You are absolutely right. It is a bit sad. Gandalf does say, “As for me, I pity even his [Sauron’s] slaves”…and the overheard conversations between some of the orcs, like Snaga in Mordor, sometimes give one pity. Gandalf’s admonishment to Frodo,
“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
gives me some lead into wondering if Tolkien could ever show pity to even Orcs and the Nazgul, sometimes. But you’re right–he never does. I wonder if that reflects the WW1 images of absolute rights and wrongs.
Now that you mention it, Gandalf’s admonishment about wishing death on some was in reference, I believe, to Gollum. And Gollum is one of those rarish border characthers who is captured over the whole series as somebody in the process of entering an ‘orc-like’ [irredeemable] state, and yet … not quite all the way there yet! So the author does tease out the glimmer of a tiny good memory still surviving somewhere deep inside him. Which comes to bear in the end for the salvation of Middle Earth - even if (not quite?) the salvation of Gollum himself. At least not as recounted as a part of the story we’re given. But if Tolkien was also at all influenced by G MacDonald, then the fires themselves could also work in salvific ways to finally free Gollum. [Makes me wonder as an aside … I would love to hear Tolkien’s opinion of MacDonald. May have to look that up to see if or how he may have ever referred to him.]
I wonder if the writing in the OT inspired a corresponding formality and preference for archaic modes of expression in Tolkien. I was discussing this with a pen friend who has read The Silmarillion and he quoted this reference to the contents of that work from Tolkien’s Letters and Unfinished Tales a letter from Waldman: “Anyway all this stuff * is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality, and the Machine."
There seem to be Christian themes in there even though we assume Tolkien was against portraying them in this way. Perhaps “the fall” is simply something more basic which also finds expression within Christianity? But I wonder what does “the Machine” refer to? It seems to me like a reference to our pursuit of knowledge for the purpose of imposing our will on nature in order to turn it to our purposes. Nature as it stands is a stream that nourishes all creatures. Of course unlike the others we have knowledge of our mortality so perhaps our will to build the Machine is in reaction to that knowledge in the futile attempt to forestall death?
Thanks for that - Mark! Indeed - much more than “a clue” as you so modestly refer to it. Reading it, in fact, exhausted - or more charitably - satisfied my curiosity on the matter. Indeed, I don’t pretend to have fully understood all the significances of many of the great works alluded to in the linked piece to support various points, so I may be missing something. But my impression from it was that Tolkien’s dislike for MacDonald’s work was (to my relief) only over trivial matters. ‘Trivial’ to me, that is - who has no investment in any debate over literary genres or how the fairy world gets portrayed. My alarmist imagination was wondering if Tolkien had some sort of falling out with GM over the latter’s high Christology or the contents of his theologies. So imagine my relief that this article only seems to reference Tolkien’s distaste for allegory and ‘preachiness’ (the latter of which MacDonald is ‘guilty’ of in the extreme.) While I can understand Tolkien’s objections to literary choices and styles, no doubt important to him as a philologist, those are not the things that made me fall in love with MacDonald. It is his very preachiness that drew me to him in the first place, and in fact, I think I’ve read something of the same from Lewis himself (from his introduction of his G.M. book that I highlight in my thread devoted to his book of G.M. excerpts and meditations.) Lewis actually refers to GM as a 2nd or 3rd rate author as far as his stories went. Not at all high praise I take it … but then neither I (nor Lewis apparently) utlimately stayed drawn to G.M. because of any literary prowess. So with some relief I set aside Tolkien’s quibbles as something of peculiar fascination to him alone as one uniquely poised and invested to care about such things, none of which constitute GM’s greatness to me. Now … if Tolkien ever discusses serious theology or atonement theory and GM’s influences on all that - I would sit up and listen with rapt attention. But I don’t look for it, since I gather that maybe even laying down one’s views so directly on such matters was way too ‘preachy’ of a thing for Tolkien to do. Or at least that’s what I managed to ‘get’ from this essay, hopefully not doing too much violence to what all was actually there.
Thanks for that input–I hadn’t had a chance to read it all, but that makes sense. I think he said he didn’t like Lewis’ Narnia tales because they were not as rigorous in detail (I believe), and also did not think much of Dune (I have not read Dune, though).
I think there’s a throw-away line somewhere that mentions that not all orcs followed Sauron, but the rest is story-expansion.
He struggled with the idea of a race by nature being depraved. The only “humanizing” he did was to just transfer most of the baser human desires/motivations to orcs.
That’s a depiction that C.S. Lewis would appreciate!
Though I’d change the last line to “loss of the concept of the sacred”.
It shows that the narrative got historical details right – but so do Tom Clancy, John Grisham, James Michener, John Steinbeck, and Mark Twain. Getting historical details right is a necessary criterion for a narrative to be accurate history, but it is not sufficient.
I think it shows the influence by and appreciation of a Celtic/Norse metaphysics where creatures are bound by their nature, and trying to rise above that nature always ends tragically.
What I find interesting is how Iluvatar encourages humankind learn things on their own. He basically encourages them to engage in science. Melkor, on the other hand, seems to set himself up as a pagan “god” by taking advantage of their ignorance. Although I am still of the opinion that it makes more sense if Adam was a historical figure somehow since he is listed as an ancestor of Jesus, I do agree that treating the account of the fall as literal history is missing the point of the narrative.
I did not know that about Illuvatar and Melkor. Thanks.
I’m not sure the point is entirely allegorical–Denis Lamoureux points out the tropes of the ancient near east, including a fall from grace, which I think kind of explains why were are in the “mess we are in.” I don’t think that God cursed the earth because of Adam’s sin, but it’s natural for us to blame our behavior to get control of what appears evil to us.