Eol

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

He had a dark heart, okay, that's a fact we know. So what exactly defines a 'dark heart?' And could we throw Turin into the discussion, too?

No...how about not. Er. Anyway, I think Melian was sensing something--if not evil, something pretty close, eh?

Oh, and isn't 'bad' pretty similiar to 'evil?'

And I agree with Khamul; I don't think he cared if he hit Aredhel or not...

[Mirahzi]

If he didn't care about Aradhel, why'd he go through so much trouble to find her?

Melian described the blade as malicious, not the smith, Eol. As is evident, the sword has a will, or some semblance of a will of its own. Although it may have been tainted by the influence of Eol's "dark heart" I don't think it entirely reflects him.

"Bad" can mean many things.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

He tracked Aredhel and Maeglin because he didn't like the idea of what, to his mind, was rightfully his, running off like that, and he was merely going to reclaim his 'possessions.' His son and his wife. I don't think, at that point, he really cared about her as a person. Same for his son; at that point it seemed he had no love for them but only wanted what was 'his.'

And the blade contained the malice of its maker, not a darkness of its own. I think the blade was what it was because of what the smith put into it.

[Mirahzi]

When Eol is captured in Gondolin, Aradhel speaks on his behalf, requesting mercy. If she were merely his 'posession,' why would she ask to spare his life, rather than be rid of him? Love and sympathy are not borne of slavery.

I also believe he loved his son, even if he didn't show it. Although his words were harsh and his actions ill-thought, he was trying to do what he though was best for his son; save him from imprisonment at the hands of his peoples' enemies.

Eol perhaps put into the sword his freedom-loving spirit. Both would not stand to be captured or contained by walls or warrior.

Malice: A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite

I don't believe this holds true for Eol, since he merely wanted to live peacefully in his woods, free to wander or do what he liked.

[Willow Oran]

I think a way of describing Eol would be as a selfish hypocrite. It's said that one of his reasons for hating the noldor was because of the kinslaying. Yet when he was faced with the prospect of losing his wife and son whom he considered his possesions he tried to slay his son which is kinslaying, the very thing he hated the noldor for doing. Personally I never really liked Eol, Maeglin or Aredhel. She was foolish for insisting on leaving gondolin and then getting herself lost and ensnared by Eol. Eol was basically a selfish anti-social hypocrite who had been alone in the dark so long that he had forgotten the basic morals and behavior that is acceptable in any society. And Maeglin inherited the bad traits of both his parents, his willful foolishness led him to wander beyond the safe areas and get captured by morgoth and his selfish desire to posess Idril led him to betray Gondolin. However, none of them were actually evil. They were all just selfish and stupid.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I don't think Aredhel was particuarly selfish and stupid except for that one point when she insisted on leaving Gondolin. That was not the best idea, but I can understand entirely her desire to leave, being trapped there. And in the end, she gave her life to protect her son, which I think is a great sacrifice and would balance out her selfish and foolish acts from before. Maeglin and Eol did nothing that good.

And I don't think Eol ever loved his son, nor do I think he loved Aredhel all that much. Definitely not by the end of his life, though she took pity on him. Don't see why.

And I agree completely with Willow; Eol was a selfish hypocrite. Entirely.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
And I don't think Eol ever loved his son, nor do I think he loved Aredhel all that much. Definitely not by the end of his life, though she took pity on him. Don't see why.

I think he did have *some* love for them, inasmuch as you can have feelings for your possessions. I just don't think it was the kind of love that most people aspire to. Willow has a point... that being alone thing probably had a lot to do with it.

I still don't think he was evil or villainous though. Just angry, bitter and VERY selfish, and controlling.

[Ñólendil]

He was bad. Does that indicate evil? I think disturbed is a better word.

SGH, you seem to always reserve the word "evil" for some Maiar, or for Morgoth. Surely there are Children of Ilúvatar who become corrupt?

[Christiana]

Maeglin was evil.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Christiana
Maeglin was evil.

I have to read that part again, but I don't think he was evil. I think he suffered the bad influence of his father, and definitely had his (many) faults, and was affected by his 'love' (I'd say lust) of Idril...I don't think he was evil though.

And, okay, nor do I think Eol was entirely evil. Bitter, selfish, possessive, controlling, slightly villainous. Okay, why do I keep contradicting myself?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Okay, why do I keep contradicting myself?

Because Tolkien's characters are never that simple?

I'm with you on Maeglin.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Because Tolkien's characters are never that simple?

That must be it

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Ñólendil


SGH, you seem to always reserve the word "evil" for some Maiar, or for Morgoth. Surely there are Children of Ilúvatar who become corrupt?

Corrupt isn't evil, and you are right, I do reserve that word to apply to only what I think as evil. Evil in the case of Tolkien's charachters is to me, limited to beings that have absolutley no capacity for good. this would be the likes of Morgoth, Sauron, Balrogs. These are all beings that are consumed by evil. An evil being has no room in its soul for mercy, love, compassion, or goodness. This is not the case with such characters as Eol, Turin, Meaglin, or even Feanor. These people are the way they are out of some other injustice that they believe was done to them. This does not mean that they are incapable of feeling goodness, or showing kindness and love. In the case of someone like Morgoth, this would never be, because he is the very root of evil, and posseses no good whatsoever. that is why I believe the use of the word evil is not applicable to most characters in Tolkien, but a select few.

[Willow Oran]

I don't think Aredhel was particuarly selfish and stupid

Perhaps stupid was the wrong word to use. But Aredhel was foolhardy and she was selfish to think only of her own wish to travel and not of the safety of the other people living in Gondolin. I cannot comprehend wanting to go and travel knowing that there are millions of things that could go wrong and that all it would take is one of them happening to cause a chain reaction that would lead to trouble for your entire city. Doing so seems extremely foolish to me and doing so and then getting seperated from the rest of the people with me and wandering around lost in unfamilier territory is pure idiocy. Aredhel, Eol, and Maeglin may not have been evil but they still did a lot of things that were either really unpleasent or really dumb. These three characters bug me more than any of tolkien's other characters, they may not be evil but they are hateable.

[Mirahzi]

I don't think it's that hard to comprehend Aradhel's desire for adventure. That's why the Noldor left Aman for Middle Earth. Feanor and his sons wanted to retrieve the Silmarils, but the rest only went along for the promise of new lands to explore and realms to build.
Getting lost wasn't her fault. Perhaps going through Nan Elmoth wasn't the best decision, but you can't expect her to predict being ensnared by Eol. If you want to blame someone, why not blame Thingol for fencing off his realm?

Also, people accuse Eol of regarding his wife and son as his posessions. Are there any indications of him being a materialistic person? Does he show any signs of greed? He gave up one of his most prized creations (Anglachel) in exchange for his freedom.

[Ñólendil]

Corrupt isn't evil, and you are right, I do reserve that word to apply to only what I think as evil. Evil in the case of Tolkien's charachters is to me, limited to beings that have absolutley no capacity for good. this would be the likes of Morgoth, Sauron, Balrogs. These are all beings that are consumed by evil. An evil being has no room in its soul for mercy, love, compassion, or goodness. This is not the case with such characters as Eol, Turin, Meaglin, or even Feanor. These people are the way they are out of some other injustice that they believe was done to them. This does not mean that they are incapable of feeling goodness, or showing kindness and love. In the case of someone like Morgoth, this would never be, because he is the very root of evil, and posseses no good whatsoever. that is why I believe the use of the word evil is not applicable to most characters in Tolkien, but a select few.

Then all your debates with Blackheart and I about evil were rather pointless. We agree on the basics, but disagree on the specific words used. I don't believe "evil" is fictional and I suppose that influences my opinion. I don't reserve the word for Demonic characters, but also use them for human beings (rational incarnate creatures, Elves, Men, etc.,) who reached a certain level of corruption.

The corrupt are the tainted, the degraded, the rotted, the spoilt, the immoral, the debased and the ruined. The evil are the sinful and the wicked. Maybed not all of the corrupt are evil, but certainly the evil are corrupt. No one was evil in the beginning, not even Sauron (or Melkor or the Valaraucar). Hitler was evil. Napolean (in whose army one of my ancestors served, incidentally) was evil. And so, I beileve, was Curufinwë Fëanáro. He didn't start out that way and there were a lot of factors, but he became corrupt, mad and eventually evil. Not wholly evil, but I don't think anyone can be wholly evil (except perhaps Melkor).

[Sister Golden Hair]

I don't think my arguments with you and Blackheart were pointless. I think we may just disagree on what is evil. The word "evil" for me means an ultimate horrific behavior without the capacity for good, or the ability for redemption. I am not saying that this does not exist in our own world, I am just saying that evil in my own definition of the extream is not applicable to most of Tolkien's characters.

[Ñólendil]

Right. And I have a different interpretation of the word. So our arguments were, to me, pointless. Really we agree on everything except what "evil" means. We agree on what Fëanáro was, just not the name for it. It's semantics.

[Beruthiel]

Oooooooooooooooooooooo! it looks like there was quite a debate here.
Eol is one of my favorite characters. He's dark, and grim, and likes to live alone. He's created two of the best blades in Middle Earth, and he's pissed off!
Excellent motivation and plot.

Do I think he was evil? Or tainted? Well, I think he was just used to living the way he always had. After all, he paid Thingol to stay on Nan Elmoth, and was sortah just minding his p's and q's when everybody stumbled over HIM!

You gottah feel sorry for the Elf, after all, he's been through a lot. I think of him as being "scarred" by having to defend himself for so long.

Maybe that meteor material was a little radioactive, and it fried his brain a bit. Who knows? *heh*

[BeardofPants]

Ooh, good! Another one for the 'Eol was misunderstood' camp...

Welcome, Beruthiel!