• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

'Good Often Does Evil'

Radaghast

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2021
Messages
2,792

'Good often does evil': JRR Tolkien on 'the most tragic moment' in The Lord of the Rings

Hate to post clickbait, but I knew what this moment was as soon as I read this headline. I'm sure the rest of you can too.

Unrelated excerpt:
 
Hm, that's weird. I don't get one. And I'm pretty sure I don't have an account with BBC 🤔
 
Hate to post clickbait, but I knew what this moment was as soon as I read this headline. I'm sure the rest of you can too.
I was able to watch the clip.

I tried to think which moment was the most tragic before watching. I didn't think to choose that one, but now I see his point.

I see the tragic event triggers a telling change in eye color...an excellent example to add to my collection of Tolkien's Eyes in another thread.
 
It often varies by location.

I'm apparently in the wrong one. 😄
Well, as you (and anyone who might be blocked by a paywall) has probably already figured, it's when Sam unintentionally turns Gollum over to evil for good on at Cirith Ungol. Reportedly, this moment caused Tolkien to break into tears, presumably because of its tragic nature, but I'm guessing it was the only logical course for the story to take.
 
Don't forget about "agency" ...Smeagol, like Sam, has free will.
Not saying Sam is blameless, but he didn't "make" or "cause" Smeagol to revert.
He did make it easier for him, giving him justification (in his reckoning) to do so.
Gollum could easily say "See what you made me do", but that is not an excuse for choosing to go back to "the dark side."
That is, Sam's treatment of him may mitigate Smeagol's guilt in his final decision, but it doesn't absolve him of all responsibility.
 
The mirrored symmetry (if that's a correct term) of the phrase may be worth some consideration:

Sam on the stairs: "Good often does evil".
Gollum at the Cracks of Doom: "Evil often does good".

I'm not sure I agree with "often" in either case. I'm thinking "often" should be changed to "sometimes".
 
That is, Sam's treatment of him may mitigate Smeagol's guilt in his final decision, but it doesn't absolve him of all responsibility.
No, of course not. Tolkien even said Sam could hardly react differently and it shows the kind of person Gollum is to fall back on the justification of injured feelings, even after Sam tries to apologize, albeit clumsily.
 
Bit of "word" clarification is needed here.
First keep in mind that Tolkien knew how to use words, knew their real meanings.... and many people nowadays don't.
They confuse , conflate and/or totally misuse a word. For example, how many people correctly use the words imply and infer? How many people know what "penultimate" means, (a word that shows up in the LOTR appendices.)
Anyway I digress.
So , a person cannot be jealous of a relationship between other people; he CAN be envious of it, tho'. That is, he can be desirous of having a similar relationship with that person.
A person can only be jealous of his OWN relationship with a person. It means he is overly protective of it, even unhealthily possessive of it., not at all keen of someone else having a relationship with that person., especially if that third party might displace himself.

For the Christians here, there is a good example of this ... How often have you read something along the lines of " the Lord God is a jealous God".
It means God wants His relationship with you to be your primary relationship, everything else being secondary, even spousal/family relationships, and especially any relationship with material things, e.g. money, fame, etc. He is so jealous (possessive) of it that He gives you every help, every chance to make it your primary relationship (not exclusive, but primary).
A dark, perverted human version of this are those relationships where one person is so jealous (possessive) of the other person that they cut (or attempt to cut) the person off from any family members, friends, co-workers, even strangers. e E.g., they don't even want the person talking to, say, a cashier. [sick-o]

Now Sam is human, and therefore fallen and can be inordinately jealous [possessive] (as can any person) of his friendship with Frodo.
I seriously question that Sam thought Smeagol might displace him, but Smeagol wasn't a trustworthy person, and Sam being jealous (possessive) of Frodo, didn't want Smeagol anywhere near him, if only for safety's sake.
Conversely Smeagol can be both envious and jealous. He is envious of the relationship between Sam and Frodo, vaguely recalling such friendships from long ago. But he can also be jealous of his current albeit nascent "relationship' with Frodo.

** People may say , well that is not how people use the word "jealous" nowadays . And all I have to say to that (other than "if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you?" ) is "Abusus not tollit usum." Abuse [of something] does not cancel its [proper] use ... in this case, a word.
 
Last edited:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…