| |
|
I think it is something of a false assumption to question the lack of motivation for Sauron et al. In other words, motivation is not really a part of the epic qua epic. Someone above mentioned the Fairie Queen. Other pertinent examples include Paradise Lost and The Inferno. Why is Satan bad? Well, in Paradise Lost he's bad because he was power hungry. Same with Sauron, who owes much of his power in the novels to Morgoth, the former Dark Lord who is only mentioned in passing in LOTR (the battering ram "Grond" that is used against Gondor is named after Morgoth's warhammer. /geek.), but plays a major role in The Silmirillion. Morgoth corrupted Sauron, after being corrupted himself by coveting the Silmirils. That's all it takes in epic because the point of the story is not the motivation but the conflict.
Motivation (as we understand it today) is not really an issue in Western literature until you get to Shakespeare (or maybe Marlowe or Cervantes). While we can find a motivation for Achilles in the Illiad, it is not one that makes any sense to modern readers as modern readers. Same with Sauron, who is closer to being a god (as in the capricious gods of Homer) than he is to being a human. In any case, motivation is largely a modern phenomenon that has become more important in the context of modern psychology. Of course, Tolkien wrote in the 20th century, but he was a professor of Old English and its literature including Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Motivation does not enter into the equation in these texts as their point is not to explore character but to describe, thematically, the contemporary world in terms of its politics, social mores, religion, etc. Again, to look for motivation is to miss the point. Tolkien was not trying to write a moder novel. That there are characters, in the modern sense, in LOTR at all is a testament to the fact that Tolkien was unsuccessful in creating a text from another time rather than a failure to write a modern novel.
What has always impressed me about the books (and this is what I think the movies did especially well, if in a more limited fashion) is the sense that everything that is great has already happened. The Last Alliance of Men and Elves is ancient history. That's the true epic in the epic. All we're left with in the present of LOTR is a broken world where the humans are more or less bereft of nobility and the nobility (aka the Elves) is saddened by the result. ("Saddened" is not really the right word. However, I'm not sure if there is an English word for what the Elves feel. They are sad, but it is a mortal sadness. They do not mourn, but recognize the end, especially their own. They, far more than the humans, want to go back to the good old days. They see they can't, so they leave. As I am not at total geek, I do not know what the correct word in Elvish would be.)
However, despite this fundamental sadness (best captured in the moments immediately following the Ring's destruction, when Frodo and Sam are ready to hang it up and just die), there is a remarkable forwardness to the novels. I do not dispute their conservative tendencies. However, the fight against Sauron is a fight against totality, which is a form of stasis. More precisely, Sauron's goal is to take away all choice. Without choice, there can be nothing new. Humans seem balanced between two sets of non-choice: the immortality of the Elves and the death/enslavement offered by Mordor. When absolute evil and absolute goodness are done away with, all that is left is choice and thus a potentially new future. (Some might dispute my characterization of the Elves as absolutely good. We can agree to disagree. However, I will just point out that while they are not the God of Dante or Christ, they do stand directly opposed to Sauron as did their creators against Morgoth.)
This line of argument brings me back to my original point: that motivation is not the issue for LOTR. The conflict it describes is what is at stake and what should be taken away from the texts. This conflict is tied up (despite Tolkien's claims to the contrary) with the advent of modernity in the wake of WWI and WWII. I do not believe he was a technophobe or that he wanted everyone to go camping forever. He was merely against the total technologization that world seemed to be headed for as a result of the two wars. Remember, hobbits do not inherit Middle Earth. Humans do. Hobbits are merely Dr. Watson type characters. While Tolkien clearly loves them, my opinion for their existence is that he required someone or ones to tell the story to, characters who would not be in the know completely. Imagine how dull the novel would be if it was told from Gandalf's or Aragorn's points of view. They are clearly more important than any of the hobbits whose whole importance derives from their unimportance (Frodo succeeds because Sauron knows nothing about them; even Treebeard does not know of their existence. We might say that Gandalf enlists Bilbo and Frodo for precisely these reasons). Anyway, with humans coming to power represents the end of total technologization, or at least its potential end (as the future must remain open).
I think that's enough. |
|
|
