# Fantasy Themes where Destroying Evil can also Destroy Beauty



## Professor 0110 (Jun 30, 2009)

I just thought I'd bring this topic up for discussion as it is extremely interesting (to me) and is also a very deep theme. 

In The Lord of the Rings the elves brought up the fact that should Sauron be defeated and the One Ring destroyed, their beautiful, breath-taking, awe-inspiring havens full of light and protection from evil would eventually wither and die as the power of the three rings fail. 

Now this is a very interesting theme that not many fantasy novels (as far as I've read) deal with. I think that it shows a deeper meaning behind the whole good and evil battle, and it also shows how evil, can, in an indirect way, help sustain something beautiful and pure. It also presents a moral and emotional challenge for the heroes; should they defeat a great evil and let an unparalleled beauty die forever, or should they simply let the evil entity thrive and preserve the thing of beauty for as long as possible? In my opinion, dilemmas like these are extremely fascinating, and also presents a temptation, a complexity, for the characters. It also demonstrates the fact that evil can create good and good can create a greater evil (if the elves had not let Frodo leave and destroy the ring - inevitably, Sauron would have grown strong enough and conquered the land anyway, thus destroying the elf havens). 

What do you all think?


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 30, 2009)

I wouldn't say it's all that uncommon -- at least, some variant of it. ***SPOILERS BELOW!!!***

In Moorcock's Elric series, in order to bring in the future age of the world, Elric must destroy everything he loves, or even has known... he must literally destroy his world, for the age of Humanity to even begin. Despite the evil and horror, there is much of beauty and richness in his world, and it is an ancient one (Melniboné itself having reigned for 10,000 years, and that isn't including their origins) as well... yet he is told that it is, essentially, the prologue to the actual play. In fact, this sort of thing happens with Moorcock's Corum, as well, who must destroy what he has known twice over... once in his own native realm, when he destroys the gods and beings he has grown up with, and again, when he finds himself in a different time and place and has to destroy an ancient race which, though not necessarily evil, have become corrupt literally freeze the world from its natural growth. In the end, he ends up having to destroy everything he has learned to love in this world, as well, with one exception... and that one in turn destroys him, as he, too, belongs to the past....

Merritt's *Moon Pool* revolves around the mysterious Dweller and its destruction, but it, too, is a beautiful and terrible (and evil) thing, as is the realm which created it. To destroy the evil, all that beauty and all that magic and mystery must be destroyed as well....

There are some minor examples of this choice in some of Howard's work, too -- "The Grey God Passes", for instance, or even "The Tower of the Elephant", where an ancient being and its wondrous dwelling/prison must be destroyed in order to free it from its near-eternal physical bondage to an evil sorcerer. Not quite the same, but there is a sense of tragedy and loss in that tale nonetheless. (Howard even manages to insert some of that in a brief passage concerning Thak in "Rogues in the House", where the Cimmerian realizes what he has slain bore the awful -- I use the word in both its senses -- beginnings of a human soul.)

There are other examples scattered throughout the history of fantasy, if one looks. They aren't exactly the same as what Tolkien has, no, but they often bear a strong kinship; as do those where evil isn't necessarily destroyed, or even where, in order to ensure things continue on their natural or destined course, much that is beautiful must in turn be destroyed ... and even the "evil" itself may have a tragic pathos to it in some ways (see, for instance, Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword). "Stark are the Norns" is a refrain which fits more than one of Anderson's works in the heroic fantasy vein.... (This ties in with what De Camp called Howard's "keen sense of the inevitable tragedy of life", I think: everything passes, and destroying that which is oppressive -- or "evil", if you wish, though sometimes that is far too simplistic -- also means destroying much of value and beauty as well.)


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Jun 30, 2009)

Professor 0110 said:


> it also shows how evil, can, in an indirect way, help sustain something beautiful and pure ... It also demonstrates the fact that evil can create good



I don't see it that way.  As we know, Sauron did not create the Elven rings.  Nor do I see any way in which they gained _sustenance_ from the existence of the One Ring.  If anything they lost some measure of effectiveness because they had to be hidden away.  The fact that they _might_ lose their power with the destruction of the One Ring (you may remember that no one was sure of this until it happened), was more like they were being held hostage.


----------



## J-WO (Jun 30, 2009)

There's _the Portrait of Dorian Grey_ too, in an internalized sort of way. (Spoiler alert!) 
 He destroys the evil-looking, withered painting of himself and thus kills/destroys his own youthful, beautiful appearance.
 Of course, Mr Grey was evil on the inside. Which makes me wonder, for the first time, whether the ugly guy in the painting would turn out to be a total saint if it were possible to talk to him?


----------



## Kvothe the raven (Jul 15, 2009)

I would have to disagree as well. I have read quite a few books that have a similar theme- and it's usually what makes the books so good. 
For example- I would say that the *Fionavor Tapestry *by GG Kay deals with this quite a lot. There is a constant struggle between giving the good guys the power to win, and the cost associated with that power. Having "evil" being capable of only destruction, while "good" is the only side capable of creating beauty is (IMO) very simplistic- and I think many authors recognize this, and try to work past it.

And then of course, there's the problem inherent in the question itself- you write as if the difference between good and evil is distinct, and it is easy to tell who the "bad guys" are. But the best books are the ones with good and bad mixed into both sides.


----------

