• 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
2,795

'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:
"If a wizard had come to me as a small boy, the situation would be totally different than that in The Hobbit," Tolkien revealed in a rare interview, filmed by the BBC in 1968. "I should have found some excuse for not going… I had no desire whatever to place myself in an awkward position just for the sake of adventure."
 
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.
 
Was Sam really jealous of the Frodo/Smeagol relationship? I thought he was simply protecting Frodo from the treachery they were both expecting might eventually come from Gollum.
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:
The question of Sam's jealousy is an interesting one.

Jealousy definition #3 below seems pretty on-point for Sam. He was quite vigilant in guarding Frodo. And, I suppose our friends are possessions (of a sort).

jealous:
1
: hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage : envious
His success made his old friends jealous.
They were jealous of his success.

2
a: intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness
… jealous of the slightest interference in household management …
b: tending to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness
a jealous husband

3: vigilant in guarding a possession
… new colonies were jealous of their new independence.
 
My query: When did people start conflating the word jealous with the word envious?

Answer from the Merriam Webster website:
People started conflating (or overlapping) the words jealous and envious almost as soon as both words entered the English language.
  • The 14th Century Origin: The word jealous entered English around the year 1200 meaning possessive, suspicious, or vigilant in romance (derived from the Old French gelos). However, by the late 14th century (circa 1385, appearing in works like Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Legend of Good Women), jealous had already expanded its definition to take on the "envious" sense of feeling bitter or ill-will toward someone else's advantages or possessions.
  • The Linguistic Reality: Because they have been used interchangeably for over 600 years, lexicographers note that using jealous to mean "covetous or wanting what someone else has" is historically valid, even though modern usage guides and psychologists prefer to keep them separate (envy = wanting what someone else has; jealousy = fear of losing what you already have to a rival).
I guess I have to cast my vote with keeping them separate, if only to maintain clarity and avoid confusion.
 

Today's events

Similar threads

Back
Top