Villain or Monster?

Tolkien’s antagonists in Middle-Earth can be broadly classified into two categories. Some are ‘villains’, intelligent individuals that have been corrupted, but are capable of redemption. Saruman, Sauron, and Wormtongue fall into this category: despite their vastly different natures, they are ultimately intelligent individuals with “human” motives for power, having chosen evil. Other opponents can be classified as monsters, beings without fully human intelligence, dominated more by basic desires. Shelob, the Trolls in the Hobbit, and the Mirkwood Spiders fall into this category. Their primary motivations are to feed, they all have a monstrous appearance, and they are subcreations of evil figures. Despite all possessing some form of intelligence, they can thus be distinguished as monsters. Two major figures break out of this dichotomy: Smaug and Gollum.

It may be odd to classify Smaug as not entirely monstrous. Dragons are among the most prominent monsters, both before and after Tolkien. Look towards a primary inspiration for Smaug, Beowulf’s Dragon. In “The Monsters and the Critics”, Tolkien focuses on this Dragon as a monster often maligned by critics. As a monster, it is not simply an obstacle to be overcome by Beowulf. It imparts the story with elements of myth: legendary monsters are overcome by legendary heroes. Confronting and defeating the monster has a value that defeating a more “realistic” opponent does not. In addition to the Dragon’s mythic value, Tolkien notes its symbolic value. Tolkien writes, “Something more significant than a standard hero, a man faced with a foe more evil than any human enemy of house or realm, is before us, and yet incarnate in time, walking in heroic history, and treading the named lands of the North,” (17). The Dragon becomes a symbol for all dragons, and all evil. Overcoming it thus proves symbolic of general struggle against evil. 

Smaug may be interpreted similarly, but beyond literary references (e.g., Bilbo stealing a single cup from his hoard), he becomes characterized enough to set him apart from being entirely a ‘monster’. Smaug is clearly monstrous, being an imposing and dangerous figure. Much like Beowulf’s Dragon, he is driven by greed rather than more ‘realistic’ motivations. He seeks only to hoard and accumulate wealth, rather than build power like more human villains. His appearance is terrifying: he is clearly not “just like us” on a surface level, as Wormtongue and Saruman appear. And ultimately, he is overcome as a monster would be, slain by an arrow piercing through his one weak point. But unlike Beowulf’s Dragon, Smaug is as much of an intellectual foe as he is a physical one. Bilbo’s confrontation with Smaug is based on wit and manipulation by both parties. In doing so, the reader obtains an idea of Smaug’s personality: arrogant, greedy, crafty, and curious. He is a creature of reason, setting him apart from simply being a monster, like the Mirkwood spiders, and is a character in his own right. I would classify Smaug as an “Intelligent Monster”. He is ultimately feared for his supernatural power, with his intellect enhancing his danger. 

Narratively, this decision makes sense. “Monsters and the Critics” notes that the overcoming of the seemingly insurmountable allows for mythical heroes to be presented, but Bilbo Baggins is no Beowulf. His strength is in his cleverness, sneakiness, and wordplay, not in any martial prowess. Bilbo overcoming a traditional monster would not have the same impact. Say, for instance, Bilbo walked into the lair of Beowulf’s Dragon. He would still be the physical inferior of it, but would be far superior mentally. As Bilbo’s heroics rely on his trickery, Beowulf’s Dragon would be an unsatisfying match. Smaug, however, matches him in wits and manipulation. At any point in his confrontation with Bilbo, Smaug could easily kill Bilbo, but he chooses not to, instead opting to sow doubt in the hobbit and trade riddles with him. By giving Smaug this characterization, Tolkien allows for a different type of mythical hero, not a great warrior, but a brave and noble individual nonetheless.

Gollum, also introduced in The Hobbit, is similarly hard to pin down as man or monster. At once, he is a murderous, twisted individual no longer recognizable as a hobbit. Even his diet has become bestial: rather than delighting in rustic hobbit cuisine, Gollum eats only raw flesh, like a beast. Besides his hunger, he is driven entirely by his obsession with possession, not use, of the One Ring. However, he retains a sense of intelligence and ‘humanity’, observed through the distinction and unity of Smeagol and Gollum within him. Gollum, while monstrous, is not a monster, but an individual corrupted. As Gandalf states, “For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it,” (LOTR Bk.1 , Ch. 2). Gandalf makes a point of Gollum’s wretchedness, but also of his humanity. Most importantly, he emphasizes that Gollum is redeemable. The possibility of redemption is what separates a person, however evil, from a monster. Gollum is thus best classified as a ‘monstrous villain’: as the Critics would argue, Saruman and Wormtongue are more ‘realistic’ villains, having more human motivations to do evil. Gollum is driven by the irrational, primal, and ‘mythical’ motivations traditionally given to monsters. However, to achieve these goals, he uses more villainous tropes: scheming and manipulating, driving Frodo and Samwise apart. Gollum is a villain who has embraced his monstrousness.

A possible litmus test for distinguishing villain from monster is that villains can be redeemed, while monsters cannot. Villains are corrupted by evil, whereas monsters are born with evil nature. Tolkien is careful to not characterize his villains as irredeemable: Melkor, Sauron, Saruman, and Gollum are corrupt yet not irredeemable. I see this as being based in Tolkien’s Christianity. The idea of any being with free will being irredeemable is irreconcilable with Christianity. They were ultimately created by a benevolent God, and can therefore cannot be without good. Subcreated entities, however, such as Trolls and the Mirkwood Spiders, can be inherently evil. They do not act with true free will, as only God can impart that. They are twisted facsimiles of life. As a Dragon, Smaug is a result of Melkor’s subcreation, and therefore likely has an inherently evil nature that he cannot break free from. Gollum, meanwhile, is a being with free will (though it is dominated by desire of the One Ring): he has the choice to reject evil, and fails to do so. Tolkien’s antagonists, especially these blends of monster and villain, thus give insight on his interpretation of the nature of evil itself.

OH