The Role of Tragedy in Tolkien's Villains

[Mrs. Maggott]

J. R. R. Tolkien has produced many "villains" in his Creation. Some, like Melkor/Morgoth and Ungoliant are altogether evil, but many have a tragic component to their nature and actions which may (or may not) somewhat mitigate the evil that they do.

To keep the thread from becoming TOO large (at least at first), I would like those interested to comment upon villains in The Hobbit and LOTR, bringing to light what (if any) circumstance in that character's life you believe might make that individual less a villain and, perhaps, more a figure of tragedy.

Thank you for your interest.

 

[YayGollum]

Oh. Too bad you just said The Hobbit and LOTR. I was about to defend the people you just mentioned from The Sil. oh well.
Of course I would have to bring Gollum up. If the evil sam hadn't been evil to Gollum in that one superly sad scene just before Shelob comes up, Gollum wouldn't have turned out so bad. He'd still be superly tragic. He'd turn out to be someone that more people would like. I think that there's some letter of Tolkien's that says something about that scene. That if the evil sam wasn't so evil, Gollum would have thrown the Ring into the Crack of Doom voluntarily. Way more people would understand my Gollum is the Hero arguement! oh well.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

If the theme "catches on", we can certainly go into the earlier stories, but I didn't want to dilute it to the point where we couldn't get a good "debate" going. In the meantime, I expect you - YeaGollum - to get some hard information here in defense of Gollum's tragic circumstances. Yes, the scene with Sam was indeed tragic. In fact, Gollum's entire relationship with Sam was tragic since, at one time, BOTH Sam AND Gollum actually "love" Frodo. It is tragic indeed that they could not work together to help instead of becoming sworn enemies because of love, not hate.

 

[YayGollum]

Yikes! I have to do work? I have to find hard information in defense of Gollum's tragic circumstances? What's that all about? Am I supposed to bring up every single scene where we should feel sorry for Gollum and give the reasons why he's so pitiful there? I have no idea. If someone is a tragic character, everyone knows it, usually. Even if they don't like the character, they can figure out why some people might feel sorry for them. Maybe I'm just crazy. Or maybe I just don't get the instructions yet.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

No, but explain why YOU find something tragic that others may see in a different light. Give your own unique point of view. It's not enough to say, "see, it's tragic", give us a reason for it being so. For instance, what might have happened to Gollum if the Ring had not been found? YOu have been able to take other circumstances and "turn them around", do the same thing now and see how "tragedy" affects those circumstances.

P. S. I would suggest that you first look up the classic definition of "tragedy" and go from there. It will give you a whole lot more latitude than did the classic definition of hero!

Good luck!

 

[YayGollum]

What might have happened to Gollum if the Ring had not been found? Document, document so that you cannot be "dismissed" offhand! Got it. Ummm...well, this seems to me to be a crazy hypothetical situation, but I came up with something and according to the rules, I gots to wait until I have a book with me and can give an intelligent answer. I can't just try to tell you people what part of what book I'm talking about. I'll give you something tomorrow. I know what a tragedy is, but yes, ma'am! I'll look it up anways!

 

[Maedhros]

The characters that jumps in my mind is Boromir. I mean, here we have the son of the Steward of Gondor, a very noble man, who falls with Frodo because he tried to seize the ring for the salvation of his city, yet in this deed, he falls tragically to his lust. When Frodo finally departs, and Boromir has seen the deed that he has comitted, he feels shame. Then you have him killed when Aragorn and Co. found him. I wonder in that small amount of time, did he redeem himself. To me he did.

 

[YayGollum]

Sure. Why not? How could anyone argue with that? No quotes, crazy Mrs. Maggott person!
I guess that part could be called tragic. I never liked Boromir, though. He was just another boring human. I read fantasy for the fantastical stuffs. Yay for weird characters that aren't as boring as humans!

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

I know what a tragedy is, but yes, ma'am! I'll look it up anways! <quote>

I realize that you know what tragedy means. I would wish you to look up the 'CLASSIC' meaning of the word (as Tolkien would use it) because it will greatly assist you in making your points. It's like keeping score in a game; if everyone is using the same point count, the game goes smoothly. However, if the rules change in mid-game, then the whole thing gets "antsy". If you start by using the classic meaning of the word, no one will be able to find fault with at least the foundation of any argument you present - and that's half the battle!

Go to it!

 

[YayGollum]

Ack! Yes, ma'am! But it's still fun to have a difference of opinion. Boo for closed minds! oh well. I'll try to be good in this nice thread of yours.
Anyways, Woah! I just noticed that the Maedhros person wasn't talking about a villain! oh well. Do some people think of Boromir as a villain? I missed it.

 

[Rogue666666]

I'm really new here so I don't expect my opinion to count for much, but I was thinking, and I came to the conclusion that IF Sam had treated Gollum better it might have been the downfall of Middle-Earth. Because Gollum would then probably not have tried to take the ring from Frodo and then what would have happened? I think that if Tolkien had created a kinder, less corrupted Gollum, then he could not have ended the story the way he did. My point is, Gollum is allready as tragic a charachter as he could possibly be and still keep the story line the same.

 

[LadyGaladriel]

I'm really new here so I don't expect my opinion to count for much

welcome to the Forum and everyones veiws count wheter you've been here a day or a year.

Gollum is a tragic figure. Most of the elders pity him. His pretty much an unfortunate person. There wer two sides the Gollum. You have Smeagol and Gollum. Smeagol is that side of him that still remembers what it was like before the ring came into his hands. He is tragic figure because something unfortunate happeneded to him. As soon as Smeagol saw the Ring he came under its spell and killed Deagol. Remeber that Sinme people didn't even have to get to close to it to become under its pell example of Boromir and Sauraman

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

The whole point of considering villains - even far worse ones than Gollum - in the light of tragedy is to overcome the rather simplistic views that we all have from time to time regarding those who do evil (and even good). There is a VERY old saying, "there but for the grace of God, go I". It isn't a bad saying to keep in mind when we look at these characters or life in general for that matter.

Tragedy doesn't excuse evil, but it makes the individual involved therein more believable. Very few people - indeed, I would say NO ONE - gets up in the morning, looks in the mirror and says, "Today I will be EVIL!" I'm sure even Sauron believes that his rule would be for the "best" (in whatever perverted sense he considers that word) for Middle Earth.

Most of us do wicked things for the most mundane (and silly) of reasons. Either we don't think out what we are doing fully and so blunder into wickedness or we are so consumed by something (like Gollum with the Ring), that we allow that thing, person, idea etc. to manipulate our every thought and action - and that is TRAGIC. It is especially tragic when the individual can see the end to which his actions are taking him, HATES that end, but cannot for whatever reason, STOP. I think Denethor is one such person as, in the end, is Saruman.

I hope that considering the "villains" in the light of whatever tragic circumstances surround them, will give us all new insights into - and thereby enjoyment of - the Great Man's works.