Discussion: Are Tolkien's stories morally simplistic?

To the OP, my opinion is no, his stories aren't morally simplistic, and neither are his characters. In the entire Lord of the Rings the only character who stands out as one-dimensional to me is Prince Imrahil. Every other last one of them is a web of complexity, facing competing urges, desires, and claims on them. It's the kind of thing that only grows with each re-read. Reading Galadriel, for example -- knowing her from the earliest days in Valinor, through the Kinslaying, the heartbreaks of the First Age, the wanderings of the Second, and the "long defeat" of the Third Age, her words to the Company bear, to me, all the weight of her 10,000 years.

Now Tolkien does, certainly, have a very clear idea of what is right and what is wrong. The desire to dominate: wrong. The inner strength to fight on even in the face of hopelessness: right. He plays those themes out in various ways with his different characters. And they each come off as true individuals, even when leading to their similar paths. (So, for example, Denethor, Saruman, Sauron, Bill Ferny, and even poor Lotho all have things in common, while each still being very much their own individuals.)

Everyone's going to see in LOTR a combination of what's on the pages and what they brought within them. Which, to me, is the biggest part of JRRT's genius -- the ability to lay out Galadriel's mirror within the tale, so that each person who reads it can find something different in it. Something their own. Of course, by definition, this means that some people are going to read it and find very little in it. I'm just glad that I do find so much in it.

Envoyé par Angenga

To say Joyce's writing is just vulgar is as misguided as saying that Tolkien's writing is dull and uninspired.

I will try to clarify. I wrote;

Originally Posted by bb-15
* In many ways Tolkien creates a "beautiful" world. He goes into minute detail in describing nature, people, architecture. Even his descriptions of the great evil powers often have a monumental impact to it.

- Tolkien talks about his conception of beauty in his letter (#142, "Letters of JRR Tolkien") to Father Robert Murray.

"I think I know exactly what you mean by ... your references to Our Lady, upon which all my own small perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded"

Tolkien I believe is talking about the great Mary paintings and sculptures throughout hundreds of years of Western art.
- But if there is an idea of what is beautiful, then there would be also an idea of what is not beautiful or polite/appropriate. Tolkien also addresses this in his famous letter to Milton Waldman (#131 and also the Preface to the Silmarillion).

It (the legend dedicated to England) should possess the tone and quality that I desired... the fair elusive beauty that some call Celtic..., it should be 'high', purged of the gross...

* By contrast imo modern literature critics like "gross". The goal is often vulgarity. Here are some quotes from "Ulysses" by James Joyce for some examples.

"The snotgreen sea. The scrotumtightening sea."

"Vulcanic lake, the dead sea: no fish, weedless, sunk deep in the earth. A dead sea in a dead land, grey and old. Old now. It bore the oldest, the first race. The oldest people. Wandered far away over all the earth, captivity to captivity, multiplying, dying, being born everywhere. It lay there now. Now it could bear no more. Dead: an old woman's: the grey sunken c@@t of the world."

I think I'll stop there. However clever "Ulysses" might be, Joyce had a different idea of what was "beauty" compared to Tolkien.

- I didn't say that "Joyce's writing is just vulgar". I wrote; "The goal is often vulgarity." "Often vulgarity" does not = "just vulgar".
- When you find a well written phrase in "Ulysses" (and there are many of them), that does not eliminate the existence of descriptions in the book which imo could be fairly described as "gross".

Envoyé par Angenga

Strictly speaking, the primary focus in Beowulf (and in nearly all early Germanic verse) is on alliteration and stress.

Thank you for the clarification.

Envoyé par Angenga

See the appendix to Tolkien's translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight for his own explanation of alliteration in Germanic heroic verse.

There is also a detailed description of alliteration in "Sigurd and Gudrun" (which is Tolkien's verse adaptation of the Norse Sagas about the Siegfried legend).

Envoyé par Angenga

The Morte is not an "old mythic story"

541 years ago is old to me.

Envoyé par Angenga

...but Sir Thomas Mallory's retelling of existing French and Welsh Arthurian romances, to which he added material of his own invention.

The retelling of mythic tales has been happening since the original Sumerian Gilgamesh. Imo a retelling (which includes 'added material') does not disqualify a story as being old or mythic.

Envoyé par Angenga

It was finished in 1470, quite a long while after Arthur had passed into legend.

"Le Morte D'Arthur" is probably about 1000 years after the "time" of Arthur (soon after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire). The Aeneid is probably about 1,100 years after the "time" of the Trojan War. I consider the Aeneid to be mythic.

Envoyé par Angenga

The Younger Edda is also not an "old mythic story" but a euhemerized description of Icelandic paganism written more than 200 years after Iceland became Christian.

And the poem Beowulf (which is the source that we have for that story) was probably written by a Christian.

Envoyé par Angenga

While much of the text is prose, it is interspersed with excerpts from the earlier Poetic Edda - the "original" version, such as one exists.

The style of interspersing verse in prose is also in Lord of the Rings. In terms of Tolkien's mythical fiction, LOTR continues an older style.

Envoyé par Angenga

The Lord of the Rings, however, performs the same function for the Northern European legendarium as these works do for their source material, and it is interesting to note that the charge of being derivative, often leveled at Tolkien's work, is never held against these two (and many other texts). For that we may thank all those who, like Adam Gopnik, are simply determined to dislike Tolkien.

Agreed.

Thanks for the reply.

I recently read The Children of Hurin, and as with much of Tolkien's work, 'good' is placed under much duress, with many who are good failing to be so, or, like Theoden, contain some flaw that, in a classical tragedy sense, never quite overcome with the fullest victory. You knew they would be brought low from Melkor's curse regardless of their efforts and what is compelling is watching this tragic arc and their railing against a fate they cannot escape.

In this Tolkien borrows from the Greek legends and this similar treatment of fate and destiny that defines classical tragedy is also found in Shakespeare (Lear, Macbeth).

If this is simplistic so be it, it makes it no less compelling, writers from George Martin to Rowling succeed admirably with similarly simplistic morality tales, dare I say, more simplistic.

Technically of course, Tolkien is an ordinary writer as writers go, some passages of description are beautiful but dialogue and characterisation is wooden.

I get seriously tired of those who use the techniques of higher criticism to sound intellectual and "tear down" while the entire time contributing nothing and missing the point.

Morally simplistic? That's true... fundamentally. Since the creation of Ea it's always been a battle of good vs evil, but does that make the whole saga...a piece of bad writing? Why does it have to be morally complex? Tolkien's world is all about that struggle, and he makes art out of it. And even if he does do this, there are shades of grey in many characters. Aldarion is one who is overlooked by many. Always leaving home, loving the sea, neglecting his wife and child. Why does everything have to be in such a grand scale?

And characters... I admit, in the Silmarillion characters are definatley shallow. But that's because the major focus of the Silmarillion was to tell the tale of the First Age; not the tale of how one character lives through it. When Tolkien wishes to focus on a character(s) he does so. Turin for example. Another morally 'grey' character who shagged his own sister. Aldarion (again) a person who'd rather have a threesome with Hydrogen and Oxygen than spend time with his Wife. And what about Bilbo? Certainly he was a nice fellow, but not neccesarily 'good' in the sense Elrond was. He was your average Hobbit who was sent into this adventure he didn't want to be part of. Grima was another one. The entire race of Ents too.

It really suprises me how 'well read' people overlook these minor details. Sure the basis was morally simple, but alot of the characters weren't. And like I said, when Tolkien wanted to tell a story rather than recite a history he did. Why on earth then were the characters in the movies so great? As far as I can see they were very true to the books. The only one changed was Faramir (which I can see, because thats a character Tolkien didn't write well...I'm sorry, there was much more to him in the films.)

The story isn't something to look at when reading Tolkien I believe. It's the spirit the tale has. It's the emotion, the struggle, the depth, the detail. Reading Tolkien isn't like reading G. Martin, or David Gaider, they all have strengths of their own. Much like gaming developers. Bioware aren't good at creating the most polished gameplay, but they sure know how to make their characters and tell their story. Tolkien might have not been the best at writing the most fleshed out characters, but he did know how to make them work into a huge saga.

One can only think that Tolkien's writings are morally simplistic because of the modern social point of view, indeed. I don't know who is to blame, but I think another great modern writer has an opinion about it. His name is Steven King. And there is a nice prospective about the moral simplicity in one of his masterpieces, the "Salem's Lot". Please, bare with me, as I will quote the thoughts of one of the pivotal characters in this novel - Father Callahan, the catholic priest, who has his doubts about the religion he has commited to. The text is my own translation, as I couldn't find the novel in English, so, please, excuse me, if my translating skills are not perfect.

"...But Callahan wasn’t a young priest, nor was he old; he was in the role of a traditionalist, who can’t believe in the religion’s core anymore. He wanted to lead a division of… who? Of God, of good, of justice, different names to one thing – in battle against EVIL. He wanted military reports and fights, instead of standing in front of the supermarkets, chilling in cold, giving out brochures to people about boycotting the salad or strike against grape.
He wanted to see EVIL without its deceiving clothes, with its face uncovered and clear. He wanted to face it in fight, like Mohamad Aly against Jo Frazier. Celtics against Nicks, Jacob against the angel. He wanted to struggle to be fair, without the politics getting in the way, riding every single social movement like a horrid Siamese twin.
...
Heaven seemed boring, compared to the bliss of fighting – and maybe to fall – serving the Savior.
...
Alas, there was no battle. There were only vague, undefined clashes, and EVIL was not coming in one, but countless faces – all of them hollow, most often – grinning idiotically, with their mouths drooling. All of this made him think there is no EVIL in the world at all, but only evil or maybe even (evil). In moments of doubt, he was starting to suspect Hitler was just a spiteful bureaucrat, and the Satan himself – a ######## fella, with a diminished sense of humor, from the likes of those, who think it’s extremely amusing to throw squibs to seagulls, rolled in bread."

I think what Steven King (who is, by the way, considered by many as the greatest Froid's interpreters of all the modern novelists) tries to say is that there is extremely huge loss of clear morality values in the modern western world, thus, everything is grey. No more black and white. No more good and evil.
But many people don't realize that. Or don't care. Or they are already deep into the moral grey, which is the core of the modern society. That's why they will probably not accept something, which hold some clear moral values. Like the values in Lord of the Rings...

In the end, all morality is subjective any way.

Subjective or inter-subjective? I think there's a little too much solipsism in the former.

Envoyé par ferdinanda

In the Song of Ice and Fire series (which I like), on the other hand, the plot is very involved and complicated, with many characters with initially generous or selfish temperaments behaving ultimately in selfish ways. There is plenty of violence and sex and violent sex, and it makes for good reading on an airplane, but it is so morally complex, that it lacks beauty.

Envoyé par Silchas

Interesting and I am largely in agreement with you. Although I have never been able to get into Song of Fire and Ice, I have read the Steven Erikson novels. A lot of moral ambiguity and incredibly complex but the writing just doesn't even begin to compare to Tolkien. I continue to find new reactions to the characters and the writing as the years progress.

I disagree with the fundamental concept that a lack of a moral code indicates complexity. Having sampled both Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series and Erikson's Malazan series, I cannot see any moral complexity at all. What I see is a lack of any morality. For some reason, modern critics and readers seem to equate one with the other.

I used to like the books. Then during one of my rereadings, at a point where I had become bored in the past, I started counting pages where nothing happened. It was 50 pages. 50 pages in a row of, "They were walking. The hills had brown trees. They kept walking and saw more trees."

Now I'm all for detail where required and why not spend a page or two detailing the clothing of the minor nobles who don't ever get mentioned again in a 13 book series, but 50 pages of nothing was too much. I've not been back to read them since.

Envoyé par Fionnuala

Having sampled both Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series and Erikson's Malazan series, I cannot see any moral complexity at all. What I see is a lack of any morality

Eh, Eddard Stark, Jon Snow, Barristan Selmy, (later) Jaime Lannister, Brienne of Tarth...I could go on. But these are characters who not only are not amoral, but whose morality is highlighted.

I've only read the first few Malazan books, but Whiskeyjack, Mappo Trell, and Itkovian are obviously highly moral characters, if not perfectly moral.

That might account for some of your perception though. Unlike the worlds of Westeros or Malaz. Middle-earth has at least a few characters who are perfectly moral (As far as I can tell.) or near-perfectly immoral, while characters who are largely amoral are not a major focus of the narrative. I also get a clear sense in LotR what morality the author is "rooting for". Not so, I think, with Martin or Erikson.

Maybe that's what you mean? That Tolkien is preoccupied with morality in his creation, whereas with the other authors it's mainly just another aspect of characterization?

Envoyé par Elfenlied4

I used to like the books. Then during one of my rereadings, at a point where I had become bored in the past, I started counting pages where nothing happened. It was 50 pages. 50 pages in a row of, "They were walking. The hills had brown trees. They kept walking and saw more trees."

Now I'm all for detail where required and why not spend a page or two detailing the clothing of the minor nobles who don't ever get mentioned again in a 13 book series, but 50 pages of nothing was too much. I've not been back to read them since.

Which part had these 50 pages? I'm trying to picture the place but I cannot.

A Song of Ice and Fire lacks morality? Wow. Jon Snow would beg to differ.

Perhaps I'm coming late to this argument, but the idea that Tolkein is morally simplistic is borderline ridiculous - only people who skimmed the books for action bits could take away that observation.

The idea that the book is all black and white, good vs. evil isn't really supported by the work itslelf. There is no true evil in Tolkein's books - nearly everything we see as "evil" was corrupted from what was formerly good - Sauron (and Melkor, his lord from the Silmarillion) are Ainur that have fallen from grace - tempted to exert their power in the mortal realms. Their tale parallels the story of Lucifer/Satan falls, immortalized by the Old Testament, and retold by others, such as Dante - generally not regarded as "morally simplistic"

The other "evils" are all corrupted from good: Orcs from elves, trolls from ents, even Gollum was a hobbit! Then you layer in Tolkien's beliefs about mercy and redemption - one of my favorite Gandalf quote, explaining why he and Aragorn didn't simply kill Gollum when they had the chance: "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." This theme of "fall and redemption" is repeated throughout his stories - the Noldor rebel against the Valar, but through their actions the cause the fall of Morgoth; Boromir attempts to take the ring, but in the end sacrifices his life to save Merry and Pippen, etc.

And they don't all redeem themselves - Saruman, Denethor - each flirts with "evil", and wrestles with it, originally planning to stay above it, and ultimately are consumed by temptation (again, there is nuance in their falls - Gollum reforms to Smeagol, helping Frodo and Sam make their way to Mt. Doom; Denethor attracts the attention of Mordor igniting a war that distracts Sauron from watching his borders so Frodo/Sam can slip in, etc.).

Then there is the "good" - there are repeated stories of moral failures and attempted redemption - Aragorn is tortured by the failings of his great(x16) grandfather, Isildur, who failed to destroy the ring; he feels he is not morally worthy enough to wed Arwen, and has to redeem his lineage. The Istari all fall in one way or another (Saruman is corrupted, Radagast leaves his mission, two are lost - only Gandalf succeeds, and he has to die and come back to do it!). Galadrial is the last the Noldor exiles - who actually killed the kin of her husband's people (the Teleri), and now rules a Sindarin land - how is that for heavy moral complexity!

Tolkien shows that each of the great races has lost their way, each in their own way - the Elves live in the past, attempting to stop time in their museum worlds, the Dwarves are driven by their greed to unleash their deaths (Balrogs, Smaug, etc.), Men are weak, fight amongst themselves and are corrupted (the Ring-Wraiths were Dunedain who fell to evil), etc.

I could go on - the themes of temptation, redemption, corruption, the individual weakness and failings of every major character (Feanor, Beren, Isildur, Arazaphon, Smeagol, Denethor, Saruman, Boromir, etc.) - there is so much subtlety of moral exploration. Comparisons to Jordan's Wheel of Time, or Martin's Song of Fire and Ice don't even come close (and I shouldn't even mention writers like Peloni - his stuff is so juvenile, he basically cribs his story from Star Wars!) - I've read and enjoyed both, but they aren't nearly on the same level of Tolkein. I think we confuse modern values, with an emphasis on violence, sex, etc., with moral ambiguity. Tolkien was a writer who wrestled with the "great issues". I think what makes a book written pre-WW2, still popular 80 year later, is this moral exploration - vivid stories of people wrestling with temptation, redemption, and sacrifice, all lovingly described, with an occasional kick-### action piece - pure beauty I've read (and will read) again and again!

I just think of Gollum at the end. I felt so sorry for him.

Envoyé par dimitroff78

One can only think that Tolkien's writings are morally simplistic because of the modern social point of view, indeed. I don't know who is to blame, but I think another great modern writer has an opinion about it. His name is Steven King. And there is a nice prospective about the moral simplicity in one of his masterpieces, the "Salem's Lot"...

I think what Steven King (who is, by the way, considered by many as the greatest Froid's interpreters of all the modern novelists) tries to say is that there is extremely huge loss of clear morality values in the modern western world, thus, everything is grey. No more black and white. No more good and evil.
But many people don't realize that. Or don't care. Or they are already deep into the moral grey, which is the core of the modern society. That's why they will probably not accept something, which hold some clear moral values. Like the values in Lord of the Rings...

The idea of good and evil in a story does not imo mean it has to be "morally simplistic" even from a "modern social point of view". Take the Bible for instance. The Bible has the concept of good and evil. But is the Bible always morally simplistic in modern terms? From the Book of Ecclesiastes;

Chapter 1:2 “Everything is meaningless.”

16 I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+1&version=NIV

There is nothing simple about this from a moral point of view even though it is part of the Bible and the Bible has the concept of good and evil.
- The best works of mythic literature can also have characters that have conflicts, doubts and despair (encompassing the ideas of Sartre, Camus or King). But on top of that, great mythic works also have the complex interactions with beings/objects which represent good and evil.

* Let's look at a couple of Tolkien's characters.

- In the Silmarillion we have Turin. Is this a morally simplistic character? Turin causes the death of someone who teases him. He becomes a criminal. He kills his best friend (by accident). Due to arrogance he leads an Elf kingdom to be overthrown and his love to be taken away in slavery. He ends up in a village and (unknowingly) marries his sister. When she finds out the truth, she commits suicide. When Turin finds out about this, he commits murder. And then he kills himself.
- Why does Turin do these "bad" things? He lives in a world which has super beings that can be good (Melian) and evil (Morgoth / a Dragon). But in spite of these influences, Turin has only a vague understanding of his actions. Often he is an amoral character. Is all of this morally simplistic? Not imo.

- Gollum; in the Hobbit many people believe that the Ring and Gollum are based on Plato; from book 2 of the Republic; "The Ring of Gyges" which is about a mythical magical ring that allows its owner the power to become invisible at will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

Sméagol/Gollum and Bilbo show different possible life paths (which are discussed in Plato's story) about power (represented by the Ring), and how it may lead to corruption.
- Gollum in Lord of the Rings continues to be a morally complex character in his struggle between self interest and moral rules. This inner battle continues until the end.
- Is Gollum pure evil? Is he a combination of evil and good? Was he good but then was forced to be evil by the Ring? Or did Gollum have the ability to be evil before he found the Ring and made a choice to be evil?

* And we can continue to ask these questions about the Ring in Lord of the Rings in terms of morality. We can say the Ring represents evil. But what does this mean?
- Is the Ring an independent evil force? Therefore Boromir was corrupted by the evil Ring.
- Or is the Ring just an instrument of power that only tempts others who desire to corrupt themselves? So, Boromir was tempted by the Ring because he wanted to defeat the enemy.

Tolkien balances these ideas about evil (independent force or corrupting influence) in his story which can lead to a lengthy debate about each interpretation. Again, not simple even in modern terms imo.

BB ;-)

Envoyé par bb-15

There is nothing simple about this from a moral point of view even though it is part of the Bible and the Bible has the concept of good and evil.

Then again, the Bible's (at least the old testament's) version of good seems a lot like evil to me, so it may be that it really has a concept of evil and evil, especially when the main source of good in that book is so genocidal. Though, I should probably steer clear of this messy area.

I will say that there are certain characters that show something of moral duality yet more often than not it's that the character has turned from good to evil or that they've become evil because something else has forced them (e.g. the Ring, Sauron's influence). There is no morality that I can find in the characters that isn't just straight down the middle good or evil, it's all because someone/something else is influencing them. Even Gollum seems to be evil just because of the Ring.

Envoyé par Dorothir

I will say that there are certain characters that show something of moral duality yet more often than not it's that the character has turned from good to evil or that they've become evil because something else has forced them (e.g. the Ring, Sauron's influence).

Here is my interpretation of two ways to look at evil.

- (the Boethian view)-"certain characters that show something of moral duality"; this is similar to the concept of evil advocated by Boethius (died c. 524 A.D.). There is no evil. There is just the absence of good. Everyone can make choices. So, what we call evil is the result of free will. Under this concept characters make the choice to use the Ring to do wrong things. The Ring is not evil in itself. It is like a drug or a dangerous weapon. We can use this interpretation to explain why the Ring had hardly any negative effect on Bilbo in "The Hobbit". Bilbo chose not to use it in a bad way.

- (the Manichaean view) -"they've become evil because something else has forced them (e.g. the Ring...)"; this is similar to the concept of evil advocated by Mani/Manichaeus (c. 216–276 AD). Evil exists. And there is a battle between forces which are good and evil. Under this concept the Ring is an evil force. Just as the Ring can turn a person invisible against their will, the Ring can make a person a slave to evil against their will. The corruption of the Nazgul (by their rings) could be seen as turning a human being into a complete slave to evil.

* The debate between the Boethian and Manichaean view of evil has been going on for over 1000 years. The Lord of the Rings is based on both of these concepts. The final resolution to this debate is not going to happen soon imo.

(A discussion on this topic is contained in the book "J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century" Chapter III.)

Envoyé par Dorothir

There is no morality that I can find in the characters that isn't just straight down the middle good or evil, it's all because someone/something else is influencing them. Even Gollum seems to be evil just because of the Ring.

I don't consider Boromir or Denethor to be purely evil or good. For me they are a combination of both moral ideas. These are desperate men who are trying to defend their homes (good) and they are willing to make questionable decisions (bad) in order to do that. They are neither angels or devils.
- As for Gollum/Sméagol, he killed his cousin, Déagol, in a few seconds after seeing the Ring. Déagol had the Ring. If the Ring turns someone into an instant slave of evil, then Déagol should have killed Gollum/Sméagol. But that isn't what happened. Déagol did not become instantly evil. But Gollum/Sméagol almost instantly attacked Déagol which seems like a choice on his part and not because he was an instant slave to the Ring that wasn't even on his finger. He was like a thief who steals a diamond ring because he sees it in a jewelry store window. That is a choice. And later when he is with Frodo, Gollum by choice does good things. Especially in the beginning of his story, Gollum/Sméagol has free will.

Thanks for the reply.

The stories ARE morally simplistic--they are, in a very real sense, a morality tale--because myth often takes the form of a morality tale. Moral complexity does not necessarily conflate with good story-telling or with the purposes of the author. The existence of designated "good" and "evil" within a non-subjective moral framework is not necessarily simple in execution or in its consequences. Most contemporary moral complexity arises from a subjective conceptual framework of morality, rather than from any actual complexity--it is complex because they are no clear definitions.

The morality structure of a story can be simple--but the character responses and actions within that simple structure can still be complex and the drives behind those actions and responses can be equally complex, if not necessarily articulated.

One of the things I dislike about a great deal of fiction is how deeply we sometimes delve into the inner workings of something that we have little actual understanding of--the human mind. People often do not actually know why they do the things they do. I often find it more entertaining to have inner motivation veiled rather than explicitly laid out--thus *I* am given leeway to exercise my imagination and am sometimes forced to think about what is happening in the story and why--rather than simply being told by an omniscient author.

Is LoTR is "good story?" I think that it is a good story precisely because of its simplicity--I become caught up in the events and the landscape and the history precisely because I am not constantly distracted by the internal nattering of the characters. The tale serves, I think, the object of the author--even if it does not meet teh expectations or preconceptions of readers or meets the "definition" of a critically acclaimed work and the tastes of critics.

While I have a certain appreciation of A Song of Fire and Ice and other complex fantasy stories--I simply cannot bear to actually read them... the story and events may be compelling but the sheer complexity of what is going on becomes.... tiresome. I pretty much skimmed my way through Martin's novels.

If I can't be bothered to actually READ your work.... then it probably isn't that great a story (at least from my perspective--if you like that type of thing then it becomes a fantastic story). My life is complex enough on many levels that I don't need artificial complexity, for the most part.

Envoyé par Kosomok

"Most contemporary moral complexity arises from a subjective conceptual framework of morality, rather than from any actual complexity--it is complex because they are no clear definitions."

- There are two kinds of complexity which are being talked about here imo.
1. Moral complexity
2. Psychological complexity
Imo they are not the necessarily same thing.
- Potentially the least morally complex story imo is one which is mostly about or completely about atheists. Such a story is usually psychologically complex. I'll use the novel "Nausea" by Noel prize-winning writer Jean Paul Sartre as an example. The main character is having a bad day. There is an existential crisis. But I don't see moral complexity. The problem for the character is finding a meaning to life and overcoming depression. That is psychologically complex but not morally complex imo.
- The more moral religion/mythology which is added to a story increases the potential for moral complexity.
- A mythological story (which has super beings determined to be morally good or bad) can add another level of moral complexity.
An argument can be made that good or bad super beings are morally simplistic. But the super being can be another influence on the moral behavior of characters. No matter how simple the morality is of a super being, it as an additional layer of moral complexity compared to the story with no super being.

Envoyé par Kosomok

"The stories ARE morally simplistic--they are, in a very real sense, a morality tale--because myth often takes the form of a morality tale..."

It's important to keep in mind imo about Lord of the Rings that it does not begin its chronology with Bilbo's birthday party. The true beginning is about the back story of the Ring. And the last time good triumphed over evil/the Ring in that back story was when Sauron was defeated in the Last Alliance. This was at the end of the Second Age. The Third Age lasted 3021 years before Sauron was defeated again. So, in a time period from about the fall of Troy to our present day a great evil power and his servants dominated much of Middle-Earth. In terms of which side was winning the battle between good and evil, for most human beings during the Third Age, evil had triumphed over good.

Envoyé par Kosomok

"The morality structure of a story can be simple--but the character responses and actions within that simple structure can still be complex and the drives behind those actions and responses can be equally complex, if not necessarily articulated."

This gets to personal morality. Devoutly religious people can be just as complicated as atheists. In fact I find the history of religious leaders to be much more morally complex than leaders who were atheists. Why? Because when there is belief in ultimate good and bad at a supernatural level, there is repeated moral hypocrisy as those divine moral concepts conflict with selfish human nature.

Envoyé par Kosomok

"One of the things I dislike about a great deal of fiction is how deeply we sometimes delve into the inner workings of something that we have little actual understanding of--the human mind. People often do not actually know why they do the things they do."

Agreed. And I would add the workings of the human mind is very complex but not necessarily morally complex.

I'm at the part where Frodo, Pippin and Sam just woke up after their night time picnic with the Elves and Sam told Frodo about his promise to the Elves not to leave him. I started thinking about this thread when Sam brushed off Frodo telling him that if Sam goes with him he will most likely never return. It just seems to me that Sam was just as concerned about letting the Gaffer down as being loyal to Frodo. There are so many subtle undercurrents of character development in these books.

When I read this part I always think of the changes that all four of them went through. Here they are, four simple Hobbits that have no idea of the fame, glory, hardships, and toil that awaits them. And through it all, they keep their Hobbit humor and sensibility.

No wonder I read these books once a year and never get bored.

In all the discussion of modern authors who may or may not have created morally complex characters, I'm surprised to have not seen David Gemmell mentioned yet. I thought that he generally did a good job creating characters that were neither wholly good nor wholly evil, and rarely (at least in the case of his protagonists) motivated solely by self-interest, which seems to be the criticism I'm seeing in this thread of other allegedly morally complex characters by other authors.

(I'd also nominate Joe Abercrombie as another writer capable of creating interesting, flawed protagonists, but his career is just starting out so I'd hate to pigeon-hole him in any way.)

And speaking of Abercrombie, he actually kind of addressed the very topic we're discussing in an interview last year, found here: http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2...interview.html

I'll quote the part I found to be relevant:

The argument that western society is being dragged into the toilet through insidious attacks on the legacy of Tolkien by college-educated liberals with cynical fantasy as the weapon of choice? Honestly, that doesn’t seem to correspond to any of the observable facts of reality as I see them.

The less hyperbolic and politically charged argument that there’s too much cynicism in fantasy and where’s the heroism and the wonder gone? That’s totally valid, obviously, and equally obviously a matter of opinion. For me, there are still a lot of long-established writers, and honestly a fair few newer writers, still shifting an awful lot of units of relatively traditional fantasy. I don’t mean that as any kind of criticism, incidentally. People should read (and write) what they enjoy. But for a long time optimistic, heroic, relatively predictable visions were in the great commercial ascendant in epic fantasy. I see what’s happening now as being a healthy correction, drawing in new readers to a genre that was perhaps a little stale. If nothing else, it encourages those who’d rather see more optimistic, heroic visions to up their game and find new and more exciting ways of expressing those ideas. I look forward to seeing that happen. Maybe I’ll even take part. I wouldn’t want to become predictable for withering cynicism any more than for cloying optimism. I think what’s important is to have strong, fresh, exciting voices in the genre, not that they be voices of one particular kind or another.

I think that knowing what is morally right or wrong is pretty simply, in most cases. The real struggle that we have is actually having the will and strength to do what we know is right in difficult circumstances. That's what LOTR really focuses on...as summed up by Gandalf's quote about not choosing the time we live in, but choosing how best to use the time that is given to us.

There can be good stories about characters that are facing tough moral decisions, but to equate those stories as better is really comparing apples to oranges. One could argue that these stories are too simple, because once the character gets past the doubts and makes a decision, it's executed with ease. Whereas in reality, the execution of the decision can be just as difficult as reaching that decision in the first place.

Looking back at LOTR now, the books can be viewed as pretty bland, simple, and overall terrible. But I think that has more to do with the fact that we have been served LOTR in nearly every fantasy novel ever since. We easily dismiss elves and dwarves as pretty standard races in fantasy, but we latch on to new races as something exotic. The unique spices that other fantasy books offer stand out more. But you would be a fool to say that salt is the most boring spice in the world. Tolkien is the salt of the fantasy world...we may take him for granted, but without him, fantasy literature would much harder to swallow.

If you like the movie version of Aragorn vs the book version of Aragorn, then you are probably one of those folks who thinks the books are too simplistic.

Personally, I thought it was a shame that they turned Aragorn into a reluctant, emo little dweeb who was only willing to go save the world so he could marry Arwen.

Sure, Aragorn in the books had the added motivation of uniting Arnor and Gondor in order to satisfy Elrond. But he certainly didn't require that motivation to answer his calling.

--H

Envoyé par Nobbins

Looking back at LOTR now, the books can be viewed as pretty bland, simple, and overall terrible. But I think that has more to do with the fact that we have been served LOTR in nearly every fantasy novel ever since. We easily dismiss elves and dwarves as pretty standard races in fantasy, but we latch on to new races as something exotic. The unique spices that other fantasy books offer stand out more. But you would be a fool to say that salt is the most boring spice in the world. Tolkien is the salt of the fantasy world...we may take him for granted, but without him, fantasy literature would much harder to swallow.

I consider myself a pretty well read person, from Robert E. Howard to E.E. Doc Smith to Arthur C. Clark to David Eddings. Maybe I can go along with the books being simple, and that's debatable, but bland and terrible? No. I mean, his books have been popular for almost 60 years. You cannot read and understand these books without being intelligent or without a sense of imagination. I just cannot picture a bland and terrible book captivating that kind of audience for what is now generations. And it's not just a niche audience. It's millions of Tolkien fans worldwide. A bland and terrible book cannot do that.

They are simplistic but it was by design.

Tolkein wanted to create something akin to his beloved "Beowulf". LOTR takes Beowulf's general story and mixes it with various Celtic and Norse myths, not to mention the alchemy allegories he used as well.

I think all Tolkein fans should read Beowulf, it sheds a lot of light on Tolkein's books.

People apprehend that LotR is morally simplistic because it deals primarily with larger issues--unlike Fire and Ice or many other fantasy works, it isn't about politics, revenge or warfare (although warfare plays in the backdrop). Day to day morality is often more seemingly complex than large-scale morality. Tolkien is not so much concerned with the individual's moral navigation through day-to-day life as he is concerned with a moral life, in toto--and what living a moral life means on a larger, mythological scale.

As mentioned above, the story is primarily about: 1) failure and redemption; and 2) pursuing the proper course, regardless of personal outcome.

The Free Peoples of Middle-Earth are on the losing side of a war. It is abundantly clear that, barring a miracle or series of miracles, that Sauron will, indeed, win. Their only chance is to destroy the Ring--a task so manifestly difficult and foolhardy that it is essentially a joke to think that it could happen. How does a character respond to this? We see a variety of responses in the work--sort of case studies of how people might respond to this situation (not really going to illuminate them here).

One of the problems is that people misunderstand Tolkien's use of the word Hope, which he uses in a sense other than the current sense, one based more upon Anglo-Saxon usage, where hope essentially equals folly. The military term Forlorn Hope has ties to this sense. When Tolkien's characters speak of hope, they are speaking about something that is foolish or extremely unlikely or that would be essentially miraculous in happening--in a sense, outside of human agency.

What is amazing is that so many people do not give in to despair in the books, but rather fight on... and teh failures are often those with the most knowledge and understanding of the situation (although poisoned by the misrepresentations of Sauron via the palantiri)--Saruman and Denethor. I cannot think that this is accidental.

The tale appears morally simple simply because we are not really given labored or detailed accounts of the inner workings of the minds of those involved--there is little to no internal dialog. That isn't the focus. It is a tale upon example rather than a tale that revolves around the inner details.

I enjoy Tolkien's writing. Probably my second favorite author, behind Robert E. Howard and slightly ahead of H.P. Lovecraft. Howard has an edge over Tolkien (for me) in part to having at least a story in pretty much any setting you can think of.

This is an interesting thread, I personally have always enjoyed the quirks and layers of Tolkein's heroes. I wonder, how many of these grey morality authors have truly seen the horrors of war? Tolkein served in active duty at the Somme. This, by many accounts, was one of the most brutal and bloody waste of human lives. That experience has, in my opinion, coloured and deepened his experiences.

As a parallel example, my grandfather served as a Sergeant of the British Infantry in WWII, and apart from his Elendil-like stature and demeanor (6'4" with a back like rod of iron in his late 70s) he could be Samwise. He was a working-class man drawn into a war he'd rather have avoided, fighting because he knew what was right and because he had a home to defend.

When I was old enough he finally told me about the war... Liberating the concentration camps he said he saw scenes of true evil, so unpleasant he could only recall them clearly in his nightmares. Remember soldiers of WWI or WWII didn't have such a thing as post traumatic stress, once civilians they simply had to cope. He described to me heartbreaking memories, particularly when they liberated the, until then, secret Jewish camps... Battle-toughened men, soldiers who had held in the guts of their best friend as they watched them die without flinching, then vomiting and crying curled in a ball like a child at the sight of the depravity of what the Nazis had done to the Jews. These skeletal wretched, tortured people, that were to any reasonable person's eyes - a fellow human being.

Even then he couldn't carry 'such reckless hate'. In my late teens I asked him why he didn't display his medal... "There is nothing worth remembering about killing young men doing their duty, just coming home alive when they don't. All I am proud of is that you'll never experience that."

I only read LoTR after he died and I heard the echo in Tolkein's Samwise: "He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was truly evil at heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would not really rather have stayed there in peace."

To my mind Tolkein can truly express the grey morality of war, along with the overarching nature of good seeking peace, because he actually experienced it. And it's thanks to men like him and all of our grandfathers that we get to discuss this, rather than experience it first-hand.

I think the characters in lord of the rings are great. There are lots of moral tones maybe not as rich as today but thats not what tolkein was aiming for. Still boromir, gollum, saruman etc. are all great examples as mentioned but I always felt as if tolkein was reciting an epic history to us rather than some dramatised tale. In the end if you where to tale the story of the battle of hastings would you detail each characters personality to as high extent as modern fiction? Would you show the kings emotions in such details that its deppresing? Probably not. But thats ok as Tolkein made a master piece just not in the form of a story book.

P.S intrestingly the one person I prefered in the films to the book version was Aragorn. I know someone up the line mentioned he was a whiner or whatever but I just prefered his character. He just seemed like a nicer guy whereas in the book he is a bit of an uptight jerk at times but I guess being a king he has to be. Maybe book I just found him cocky/ overally confident, I dunno.

Envoyé par Gandalfapprentice

P.S intrestingly the one person I prefered in the films to the book version was Aragorn. I know someone up the line mentioned he was a whiner or whatever but I just prefered his character. He just seemed like a nicer guy whereas in the book he is a bit of an uptight jerk at times but I guess being a king he has to be. Maybe book I just found him cocky/ overally confident, I dunno.

I like Viggo Mortensson's portrayal of Aragorn because he adds humility, meekness, and compassion to the character. I don't necessarily approve of the "exile" and "not wanting to be king" parts that Jackson added, but I do think Viggo expressed Aragorn in a manner that made him very much noble and heroic and in keeping with his great lineage. There are some times that Aragorn in the books does come across as a bit haughty or condescending, which bothers me at times (If I were a Sim and met that Aragorn, there'd be minus signs above my head ) I like the humble man that Viggo portrayed him as--a man of character, lineage, strength, determination, and character but able to care for those around him and have compassion on their needs. Viggo's portrayal is what made me fall in love with Aragorn!

Now if only the movie hadn't destroyed Faramir....though I do think David Wynham did a good job with him.

But if you want to see--or rather hear--a really horrible, arrogant and downright rude portrayal of Aragorn, just listen to the BBC's audio production of the book series. I wanted to drown Aragorn in the Anduin by the end!

Envoyé par AllySanders

I like Viggo Mortensson's portrayal of Aragorn because he adds humility, meekness, and compassion to the character. I don't necessarily approve of the "exile" and "not wanting to be king" parts that Jackson added, but I do think Viggo expressed Aragorn in a manner that made him very much noble and heroic and in keeping with his great lineage. There are some times that Aragorn in the books does come across as a bit haughty or condescending, which bothers me at times (If I were a Sim and met that Aragorn, there'd be minus signs above my head ) I like the humble man that Viggo portrayed him as--a man of character, lineage, strength, determination, and character but able to care for those around him and have compassion on their needs. Viggo's portrayal is what made me fall in love with Aragorn!

Now if only the movie hadn't destroyed Faramir....though I do think David Wynham did a good job with him.

But if you want to see--or rather hear--a really horrible, arrogant and downright rude portrayal of Aragorn, just listen to the BBC's audio production of the book series. I wanted to drown Aragorn in the Anduin by the end!

i think one things changes film and book aragron- wanting to be king
as youve said in the film viggo takes us to the humble side, however, in the books he is specifically intending to go to minas tirith and claim his throne- now you cant really have the guts to walk up to a city, waving anduril, and say 'here i am guys' without some sort of noble 'aloofness' that i guess elrond as his upbringer must have taught him, so wheras his fathers' and fathers' before him roles were to keep the line going, aragorn has a hugely bigger task of reclaiming that lineage- one i do not think the character viggo portrayed would have fittingly done
ps- i actually have never noticed this 'book' side people are discussing
oh and to answer the op- tolkiens mastery was in his subtlety.....that all im saying

A better question: are today's readers more morally ambiguous than they were when the Lord of the Rings was first published?

One of the main underlying themes of Tolkien's body of work is that the ends do not justify the means. Characters who take the morally ambiguous route in order to achieve a moral outcome always fail. Those who take the higher road, even if they do not succeed in their task, are honored for their actions.

I feel bad for the society that believes this view is quaint or outdated.

Are Tolkien's stories morally simplistic? Maybe. Does that render them inapplicable? Not by a long shot.

Envoyé par Kosomok

One of the problems is that people misunderstand Tolkien's use of the word Hope, which he uses in a sense other than the current sense, one based more upon Anglo-Saxon usage, where hope essentially equals folly. The military term Forlorn Hope has ties to this sense. When Tolkien's characters speak of hope, they are speaking about something that is foolish or extremely unlikely or that would be essentially miraculous in happening--in a sense, outside of human agency.

What is amazing is that so many people do not give in to despair in the books, but rather fight on.

THIS. So much this. I deal enough with moral grayness in day to day life without seeking it in another source. To read something which says 'YES, there is still room for miracles, YES there is something (or in Tolkien, and mine, is must be admitted, case some ONE) greater than ourselves, YES there are things worth fighting for' - it gives me hope of my own. To quote the Professor himself:

"That is one thing that Men call "hope",' said Finrod. 'Amdir we call it, "looking up". But there is another which is founded deeper. Estel we call it, that is "trust". It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from our nature and first being. If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy.' — J.R.R. Tolkien (Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth, Morgoth's Ring, HoME X)

As for the actual topic (lol sorry, diversion) - I suppose you could say that Tolkien's books are morally simplistic, to believe in the clear delineation between Good and Evil, but frankly, I prefer this sort of 'simplicity", if it can be called that, to a view of life which denies that Good and Evil exist entirely and that life is ONLY shades of gray. It isn't as if Tolkien did not acknowledge that grayness, after all - but he did clearly distinguish - these choices are Right, and these are Wrong, (even if the intent was correct) and there are consequences for those choices. I will point out also, that this is a clear reflection of Tolkien's faith, which no author can entirely prevent from entering their works.

Envoyé par Melde

THIS. So much this. I deal enough with moral grayness in day to day life without seeking it in another source. To read something which says 'YES, there is still room for miracles, YES there is something (or in Tolkien, and mine, is must be admitted, case some ONE) greater than ourselves, YES there are things worth fighting for' - it gives me hope of my own. To quote the Professor himself:

"That is one thing that Men call "hope",' said Finrod. 'Amdir we call it, "looking up". But there is another which is founded deeper. Estel we call it, that is "trust". It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from our nature and first being. If we are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the last foundation of Estel, which we keep even when we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy.' — J.R.R. Tolkien (Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth, Morgoth's Ring, HoME X)

As for the actual topic (lol sorry, diversion) - I suppose you could say that Tolkien's books are morally simplistic, to believe in the clear delineation between Good and Evil, but frankly, I prefer this sort of 'simplicity", if it can be called that, to a view of life which denies that Good and Evil exist entirely and that life is ONLY shades of gray. It isn't as if Tolkien did not acknowledge that grayness, after all - but he did clearly distinguish - these choices are Right, and these are Wrong, (even if the intent was correct) and there are consequences for those choices. I will point out also, that this is a clear reflection of Tolkien's faith, which no author can entirely prevent from entering their works.

I do agree with you very much! I admit I read to escape this world, and I want my heroes to be above me. Its not that I want them perfect in every way, but I want them to be 'heroic', to be better than I am , to achieve what I haven't been able to, and to give me inspiration to reach for that. It's not that I don't want them to have faults; in fact, giving them faults makes them more relatable and human, but I want to see them rise above those faults and grow into being a better person, because I want to grow to be a better person. I like stories where the good guys wins, even against incredible odds, where good triumphs over evil, and where the right path can be found because reality can be so cold, dark, and sterile. I want something to help me stop focusing on the darkness around me and keep my eyes on the light. If that is morally simplistic, then call me simplistic. But I think we all need simplistic sometimes. If we could just stop once in a while to remember what it was like to be innocent, to view the world with all its wonder through the eyes of a child, and to learn to find the silver lining, this world would truly be a better place.

I think LOTR does that--calls us to step back from the grind and sorrow and find our footing again. And that's why I love LOTR and can fully imerse myself in that world, but cannot read Game of Thrones, for instance. I'm not saying that Game of Thrones is not in depth, multi-faceted, and a brilliant work in it's own way, but the darkness and confusion and baseness of its characters doesn't lift me up but instead leaves me uneasy and depressed. I don't want to read stories that leave me feeling down.

And like you, Melde, I too see Tolkien's faith in all parts of work. No, it certainly is not an allegory, but his worldview stands clear in his work. As you said, a writer's beliefs and worldview and yes faith will always shine through in subtle ways in their work because such things are a huge part of who they are. My world view also dictates how I perceive the story.

Envoyé par richsabre

i think one things changes film and book aragron- wanting to be king
as youve said in the film viggo takes us to the humble side, however, in the books he is specifically intending to go to minas tirith and claim his throne- now you cant really have the guts to walk up to a city, waving anduril, and say 'here i am guys' without some sort of noble 'aloofness' that i guess elrond as his upbringer must have taught him, so wheras his fathers' and fathers' before him roles were to keep the line going, aragorn has a hugely bigger task of reclaiming that lineage- one i do not think the character viggo portrayed would have fittingly done
ps- i actually have never noticed this 'book' side people are discussing
oh and to answer the op- tolkiens mastery was in his subtlety.....that all im saying

I can picture that. "Here I am guys!", and the guards looking at him and saying "good for you!"

Envoyé par AllySanders

I do agree with you very much! I admit I read to escape this world, and I want my heroes to be above me. Its not that I want them perfect in every way, but I want them to be 'heroic', to be better than I am , to achieve what I haven't been able to, and to give me inspiration to reach for that. It's not that I don't want them to have faults; in fact, giving them faults makes them more relatable and human, but I want to see them rise above those faults and grow into being a better person, because I want to grow to be a better person. I like stories where the good guys wins, even against incredible odds, where good triumphs over evil, and where the right path can be found because reality can be so cold, dark, and sterile. I want something to help me stop focusing on the darkness around me and keep my eyes on the light. If that is morally simplistic, then call me simplistic. But I think we all need simplistic sometimes. If we could just stop once in a while to remember what it was like to be innocent, to view the world with all its wonder through the eyes of a child, and to learn to find the silver lining, this world would truly be a better place.

I think LOTR does that--calls us to step back from the grind and sorrow and find our footing again. And that's why I love LOTR and can fully imerse myself in that world, but cannot read Game of Thrones, for instance. I'm not saying that Game of Thrones is not in depth, multi-faceted, and a brilliant work in it's own way, but the darkness and confusion and baseness of its characters doesn't lift me up but instead leaves me uneasy and depressed. I don't want to read stories that leave me feeling down.

And like you, Melde, I too see Tolkien's faith in all parts of work. No, it certainly is not an allegory, but his worldview stands clear in his work. As you said, a writer's beliefs and worldview and yes faith will always shine through in subtle ways in their work because such things are a huge part of who they are. My world view also dictates how I perceive the story.

Yes! You say it so well! One of my friends lent me Game of Thrones to read, and I just couldn't get through it, although it is the sort of novel-setting I'd normally enjoy - I don't read to get MORE depressed, but to seek inspiration. I can accept heroes with weaknessess, but I want to see them overcome those and grow from it. I can accept catastrophe and disaster, but I want to see the "eucastastrophe" occur, the abrupt reversal of fortune beyond all hope. I want my Happy Ending, never mind if its simplistic!

One part that always stuck with me was when Sam came home after Frodo left across the sea. I could actually feel his sadness.

I came across this in the Letter of Tolkien that fits this topic quite handedly! Seems people were calling his stories simplistic long before this:

"Some reviewers have called the whole ting simple-minded, just a plain fight between Good and Evil, with all the good just good, and the bad just bad. Pardonable, perhaps (though at least Boromir has been overlooked) in people in a hurry, and with only a fragment to read, and of course, without the earlier written but unpublished Elvish histories. But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron; as because with or without his assistance the were 'embalmers'. They wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal historical Middle-earth because they had become fond if it (and perhaps because they there had the advantages of a superior caste), and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it as a pleasaunce, even largely a desert, where they could be 'artists' - and they were overburdened with sadness and nostalgic regret. In their way, the Men of Gondor were similar: a withering people whose only 'hallows' were their tombs. But in any case this is a tale about a war, and if war is allowed (at least as a topic and a setting) it is not much good complaining that all the people on one side are against those on the other. Not that i have made even this issue quite so simple: there are Saruman, and Denethor, and Boromir; and there are treacheries and strife even among the Orcs."

Letters of Tolkien, letter 154, written in Sept. 1954

Ally, that was a good find!