# Tolkien - Biased towards some animals...



## ingolmo (May 13, 2005)

Do you think Tolkien was a bit too biased against some animals in his books? I think he was. 

You've probably noticed that some animals are said to be bad and are associated with evil even though they are not like that. Some of such animals are snakes, wolves, spiders, alligators, vultures, hyneas, crows, and most reptiles. And some animals are considered to be good by people, such as horses, eagles, deer, etc. 

Now look at the list of animals that Tolkien has made evil and bad:
-Spiders (The spiders in mirkwood in _The Hobbit_ and Shelob in LotR)
-Wolves (The Wargs)
-Dragons (Smaug - He was portayed like a huge snake-like lizard with wings)
-Crows (When the fellowship was in the Caradhras, they were spied on by black birds; crow-like creatures)
-Vultures (the birds that the Nazgul rode on were said to be like carrion-fowl)
And the animals Tolkien has made good:
-Eagles (Gwahir, the wind-lord and his kin of eagles)
-Horses (horses have been shown good throughout all of Tolkien's books)

Now, you would think that a wise and good writer such as Tolkien would put such beliefs and superstitions about animals being good and bad aside and write impartially, yet he has not done so. 

Share your thoughts,
-Ingolmo


----------



## e.Blackstar (May 14, 2005)

Well you've gotta have some biases...I mean, who says 'black' is bad? BUt nearly every author I've read uses black magic or black whatever as evil, and white as a source of purity and goodness. It's the same way with animals.



> Now look at the list of animals that Tolkien has made evil and bad:
> -Spiders (The spiders in mirkwood in The Hobbit and Shelob in LotR)
> -Wolves (The Wargs)
> -Dragons (Smaug - He was portayed like a huge snake-like lizard with wings)
> ...



Spiders, for one, play on people's fears, even Tolkien's own, and wolves and carrion birds are frequently seen as repulsive eaters of the dead. Dragons...well, aren't most dragons "huge snake-like lizards with wings"?
And eagles are a symbol of nobility for an awful lot of people...they are quite majestic..."the king of birds" as it were.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 14, 2005)

ingolmo said:


> ...ook at the list of animals that Tolkien has made evil and bad:
> -Spiders -Wolves -Dragons -Crows -Vultures
> 
> Good:
> ...



Well, let's take a look at the baddies first. Outside of Hagrid in Harry Potter, I don't think I know of anyone else who would actually _want_ to make a pet out of a dragon.  As for spiders, wolves, crows and vultures — in the real world, don't most people have a natural fear and/or revulsion about them? And no pecan farmer I ever heard of ever invited crows to his orchards. (As it happens, we live across the street from a condominium where crows have nested in the high trees there for years. Their loud cawing is at times maddening, but we've all gotten used to it for the most part.)

Horses have long been considered "good" because they, along with dogs, cattle, sheep, pigs, etc., have long been domesticated to one degree or another and are useful to man. So I don't believe that Tolkien went too wide of the mark about classifying his animals. 

Barley


----------



## Confusticated (May 14, 2005)

I pretty much agree with what has been said by the last two posters.

The only thing I regret is that JRRT seems to have all wolves down as evil, not just werewolves. 

I confess it probably only bothers me because I love canines and do not view wolves as evil. It's not as though all spiders are evil or even harmful to humans! I am mildly repulsed by spiders so I am fine with their evil roles in Middle-earth! 

And we learn in _The Hobbit_ that not all of Middle-earth's eagles are as noble as Gwaihir's people.

But its easier to have an evil wolf than an evil horse. What is an evil horse going to do, come over, chase you down, and then kick you? It's not as cool as fangs and claws and poisonous bites.


----------



## Inderjit S (May 14, 2005)

Tolkien disliked cats too. Dogs on the other hand are given a more positive image. I myself love cats, or rather I love big cats, who are the most beautiful and majestic creatures alive. (C.S Lewis also liked cats )

I love most animals though, wolves included. They are not evil, that is a misconception and if they do attack humans it is usually the humans fault. Spiders on the other hand are creepy.


----------



## YayGollum (May 14, 2005)

No. All dog and wolf type things are pure evil. All cats are the coolest. I am neutral to spiders. Some look pretty cool. Not so creepy. I love how this Tolkien person portrays them. Very cool. Not evil, just very neutral. Same with the dragons. Not evil. How would you act if you were that achingly cool? Anyways, *pictures fights against evil wolves and horses* an evil horse is far more terrifying than an evil wolf, even though wolves are the most evil of all evil type things of all time. You can't stave off a feral horse with a stick.


----------



## ingolmo (May 15, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> I love most animals though, wolves included. They are not evil, that is a misconception and if they do attack humans it is usually the humans fault.



That's what I'm trying to say. Most fantasy authors have a very bad habit of relating some animals, mostly the animals I listed, as evil, when of course they are not evil, and that is a misconception. I don't oppose it when authors put mythological and fictional creatures in evil roles, so I take back my comment on dragons. If only the wargs could have been made werewolves, and all other animals could have been made into some other evil creature that would not portray those animals as evil, that would have been more realistic. Imagine evil black huge bears instead of orcs.  And yeah spiders are my favorite insects and crows are my favorite non-bird-of-prey birds. (I love hawks!)
-Ingolmo


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 15, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Well, let's take a look at the baddies first. Outside of Hagrid in Harry Potter, I don't think I know of anyone else who would actually _want_ to make a pet out of a dragon.



Tomas from the _Riftwar_ novels?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (May 15, 2005)

ingolmo said:


> That's what I'm trying to say. Most fantasy authors have a very bad habit of relating some animals, mostly the animals I listed, as evil, when of course they are not evil, and that is a misconception.



The only animal that can be "evil" is man, evil being defined as a conscious act of deliberate malice: deliberate intention to do harm.

Barley


----------



## Confusticated (May 15, 2005)

ingolmo said:


> I don't oppose it when authors put mythological and fictional creatures in evil roles, so I take back my comment on dragons. If only the wargs could have been made werewolves, and all other animals could have been made into some other evil creature that would not portray those animals as evil, that would have been more realistic.



My point is, that with the exception of wolves and maybe spiders, I just don't see that JRRT did what you are saying he did.

As you said earlier:



> -Crows (When the fellowship was in the Caradhras, they were spied on by black birds; crow-like creatures)
> -Vultures (the birds that the Nazgul rode on were said to be like carrion-fowl)


The nazgul steed's were not vultures. They were some nameless race. And importantly it is suggested that whatever race these belonged to was not evil by nature. They (just like the black _horses_ that Sauron used) were a small section of the race that had been turned to evil.

As for the crows, well I don't think it is implied that all the crows of Middle-earth were evil. And they h ave to be _some_ kind of bird. What if they were like hummingbirds instead?


----------



## ingolmo (May 16, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> The only animal that can be "evil" is man, evil being defined as a conscious act of deliberate malice: deliberate intention to do harm.
> 
> Barley


Absolutely Correct. So I guess we can come to the conclusion that the only life forms in Middle-earth that can be called evil, are men, elves, dwarves, and hobbits, and not spiders and wargs because they were only acting as per their nature, and the nazgul's winged birdies and those crow-like spies cannot be called evil because they were forced commit sins and aid evil activities.
-Ingolmo


----------



## Hobbit-GalRosie (Jun 1, 2005)

ingolmo said:


> So I guess we can come to the conclusion that the only life forms in Middle-earth that can be called evil, are men, elves, dwarves, and hobbits, and not spiders and wargs because they were only acting as per their nature, and the nazgul's winged birdies and those crow-like spies cannot be called evil because they were forced commit sins and aid evil activities.
> -Ingolmo



I'm not so sure about that. Ungoliant at least was certainly intelligent, as were many other baddies of animal-like forms, so in those cases when the arguement could be made that they had souls and freel will they'd be as evil as any of the free peoples.

But anyway, I have noticed that about Tolkien, and it is one thing I rue to some degree about my favorite author. I love wolves, and back when I was still writing stories one of the things I most wanted to do was have some good-guy wolves in one of the ones that's a little closer to the Sil/LotR in style. I doubt I'll ever get around to it now, but it was one of my pet projects for a little while.

I actually think of the relationship between dogs and wolves kind of like as rather like that of Men and Elves, you know, the Elves being the Elder Chilidren of Iluvatar, and perhaps somewhat less fallen? That's how I see it with wolves and dogs. Though they'd be more closely related than even Elves and Men, since they're really the same species; y'all may have heard scientists say that dogs are descended from wolves that man had tamed? Recently the scientific name of the domestic dog was changed from Canus Domesticus to Canus Lupus Domesticus, recognizing that they are only a different sub-species, the main difference being that dogs lack a scent gland that wolves have at the base of their tails.

On second thought, Tolkien actually mentioned in one of his letters that Elves and Men would have to be technically the same species to be able to bear viable (as in fertile) offspring, so I guess that's the same anyway. Though he might have been saying that as an example of how he didn't try to bind his mythology up in too much science that wasn't really applicable to his imagined world, I can't really remember but I think that was the implication...

Having wandered thoroughly off-topic, I shall cut this short before it gets any worse.


----------



## Manwe (Jun 1, 2005)

I never liked wolves until I started reading "The Wheel of Time" series, where one of the characters can talk to wolves. Now I love them. They're soooo cool, they could never be evil. I never thought of the Wargs as being wolves. I thought they were more like twisted and evil versions of wolves like how the horses that Sauron used have been twisted to be evil. As for dragons being evil, I am shocked! When I think of Smaug, I do not think of someone necessarily evil but a cunning creature who is just a bit malicious. I love dragons to!


----------



## YayGollum (Jun 1, 2005)

Yes, yes. Dragons are cool. But no. Wolves are pure evil. Wargs are just really big ones and therefore, also pure evil. Anyways, Yay for first rate type of rambling Hobbit-GalRosie person! 

To the crazy ingolmo person ---> You are right about humans, elves, and hobbits having the ability to be pure evil, but not Dwarves. They were made to be impossible to become evil. Also, why couldn't the giant spiders and Wargs become pure evil? Especially since the Wargs are so closely related to one of the most evil of all animals (wolves)? They are both fully sentient races, with consciences and things like that, not animals. Also, also, where be evidence that the Crebain and creepy vulture things were forced to do anything? I was under the insane impression that the Crebain were doing what they did best just because Radagast lent them to the evil Saruman. They didn't mind. The creepy vulture things (in my opinion) were like Carcharoth or the black horses that they used. Raised in a particularly evil fashion. Not forced in the way that you seemed to have meant it.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 1, 2005)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> Outside of Hagrid in Harry Potter, I don't think I know of anyone else who would actually want to make a pet out of a dragon.


Barley,

Try the Anne McCaffrey series "The Dragon Riders of Pern". The dragons there are most definitely major league heroes! While not LOTR, it is one of my favorite science fiction series.


Now to address some of the other animals in the original list. As has been pointed out, the flying steeds of the Nazgul were not vultures, but rather some undefined prehistoric holdover, sort of like a still living pterodactyl. As for Ungoliunt, Shelob and the giant spiders of Mirkwood, while I personally think spiders are fascinating creatures (I also like snakes, but I am a naturalist and like all sorts of strange creatures  ), I recognize that Tolkien was merely reflecting a fairly widespread uneasiness that many people have with spiders. Of course, Ungoliunt and Shelob and relatives aren't really spiders. If I remember correctly, Ungoliunt or Shelob (I will have to check which) is described as an evil thing in "spider form". 

In the same way, I don't think of wargs as being wolves. They are an imaginary Middle Earth animal with some resemblance to wolves. Also remember the "wolves" that attacked the Fellowship after the attempt on Caradhras. In the morning there were no carcasses, though the Fellowship had apparently killed a number of them. These were not real wolves.

Ingolmo, 

I do understand what you are saying, but Tolkien, as with many other writers, is merely reflecting a widespread Western cultural bias. If he were writing today, he might have chosen to describe some of these creatures differently. I suspect the reason Jackson made the wargs in the films so hyena like as opposed to wolf like is because wolves have a better public image today then they did in Tolkien's day.


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Jun 1, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> Tolkien disliked cats too. Dogs on the other hand are given a more positive image. I myself love cats, or rather I love big cats, who are the most beautiful and majestic creatures alive. (C.S Lewis also liked cats )



Can anyone tell me if cats are even in LOTR? I've been through the books but can't remember ever having seen them...  

At least some of the people on here have done a lot with all sizes of cats. But I don't know if there's even a word for cat or feline in any of the elven languages! Oh well...


----------



## Hammersmith (Jun 2, 2005)

YayGollum said:


> You can't stave off a feral horse with a stick.


 
I love you!
In a strictly professional and platonic context....

But regarding wolves...read The Jungle Book to see how noble and how evil wolves can be. The pack's diverse personalities in this book display some of the most "human" animals I've ever read about. Oh, and horses have the potential to be pure evil. Don't believe me? Go wandering around a field full of 'em on a moonless night at three in the morning, armed only with a digital camera and a very bright flash bulb...FEAR THE HORSE!


----------



## YayGollum (Jun 2, 2005)

Uh, huh. I love me, too. Anyways, Ick. Nasssty digital cameras! Give me the real thing! *hides from crazed fans of technology* Also, sure, I have noted that most animals have personalities. There could be such things as nice-blooded - Ick. I can't say nice things about wolves. They are too achingly evil, but yes, I can see why someone might grow the misconception that the evil beasties could be convenience-oriented. Gross. Ick. Crazy writing. Okay, any animal type thing could possibly been seen as good or evil, but I would categorize them as all being neutral. *runs away* The Greenwood person seems to be telling the truth. AraCelebEarwen person ---> I can think of two occurrences of cats in Tolkien type stories. The cats of Queen Beruthiel (who were super cool spies) and there was also Tevildo, Prince of Cats, who had some magical collar that kept all cats at a gigantic size. Very cool.


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Jun 2, 2005)

I'll have to find those... they sound cool! Are they by Tolkien or someone else? Or did I miss something...?


----------



## YayGollum (Jun 2, 2005)

No, both of those came up in Tolkien type writings. I think that the cats of that Queen Beruthiel person were actually mentioned somewhere in that The Lord Of The Rings book, but the other thing was somewhere in those History Of Middle Earth books.


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 4, 2005)

Seems like no one's agreeing with me, so, like most true animal lovers, I will have to keep my thoughts to myself. 
And AraCelebEarwen, the word for cat in Quenya is Meoi.


----------



## Hammersmith (Jun 4, 2005)

ingolmo said:


> Seems like no one's agreeing with me, so, like most true animal lovers, I will have to keep my thoughts to myself.
> And AraCelebEarwen, the word for cat in Quenya is Meoi.


Sorry! I got caught up with the concept of staving off a feral horse with a stick!

To answer your original question, dragons (and all serpentile creatures) will always in the western mindset have negative connotations due to the Judeo Christian tradition. I heartily agree with whoever mentioned the whole scavenging aspect of the ravens, making them seem ignoble; also as (comparatively ugly) birds they have a long and seemingly unshakable tradition of trickery, foolishness and malice, both in legends and in fables.

I'm not totally sure why wolves and ravens are linked together (help anyone?) but they certainly are. Add this unsavoury connection with the fear of wolves as powerful predators and it is readily apparant why they are looked on as the enemies of men.

As for spiders, my only answer would be a hypothesis that people fear the inescapable trap, the claustrophobia of being cornered and bound, then killed slowly. With rightful reason! Though it isn't perhaps justification to label spiders as evil straight off, it is a handy excuse.


----------



## AraCelebEarwen (Jun 4, 2005)

ingolmo said:


> the word for cat in Quenya is Meoi.



Thanks 

Where did you get that from? I know I haven't really spent a lot of time looking, but it would be fun to know...


----------



## Manwe (Jun 4, 2005)

Oh, woops, I guess I didn't answer your original question. I don't think Tolkien was necessarily biased towards different animals. It seems to me that all the animals he portrays as evil aren't actually the real animals that we think of but mythological versions of the creatures. The Wargs were weird versions of wolves, the crows might not have been real crows as Tolkien doesn't actually say thats what the weird bird spies are, and dragons are obviously mythological. Tolkien wasn;t biased to certain animals but he did use well known animals to make mythological animals that were evil.


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 4, 2005)

Well, Hammersmith, dragons have a very postive image in Chinese mythology, and snakes are considered holy in Hindu cultures. 

Wolves were first associated with werewolves to get them a negative image, and then the stuck up fantasy writers of the middle-ages wrote their stories with wolves in a bad image. Look at the Little Red Riding Hood, and the Three Little Pigs. 

As for ravens and crows, I'm not too sure what's given them the bad mark. 
Probably it's just that both are scavengers, and the crows also got his voice against him (which is personally my favorite of all birds after the owl.)
I'm befuddled about ravens though. In a lot of cultures, counting either Norse or Celtic, or both ravens are a symbol of wisdom and knowledge. A modern-day common example of that is Ravenclaw house in Harry Potter, where it is famous for it's brains. Now I've heard that Tolkien's taken a lot from Scandinavian mythology and culture, especially Norse. Then why does he have ravens in a bad image?  

Now, the spiders. First of all I would like to state that only 17% of the worlds spiders are poisonous, and from those 17%, only about 10% can kill humans. That means that 1.7% of the world's spiders can kill humans, and most of those are either unluckily endangered, or they live in remote places such as rainforests or deserts where only nomadic, or native tribal humans live. So WHAT is there wrong with spiders?!   

And Manwe, if Wargs were wierd versions of wolves, then why, is the word 'wargs', used only once or twice in the Fellowship of the Ring, while the word 'wolves' is used around 15 times?    

And AraCelebEarwen, you asked where I got the translation of 'cat' in Quenya. Well, I am the Loremaster, so I should know that much.


----------



## Hammersmith (Jun 4, 2005)

ingolmo said:


> Well, Hammersmith, dragons have a very postive image in Chinese mythology, and snakes are considered holy in Hindu cultures.


Ah, but Tolkien is neither Indian nor Chinese  



ingolmo said:


> Wolves were first associated with werewolves to get them a negative image, and then the stuck up fantasy writers of the middle-ages wrote their stories with wolves in a bad image. Look at the Little Red Riding Hood, and the Three Little Pigs.


I think a lot of stuck up middle age writers can be blamed for the evil wolves. But at the end of the day, wolves *do* kill people, and there is a lot to be said for his contrast between the domesticated hound and the evil werewolf in the Silmarillion. 



ingolmo said:


> As for ravens and crows, I'm not too sure what's given them the bad mark.
> Probably it's just that both are scavengers, and the crows also got his voice against him (which is personally my favorite of all birds after the owl.)
> I'm befuddled about ravens though. In a lot of cultures, counting either Norse or Celtic, or both ravens are a symbol of wisdom and knowledge. A modern-day common example of that is Ravenclaw house in Harry Potter, where it is famous for it's brains. Now I've heard that Tolkien's taken a lot from Scandinavian mythology and culture, especially Norse. Then why does he have ravens in a bad image?


Aesop. Think of the crow and her cheese. I can't think off the top of my head of any other fables about crows or ravens, but I know they exist. It's another example of classical fantasy getting in the way of the Norse and other, fairer mythology.



ingolmo said:


> Now, the spiders. First of all I would like to state that only 17% of the worlds spiders are poisonous, and from those 17%, only about 10% can kill humans. That means that 1.7% of the world's spiders can kill humans, and most of those are either unluckily endangered, or they live in remote places such as rainforests or deserts where only nomadic, or native tribal humans live. So WHAT is there wrong with spiders?!


Like I said. They trap things, which may provoke something adverse in the human psyche.


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 5, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> Ah, but Tolkien is neither Indian nor Chinese


And neither was he Scandinavian. A lot of Tolkien's tales had something in common with Norse mythology, and Quenya was based on Finnish.



Hammersmith said:


> I think a lot of stuck up middle age writers can be blamed for the evil wolves. But at the end of the day, wolves *do* kill people, and there is a lot to be said for his contrast between the domesticated hound and the evil werewolf in the Silmarillion.


More humans kill wolves than wolves kill humans. And if on a rare occasion wolves do attack humans, they were probably provoked by humans.



Hammersmith said:


> Aesop. Think of the crow and her cheese. I can't think off the top of my head of any other fables about crows or ravens, but I know they exist. It's another example of classical fantasy getting in the way of the Norse and other, fairer mythology.


*No comment* But that's still unfair.



Hammersmith said:


> Like I said. They trap things, which may provoke something adverse in the human psyche.


But they don't trap humans do they?


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 5, 2005)

Hammersmith said:


> But at the end of the day, wolves *do* kill people,


Actually, stories of wolves attacking and killing people are greatly overblown. In North America there was not a single, documented human fatality due to a wolf attack in the 20th Century. Of the relatively few known instances of aggression by wolves on humans the vast majority were either by rabid animals or were provoked by the humans involved. Anyone interested in wolves can get information at The Wolf Society.


----------



## Hammersmith (Jun 5, 2005)

ingolmo said:


> And neither was he Scandinavian. A lot of Tolkien's tales had something in common with Norse mythology, and Quenya was based on Finnish.


But the Scandinavians are spread throughout Europe historically, and their stories are more part of the collective European mindset




ingolmo said:


> More humans kill wolves than wolves kill humans. And if on a rare occasion wolves do attack humans, they were probably provoked by humans.


And @ Greenwood - NO! Of course, wolves have a bad deal of it. But I'm not talking about modern wolves. No, for settlers, in dark age and medieval Europe, wolves were cast as evil in tales because they were a daily threat to livestock and thus the livings of the people. Also note my reference to the use of the wolf as the "evil version" of the dog.




ingolmo said:


> *No comment* But that's still unfair.


Of course it's unfair! But it's part of a literary tradition.




ingolmo said:


> But they don't trap humans do they?


No, but their acts seem unnatural and alien to the human psyche. Just like how humans are put off by animals who eat/are eaten by their young, or cannibal animals.


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 6, 2005)

Okay, you do have a good argument, but you can't deny that all fantasy writers up to date, Tolkien included, have used some certain animals in a negative role, though truly, they aren't bad. I think that is bad and unfair, and it is putting that sort of mindset on the public about those animals that was shown negatively in the story, thus increasing the hatred and fear for that animal. That is what I think is one of the few flaws that medieval and modern fantasy has, and I oppose it.


----------



## Hammersmith (Jun 6, 2005)

I agree completely. I was not offering an _excuse _for Tolkien writing the way he does about certain animals, but a _reason_.


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 6, 2005)

But still it's not such a good reason. 
I correct my statement that all fantasy writers up to date have used some animals in such a negative role. True, I haven't read too much fantasy, but in the amount I've read, Christopher Paolini doesn't use animals in a negative role in his trilogy, Eragon.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 7, 2005)

some animals have always been used for bad as in steven kings the stand" the wolves will always be his"(HIM being the devil) and some animals are portraid as good haun being the example.


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 9, 2005)

Alatar, do you have to start the argument all over again, just when it seemed to have met a conclusion?
Still, just to know, what are your views? Do you think that discriminating some animals as good or bad is right, or wrong? I think you've got my opinion by now.


----------

