Top-Down Processing: A Network Analysis of The Lord of the Rings as a Means of Defining Good and Evil

This essay was written for Dr. Quamen’s ENGL 486 class on the Internet as Environment. Using network theory, I seek to analyze the structural characteristics of power1 and authority2 in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. I then compare my findings with H.C. Mack’s parametric analysis of the texts, and suggest that both structural methodologies serve to reinforce the idea that concepts of sight and egotism play a key role in Tolkien’s binary portrayal of characters as being either good or evil. The essay concludes with the suggestion that the configurations power and authority in LotR are deeply tied to Tolkien’s portrayal of the nature of good and evil, and suggests further research into the question of whether such power configurations may have since become mythic tropes in Western fantasy. Top-Down Processing: A Network Analysis of The Lord of the Rings as a Means of Defining Good and Evil

For Moretti, the use of a network will "reduce the text to characters and interactions, abstract them from everything else, and this process of reduction and abstraction makes the model obviously much less than the original object" (Moretti 84 antithetical conflict in terms of a "confrontation" of two choices, each of which exists in a "negative relationship to the other" (Mack 121). A profound instance of antithetical conflict stems from the elves' choice to provide support in destroying the One Ring, as the destruction of the ring will also destroy their own magical sanctuary homes. This is why Lady Galadriel's test against the One Rings power is so significant; giving into the ring's temptation, and thus failing to overcome her desire for power, would have meant not only the destruction of both Sauron and his forces, but also the continued existence of elven sanctuaries such as Lothlórien and Rivendell. It is only Galadriel's wisdom that allows her to recognize such a reality would fester with the seeds of corruption, and that she herself would soon become an evil witch queen, thus renewing and perpetuating the cycle of evil. Ironically, it is only by rejecting the power to save her people that Galadriel is ultimately able to bring them to the salvation of the Undying Lands. This rejection of power by good characters is seen time and time again throughout the story.
As noted above, the top-down lens of network theory allows one to read the text at a distance. Other times the relationship between actors is less hierarchically defined, and so the edge is not arrowed but rather labelled with a defining term; for example, the relationship between Sauron and the monstrous spider Shelob is labelled as an alliance because their relationship is a twisted symbiosis: Shelob guards an entrance into Mordor and in turn Sauron occasionally feeds her orcs (Tolkien 724). Nodes such as "The White Council" in Figure   2 are colored blue because they are not actors proper, but rather provides a shortcut to represent that all linked characters are in an alliance.  Figure 1 clumps these beings into two groups, the first being the humanoid-like orcs/wargs/trolls and the second being the humans proper. We find, however, that even if we were to separate these beings into six distinct groups the larger network would remain relatively unchanged, certainly in the sense that all authority would still flow upwards towards Sauron. So while the network could be composed in ways that further divide the factions, it is impossible to escape the fact that Sauron remains the ultimate superconnector 7 . Furthermore, some interior politics do exist for evil; the orcish soldiers come from different clans and still possess their own agency, as shown when interior discord erupts amongst the Orcish ranks after two clans fight over Frodo's mithril: "there was fighting in the tower, the orcs must be at war among themselves, Shagrat and Gorbag had come to blows" (Tolkien 899). We are also given the proper names of a few other orcs (Gothmog is notably a lieutenant of the Witch King), but an overall hierarchy beyond Sauron --> ringwraiths --> orcs/evil underlings is largely absent.
Applying concepts of power and significance to each node is outside the networks' visuals, yet vitally important to understanding their limitations.
By power I mean the perceived potential of impact that actors can have on the battle between

Discussion
One might argue that the fact that Sauron diffused his own power into the One Ring displays a lack of egocentrism in that his original body is weakened for the purposes of adding another node to his network. This argument, however, over-values the physical body and oversimplifies a much more complex system of power dynamics. By transferring a large part of his soul into the One Ring Sauron essentially creates a second node of himself in artefact form; the purpose of this node is to control the other rings, specifically the Nine Rings of Power given to mortal men. These mortals would eventually be corrupted into the Nazgul, and Sauron was then able to reclaim their nine rings and yet keep the Nazgul completely enslaved to his own will: "The Rings eventually left the kings spectral, invisible to all but those who could see into the wraith world, and slaves to the will of Sauron. Their lives and power became bound to Sauron's via the One Ring; as Sauron grew or diminished in power, so too did the Nazgûl" In a typical heterogeneous network the nodes prefer to connect only with other nodes that have already established many connections, thus leading to a "hierarchy" of nodes and the "rich-get-richer phenomenon" (71). The idea of individual actors having a preference is a bit misleading here because it is Sauron's top-down will that organizes his network, and yet it is nevertheless clear that the dark lord has stacked his own nodes with disproportionate power.
Caldarelli and Catanzaro argue that the overall structure of such a network tends to be "virtually unaffected" when nodes are removed at random (Caldarelli and Catanzaro 97) 10 . This is apparent in Figure 1, wherein one could remove any node save Sauron (and to a lesser extent Saruman), and still have much the same visual left over-the network would still generally function in much the same manner. This organization makes Sauron's forces especially dangerous to the forces of good; if we were to randomly remove nodes from both networks at an equal rate, then the good forces, whose network is more homogenous, will have their network destroyed far sooner, in the majority of trials (97). This notion would be even clearer if I had not clumped large groups of actors into individual nodes; the 50000 orcs, wargs, and trolls under Sauron's command, for example, could theoretically be represented with 50000 different nodes, thus further diminishing the chances that a 'Sauron' node would be randomly selected. Of course war is generally conducted in a strategic manner, and so commanders will always seek to remove highly connected or powerful nodes, and this is how good ultimately prevails in LotR: first they remove Saruman's node and his associated forces, and then they destroy the ring, and thus Sauron, his bodies, and all edges connecting his other associated forces. Returning briefly to Figure 1B, it becomes clear how Sauron's defeat causes the total collapse of every edge in the system, as every node that we have relabeled as 'Sauron' is in some way responsible for connecting every other node together.
How does Sauron allow such a decisive strike to destroy him and his forces? He certainly had access to the resources needed to prevent his own destruction. This question leads into a discussion comparing the networks to Mack's claim that evil possesses egotistical qualities and blurred vision. Mack argues that Sauron: cannot fathom goodness or any action which does not stem from evil . . . Sauron cannot imagine that anyone would wish to destroy the Ring rather than to establish himself as another Ringlord; he, therefore, prepares for what he sees as inevitable war over possession and control of the Ring. His peril lies in the fact that the Ring is at that very moment headed toward destruction in the Crack of Doom under his very Eye-the Eye which sees only that which it expects to see (Mack 133) In other words Sauron is entirely blinded by land's most powerful army, and his priority is to maintain power by squashing any who might rise against his rule. Sauron's ego thus distorts his understanding and causes him to believe that hierarchical domination is the ultimate goal of all individuals, and that the One Ring is the means by which his foes may achieve that goal. Thus does Sauron never consider the centricity of his power (his position as a massive superconnector) to be a weakness, because he cannot comprehend that any would seek the destruction of his system; the worst case scenario that he can imagine is that another being would overthrow him with the One Ring's power, but that being would eventually be corrupted and submit to the One, and so ultimately carry out Sauron's will regardless.
Mack notes that is ironic that Sauron's symbol is a great and seemingly all-seeing eye (133)

Possible Goals
Actions to Achieve Goals

Save Middle-earth Follow fears (Frodo is in danger)
Save Merry and Pippin Follow heart (Merry and Pippin are in danger)

Pseudostructure --Aragorn's misconception of his choices
Possible Goals Actions to Achieve Goals but also relatively narrow-sighted (my actions will prevent me from aiding the ring-bearer).
One Notes 1. I use the term "power" to denote the perceived impact that an individual character's abilities and resources might potentially have on the outcome of the story's events. An example of a powerful character is Sauron; despite the fact that he is ultimately defeated he undoubtedly holds relatively unmatched physical and magical prowess, as well as legions of soldiers under his command. Frodo, on the other hand, is one small hobbit and not exactly powerful. The irony of power is discussed at length in my discussion section.
2. "Authority" here connotes the existence of a chain of command that may exist between two or more characters.
3. The base of Mack's "Inverse Pyramid" is where a character's initial significant choice is made.
Mack describes characters choices to consist of two or more antithetical options (Mack 121). Thus a theoretical map of potential choices and consequences grows always upward and outward. Because of the antithetical nature of choice, however, the picking of one option seemingly precludes the ability to obtain the results desired by making a different choice, and thus a character's actual realized path of choice and consequence can only travel in a linear and upward (though perhaps unexpected) manner.
Mack also describes the pyramid as having both a light and dark side, and in doing so suggests that characters make choices based upon their alignment to good/evil, which in turn is based upon how they balance their sight and understanding of future events. 4. A node describes any named point of the network that may be connected to other nodes by edges.
5. An edge is the line that connects two nodes together.
6. I use the term subordinate to denote any actor who is under the authority of another actor, and have used my discretion when the authoritative relationship is not wholly clear.

7.
A superconnector refers to any actor in a network who is connected by edges to a relatively high number of other individuals. Sauron is described as a superconnector because he is, on the basis of authority, at least indirectly connected to every other individual or group within his network with minimal degrees of separation.
8. The visual data may lead one to falsely view an actor such as Hama as being equally powerful and/or just as significant as major armies or the heroic main characters. Discretion is needed to analyze each actor's power and significance beyond their placement in the network itself. Given the sheer volume of actors, such a task is beyond the purview of this essay.
9. Like a superconnector, a hub refers to any node that has a large number of vertices.
10. Random in this case means arbitrary; each individual node and their corresponding edges would have an equal chance of being removed from the greater system.