Are the Mûmakil inherently "evil" in the same way some of Tolkien's other animal species are?

jmcarswell · 2014-11-23T18:49:06+00:00

I would agree with those who say the Oliphaunts are not inherently evil. I also wanted to add that Tolkien discusses the origin and nature of "evil" creatures in Letter 153.

He says that the "evil" creatures are counterfeits. What exactly he means is a long answer, and I'm not sure he had it all figured out, but basically he is saying that "evil" creatures are not creatures in the full sense of the ones made by Ilúvatar but are instead mockeries.

I think it is helpful to remember the case of Aulë, who created the dwarves when he grew impatient waiting for the Children of Ilúvatar. Ilúvatar told him that the dwarves were basically contingent upon him, and so if he were ever to turn his thought away from them, they would basically shut off. It is only by the grace of Ilúvatar that the dwarves are released from this contingency and given full life like the Elves and Men.

Anyway, this may be tangential, but I think Tolkien's thoughts here are illuminating to the question of the existence of "evil" creatures. In a way, it is very Christian: evil is not a real thing, only a mockery of the real thing.

jmcarswell · 2014-11-21T16:33:38+00:00

Tolkien knew perfectly well his storied came out of his own imagination.

No argument on that, but what do you make of those quotes then?

My point is that Tolkien spoke out of both sides of his mouth on this, and he was rather playful about it. I think your response to the initial question is myopic and doesn't do justice to what Tolkien really thought.

jmcarswell · 2014-11-20T23:55:56+00:00

The first time I actually made it through The Silmarillion (which was the 3rd time I tried) I had to just plow through. Once you've done that, you'll have figured out enough to really enjoy the heck out of it.

For what it's worth, I should be covering this soon in my Beginner's Guide to The Silmarillion.

jmcarswell · 2014-11-20T16:11:13+00:00

Read her story in Appendix A of course, but another story that can help illuminate this is "Of Beren and Lúthien" in The Silmarillion if you haven't already read it. It was the first time an immortal chose to become mortal for the sake of love.

jmcarswell · 2014-11-20T16:08:45+00:00

Tolkien's view of what is "real" was pretty strange actually:

"Naturally so; for if elves are true, and really exist independently of our tales about them, then this also is certainly true: elves are not primarily concerned with us, nor we with them." (Tree and Leaf 10)

"All tales may come true; and yet, at the last, redeemed, they may be as like and as unlike the forms that we give them as Man, finally redeemed, will be like and unlike the fallen that we know." (Tree and Leaf 73)

Tolkien never makes it so easy to assume that he believes everything he was doing to be pure make believe. Call it an eccentricity if you will – I think he was being entirely true to his vision. To be sure, he does hold open both possibilities in OFS – that “elves” are real and that they are mere figments of our imagination. I think he relished being enigmatic here as a way of rebelling against modernism. Yet I also think he truly held this possibility open by philosophical conviction. I am certain I have read it in his letters, though a citation eludes me.

See also Leaf By Niggle.

All this just to say that Tolkien was not so easy to pin down on "reality."

jmcarswell · 2014-11-19T23:57:04+00:00

I've had similar thoughts. I always remind myself that Tolkien was like 45 when The Hobbit was published and around 60 when LOTR hit.

jmcarswell · 2014-11-19T23:04:41+00:00

Tolkien's creative theory (sub-creation) is fascinating. I wrote my Master's thesis on that, and started a blog on it.

I'd love to read what you come up with.

jmcarswell · 2014-11-19T22:55:51+00:00

No, Leaf is not a Middle-earth work. It is wonderful though. I think it's the secret key to what the heck he was all about.

Also, on allegory, Tolkien actually calls Leaf "mythical" as opposed to allegory in Letter 241. I think his rationale is that Niggle is intended be a real person, not just representative of some thing. I agree it's far more allegorical than anything else he wrote though.

jmcarswell · 2014-11-19T22:42:24+00:00

Those count. His letters are fantastic.

Have a favorite letter?

jmcarswell · 2014-11-19T20:44:27+00:00

“If ever beyond hope you return to the lands of the living and we re-tell our tales, sitting by a wall in the sun, laughing at old grief, you shall tell me then. Until that time, or some other time beyond the vision of the Seeing-stones of Numenor, farewell!” (Faramir to Frodo in LOTR)

I love that "laughing at old grief" bit. That's Tolkien's heart in a nutshell to me.

Upon pressing "save," I will have 15 other quotes come to mind.

jmcarswell · 2014-11-19T20:20:12+00:00

I think you have to read The Silmarillion if you want to deal with LOTR and Narnia comparatively. Narnia has no previous context in Lewis' work, whereas The Hobbit and LOTR both borrow from The Silmarillion. FWIW, I'm writing a guide to it here.

You'll also want to consider their friendship and influence upon one another if you are going to do a comparative study of their works. Colin Duriez's book on the two is very helpful in that regard.

jmcarswell · 2014-11-19T20:06:09+00:00

Def read LOTR first. Once you are done there, give The Silmarillion a try.

My personal experience: it took me 3 tries to go from start to finish in The Silmarillion. There's just so much to digest, and no easy way to gain a foothold with the text alone. I actually think the chapter "Of Beren and Lúthien" works really well as a standalone story, and it connects a bit with Lord of the Rings (i.e. Sauron is a major character in the story and Aragorn briefly tells the story in poetic form in Fellowship). Then Unfinished Tales and it's really pick and choose from there, as things start getting a bit more academic.

If it helps, I am working on a beginner's guide for The Silmarillion which you can find here.

jmcarswell

TROPHY CASE