tolkien describes, eventually became trapped inside his physical hue. I would contend that it was through this nihilistic sense of athesim that Morgoth especially was ugly because of this foul practice. It is also said in The Silmarillion that he descended into Darkness due to his malice and desire to corrupt. Morgoth's sub-creation of the Dragons in which (perhaps even undoubtedly) Úmaiar inhabited were also subjects of Morgoth's consuetude. The Balrogs (and potentially Ungoliant) were different in this sense. Morgoth expended his power in a different way upon the Balrogs through domination of their spiritual being (their fëa), and they, as he did, assumed forms that were terrible to behold.

The Dwarves are an enigma; but I would speculate () that as they were contrivances of Aulë's ineptitude; as such they were inherently imperfect in design which is perhaps why they were observed as being 'homely'. Obviously the Children of Ilúvatar were (albeit inherently 'Marred') conceptions of Eru and were thus in that essential context 'perfect' and were perceived as fairer. As the Quendi were the first and greatest, they would then be fairer and more beautiful than the Atani; who were subject to decay at a far greater rate due to Ilúvatar's gift.

Bloody interesting stuff. Tolkien rules. Peace out.

 

[Firawyn]

@ Alcuin - if someone evil masks themselves in beauty, it is so that they can blend among the good (so we observe). Likewise, Aragorn for example, masked himself in rugged garb and was generally unkept, probably so that he could go among the "not-so good" unchecked. All of this still brings me back to the same question (I now modify):

Masks aside, why is it that Tolkien's characters/creatures generally equal out to good is beautiful and evil is ugly?


@ Úlairi -

Another interesting thread. Now I don't know if this is supposed to be a "light-hearted" thread based on personal opinion; or if its of the more serious kind.

I would consider this a "serious" topic, but that doesn't mean I want to you type out a mile long disertation on arguing points. 90% of the discussion on Tolkien that take place here are based on a person's perception of Tolkien's world. As incredibly detailed as Tolkien made Middle Earth, there are still many unanswered questions to be discussed. This isn't a debate - a debate would imply that someone ends up proven incorrect. This is a discussion - defined as an opertunity for lovers of Tolkien to discuss and learn new perspectives on a particular topic.

I like to think that as Firawyn has titled the thread Tolkien's "good" and "evil"' that it would be interesting to hear Tolkien's (and my own ) perspective (and reasoning) on the matter.

Don't assume anything, Úlairi. You will find I'm full of surprises.


As to the rest of your post, I fail to see the relivence. I wasn't asking for a history, I was asking for opinions and perspectives concerning the tendancy for Tolkien's characters and creatures to be ugly if evil, and beautiful if good. As Alcuin fairly pointed out, there certainly are exceptions, but generalizing - that appears to be the pattern.

 

[Illuin]

You know the saying; 'It’s a good monster movie'. Well, Tolkien’s books are good 'monster stories'; incredibly deep, detailed, unique, brilliant monster stories. When I look at the big picture, that‘s what they are. Of course you want your 'monsters' to be ugly and hideous, or they wouldn’t be scary. At twelve years old, I became a fanatical horror/monster movie fan because of one experience alone; I read Lord of The Rings.

 

[YayGollum]

Aw, but turning things into debates are so much more fun! Did I do a bad job of proving your points wrong? oh well. So mayhaps I could admit that that Tolkien dude generally painted the good guys prettier than the bad guys. The answer ---> Tolkien wasn't the first to do this to his characters. It is quite common. Some comedian pointed out that when a stranger that you consider to be attractive smiles at you, you smile back and figure that they are a nice person or somesuch, but when one who's looks you aren't a fan of does the same thing, you wonder what their problem is. Seems to be natural for humans to think this way, then?

 

[Úlairi]

@ Úlairi -

I would consider this a "serious" topic, but that doesn't mean I want to you type out a mile long disertation on arguing points. 90% of the discussion on Tolkien that take place here are based on a person's perception of Tolkien's world. As incredibly detailed as Tolkien made Middle Earth, there are still many unanswered questions to be discussed. This isn't a debate - a debate would imply that someone ends up proven incorrect. This is a discussion - defined as an opertunity for lovers of Tolkien to discuss and learn new perspectives on a particular topic.

It's obviously not that serious if you're only looking for unsubstantiated opinion. What are you after Firawyn? Something like the following:

I think the good ones look good 'cause good things are 'sposed to look good. Tolkien loved good things so he made them appear good. The bad ones look bad 'cause they're nasty and no one likes them. I don't like the bad things and if they looked good they would be confusing. I hate being confused.

Little more toward the level (if you can call it that) of discussion you were looking for?

Don't assume anything, Úlairi. You will find I'm full of surprises.

Not particularly. The only thing that surprised me is that in a forum of the works on Tolkien you would prefer it that someone didn't post anything Tolkien related. You asked if Tolkien did this seriously. There's another surprise as there's absolutely nothing serious about this thread.

As to the rest of your post, I fail to see the relivence.

Well that's understandable as my post was relevant and not "relivent". That i key seems to be an awful distance away from that e key too.

I wasn't asking for a history, I was asking for opinions and perspectives concerning the tendancy for Tolkien's characters and creatures to be ugly if evil, and beautiful if good. As Alcuin fairly pointed out, there certainly are exceptions, but generalizing - that appears to be the pattern.

I think I'll return to my post here:

I would contend that it was through this nihilistic sense of athesim that Morgoth especially was ugly because of this foul practice. It is also said in The Silmarillion that he descended into Darkness due to his malice and desire to corrupt. Morgoth's sub-creation of the Dragons in which (perhaps even undoubtedly) Úmaiar inhabited were also subjects of Morgoth's consuetude. The Balrogs (and potentially Ungoliant) were different in this sense. Morgoth expended his power in a different way upon the Balrogs through domination of their spiritual being (their fëa), and they, as he did, assumed forms that were terrible to behold.

Now if someone has contended it infers that an opinion is being formulated. Correct me if I'm wrong: you were after opinions weren't you? My previous post was directly on topic; it was obviously just completely misunderstood by you; which is something that so far I don't find surprising at all.

 

[Firawyn]

It's obviously not that serious if you're only looking for unsubstantiated opinion. What are you after Firawyn? Something like the following:

I think the good ones look good 'cause good things are 'sposed to look good. Tolkien loved good things so he made them appear good. The bad ones look bad 'cause they're nasty and no one likes them. I don't like the bad things and if they looked good they would be confusing. I hate being confused.

Little more toward the level (if you can call it that) of discussion you were looking for?

Oh? Arn't we feeling patronizing today? No. Try again.

Not particularly. The only thing that surprised me is that in a forum of the works on Tolkien you would prefer it that someone didn't post anything Tolkien related. You asked if Tolkien did this seriously. There's another surprise as there's absolutely nothing serious about this thread.

What I'd prefer makes no difference. I am not a moderator, nor an admin. If you have a problem with the active discussions and how the forum is managed, go to them.

I did ask if Tolkien did this purposely. What I'm looking for and so far you are the only one whose seem to be confused on this was a personal reflections on how society dictates literature.

My own answer for my question (which I refrained posting until I'd seen what some of the others though) is this: I think that Tolkien, like any man, was influenced by what society deemed as the proper images for good and evil beings. Furthermore, I think he was also influenced by years of studying mythologies in which the imagery of good and evil were very clearly beautiful and ugly, respectively.

Well that's understandable as my post was relevant and not "relivent". That i key seems to be an awful distance away from that e key too.

Harp my spelling all you want. I appreciate it (honestly). I'm a horrid speller and I seek to improve myself. There are already several members here that point out my spelling or grammar mistakes, what's one more?

Now if someone has contended it infers that an opinion is being formulated. Correct me if I'm wrong: you were after opinions weren't you? My previous post was directly on topic; it was obviously just completely misunderstood by you; which is something that so far I don't find surprising at all.

Quite correct, opinions are indeed what I was looking for. But, I did not ask for an analysis of who was beautiful and ugly, or why. I was asking very simple for opinions concerning why Tolkien made his creatures (generally) beautiful if good, and ugly if evil.

 

[Úlairi]

Oh? Arn't we feeling patronizing today? No. Try again.

Yeah, I tend to do my patronizing in the morning.

What I'd prefer makes no difference. I am not a moderator, nor an admin. If you have a problem with the active discussions and how the forum is managed, go to them.

Well then, I guess it's perfectly fine if I say:

I think the good ones look good 'cause good things are 'sposed to look good. Tolkien loved good things so he made them appear good. The bad ones look bad 'cause they're nasty and no one likes them. I don't like the bad things and if they looked good they would be confusing. I hate being confused.

Now, I don't want to say what I just said above; all I want is the constant increase in quality of discussion.

I did ask if Tolkien did this purposely. What I'm looking for and so far you are the only one whose seem to be confused on this was a personal reflections on how society dictates literature.

No, what you actually said was:

I was wondering why he (and other authors) have made the "bad/evil" characters so physically ugly, and the "good" characters, so beautiful.

I simply delineated WHY Melkor and other evil creatures of Arda were inherently ugly. Thus answering your question. If Melkor & Co. clothed themselves in the raiment of Arda Marred the consequences of such profane, atheistic and sacriligeous acts and perversive behaviour was to be visually repugnant and hence ugly. Tolkien made them ugly because of their continual engagement in the foul practices of evil itself. Some other authors aren't even as advanced as Tolkien as they simply portray their characters in such hues without definitive explanation. Thank goodness Tolkien decided to write essays as to why his creatures appeared the way they did.

You then said:

Did Tolkien do this purposly or out of societal influence?

Now I didn't answer this per se; I simply thought it would be inferred. If Tolkien wrote a series of essays about the characterization of his creatures to substantiate and expound his myth; I would assume that this was done purposefully. Thus this then makes societal influence not irrelevant; but of less importance.

My own answer for my question (which I refrained posting until I'd seen what some of the others though) is this: I think that Tolkien, like any man, was influenced by what society deemed as the proper images for good and evil beings. Furthermore, I think he was also influenced by years of studying mythologies in which the imagery of good and evil were very clearly beautiful and ugly, respectively.

I would agree. Tolkien grew up in the world and these are concepts that even a five-year old would understand. Such is the social conditioning of human society. We are a species that unfortunately will take things often at face-value without furthering our understanding. Why do you think I chose an evil character as an alias for this forum? I didn't understand the inherent nature of evil which is why (through Tolkien) I chose to explore it further.

Harp my spelling all you want. I appreciate it (honestly). I'm a horrid speller and I seek to improve myself. There are already several members here that point out my spelling or grammar mistakes, what's one more?

Whilst being critical of your spelling I was actually more to the point making a pun. I considered my post to be relevant to the topic.

Quite correct, opinions are indeed what I was looking for. But, I did not ask for an analysis of who was beautiful and ugly, or why. I was asking very simple for opinions concerning why Tolkien made his creatures (generally) beautiful if good, and ugly if evil.

Well I'm glad because I just gave another one. You may not have asked for an analysis of who was ugly but the entire point of this thread was to discuss why they were ugly - and that's exactly what I did. To demonstrate why they were ugly I used examples of who was ugly - often a feature of a coherent argument.

 

[Firawyn]

I simply delineated WHY Melkor and other evil creatures of Arda were inherently ugly. Thus answering your question. If Melkor & Co. clothed themselves in the raiment of Arda Marred the consequences of such profane, atheistic and sacriligeous acts and perversive behaviour was to be visually repugnant and hence ugly. Tolkien made them ugly because of their continual engagement in the foul practices of evil itself. Some other authors aren't even as advanced as Tolkien as they simply portray their characters in such hues without definitive explanation. Thank goodness Tolkien decided to write essays as to why his creatures appeared the way they did.

From that point of view, I understand.

Now I didn't answer this per se; I simply thought it would be inferred. If Tolkien wrote a series of essays about the characterization of his creatures to substantiate and expound his myth; I would assume that this was done purposefully. Thus this then makes societal influence not irrelevant; but of less importance.

One should never assume anything. Better to be clear in your thought that assume that everyone understands your extensive vocabulary.

I would agree. Tolkien grew up in the world and these are concepts that even a five-year old would understand. Such is the social conditioning of human society. We are a species that unfortunately will take things often at face-value without furthering our understanding.

This is quite true.

Why do you think I chose an evil character as an alias for this forum? I didn't understand the inherent nature of evil which is why (through Tolkien) I chose to explore it further.

Um...no comment.

Well I'm glad because I just gave another one. You may not have asked for an analysis of who was ugly but the entire point of this thread was to discuss why they were ugly - and that's exactly what I did. To demonstrate why they were ugly I used examples of who was ugly - often a feature of a coherent argument.

And a good job you did.

 

[Úlairi]

Wow, I'm beginning to think that because no-one else (apart from you Firawyn) posts after I've done so; the conversation's over. I like having that effect. I can end threads before they begin! It's a bit of a shame in this thread however, as it is a good topic.

I did ask if Tolkien did this purposely. What I'm looking for and so far you are the only one whose seem to be confused on this was a personal reflections on how society dictates literature.

Well, let's you and I discuss this a little further. It's a shame that others around here wish to prematurely end a thread far better than anything they can contrive.

I wouldn't necessarily conclude that society itself dictates literature; but that it is more a result of human conditioning as well as biological empiricism. According to evolutionists, human beings developed their sense of smell and the brain eventually responded to diseased and potentially threatening smells as inherently bad; which is why when we pass a dead animal it smells awful. There is no reason why we wouldn't develop this ability through our visual perception also. Obviously such experiences over time would be noted and words such as beautiful and ugly introduced into language to describe these experiences. This was then absorbed into literature and beautiful was somehow associated with good and evil with ugliness. This was then perpetuated through literature and ultimately through various other mediums also. It just simply became an accepted maxim. However, stories where ugly characters are good also exist. There's always exceptions.

Apropos of Tolkien above, depsite 'Arda Marred' having drastic effect on erma and thus hröar of tainted Ainur seduced to Melkor's service; we know that Elves (and Men) were also beautiful per se. This begs the question of why it appears that Ainur who did so were subject to such raiments being inherently execrable and could not appear beautiful. Were there any servants (save Sauron) noted for their beauty? Have to read The Silmarillion again...

 

[Firawyn]

Wow, I'm beginning to think that because no-one else (apart from you Firawyn) posts after I've done so; the conversation's over. I like having that effect. I can end threads before they begin! It's a bit of a shame in this thread however, as it is a good topic.

Don't flatter yourself. Some people have lives outside of TTF.

I wouldn't necessarily conclude that society itself dictates literature; but that it is more a result of human conditioning as well as biological empiricism.

Interesting theory.

According to evolutionists, human beings developed their sense of smell and the brain eventually responded to diseased and potentially threatening smells as inherently bad; which is why when we pass a dead
animal it smells awful.

Not always the case...didn't your mother ever give you cough syrup as a child? That stuff smells and tastes awful, but is what will make you feel better. There are many examples of this, that's just one example.

Any living thing will label an unfamiliar smell as "bad". What we don't know scares us, and fear of things is a result of bad experiences. (i.e. I am terrified of the smell of burning rubber, because as child I was nearly killed by a burning tire...our neighbor thought it was fun to blow up old tires) For dead animals...death is an unknown - what we do not know and understand frightens us. Someone who works in a morgue might not see the smell of dead flesh as "bad"...because it is familiar. I myself don't find the smell of dead flesh as bad, because a) I grew up in farm country where dead animals were a fact of life, and b) I've always been interested in archaeology and spend most of my childhood burying dead animals various ways only to dig them up one to 6 months later to really learn about the decomposition process. (yes, I am an odd one!)

This is a long winded way of saying "I disagree with your assessment here."

There is no reason why we wouldn't develop this ability through our visual perception also. Obviously such experiences over time would be noted and words such as beautiful and ugly introduced into language to describe these experiences. This was then absorbed into literature and beautiful was somehow associated with good and evil with ugliness. This was then perpetuated through literature and ultimately through various other mediums also. It just simply became an accepted maxim.

I see no point in retyping the above, as the same analysis pertains to visual mediums.

However, stories where ugly characters are good also exist. There's always exceptions.

There are always exceptions to any rule.

 

[Prince of Cats]

However, stories where ugly characters are good also exist. There's always exceptions.

There are always exceptions to any rule.

All that is gold does not glitter

 

[Firawyn]

All that is gold does not glitter

LOL, well said Prince! Here we're getting all caught up in the hidden, and you point out the obvious.

 

[Úlairi]

Don't flatter yourself. Some people have lives outside of TTF.

Which is why I've only posted a couple of times in the last three days. But I'll admit my life has definitely slowed down; which is why I've returned (to the "detriment" of the forum).

Interesting theory.

Cheers.

Not always the case...didn't your mother ever give you cough syrup as a child? That stuff smells and tastes awful, but is what will make you feel better. There are many examples of this, that's just one example.

Well there's no need to delineate the obvious as to why this is, is there?

Any living thing will label an unfamiliar smell as "bad". What we don't know scares us, and fear of things is a result of bad experiences. (i.e. I am terrified of the smell of burning rubber, because as child I was nearly killed by a burning tire...our neighbor thought it was fun to blow up old tires)

Exception: Unfamiliar smells can smell good. A child that has never smelled a rose will find the first experience of doing so good and pleasing. This arguably comes from genetic predisposition inherent in humanity.

For dead animals...death is an unknown - what we do not know and understand frightens us. Someone who works in a morgue might not see the smell of dead flesh as "bad"...because it is familiar. I myself don't find the smell of dead flesh as bad, because a) I grew up in farm country where dead animals were a fact of life, and b) I've always been interested in archaeology and spend most of my childhood burying dead animals various ways only to dig them up one to 6 months later to really learn about the decomposition process. (yes, I am an odd one!)

Exception: Decomposing flesh smells bad as it is an indicator of potential disease. It is simply not an opinion but an inherent biological mechanism.

This is a [short-] winded way of saying "I disagree with your assessment here."

I see no point in retyping the above, as the same analysis pertains to visual mediums.

Me too.

There are always exceptions to any rule.

And sometimes it can be most annoying thing of all; but thank God there is...

 

[Prince of Cats]

Exception: Unfamiliar smells can smell good. A child that has never smelled a rose will find the first experience of doing so good and pleasing. This arguably comes from genetic predisposition inherent in humanity.

Exception: Decomposing flesh smells bad as it is an indicator of potential disease. It is simply not an opinion but an inherent biological mechanism.

This is where I like quotes, could you point me to the articles?

 

[Alcuin]

Exception: Unfamiliar smells can smell good. A child that has never smelled a rose will find the first experience of doing so good and pleasing. This arguably comes from genetic predisposition inherent in humanity.

Exception: Decomposing flesh smells bad as it is an indicator of potential disease. It is simply not an opinion but an inherent biological mechanism.

This is where I like quotes, could you point me to the articles?

Ugh! May we please stipulate that roses smell sweetly, and rotting flesh, well, rotten? Otherwise, we will have to debate whether the Dead Marshes were a nicer place that the gardens of Imloth Melui.

(And while we're at it, that roses are red, violets are blue...?)

My granddaughter is 7 months old. She was certainly positively impressed a few months ago with her first smell of roses.