"So farewell hope, and with hope farewell fear… Evil be thou my good."
–Satan, Paradise Lost, John Milton
When I first read The Silmarillion as a teenager, I truly hated the ending of "Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin."
Because just a few chapters ago, we met Maeglin the child, growing up in the dark, quiet forests of Nan Elmoth. Maeglin the youth, listening to his mother's stories of beautiful Gondolin, where her brother is king. Maeglin coming of age, fleeing his father's house with his mother, and then losing her, and then watching his father being thrown to his death over the walls of the very city he had so long dreamed of living in.
Tolkien lets us hear the story from Maeglin's own perspective first: his hope, his love, his vulnerability... and then asks us to watch him become a monster. There's no closure, no redemption, no realization. He is tortured, yes. He betrays the city, understandable.
Then he serves Morgoth in secret for years– removing all doubt in our minds that the betrayal was a decision made in a moment of weakness under duress.
The Maeglin who guarded his mother on her journey homeward; who once fought in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad refusing to stay in Gondolin as Turgon's regent; who was "wise in counsel and wary, and yet hardy and valiant at need... fell and fearless in battle..." that Maeglin would not have done such a thing. But that Maeglin simply no longer exists anywhere in the narrative.
Is that cruel, or strangely freeing?
There are (at least) two types of bad people in Tolkien's legendarium:
The cosmic, diabolical metaphysical evil of Melkor/Morgoth and Sauron, and then there is...
"moral evil": characters who do possess a conscience, and still perform wicked deeds. These are some of Tolkien's best characters (Maedhros, Túrin, and Boromir, to name a few). The evil done by these characters is tragic in the aftermath because the character is inherently good.
Maeglin falls into the second category, but he is special in that he is the only "human" (elf, you get it) who is allowed to become fully, unapologetically evil, after we meet have already met the version of him that is "good."
Maedhros throws himself into the fire. Túrin falls on his sword. Boromir repents. Just before the end, they all are able to see the awfulness of what they have done, and grieve that awfulness along with the audience. While they are committing their respective atrocities, the moral "true self" remains trapped somewhere inside, temporarily thwarted by oath, curse, desire, magic jewelry... but "deep down" still exists, and eventually awakens, and judges, and despairs.
If Tolkien had written another draft, maybe he would have given Maeglin his moment of regret and repentance. Or, maybe not.
In order for anagnorisis– the "realization"– to occur, there must be a preceding period of blindness.
Maeglin is not blind.
Maeglin in Sindarin means "sharp glance." Eöl so named him: "for he perceived that the eyes of his son were more piercing than his own, and his thought could read the secrets of hearts beyond the mists of words."
As we said before, Maeglin doesn't merely betray Gondolin under the torment and deception; he returns to Gondolin, and there continues colluding with Morgoth until the end of his life.
Furthermore, Maeglin is someone who has agency. For better or worse, he has a great deal of control over his own life. He rebels against Eöl to seek Gondolin. Once there, he gathers the best smiths and miners in Gondolin and proves himself both in craft and in battle– rising to be "mighty among the princes of the Noldor, and greatest save one in the most renowned of their realms." And long before he is ever kidnapped by Morgoth, he begins to desire power.
In short, one imagines that he sees everything– his past wounds, his place in the world, the very monstrousness of his own actions– and he acts even so, with intention, and with perfect precision. There is little doubt left in the reader's mind that he did evil, knowing it was evil.
In a way, that makes him even more evil than Morgoth and Sauron: after all, they never really had a say in whether they wanted be bad or not; discord is their very nature. Maeglin, on the other hand, makes a conscious decision to become bad and continue being bad.
Kierkegaard described angst as the "dizziness of freedom"– the feeling of realizing that we are blessed, or doomed, with total control over our own actions. That who we are is what we choose to do, and keep on doing, in every moment.
And so the will to freedom and self-determination that initially serves Maeglin well, and which makes us root for him early on as he escapes his father's dominion, is precisely the same force that ultimately leads him straight into his villainy. It is the natural consequence of an indomitable will desiring something it cannot obtain any other way.
Or, at least, the potential for that interpretation is there.
Truthfully, I think the story falls short of either expectation: it feels incomplete either as a redemption/repentance story or as a portrait of lucid damnation.
In reality Maeglin is killed off unceremoniously within the span of a single sentence, having transformed utterly into stock-villain-attempting-to-kidnap-princess-and-child: no soliloquy, no closure, no finale that feels fitting for someone who feels like he was created for the sole purpose of inspiring that final aria to be sung over his final scenes.
Maybe because The Silmarillion, intended more as myth than novel, was not meant to acknowledge evil of that nature.
As you can imagine, there are countless other thoughts rattling around in my skull about Maeglin, and generational trauma, and inheritance, and belonging, and "evil nature" and how the narrative itself is unjust to him... but I will spare you all for now. Good night!
I'm aware this is a 'complaining about someone complaining about someone else complaining' kind of post, but... whether or not the 'twink sauron' characterisation contradicts canon per se... is not really the point — there will be people annoyed at its prevalence simply because it has become the only one in the fandom at this point. And while — I don't know if that was what prompted the exchange, but things like venting at artists in comments are uselessly antagonising — that does give people the right to complain in situations where complaining is appropriate.
not to be petty on main but i think sometimes people who come up with takes like "finrod committed genocide" or "turgon is a hypocritical kinslayer" do that to feel better about their faves (*cough* Feanorians *cough*). If Feanorians canonically break the Geneva convention, so should everybody else! Or should they?
Embrace the canonical war crimes of your canonical war criminals, you cowards. Go hard or go home.
Bad take: Melkor was a bland villain and a bad character
Take: Melkor was evil
Good take: Melkor was not meant to be evil
Hot take: Though he did some pretty despicable things, some of his choices are justifiable due to the situation
Hotter take: Melkor was right
Hottest take: Melkor didn't think that any of his works were evil, in all honesty despite his cruel nature he meant to do good and the reason it's not that way in the books is because history is written by the victors
In general it’s interesting to look at how people view the relationships between Feanor and his children with their relatives and even with one another.
For instance it’s widely believed that Feanor never even tolerated Fingolfin and Finarfin, when if you go by the Silmarillion canon they were at the worst indifferent to one another until Melkor was unchained. Fingon and Maedhros are widely regarded as friends or more (I mention that because of the widespread shipping I have seen) and often Maglor is friendly with Finrod and Fingon as well. Then you have Celegorm and Curufin being friends with Angrod and Aegnor as well as Aredhel.
Really they were at least friendly with their cousins before the Darkening of Valinor so it is very interesting to read about these bitter feuds or cold feelings directed from the Feanorians to their cousins or vice versa back before Alqualonde happened.
Then you have the relationship with Feanor and his children. So often he’s said to favor Curufin when the text doesn’t quite seem to support that, or there is the view of him as a horrible father. So yeah it’s interesting to see these views when really I have not actually seen any true support for them.
Now this isn’t trying to make you change your opinion or anything, it is purely just me mentioning my view and something I’ve seen that strikes me as somewhat unusual given what was written.
I would like to point out that Maedhros would be an amazing High King if he cared enough to do the job, same with Maglor. Since neither cares the best King would be Fingolfin. That’s my contribution please and thank.
honestly if you know ANYTHING about my family can you really blame me for being wildly uncomfortable with the suggestion that that shit was somehow fingolfins fault for being too "manipulative"
