On evil

(As I announced elsewhere, after this week I'll go back to my previous format.  Writing in this style is stressful.  But then, sue to an issue with my schedule, I didn't even begin this final dialogue post until 9:23 PM on Sunday.  To be honest, I just wanna get it over with.  My bedtime is 10:30.  I hope to be done at 10.  And 3...2...1...)

This week we read "Palantír," the final chapter in our third book. In it, Pippin looks into the Palantír that was recovered from Orthanc, with terrible consequences. Well, maybe not so terrible. The Palantír, a seeing stone, connects with another one in Mordor. It's how Saruman and Sauron communicated - and how Saruman fell to temptation. So Pippin gets connected to Sauron, who immediately thinks this is the hobbit bearing the Ring. Gandalf points out this is very good for Frodo - not only does Sauron not think Frodo is trying to destroy it, he now thinks the Ring is in Orthanc, and must be retrieved from there.

The group is later talking about this turn of fortune.

‘At last we know the link between Isengard
and Mordor, and how it worked. Much is explained.’  [said Aragorn]

Strange powers have our enemies, and strange weaknesses!’ said Theoden. ‘But
it has long been said: oft evil will shall evil mar.’

‘That many times is seen,’ said Gandalf

"Why is it so that evil will shall evil mar?"
"Evil is inherently selfish.  It seeks to hoard the profit.  The Free Peoples cooperate.  The destruction of the Ring will benefit them all.  Well, perhaps not the Elves."
"So though Isengard and Mordor were linked, only one could ever have the Ring."
"It is, of course, the One Ring."
"Is that what makes it evil, perhaps?  That it, by its nature, cannot be shared?  Cooperation with the Ring is not possible.  Only patronage, or dependency."
"If evil is inherently selfish, is being selfish inherently evil?"
"Evil may be a strong word for all situations.  But we should promote selflessness or selfishness whenever we can."
"Can being selfless ever be evil?"
"That seems unlikely, unless one is only feigning selflessness - but then one is not being selfless."
"The Elves, then, are the most selfless of the races, then.  The destruction of the Ring will further their downfall - but they know this is better than the alternative."
"It is wisdom to see two bad alternatives and, rather than despair at the situation, to embrace the better one."
"Except that the eucatastrophe suggests always delaying.  Good could just be around the corner."
"Or more evil."
"The evil Theoden speaks of is not the same.  Saruman's evil, wanting the Ring for himself, and Sauron's evil, also wanting the Ring for himself."
"Sure sounds the same."
"Well, right, but we said preciously it's not possible for both of them to get it.  One evil will shall mar another evil.  They cannot both win."
"How can we use this?  To ensure multiple evils, so we need not fight them alone?"
"One schoolyard bully surely has more power than two put together.  Their struggle for domination would distract them from the actual domination."
"But we cannot empower evil - even to fight it!  One bully must fall, and then the other has dominion."
"We could empower dozen, to ensure each is far from total dominion."
"To disempower evil we multiply it??"
"Destroying evil is the ideal, of course.  If we cannot, then we should seek to manage it.  Evil marring evil is better than evil marring innocent."
"It is as Theoden says - strange!"
"There is another use for this teaching.  When deciding if you are good or if you are evil, determine what happens if you win.  Will the many benefit, or will you?  Will your partners grow equally, or will their dependence on you deepen?  If you are serving another, is this because they will empower the many, or are you hoping to get a favorable payoff from them?  It may not be evil, exactly, but if all you're doing is rearranging the distribution of power, rather than undermining the power itself, you may not be doing good."
"There is yet another teaching from here.  Those who selflessly embrace their own demise, as the Elves do.  Do they do so gracefully, or do they do so hoping to reap a reward for their selflessness?"
"Then it is not selfless."
"Exactly.  If one wishes to be a martyr, we cannot always stop them.  But if one wishes to be a martyr and profit off of it - this is not a trait of the Free Peoples.  The Elves embrace their end, though perhaps with reluctance.  Theoden learns to embrace the evil days he has inherited.  Sam, and especially Frodo, will embrace the hopelessness and the costs of the Task.  It is Saruman, and Gollum, and Denethor who will rage madly against it - who will claim their sacrifices have not been compensated, their genius not recognized.  Watch out for those people, who claim payment nobody feels is owed.  It is the responsibility of each to give what they can, and to request what they believe is fairness in return.  If the agreement is not acknowledged, that is injustice.  But to freely give, and then demand a price later - that is a greater injustice."
*Ding!  10:02*
"Aah, we come to the end."
"It has been good talking to you, my friend."
"And you as well.  Join me by the river?"
"Where we can discuss ethics?"
"That, and so much more."

The two interlocutors leave their house of study, take off their shoes, and sit with their feet in the cool river.  Reaching into their pockets, they take out a cake of lembas bread, unwrap the leaves around it, and make a toast.

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 0% to this post's final version.  But returning to my old format, I hope to use it much more.  It's not very good for this kind of writing at all.

This note is a reminder to myself to add some links.  Given the time crunch I'd given myself for the day of, I didn't bother.  But there are a few references worth making.

On laughter

This week we read "The Voice of Saruman."  Gandalf and company confront Saruman at Orthanc, and we get to see Saruman's much hinted at magic - specifically the charming magic of his voice.  He speaks to Theoden and then to Gandalf, trying to persuade not only them (to agree with him) but also to those around them (so that if they disagree, they'll be alienated by the others).  Saruman gives a long speech to Gandalf, inviting him up so they can plan "to heal the disorders of the world."

So great was the power that Saruman exerted in this last effort that none that stood
within hearing were unmoved. But now the spell was wholly different.

They heard the gentle remonstrance of a kindly king with an erring

but much-loved minister. But they were shut out, listening at a door to words
not meant for them: ill-mannered children or stupid servants overhearing the elusive

discourse of their elders, and wondering how it would affect their lot.
Of loftier mould these two were made: reverend and wise.

It was inevitable that they should make alliance. Gandalf would ascend into the tower,
to discuss deep things beyond their comprehension in the high chambers of Orthanc.

The door would be closed, and they would be left outside, dismissed to await 

allotted work or punishment. Even in the mind of Theoden the thought took shape, 

like a shadow of doubt: ‘He will betray us; he will go – we shall be lost.’

Then Gandalf laughed. The fantasy vanished like a puff of smoke.

"Why is this laughter so powerful?"
"All laughter is powerful, because it breaks control.  Control requires seriousness.  Laughter is associated with freedom - freedom to have fun and to play to take chances, to make mistakes, to get messy."
"Can you control with laughter?"
"I don't think that's possible.  If the person in control laughs, that would signal you have a lot of freedom - even if you have a serious goal.  And if the person in control who laughs sees what you did and stops laughing - you've either achieved something great or made a grave mistake."
"So great leaders do not laugh?"
"No!  Great leaders, we would hope, laugh regularly.  But great leaders inspire - they do not control."
"How can we know the difference?"
"Great leaders will point to a destination and say "Let us get there."  They may consider certain methods off-limits but generally will be open to suggestion.  Controllers already have a plan.  More than that, they are committed to it, and want people only as tools - not as people."
"How can we counter those who seek control?"
"Resistance can come in many forms.  But laughter is the best."
"Why do you say so?"
"If you fight back through more deliberate means people may wonder if it is because you seek to be the one in control.  They'll do a whole cost-benefit analysis of the current situation, and decide what is best for them on that basis.  And as people want different things, a movement may scatter before it properly begins.  But people naturally wish to laugh.  Laughter is contagious.  Laughter is disruptive.  Laughter can be faked, but less successfully than faked good-will. It is even more difficult to control it."
"So laughter is best because it's only use is freedom."
"Correct.  The means and the ends must both be justified - and freedom is the most just cause of all."
"Not justice?"
"With freedom, you are able to pursue it.  And if others will not, you are free to attempt to persuade them."
"What if they won't listen?"
"Sounds like you want control, and if that's the route you take it will be perilous.  You will have to rule by fear, and quash all hints of laughter.  Your tyranny will rule over you, as well, as your subjects will always be looking for weakness."
"Laughter will break all chains."
"The freedom to laugh is a precious one.  Beware of those who try attempt to proscribe it.  Be as Gandalf, and laugh whenever the emperor has no clothes, not only for your own good, but for the benefit of others, as well.
"What about cruel laughter?"
"Our text regularly tells of different kind of laughter:  'Merry' and 'soft,' but also 'grim,' 'harsh,' 'chilling,' 'deadly,' and 'wild howls of laughter.'  Laughter which is not described, we should assume, is genuine and good.  As readers, it is hard not to smile along in those latter instances.  So if one sees cruel laughter, it is the cruelty which must be dealt with - not the laughter."
"All tools can be turned to evil."
"The right response, then, is to wrest the tools from evildoers.  We do not have to destroy them."
"The tools or the evildoers?"
"The tools is what I meant.  They can be turned to good.  As for the evildoers....  I hope the same can be said for them, too.

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed 0% to this post's final version.

On integrity

This week is another double portion, where we read "The Road to Isengard" & "Flotsam and Jetsam."  In these chapters, Gandalf and Theoden and everyone else goes to Isengard to confront Saruman, now that his whole army is defeated.  As they enter Isengard, they reunite with Merry and Pippin, and the party splits up - Theoden and Gandalf go on while the Hunters and the Hobbits sat and chat.

In the first chapter, Gandalf announces he is going to Isengard.  Theoden worries they don't have the strength to take it, but Gandalf assures him he has already been defeated and that they "go to a parley, not to a fight."

‘I wish to speak with Saruman, as soon as may be now,’ said Gandalf,
‘and since he has done you great injury, it would be fitting
if you were there. But how soon and how swiftly will you ride?’

"Why does Gandalf say it is fitting?"
"Because Saruman should face the one he has hurt.  Partly to see the results of his actions, and partly so that, if there is an apology, it can go to the aggrieved, and not simply into the ether."
"I find another reason.  So if he does not apologize, Theoden can see it."
"Theoden gets closure either way."
"And nuance.  Does Saruman seem ashamed, but unable to yet apologize?  Is he still proud, and has not yet processed his defeat?  Is he defiant, aware of his loss and yet still spiteful.  Theoden going allows him to witness first hand."
"But why does Gandalf say fitting, and not something more positive, such as just or right?"
"Because the confrontation of the perpetrator by the aggrieved does not necessarily lead to justice."
"But the confrontation of the perpetrator by the aggrieved IS justice, no matter what happens next.  The aggrieved has the initiative, to say what they wish."
"Whatever they wish?"
"The means and the ends must both be justified*, so yes one could say something that makes them the perpetrator of a new grievance.  But that is an error they must be free to make.  One that we know Theoden will not make."
"Wait, so if the confrontation is justice, why does Gandalf merely say fitting?"
"Oh, I guess we completely flubbed the question.  Gandalf is, I think, concerned with the destruction of Sauron.  Saruman is a distraction.  Whether the interaction is just or not, Sauron remains.  It's not really his priority."
"So Gandalf doesn't care about getting justice on the way?"
"Our tradition teaches Gandalf is not a model leader.  Gandalf's motivation here, then, may be to shame Saruman, or to see how he reacts when Theoden, of all people, witness his defeat.  Maybe he hopes, in his rage, he will do something he can use.  But whether out of spite or for real gain, we cannot say."
"And Gandalf is right, though it is Wormtongue who acts in rage - and likely not as a result of Theoden's presence."
"So Gandalf is not right."
"Aah, right.  Well, what can we learn despite this?"

"When harm is done, while we may confront the perpetrator, we should bring the aggrieved along, if they wish it."
"However, as Gandalf correctly states, we should not let them delay us long.  An apology to the ether is better than none at all.  An apology to the aggrieved is good, but an apology soon after the event is better."
"Why is that?"
"Time is unstoppable and will drown everything.  As time chugs along a distance grows, lessening the hurt, the memory of it, and the urgency of repair (because the repair, if delayed, may come from other sources).  However, within the aggrieved, that distance can be prevented, or perhaps returned to.  One can move on from a past wrong, but then when confronted with the perpetrator, recall those bad feelings."
"A quick apology also allows for less strategy.  An apology after a weekend of thought may have more meaning, but it may also have a strategic element.  If I apologize, then X.  But an apology of the moment has less of that.  True, it may have less sincerity behind it, but if someone apologizes for a wrong and is lying, well now they have two wrongs to atone for.  As we said before, it is an error they are free to make."
"An immediate apology, not meant, is obviously better than a later apology which is meant.  What about a later apology or no apology."
"Later."
"But if the confrontation happens and there is no apology, then-"
"Great!  How wonderful a way to keep one's integrity.  I was not sorry when I did not apologize.  With time, I became sorry and apologized.  You can trust me to be honest, even if we disagree on what I ought to do."
"Saurman does not apologize."
"Saruman never apologizes, nor does Wormtongue.  They do keep their integrity, but without goodness integrity isn't worth much.  Honesty is the best policy, but does not necessarily make good policy.  It's good to know who is against you, but that doesn't mean it is good to have opponents.  If we allow others the grace to stand firm, even by letting them say what we disagree with, we can take their agreements, if they ever come, with more authority.  They have not been cowed.  And if we suspect it is a strategically minded agreement or apology, how wonderful their strategy requires our goodwill.  They may seek to trick us, but we can show them our goodwill is worth more in the long run rather than as a quick oil for the wheels of evil."



This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 10% to this post's final version.

*I have repeated this a lot, but surprisingly cannot find the first post in which I argued it.  I'll keep looking, but it's an interesting issue to have run into...

On just desserts

This week we read Helm's Deep, a chapter which always confounds me a little, as I was introduced to Lord of the Rings through the movies.  And as wonderful as they are, I think the biggest change is in their handling of this battle.  The Battle of Helm's Deep takes up somewhere between a third and a whole half of the second movie.  In our text it only takes up one chapter.

It's also different because, in the books, it's mostly a running battle.  The Rohirrim and the Orcs arrive nearly at the same time.  The men secure a gate or a wall and the Orcs again and again overrun them, causing a retreat.

When there is nowhere else to retreat, Theoden decides he'd rather die fighting than hiding.  As his men ride into battle, accompanied by the great horn of the Helm's Deep, Gandalf also arrives with Erkenbrand, a Rohirrim warrior who'd been cut off from everyone else (along with his forces).  In addition to this, we are told, "The land had changed.  Where before the green dale had lain, its grassy slopes lapping the ever-mounting hills, there now a forest loomed."  The text describes the Orcs' response to this turn of events:

The hosts of Isengard roared, swaying this way and that, turning from fear to fear.
Again the horn sounded from the tower.
Down through the breach of the Dike charged the king’s company.
Down from the hills leaped Erkenbrand, lord of Westfold.
Down leaped Shadowfax, like a deer that runs surefooted in the mountains.
The White Rider was upon them, and the terror of his coming
filled the enemy with madness. The wild men fell on their faces before him.
The Orcs reeled and screamed and cast aside both sword and spear. Like a black smoke
driven by a mounting wind they fled. Wailing they passed under the
waiting shadow of the trees; and from that shadow none ever came again.

"The Orcs were destroyed - we should celebrate!  Who should deserve the honors."
"The King's company, because they did not give up."
"Yes! Though they retreated time and time again, as the situation required, when they had nowhere further to go they attacked.  They did not lose heart.  They were willing to compromise when necessary, but they kept their ultimate goal in mind.  Had they stood firm at the first gate, they may have all been destroyed."
"And how many Orcs did they destroy?"
"According to the text, none."
"And they charged not from strength, but from desperation.  Such foolishness is not ethics.  It is good fortune, only, they did not ride to their death."
"So then who deserves the honors of destroying the Orcs?"
"Erkenbrand, lord of Westfold!  His troops had been skirmishing along the borderlands with the Orcs.  He and his men were able to provide a crucial rearguard action."
"And how many Orcs did they destroy?"
"According to the text, none."
"So then who deserves the honors of destroying the Orcs?"
"Shadowfax, and Gandalf, the White Rider, Mithrandir!  He had found Erkenbrand and led his men to the Deep."
"And how many Orcs did they destroy?"
"According to the next, none; though Gandalf's coming filled the enemy with terror."
"But terror does not kill."
"So then who deserves the honors of destroying the Orcs?"
"Who is left?"
"The trees."
"The trees."
"The trees sat themselves as if they were mere trees.  While Erkenbrand and Theoden and Gandalf may have known no forest usually lived there, the Orcs would not know.  Their ignorance led to their death."
"Why had the forest come?"
"As part of the Ent's attack on Isengard.  They had come to Helm's deep to intervene, if the battle was going ill."
"But it was not."
"And so the trees, unhasty, were content to watch their enemies be destroyed."
"But instead the Orcs ran towards them."
"The Orcs had only seen the trees as you and I know them.  They had never known their violence or grudgeful heart."
"And so the trees deserve the honors of destroying the Orcs."
"The trees, bent on revenge.  The trees, whom the Orcs fled to for cover.  As is a theme of our text, evil destroyed itself.*  The Orcs deserved no less." 
"So do you say the Orcs destroyed themselves?"
"Only in a pitiable way.  They surely are owed no honors for such a result.  So let's give it to the trees, who came to watch a battle but in fact, played a decisive role."
"A poetic end."
"One unworthy of the Bard."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 0% to this post's final version.

*No, it is not an error I've linked to the same post twice.

On faithfulness

This week we read "King of the Golden Hall," in which Gandalf and the Hunters go to Edoras and find Theoden... not doing well. It's a chapter rich with passages worth analyzing, so much that I've tagged a few for the future, just to make sure I get to them eventually.

The passage I want to do a dialogue on this year comes towards the end of the chapter. Theoden has been rescued from Grima's clutches and realizes Eomer, whom he had imprisoned after his return from the battle with the Orcs, has acted in the realm's interest all along, even though he did so in defiance of the king's order.

‘I owe much to Eomer,’ ´ said Theoden. ‘Faithful heart may have froward tongue.’

"What is it to be faithful?"
"To serve despite hardship - when it would be easier to turn away."
"So not a fair-weather friend."
"No. Faithfulness is reliability incarnate, a steadfast anchor in the tumultuous seas of uncertainty."
"Is faithfulness friendship?"
"Not always, it could be subservient (or patronage)."
"But it must be friendly."
"Also no.  As we see here.  Sometimes our friends can be faithful to us by joining us on our campaigns, or by cheering us on.  But sometimes we are going astray - a faithful friend will steer us back."
"Or abandon us, as Eomer did?"

"We've already discussed the problems with Eomer's decision, though that was in the context of leadership.  In friendship abandoning a friend in need is not comparable - though it is sometimes required."
"How can faithlessness be required?"
"There are many relationships in which one's faithfulness is exploited.  If one is in a toxic relationship, friendship or romantic or familial, I think it is necessary to break away from the relationship."
"Is this ethics?"
"It is unethical to be the toxic person.  It is ethical to help your friends out of those relationships.  If you are in it, I think it is right to try to get out.  I don't know if ethical is exactly the right word."
"But this is the froward tongue.  To be wilful and disobedient.  The faithful heart, one who loves a toxic person, must display the froward tongue, or else they will be swallowed by the toxicity.  It must be kept at bay - to compromise is to invite eventual dissolution."
"But now we've gotten off topic."
"Have we?  Grima was being toxic to the realm, and he certainly was having a toxic affect on Theoden.  Eomer was right, in your words, to get out."
"That's true."
"Eomer was clear-eyed.  He knew Thoden's values is committed to serve them.  Sometimes this means fighting off Orcs who were encroaching on their land.  But sometimes this means disobeying bad orders.  “It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”"
"Our friends and loved ones can be wrong.  Not in a political sense, but in the sense of their own good.  An alcoholic friend needs an intervention, not a wingman, though they will resent you for the former."
"But we must always be careful when doing things for someone else's own good."
"Indeed, we've discussed that in some cases action is ethically required however, it is as important to ensure such a decision is not wrongfully justified."
"We, too, can be wrong.  We should strive to keep our relations' best interest at heart, acting in them even at risk of our standing in their eyes.  And we should seek to surround ourselves with those willing to do the same.  Faithfulness must be to values, not to people.  People are too fickle to deserve it."
"So we should be willing to desert our relations if they lose their values?"
"No!  We should try to guide them back to those values.  But if they refuse, then yes.  If you follow a person, they may lead you astray.  If you follow a value, you may still go astray, but it is not the value's fault.  Values should be the north star of a life, and with it we can guide not just ourselves but also our relations.  If they will go with us - and of course our values will not be exactly the same as others - then they are worth having in our lives.  If they will go a worse course, at some point we must separate from them, or else we will separate from everyone else.  Do not lose the whole flock for the wandering sheep and all that."
"So we do not desert them, but they desert us?"
"That phrasing will comfort us, but ultimately we did leave them somewhere on the road.  But our ethics must be realistic, and I think it is uncommon for those we've associated with to change so suddenly and dramatically that we must do something like that.  Generally, such change is gradual.  It is also mutual.  They have found some other guide in the night sky.  We have deserted each other."
"But we still should try to keep them on the path."
"We must.  And even be open to the possibility that they are right, and we are wrong.  But even then, if we do join them, it is to follow values - not them.  And if we do, we must doo what we can to bring others with us."
"Our heart must be faithful to values, but our tongue must be froward to those who deviate."
"And throughout it all, we must allow a little doubt, and always find time for self-reflection."

"Sounds difficult!"
"As always, ethics is choosing the harder way."

This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 10% to this post's final version.