Reading LotR for the First Time: Beauty and Morality

[MSadiq]

I want to preface this by saying I'm experiencing LotR for the first time; I've never read the books—not until now, where I'm at the chapter after the Council of Elrond—and I've never watched the movies. However, this is not to say I'm unaware of anything regarding it. I've consumed a good amount of LotR content, but not enough to call plenty nor little enough to say some. But most of my LotR knowledge is adjacent to the series, and by that I mean it is mostly about Tolkien and his academic career, though I've not read any of the latter.

So, while my view might not be entirely my own, and I might bring up something that I think I've read, but rather actually heard, I'm trying to meet Tolkien where he is, not where I want him to be. I.e., I'm aware that people level accusations of racist depictions of Orcs at Tolkien, but did the man have that in mind? I think not, and I have reasons to think not.

Something that really stumps me is it seems the story, in some way, is alluding to beauty being morally good, inherently, and evil is inherently ugly, not that being ugly makes you evil. What really gives me this impression are the Elves, who I can only call the high race, the more world-wise race, a kingship-worthy people, and the race that all seek the council of, and are beautiful in a why that the word ephemeral feels, not what it means, if that makes sense.

Ephemeral is anything that lasts for a very short time, like an explosion, or a single clap of the hand, or the exact moment of a car crash. The other side is that magical moment when a butterfly breaks out of its cocoon, fireworks bursting, seeing a new born for the first time. It is that fleeting sense of magic that exists in those moments, which no matter how much you scientifically understand something, it can never dull its enchanting edge, like seeing a shooting star. You understand that it is burning gas and rock, but that understanding can't strip the magic away, and that feeling of magic is taken and the Elves are coated with it. All of their existence is ephemeral-feeling.

What gave me this impression is a passage that I read multiple times, and it is that same passage that dispels this belief, in a way.

...You have frightened me several times tonight, but never in the way that servants of the Enemy would, or so I imagine. I think one of his spies would – well, seem fairer and feel fouler, if you understand.’
‘I see,’ laughed Strider. ‘I look foul and feel fair. Is that it?

Frodo rules out Aragorn as an enemy because he's "fair" despite looking "foul." What a curious way to describe someone. I had to read that line many times.

Both foul and fair can describe appearance and moral character, and you get the sense that it is both because of how Tolkien phrases it.

The spies would seem fairer, meaning they would have had disguised themselves to look fairer, which they're not because they're foul. That's appearance; and they feel fouler. That's moral, their evil literally manifesting and senses can pick it up, and we see that throughout. "Strider," on the other hand, looks foul and rascally as his appearance as described, but they're just that, judgment of appearance, but what is truly his moral character? Fair, and he feels fair—a moral judgment. Curiously, fair (fæger) and foul (ful) maintain this dichotomy in Old English. At least in some way.

But what about the inherent ugliness of evil? I can only explain it through two pieces of information I've taken from other people.

1. Orcs are corrupted Elves
2. God is inherently good, therefore he doesn't create anything ugly, and anything ugly is a corrupted creation.

You can see how the second point links directly to Orcs. They were Elves once—fair and fair, but when they became corrupted morally, they became foul and foul.

Also, another point against beautiful = makes you a good person is that the most courageous and admirable, but at the same time, the least powerful, characters are average-looking. The 4 Hobbits (Merry is the man ), who are also, compared to everyone in the Council, hold no political power or standing. Frodo is a Baggins, a most esteemed family, Merry is the heir to the Bucks, and Peppin is the eldest son of the Thane, but none of these names and titles have real political power, which is explicit. And if I'm not mistaken, Tolkien's ideal society is the Shire.

I can see how people would see fair as problematic, as fair can mean pale and blond, which—well, you can draw your own conclusion there.

So, say someone is good, but isn't pale and blond, can't a point be made that he's not really a good person? He's inherently corrupt, no? That's a point that can be made by racists, but racists can take anything and make it racist. Still, the good characters a pretty white, even if not blond and that's what stumps me. Why imply that the morally good characters look white? I don't think Tolkien was a supremacist, though he might still had prejudices as any man of his era. The only explanation that I can think of is that it is a mythology for England. Simple as that and nothing is behind it, but that's too simple for Tolkien, I think.

So what do you think?

If you've read this far, thank you.

 

[Mad Swede]

I think you should read LoTR all the way to the end, as this may make you rethink some of what you wrote. It isn't quite as straight forward as it first seems, not even when it comes to the orcs.

 

[MSadiq]

I think you should read LoTR all the way to the end, as this may make you rethink some of what you wrote. It isn't quite as straight forward as it first seems, not even when it comes to the orcs.

I know it's not. I'm just talking about my first impression upon reading the foul and fair passage and how that's not really how it is, and I don't doubt it is more complex. What I really wanted to get across is the fair and foul word choices with their double meaning are super interesting and get my mind going, which doesn't seem to really have come across lol.

 

[RoccO]

The most imaginative part of the Lord of the Rings, is its topography. The next, is its ecology. The third, is its Theology. To bring this up I am just saying that it is well thought out but perhaps obvious? This story is about a clear cut villain and those who fight them against all odds. In other words, a hero.

Frodo is not the quintessential hero, Bilbo is, not his mother or father, his uncle, and we do not know he was in his forties when he set out on his quest. Frodos age was about fifty when he left for mirkwood and 33 when he received the ring. Time is a precious thing to a hobbit, and he had a large portion of it before.

Tom Bombadil, was not in the picture. By all standards he could have been the main character. He is there in the first book in a rather childish way, but it seems to shine through on his mystical rather than manly proportions. What I am getting at, is the book is realistic. If there was any power in the one ring, it has left us now.

Other artefacts may be found. There is the legend and that surrounds the races and creation of the rings. Indeed, the Palantir and Mirror of Galadriel. The quest is however basically a look at what is happening, not that surrounding the ethics and value of the appendices of the books.

If I was to take one thing from Tolkien’s ideas, it is that evil can be destroyed, but only the technology that made it. Most other things seem mortal and move on to the Grey Havens. The Shire remains pristine and secluded and immaculate. There are other ideas that could have been explored, but I think Tolkien was remarking on the brotherhood of the hero’s quest.

1. Orcs are corrupted Elves
2. God is inherently good, therefore he doesn't create anything ugly, and anything ugly is a corrupted creation.

Tolkien, maker, our maker.

 

[pmmg]

I am not sure what to answer to this. Mr. Tolkien would have to speak for himself on these types of issues.

I would say, the idea that Evil corrupts and makes one ugly is not something Tolkien invented, it has been around for a long time. Most of the Greek villains were beautiful in some way, but the Gods cursed them and made them ugly. And I am sure Tolkien is well aware of the Fall of Lucifer, from most beautiful angel to the hideous demon. Its common in fantasy for the ugly on the inside to manifest itself into ugly on the outside.

Also, the idea of the angelic being fair matches well with the battle between light and dark. Jesus is not described as still being dark when he is meeting with Moses and Elijah. They are all radiant. The white light aspect has more to do with light vs dark, than skin tone vs skin tone.

I do think it is unlikely that Tolkien would have subscribed to the notion that people with darker complexions could not be good or beautiful. Most of his baddies are monstrous as well, not just dark. They simply are not in the realm of skin tone being the reason why. It is also true that Sam is described as being brown, and it seemed Tolkien held the hobbits in high regard. The degree of brown has left many draw inferences (Was Sam African? or just bronzed by the sun?). That answer is not clear, but he did not put Sam in that light.

For me, this might be an artifact of the time, but I think its reading a bit too much into it.

Tolkien was a faithful Christian who understood his belief. He would not have thought any member of humanity more or less than another, or that their skin tone revealed something about their spiritual nature. One might assume things about culture, as culture seems more tied to racial groups than things of intrinsic worth. I think that would just make him an observer of the world.

 

[MSadiq]

lso, the idea of the angelic being fair matches well with the battle between light and dark. Jesus is not described as still being dark when he is meeting with Moses and Elijah. They are all radiant. The white light aspect has more to do with light vs dark, than skin tone vs skin tone.

That's not what I meant, and my fault because people keep interpreting it this way. What I meant is that the choice to use fair and foul is very interesting because they bot can and do describe appearance and some moral characteristics. And I thought about it after posting, but I think that by fair Tolkien meant pleasing to the eye, not fair as in pale. Like, if someone was fair as in pale, is that enough to trust someone? No, you need to look trust worthy and pleasing to the eye, which Aragorn wasn't, but he's gold that doesn't glitter.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Lots to unpack. First of, Tolkien never definitively settled on the origin of orcs. Them being corrupted elves comes from the Silmarillion. It's one of the ideas Tolkien toyed with and it appears in some of the writing , which ended up in the Silmarillion. However, it's important to note that the Silmarillion was left unfished by Tolkien and that in his notes he actually has several different origin stories for the elves. This is just one that his son ultimately picked to be published. So it's a possible origin, not the definitive one Tolkien had in mind (in his later writings, he leaned towards orcs being corrupted humans for instance).

I'm not sure about the second point you mention, about God being good and therefore never creates anything ugly. I can't really see that in his writing. If anything, the Silmarillion starts with a creation story, where the minor gods sing a song which describes the history of the world as it will be. The biggest of these minor gods, Morgoth, tries to inject his own ideas and to dominate the world in his song, which creates discord and chaos. But the one god who rules oves them all takes those themes and weaves them into the whole, creating something bigger and more beautiful than if it hadn't been there. So if anything, I'd say he argues the opposite, mainly that God can take ugly and evil things and use them to enhance the good of the whole.

As for most protagonists in the story being white, that also goes for many of the antagonists that come up, as well as most other people they run into. So that hardly matters. You could argue that his world could have been more diverse. However, the world he's describing is a fantisized version of medieval northern Europe, where most people would've been white. So there's that. He's also writing in a time where this simply wasn't a consideration at all.

I've always taken the descriptors of fair and foul as applied to Aragorn to be about his and others overall looks. As in, someone sent by the enemy would look noble and strong and pretty, whereas Aragorn looks like he's been lying in a ditch for the past few years (as one of the hobbits remarks at some point). But Aragorn's demeanor shows his noble heritage and inspires trust, where someone evil would give off a feeling of evil. I've never taken fair to mean pale of skin or blonde.

Being blond never really seems to be a feature of being superior to other hair colors. If anything, the most beautiful person in all of Tolkien's legendarium, Luthien, is dark haired. But Elrond is also dark haired, most of the hobbits have brown hair, etc. There really is no preference for one over the other. Only thing is that certain groups of people tend to have certain hair colors. Which isn't really unusual. After all, most Dutch people are blond or brown haired, so if I was to write a book set in the netherlands 200 years ago, then most characters would be blond or brown haired.

As for the elves being superior, they are in his world. They're a mythical, immortal race that is stronger, faster, smarter than everyone else. However, it's worth remembering that in Lord of the Rings, you see them from the perspective of the hobbits. Who are peasants compared to the elves they meet. Of course you're going to get that idea about them. However, they're not perfect in Tolkien's world. Though you only really get that in the Silmarillion. But that's because Lord of the Rings isn't about elves. It's about a bunch of hobbits stepping up to save the world when the rest of the world can't / doesn't want to.

 

[MSadiq]

As for most protagonists in the story being white, that also goes for many of the antagonists that come up, as well as most other people they run into. So that hardly matters. You could argue that his world could have been more diverse. However, the world he's describing is a fantisized version of medieval northern Europe, where most people would've been white. So there's that. He's also writing in a time where this simply wasn't a consideration at all.

I wasn't clear in my post; I wrote it as a stream of consciousnesses, which isn't the best thing, lol, but this isn't what I meant. I thought it was weird to call them that when they're all white, as to use fair in the sense of pale, though now I very certain he meant it in either two ways, one more plausible than the other. The least likely one is they'd have disguised themselves to look more "elvish" but in a very specific way. When Frodo met Gildor and his people, they're, as Tolkien describes, shimmering, and Frodo himself calls them "fairest folk," and this quality seems to be the exact opposite of the literal dread the Black Riders give off. The second and more likely, in my opinion, is that he meant fair as in pleasing to the eye, so it is more of a persuasion matter, make themselves friendly, like Boromir as he tried to take the Ring; his face and smile were friendly, but the glint of his eyes was evil, as Frodo puts it (if I remember correctly).

As for the elves being superior, they are in his world. They're a mythical, immortal race that is stronger, faster, smarter than everyone else. However, it's worth remembering that in Lord of the Rings, you see them from the perspective of the hobbits. Who are peasants compared to the elves they meet. Of course you're going to get that idea about them. However, they're not perfect in Tolkien's world. Though you only really get that in the Silmarillion. But that's because Lord of the Rings isn't about elves. It's about a bunch of hobbits stepping up to save the world when the rest of the world can't / doesn't want to.

Yeah, something I definitely came to see is that a lot of development of the characters or the world has happened in the past and we get glimpses of it. Specifically, Aragorn. There are implications that he's much older than he looks.