• 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

Inconsistency: Shelob's reaction to light vs. 🕷️Ungoliant's behavior?

hamstar

New Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2022
Messages
27
If Shelob is a spawn of Ungoliant, a being which consumed raw practically the entire world's supply of magical light (whatever that is), why is Shelob's reaction to such light not comparable to Ungoliant's reaction to the Two Trees? That is, she should find it a tasty appetizer for her main course of hobbit... or visa versa, even. Explain.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't give a specific reason but in Reader's Companion it says the following.
20230127_115523.jpg

Furthermore
20230127_115748.jpg

I don't have the relevant volumes of History of Middle-earth yet but maybe they say more. Most answers to most questions are in the books somewhere 🙂

Actually reading on.....
16748209725726028969739861502186.jpg


Really looking forward to reading this book. Due to apparent spoilers I'll be doing it after reading everything else and after the Lord of the rings.
 
she 'crept towards the light of the Blessed Realm, for she hungered for light and hated it.'
This must be the main hint. If there's any truth about the concept of light having association with the Flame Imperishable, it's possible Shelob (and the (race of?) Mirkwood spiders, who were apparently sentient) were born of Ungoliant after consuming the Trees, whereby cheating the usual mechanics of life-giving imposed by Eru to be created as such. She would be a creature of the world, rather than beyond it, and like other such dark creatures (e.g. orcs, trolls, etc.), magical light would be undermining to her being, and not simply hated or envied like ancient dark powers (from beyond the world; Melkor included) are wont to do.

Edit: Another explanation is that the Silmaril light is different from Tree light; it was specifically hallowed by Varda, which modifies its effects to evil creatures (particularly when consumed). Problem is, as demonstrated numerous times, this only applies to direct contact with a Silmaril; there's no telling whether this effect conveys to simply beholding emanations from "Silmaril juice-in-a-bottle".
 
Last edited:
Light can take many forms, some of which can be consumed (like morning sunlight on your skin), and others which devour (like a laser to the eye).

Symbolically in the story, what did Shelob represent to Frodo? What character traits of Frodo did Shelob prey upon? What is known about these two characters that in their struggle we see meaning?
 
First off, no writing of JRRT's begs more fore a rigorous revision than his ridiculous description of Ungoliant, who just keeps growing and growing - even though her darkening of Valinor with vapors to a degree that she foiled even Tulkas and Manwë was such a titanic effort that it should have shrunk her to a size that would fit into the average Hobbit's hip pocket. Christopher Tolkien himself acknowledged his father's occasional tendency to hyperbole, which reached a Taniquetil-like peak with his writing on Ungoliant - and went unrevised in later more sober moods, as so much of the early writing.

Then, Ungoliant never even touches the Silmarils. What they did to Morgoth, Carcharoth, Maedhros and Maglor at the end - and very likely Ancalgon when Eärendil knocked him out of the sky - speaks volumes.

And often, when beings JRRT at least hints at being Maia spirits taking a specific bodily form, like Thorondor, or the "boldogs" mentioned occasionally, being lesser Maiar taking shapes like archaic Uruk-hai, when they breed, their offspring do not inherit their primal characteristics. Even with Melian and Lúthien, while the latter among Elves is at least a notch above even Fëanor an Galadriel, she does not inherit her mothers primal capabilities. So while Ungoliant hated light, and lusted to devour it and turn it into darkness, her descendants also hated it, but now feared it.

Well, my rationalization of the matter, anyway.
 
First off, no writing of JRRT's begs more fore a rigorous revision than his ridiculous description of Ungoliant, who just keeps growing and growing - even though her darkening of Valinor with vapors to a degree that she foiled even Tulkas and Manwë was such a titanic effort that it should have shrunk her to a size that would fit into the average Hobbit's hip pocket. Christopher Tolkien himself acknowledged his father's occasional tendency to hyperbole, which reached a Taniquetil-like peak with his writing on Ungoliant - and went unrevised in later more sober moods, as so much of the early writing.
Yeah...Ungoliant taking on multiple Valar, even Melkor, is...a lot.
 
First off, no writing of JRRT's begs more fore a rigorous revision than his ridiculous description of Ungoliant, who just keeps growing and growing - even though her darkening of Valinor with vapors to a degree that she foiled even Tulkas and Manwë was such a titanic effort that it should have shrunk her to a size that would fit into the average Hobbit's hip pocket.

I disagree. Small things can cause a chain reaction by utilizing their existing environment, such as a nuclear explosion quickly, or mold slowly. And is that not the very theme of the book, as small hobbits conclude the story with a chain reaction across the entire world? Indeed the concept was so obvious Tolkien outside the book explicitly cautioned fans against the assumption he intended an allegorical application to nuclear energy.

Seems especially important that Ungoliant was not a spider but a creature that took the shape of a spider.

If there is anything that Shelob and a simple hobbit would have in common, it might be gluttony. The sin enlarges while it consumes.

Light is weightless yet it too enlarges and consumes. The phial of Galadriel was a special type of focused light, akin to Sam's gift. Just a sprinkle and the entire garden grows like none other.
 
Last edited:
Ungoliant is based on a particular Scripture passage (John 1:5), the best translation of which is "And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it," which, once understanding, makes it all a bit easier to grasp and comprehend what Ungoliant is all about.

Her offspring then represent also a certain element in Tolkien's Catholic realm... those who fear the light because the light exposes them for what they are.

It's also why Tolkien left her so...well...unexplained in his text. No "overt" references to Christianity for him. More figurative language.
 
Ungoliant hungered for the light, yet also hated it. Ungoliant also mated with lesser spider-creatures (who didn't subsist on light) to produce more spider-creatures. It seems reasonable that the "gene" that made Ungolian hungry for light was not passed on to her offspring. Shelob (and her siblings and cousins) simply inherited her mother's hatred for the light, not her appetite for it.
 
Last edited:
Ungoliant is based on a particular Scripture passage (John 1:5), the best translation of which is "And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it," which, once understanding, makes it all a bit easier to grasp and comprehend what Ungoliant is all about.

Her offspring then represent also a certain element in Tolkien's Catholic realm... those who fear the light because the light exposes them for what they are.

It's also why Tolkien left her so...well...unexplained in his text. No "overt" references to Christianity for him. More figurative language.

That makes sense. Darkness represents evil and death in John, while the light triumphs as good and life, so darkness cannot overtake it. Interesting parallel for Frodo and Shelob, and if so adds a new dimension to the light working between Sam and Frodo.

It may be relevant that when you look at the biblical Hebrew word for spider (a language Tolkien knew) you see the word for evil עכביש. Or to unpack that word even further it's 'heel of evil' or 'footprint of evil'. And the word "evil" also translates as "sickness". Interesting too that a spider is uniquely known for its feet.

Did Shelob and Ungoliant have names of evil in Tolkien's language?
 
unpack that word even further it's 'heel of evil' or 'footprint of evil'. And the word "evil" also translates as "sickness"
Indeed.
I can't tell you about Ungoliant's and Shelob's name meanings... noted to be Sindaren, Ungoliant = Spider, and Sindarin, Shelob - Great Spider respectively in the 2 books I have to help.

We know Ungoliant is a creature of the Darkness, the very 'embodiment' if you will, of Melkor's 'discord' into the music.
At one place she's said to e "in origin an entity of the Luter Darkness, called iknto being at the Beginning of Arda, and thus the first of the Great Demons to invade the World."

If she's 'called into being at the Beginning of Arda, she's a product of Eru's "Let these things Be'..... and a part of Melkor's actual creation.
This is consistent with many of Tolkien's Catholic themes.
And a nice study is 'darkness' as it is handled in Scripture, comparing that with Ungloliant.
Also the reaction to pure "light".
Interesting too, is Ungoliant's ability to make the light of the Trees "sick"... while at the same time 'draining the light out of them.'

I won't even get started on her offspring...

So many parallels.
 
It seems reasonable that the "gene" that makes hungry for light was not passed on to her offspring.
Indeed, entirely possible. Ungoliant was of an entirely different nature and being than her offspring... so certain inheritable and inherited traits could very much be in question.
This, too, is a direct 'parallel' with Tolkien's Catholic background and representation through her, the light, and the darkness.

Is Tolkien's work primarily about 'light and darkness', or 'good and evil', etc.? No... not at all. As mentioned elsewhere, it's primarily about Faith, Providence, and Choice. Ungoliant may be the only 'creature' in Tolkien's work not having an original 'choice,' or a later opportunity for redemption, being solely a result of Melkor's discord, come to 'be' by Eru in the fashion Melkor gave to her... totally without his (Melkor's) knowing it. (Or did he? He certainly knew to 'seek her out'. Why?)

She began as she was. Now THERE's some fodder for contemplation, comparison and contrast.
 
In Letter 144 Tolkien noted: "Shelob (English representing C.S. "she-lob" = female spider) is a translation of Elvish Ungol "spider".

And in "Nomenclature" he explained:

Shelob. Though it sounds (I think) a suitable name for the Spider, in some foreign (Orkish) tongue, it is actually composed of She and lob (a dialectal E. word for "spider"). (Cf. The Hobbit, Chapter 8.) The Dutch version retains Shelob, but the Swed. has the rather feeble Honmonstret.

Also noting

Lazy Lob and crazy Cob
are weaving webs to wind me.
I am far more sweet than other meat,
but still they cannot find me!


The Hobbit, Flies and Spiders

🐾
 
The one thing I'm REALLY glad of, is I've never seen arguments over why Tolkien chose the 'really bad spiders' to both be female, accusing him of prejudice, bias or discrimination etc. This implies most people know why, and even have some understanding of spiders into the bargain.
I think people are more likely to do that for evil humans or humanoid creatures. Not animals usually (unless the story has a large number of animal characters, which means they will have some kind of human-like social structure and interactions).
 
I try to be cautious about identifying a source as "the" source, when discussing an author's works, unless he specifically identifies it himself; even then, many other factors, conscious or unconscious, may have entered into it. Otherwise, we can easily be led into narrowing a piece of literature into direct allegory -- especially if it's the kind of allegory we personally prefer. Literature -- even allegorical literature -- is more flexible and "multi-level" than that.

I hope to say some more about allegory in another thread; meanwhile, and perhaps closer to the current subject, my take on the spiderverse, from several years ago:

Post in thread 'Are Ungoliant and Bombadil opposites of each other?' https://thetolkien.forum/threads/ar...dil-opposites-of-each-other.23482/post-516320
 
I try to be cautious about identifying a source as "the" source
Understandably so, though I tend to take a wee bit of a different view, especially when things are so obvious.

unless he specifically identifies it himself;
He would never do so, and never did so, with any 'scripture' in any of his presentations, because of his desire to maintain a 'no direct reference to Christianity in Fantasy/Mythology' posture.

Yes, I do agree from time to time I take a bit of 'poetic license' here and there perhaps when things are pretty clear. I'll try to attenuate my "this is directly from' and turn it into "look at the similarities here'. Likely more palatable for many.
 
when things are so obvious.
Exactly the point of my "hints and warnings", but as I said, I hope to address the subject more fully on another thread.

Edit: when I spoke of an author identifying a source -- or an association -- I wasn't referring to the text itself, but to his commentary on the text. We have many of these, as, for example, his associations of lembas and miruvor mentioned in my linked post above, or that he had the Lord's Prayer in mind while writing the Sammath Naur scene.

Sorry I was unclear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ent
Post in thread 'Are Ungoliant and Bombadil opposites of each other?' https://thetolkien.forum/threads/ar...dil-opposites-of-each-other.23482/post-516320 ("As for Ungoliant, in mythical terms, she represents total nihilism, pure destruction, the diametric polar opposite to the creative impulse,the devourer, similar to Kali (in her killing aspect). ")... Silmarillion: 'Of the fate of Ungoliant no tale tells. Yet some have said that she ended long ago, when in her uttermost famine she devoured herself at last'."

Do people say that nihilism eats itself in the end? Does darkness eat itself at its conclusion?

If this were a multiple choice test, I think the correct answer would be "evil" is what consumes itself in the end. We say this about all 7 cardinal sins. The glutton eats himself to death. Pride comes before the fall. He who lives by the sword dies by it. It is evil

Darkness is not always evil, for the Lord Himself is the author of it. Sometimes darkness is wonderfully healing, such as during sleep. What does it say in the Silmarillion about the early darkness?

Nor is nihilism categorically evil in the sense it is just a tool. Applied to a heresy, one might say nihilism is the right tool for the job. There are many favorable references to the concept of 'nothing' in the bible, including in John 1.

I often wonder why God would create such hideous creatures as spiders. A face only a parent could love? What is know about the character of Eru that would desire to create Melkor and Ungoliant? The Simarillion reads like a revealing, especially when sight was added after sound. What did Eru desire to teach his offspring about their conjunction with darkness? How does this manifest in the story later in the story through Frodo and Shelob.
 
Exactly the point of my "hints and warnings", but as I said, I hope to address the subject more fully on another thread.

Edit: when I spoke of an author identifying a source -- or an association -- I wasn't referring to the text itself, but to his commentary on the text. We have many of these, as, for example, his associations of lembas and miruvor mentioned in my linked post above, or that he had the Lord's Prayer in mind while writing the Sammath Naur scene.

Sorry I was unclear.
It is still unclear to me, so I will ponder it extensively.
I am noting a pattern in follow-ups to my posts so I'm trying to get a handle on exactly what the issue is...so far, unsuccessfully.
But I'll get there.
Then adjustments will be made as needed.
 

Today's events

Back
Top