The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[davem]

I rather think that the debate might proceed more constructively by taking up the gauntlet thrown down by Child. How can those of us who cannot accept this intervention by Eru as just, or who find it difficult to perceive him as a credibly drawn fictional character, reconcile this with our love of Tolkien’s works and how does it impact upon our understanding of them?

Hiroshima.

Or reality intrudes. Sodom & Gommorrah is not the example we're looking for. The problem modern readers have is that we've seen destruction & devastation on a truly horrifying scale. The destruction of a whole society of 'bad' people is no longer part of the mythic world of Dragons, Balrogs & Elves.

Or, lets look at 9/11 & the shockwave that has produced. And that 'shockwave' is the real issue. I'm not comparing the Twin Towers to Numenor, or those killed to the 'evil' Numenoreans, btw, but considering the effect on the reader of an event like the destruction of Numenor.

Think about it. We cannot be 'casual' about such an act, or about someone (God or otherwise) who commits it. We can't shrug our shoulders & say 'its just fantasy', or God is said to have done something similar in the Bible. We exist in a post Hiroshima, post 9/11 world & the sudden death of thousands of human beings will elicit a response from us about anyone who does something like that.

We will require a proper justification, not clever arguments. We can't accept the 'Angry God' justification. Numenor shocks us (or should) because we've seen the effect (if not the cause) played out in in our lifetimes. 'Well, they were all bad people.' doesn't work.

Eru's act does not 'fit' in a world like M-e where mercy & compassion is played up to such an extent. I think what most of us do is simply not confront it. We basically ignore the fact that Tolkien has his God slaughter tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of human beings - men, women & children.

But this is probably the single most significant event in Middle-earth history, & (after the Creation) the single most significant thing Eru does. What does this tell us about the God of Arda?

My frustration all along has been with the argument 'Well, the Numenoreans were bad & deserved it.' (which is less of an argument & more of a refusal to think through the implications). Rotting human corpses would have been floating on the ocean. Pieces of bodies. Pieces of babies. Rotting animals. This is a 'fact' of M-e history. The fall of Numenor would have been quite possibly the single most horrible event in the History of Arda.

What we have is, admittedly, yet another scene of horror in a catalogue of such horrors - but this one is caused by Eru, & is thus unique.

Its as though the Fall of Numenor confronts us with a very difficult answer to the old question which is always asked when humanity is confronted by scenes of devastation: Where was God? - in this case the answer is 'Right here'.......

[Raynor]

I've tried to get a passport :DSomething more like an argument maybe? Related to Tolkien's opinion preferrably?

Drigel, I would be more than happy to continue our discussion if you could provide something more specific about both my particular questions. And as to ancient history being more violent, the very first result which appeared on my query on google on the topic you mentioned lists the 20th century with the highest rate of casualties. For the worst of it, I don't think it lacked anything of the past centuries' wars; but it sure repeated them on an unimaginable scale, with more "refined" and "efficient" means of destruction. But this is off topic.

[Raynor]

But this is probably the single most significant event in Middle-earth history, & (after the Creation) the single most significant thing Eru does.Again, ignoring the continuous appearance of Men, which goes on until the end of Creation. Also, you seem to discard, again, Gandalf reimbodied, or the destruction of the One Ring - without these, none may have seen the end of Sauron's tyranny. You also ignore all the other arguments I have presented on his continuous intervention, without providing a single time a counter-argument or proof. I have already given a refference where the attitude of denying the goodness of Eru is, in this work, the source of evil. You just keep repeating this one statement, oblivious to what I say. It is proving tiresome. May I kindly ask you to review your approach?
My frustration all along has been with the argument 'Well, the Numenoreans were bad & deserved it.' (which is less of an argument & more of a refusal to think through the implications). Rotting human corpses would have been floating on the ocean. Pieces of bodies. Pieces of babies. Rotting animals.First of all, considering the magnitude of forces, and that Sauron himself was caught by surprise and that he rose out of the sea depths after he was killed, I would say that no trace of the event, as you describe, would have remained surfaced.

So, we should think about implications? How about the implications of the actions of the numenoreans. You seem intent on vivid description. How would you describe to yourself "spilling of blood and torment and great wickedness, men made sacrifice to Melkor"? Can you depict how a normal Numenorean party of hunting people in M-E would generally go about? How about a casual day in the life of a taken slave? What would be, in your own imaginations, the stages of cruelly slaying people? May I also kindly request that you keep these images to you?

So, I am curious davem, how would you have gone about ending this tragedy? Remember, you have already used anything in your arsenal already. You have used lightnings, even to strike people, even to set the temple on fire. But to no avail. You have sent clouds in the forms of eagles (perhaps eagles themselves in the last day). Nothing. Warnings don't work. The tragedies continue. The power of Sauron increases daily. They set out to attack and possibly destroy the most sacred land, the land of the governors of creation, home to some of your other Children. What do you do davem? And, also, keep in mind that you have given your Children a gift, which you should not take back. You have given them free will. How do you go about? Can they really be saved in any manner while embodied? I truly doubt that; Sauron didn't waste his power for nothing, they were his both mentally and phisically. So? Let's recap: mounting tragedies, attack on Valinor, (most likely) impossibility of saving corrupted Men while still embodied, who, most importantly, wouldn't want to be saved... how do you cut this knot? I am looking forward to your creative opinion.
The fall of Numenor would have been quite possibly the single most horrible event in the History of Arda. An ongoing tragedy ends, both in Numenor - and for many people in Middle Earth - why don't we "ask" these what they thought? M-E sees the dawn of a new day, and era, Sauron is diminnished in power, and the numenoreans go "home". What do you think about these implications? How would you solve this with less costs?

[Lalwendë]

Firstly, to answer SpM, I too don't like what Eru did. But I can reconcile this as the action of Eru, who is a very odd kind of god. He's not the kindly sort of God that modern worshippers know, but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun, for a bit of a cosmic joke. He's like the God of the Book of Job who toys with even his most faithful followers and is let's be frank, a wee bit cruel. But he can do this simply because he is omnipotent, and in fact its the kind of thing you'd expect of an omnipotent god - play around with even the most faithful, just to keep them 'in their place'. ;)

That's just how Eru is - and it works if you consider the difficulties Tolkien himself had with reconciling his belief in God with the real horrors he saw on the Somme (such horrors as none of us has ever seen so we can't even get to the point he must have got to). I have to say, this Eru who Tolkien turned up isn't someone I particularly like, but he's interesting enough as a literary creation, and he certainly gives the writer incredible licence to do dodgy things to his characters as it can all be explained away as "Eru did it", and we all go "Ahhhhh, I see......"

The nature of omnipotent gods is that they can be as horrible as nasty as they like, but we can't question their motives because they are beyond our own concept of morality.

Now, getting on to those evil little kiddies who drowned. I seriously doubt that Tolkien really believed that children playing at being Orcs meant said kids were by nature 'evil' - you only have to read biographical works on Tolkien to see just how much of a family man and devoted father he was. Such a man simply would not kill off children and want us to believe this was 'justified' - has anyone ever thought that he put this there so that we would question Eru's actions? We are allowed to, you know! Remember there is no final word to say that this here literary creation, Eru is God, and nobody/no deity is going to smite anyone who questions this Eru's actions against mere children!

The other character who concerns me is indeed Miriel. Tolkien does NOT set her up as evil! Where does she condone the actions of Sauron? She is simply trapped in a marriage she does not want. The reason she did not speak out is laid out in the story - she simply could not. Putting a modern analogy to this - there were many ordinary Germans during WWII who did not speak out against Hitler - but this does NOT mean they condoned his actions or were 'evil'! I believe there is a letter mentioning Tolkien's own belief that ordinary Germans should in no way be held 'to blame'. They were simply trapped in a situation where they were inable to speak out for fear of their own lives. Tolkien is not in the habit of creating figures who are martyrs - and he does not make one out of Miriel. Rather he invites us to view the very human tragedy of Miriel (and many others too) caught up in events outside their control, and invites us to ask questions, not to draw lines and prepare nooses.

Finally, back to Atlantis. I am afraid that one letter in which Elendil is called 'Noachian' does not turn Tolkien's story into a Noachian story, no matter how much we want it to be one. The overwhelming evidence is that this is simply has little if anything to do with the Biblical flood, it is to do with Tolkien's Atlantis complex. That one Noachian figure proceeds from the story certainly does not mean that the story itself is Noachian - that I am afraid is simply speculation as Tolkien tells us the story is not Noachian, it is Atlantean.

[davem]

Again, ignoring the continuous appearance of Men, which goes on until the end of Creation. Also, you seem to discard, again, Gandalf reimbodied, or the destruction of the One Ring - without these, none may have seen the end of Sauron's tyranny.

Unless, of course, Eru had removed him as had been done with Morgoth...

You also ignore all the other arguments I have presented on his continuous intervention, without providing a single time a counter-argument or proof. I have already given a refference where the attitude of denying the goodness of Eru is, in this work, the source of evil. You just keep repeating this one statement, oblivious to what I say. It is proving tiresome. May I kindly ask you to review your approach?

But its not convincing anybody. Eru may have shown such 'concern' as you state, but he also slaughtered many thousands of his children, innocent as well as guilty & allowed many evil Numenoreans to survive in mainland colonies.


First of all, considering the magnitude of forces, and that Sauron himself was caught by surprise and that he rose out of the sea depths after he was killed, I would say that no trace of the event, as you describe, would have remained surfaced.

So the possibility that the bodies may not have been seen makes the killing more acceptable?

So, we should think about implications? How about the implications of the actions of the numenoreans. You seem intent on vivid description. How would you describe to yourself "spilling of blood and torment and great wickedness, men made sacrifice to Melkor"? Can you depict how a normal Numenorean party of hunting people in M-E would generally go about? How about a casual day in the life of a taken slave? What would be, in your own imaginations, the stages of cruelly slaying people? May I also kindly request that you keep these images to you?

And thus Eru is justified because two wrongs make a right?

So, I am curious davem, how would you have gone about ending this tragedy? Remember, you have already used anything in your arsenal already. You have used lightnings, even to strike people, even to set the temple on fire. But to no avail. You have sent clouds in the forms of eagles (perhaps eagles themselves in the last day). Nothing. Warnings don't work. The tragedies continue. The power of Sauron increases daily. They set out to attack and possibly destroy the most sacred land, the land of the governors of creation, home to some of your other Children. What do you do davem?

Oh, some 'God thing' - which doesn't involve mass murder. I'm sure, for instance, that destruction of the Fleet alone would have had the desired effect, without killing the civilians. And your position requires us to accept that every single one of the Numenoreans willingly went along with the attrocities, which must at least be open to doubt. I do not accept that any children on the Island can be held to have been guilty enough to justify their deaths while Nuemnoreans who actually did go along with the attrocities were spared by virtue of their being on the mainland.


And, also, keep in mind that you have given your Children a gift, which you should not take back. You have given them free will.

Have to say that the most effective way of taking away someone's free will is to drown them.

How do you go about? Can they really be saved in any manner while embodied?

Isn't that how they justified burning heretics & witches?

I truly doubt that; Sauron didn't waste his power for nothing, they were his both mentally and phisically. So? Let's recap: mounting tragedies, attack on Valinor, (most likely) impossibility of saving corrupted Men while still embodied, who, most importantly, wouldn't want to be saved... how do you cut this knot? I am looking forward to your creative opinion.

Destroy the fleet, spare the civilians.

An ongoing tragedy ends, both in Numenor - and for many people in Middle Earth - why don't we "ask" these what they thought? M-E sees the dawn of a new day, and era, Sauron is diminished in power, and the numenoreans go "home". What do you think about these implications? How would you solve this with less costs?

You miss the point. Eru intervened & killed people. Innocent & guilty. The buck stops with him. You're making him out almost to be the helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control. He is responsible - a fact you seem to keep ignoring. We have to deal with the fact that Eru is a God who will do something like that.

[Raynor]

but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for funI see. And one instance where Eru does this for fun would be...?
I seriously doubt that Tolkien really believed that children playing at being Orcs meant said kids were by nature 'evil' They are evil by choice. May I ask if you read it? Or letter #256?
Such a man simply would not kill off children and want us to believe this was 'justified' One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.
there were many ordinary Germans during WWII who did not speak out against Hitler - but this does NOT mean they condoned his actions or were 'evil'No tyrant survives without the consent of his people - I truly believe in this.
Where does she condone the actions of Sauron?If condone means to disregard without protest or censure, then she did all that. There isn't a single card of dissent, inward or outward, that we know she played. All we know is that in that period the luxury was ever increasing, more so at the top, presumably; there is no mention that she was an exception. There were clear signs that all riches came off at the expense of slavery and oppression - esspecially so concerning the king's house and his riches. All we know is that she enjoyed all that and did nothing about it. Nothing. Meanwhile, the faithfuls remained true to their beliefs, even when they were most often the victims of cruelty. No moral person can live in such times, enjoy the greatest luxury, with no sign of remorse, and still reject the label of evil.
I believe there is a letter mentioning Tolkien's own belief that ordinary Germans should in no way be held 'to blame'.If you find it, perhaps we can discuss it.
The overwhelming evidence is that this is simply has little if anything to do with the Biblical flood, it is to do with Tolkien's Atlantis complex. That one Noachian figure proceeds from the story certainly does not mean that the story itself is Noachian - that I am afraid is simply speculation as Tolkien tells us the story is not Noachian, it is Atlantean.Again, I see this as the logical fallacy of the false dillemma. The story can be both, I see no reason why not. I find your argument esspecially questionable, given that you were the first to quote Tolkien as calling this a noachian situation.

[davem]

They are evil by choice. May I ask if you read it? Or letter #256?

Children 'evil' by choice....and does Tolkien state how old these children were? 2? 5? 12?

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

What mother wouldn't happily see her children killed for playing at being Orcs? You've sure convinced me...

No tyrant survives without the consent of his people - I truly believe in this.
If condone means to disregard without protest or censure, then she did all that. There isn't a single card of dissent, inward or outward, that we know she played. All we know is that in that period the luxury was ever increasing, more so at the top, presumably; there is no mention that she was an exception. There were clear signs that all riches came off at the expense of slavery and oppression - esspecially so concerning the king's house and his riches. All we know is that she enjoyed all that and did nothing about it. Nothing. Meanwhile, the faithfuls remained true to their beliefs, even when they were most often the victims of cruelty. No moral person can live in such times, enjoy the greatest luxury, with no sign of remorse, and still reject the label of evil.

As I stated earlier, in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth Miriel is stated to have been one of the faithful, & Christopher Tolkien himself praises that book for its accuracy.

If you find it, perhaps we can discuss it.

Its Letter 81.

There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you pleasse, they are rattlesnakes & don't know the difference between good & evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles & Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words no right, whatever they have done.

So, in Tolkien's opinion the 'extermination' of the German people could not be justified - whatever they had done - even 'consenting to a Dictator'.

[Raynor]

Unless, of course, Eru had removed him as had been done with Morgoth.Which disregards that:
- all the ainur are supposed to stay within Ea until the end
- Eru must respect the free will of his created beings
- Melkor is the foremost candidate for an exception; the effects of him staying in Ea and regaining power are incomparable to Sauron doing so
But its not convincing anybody. So far, I believe you are the only one who remains unconvinced of their veracity. If don't have an actual counter-proof, your argument is fallacious.
Eru may have shown such 'concern' as you state, but he also slaughtered many thousands of his children, innocent as well as guiltyI have presented my case concerning the marring of all the un-faithfuls in Numenor. I am looking forward to rebutals.
allowed many evil Numenoreans to survive in mainland colonies.In a situation of power which is incomparable to what has been before.
So the possibility that the bodies may not have been seen makes the killing more acceptable?That was not my point. I have simply pointed out the unlikelyness of your theory.
I'm sure, for instance, that destruction of the Fleet alone would have had the desired effect, without killing the civilians.You disregard the fact that killing people _in_land_ by lightning strikes had no effect either; or that Sauron was still in Numenor, more of a ruler than before, above a people he tainted with his power. That situation would simply have removed all obstacles in Sauron's path, as he was already musing how to go about his business, now that the Edain were out of his way. Destroying only the fleet would have actually helped Sauron. He was glad about it.
I do not accept that any children on the Island can be held to have been guilty enough to justify their deaths while Nuemnoreans who actually did go along with the attrocities were spared by virtue of their being on the mainland.Those on the mainland, unlike those on the island, weren't under Sauron's continuous, ever increasing, corruption.
Have to say that the most effective way of taking away someone's free will is to drown them.I have asked you what would you have done better, if someone continues to kill and oppress, and will do so as long as he/she lives. So far, you have only nitpick at my presentation of the situation, without pointing out to any other better solution. The One's responsibility is not only to save the aggressors (the best way he can), but the victims too.
Isn't that how they justified burning heretics & witches?False analogy; in the situation of heretics and witches, the blame rested on their accusers. There was no real reason, religious or otherwise, to do so. The burden of proof has not been observed in fact. With the numenoreans, the evidence were in the day light, while there still was light. So, what is the answer to my initial question?
Destroy the fleet, spare the civilians.In addition to what I have answered before to this theory, I would also note that the center of world-wide oppression would still be left - Numenor.
Eru intervened & killed people. Innocent & guilty.I am aware that the younger those people, the lesser their fault (although their marring might be just as strong). For this, I propose we consider: the "mother" situation I presented to Lal; beyond all, the fact that Eru can turn any divine punishment into a divine gift.
You're making him out almost to be the helpless victim of circumstances beyond his control.These circumstances are beyond his control, if he is to guarantee free will.

[Lalwendë]

Again, I see this as the logical fallacy of the false dillemma. The story can be both, I see no reason why not. I find your argument esspecially questionable, given that you were the first to quote Tolkien as calling this a noachian situation.

You are assuming Tolkien said that the downfall of Numenor was a Noachian situation. He did not. He said the escape of Elendil was a Noachian situation, which it was to a small extent (in that Noah is said to have led the only human survivors of a cataclysm whereas Elendil leads the survivors of one cataclysm and other humans continue regardless of it). But one chapter of a novel does not define the whole. Especially when we are told what it is meant to represent. There simply is no argument.

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

There is no need to 'balance' anything morally.

And you underestimate mothers' love which transcends anything that mere morality can impose upon it.

Now if the children really were zombies, wouldn't their mothers also be 'zombies'? So the argument doesn't hold up. And that's putting aside that Tolkien, a family man, would not have been able to contemplate the idea that children could be 'evil'. I don't know how much you know about children, but ever since humans walked upright children have played all kinds of games and being an Orc does not mean a child is evil. How many children play at being pirates these days? Or indeed, Orcs?! My friends' nephews play at being Orcs - should they be put to death or maybe exorcised? They are anything but evil, they are just kids, play acting at thrilling, slightly scary things!

Even if we look at the downfall from a purely textual viewpoint then Eru was not punishing the people of Numenor for consorting with Sauron, he was taking Numenor from the face of the world because the Valar had told the Numenoreans that if they broke the Ban then they would never see Numenor again - a certain way of achieving this is to wipe it from the face of the world. If Eru was in the business of punishing anyone for consorting with Sauron then what did he do about those Men on Sauron's side who lived in huge numbers in Middle-earth? Nothing. Eru wiped out Numenor because the Valar begged him to, because they could not enact the Ban; Sauron was merely supplementary to what the Numenoreans did, exacerbating, aiding and abetting behaviour which was already in the minds of some of these people.

[davem]

Which disregards that:
- all the ainur are supposed to stay within Ea until the end
- Eru must respect the free will of his created beings
- Melkor is the foremost candidate for an exception; the effects of him staying in Ea and regaining power are incomparable to Sauron doing so

So exceptions are possible?

In a situation of power which is incomparable to what has been before.

As would Numenor without its Fleet.

Those on the mainland, unlike those on the island, weren't under Sauron's continuous, ever increasing, corruption.

So the Children of Numenor were more 'evil' than fully grown Numenoreans on the Mainland?

I have asked you what would you have done better, if someone continues to kill and oppress, and will do so as long as he/she lives. So far, you have only nitpick at my presentation of the situation, without pointing out to any other better solution. The One's responsibility is not only to save the aggressors (the best way he can), but the victims too.

If that was the 'best' he could do, I'm not impressed.

False analogy; in the situation of heretics and witches, the blame rested on their accusers. There was no real reason, religious or otherwise, to do so. The burden of proof has not been observed in fact. With the numenoreans, the evidence were in the day light, while there still was light.

So burning them alive would have been ok if there had been proof? Its not that burning someone alive is wrong in & of itself, only if you have no evidence?

I am aware that the younger those people, the lesser their fault (although their marring might be just as strong). For this, I propose we consider: the "mother" situation I presented to Lal; beyond all, the fact that Eru can turn any divine punishment into a divine gift.

And you're still saying its ok to kill 'evil' children.

These circumstances are beyond his control, if he is to guarantee free will.

Killing someone does not guarantee their free will.

[Raynor]

and does Tolkien state how old these children were?I am not aware that he does.
What mother wouldn't happily see her children killed for playing at being Orcs?You are mixing the situations in an uncalled for manner. I have never argued such a thing. You can see that from the quote above this.
As I stated earlier, in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth Miriel is stated to have been one of the faithful, & Christopher Tolkien himself praises that book for its accuracy.May I see a direct refference from Tolkien anyway?
So, in Tolkien's opinion the 'extermination' of the German people could not be justified - whatever they had done - even 'consenting to a Dictator'.Nothing in that quote exonerates the germans on behalf of fear. That was the initial statement made by Lal, which is unsuporter by this particular letter. Furthermore, we would need to establish where the analogy with the germans should stop - ideology and manipulation doesn't match Sauron's marring, and anything that the nazis did doesn't amount to an actual attack on Valinor.
You are assuming Tolkien said that the downfall of Numenor was a Noachian situation. He did not. He said the escape of Elendil was a Noachian situation, which it was to a small extent (in that Noah is said to have led the only human survivors of a cataclysm whereas Elendil leads the survivors of one cataclysm and other humans continue regardless of it). But one chapter of a novel does not define the whole. Especially when we are told what it is meant to represent.Nothing warrants restricting the religious comparison only to Elendil; that qualifier isn't found. One similarity doesn't exclude the others. This still is a false dillemma.
There simply is no argument.:D
So exceptions are possible?Yes.
As would Numenor without its Fleet.Numenor still intact would have Sauron and most likely other servants at his will. The system would continue.
So the Children of Numenor were more 'evil' than fully grown Numenoreans on the Mainland?If not by choice, then by Sauron's marrring.
If that was the 'best' he could do, I'm not impressed.Well, if you could give a better solution...
So burning them alive would have been ok if there had been proof? Its not that burning someone alive is wrong in & of itself, only if you have no evidence?The point was that there was nothing to justify taking their life. And I believe no one should be burned. I also don't believe in the capital punishment that still is practiced today in certain countries - it does little after the fact. I am interested to explore if there were better approaches than Eru's to Numenor.
And you're still saying its ok to kill 'evil' children.Ok, let me ask you too: do you think a parent would rather have his children grow up to be instruments of the most horrible evil that can be conceived than not live at all? I agree, again, that this is the most crucial part of the debate.
Killing someone does not guarantee their free will.Free will doesn't come with a white check to do unrestrained evil, against one's self or others. If violence can be avoided, free will respected and life preserved, I agree it is the best way out.

[Raynor]

Some points of Lal which I overlook:
Now if the children really were zombies, wouldn't their mothers also be 'zombies'? I haven't made my question clear: it is a general one, where the mother - the judge - maintains independent judgement and her morality. The consequences of letting the children live are those that I mentioned. What is your answer?
My friends' nephews play at being Orcs I actually like the orcs of the Warcraft world. Not all orcs in all fantasies are the same. Some of them are examples of courage and nobility. The point in question was that those children were doing evil acts, which later would lead to a satanic cult at least for some of them.
the Valar had told the Numenoreans that if they broke the Ban then they would never see Numenor again Hm, where is that stated?
If Eru was in the business of punishing anyone for consorting with Sauron then what did he do about those Men on Sauron's side who lived in huge numbers in Middle-earth?Same problem I raised to davem: Numenor made a very powerful impact on the balance of power in M-E. Without it, the other black numenoreans were far less advantaged and in a lesser position to pursue the same evil goals - their problem was more than half-solved. Plus, those of M-E did not suffer Sauron's marring, at least not continuously/increasingly.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, if you could give a better solution...Being omnipotent, nothing was beyond him, so he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful. The wholescale destruction of an island and all its inhabitants does seem rather a blunt weapon, although suitable perhaps for the fleet. Then again, it probaly wouldn't have made for such a compelling tale ...

Which leads me back to the point that I am more interested in. The destruction of Numenor provides a stirring image within the fantasy world which Tolkien created. But, for those of us who have a problem with the justice of it (and I, like davem, reserve the right, as a reader, to judge the actions of a fictional character in a novel, deity or no deity), this does surely have an impact on our understanding of that world.

But I can reconcile this as the action of Eru, who is a very odd kind of god. He's not the kindly sort of God that modern worshippers know, but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun, for a bit of a cosmic joke.I can readily accept the analogy between Eru and the God of the Old Testament. But I disagree that this resolves the problem, since I have no inclination to accept as credible that work, nor indeed to reconcile the portrayal of the God it presents with real life experience. But Tolkien is asking me, if I am to find his fantasy word credible, to accept as the source of all goodness within it the fictional God that he presents. Fine. But I find that credibility stretched to be told on the one hand that Eru is the embodiment and source of good within that world and that anything contrary to his will is evil, but be presented on the other hand with a deed perpetrated by him which I find hard to characterise as "good".

That's just how Eru is - and it works if you consider the difficulties Tolkien himself had with reconciling his belief in God with the real horrors he saw on the Somme ...That doesn't help me either. I don't share Tolkien's beliefs, and so I have a different perspective from him on the horrors of the Somme (and other attrocities perpetrated by man against man). And we are not talking here about attrocities committed by the Men of Tolkien's world (who are subject to corruption), or by those committed by the proponents of evil and their minions. We are talking about an attrocity (as some, myself included, see it), perpetrated by one who, by his very nature, is presented as being free from all corruption and the highest ideal for all those characters within Middle-earth that we are supposed to (and, by their actions do) admire.

In other words, while I can admire the deeds of the likes of Elrond, Gandalf, Aragorn, Frodo and Sam I cannot admire this one deed of the character whom they are presented as serving and to whom they aspire (whether they know it or not).

To my mind, it presents a logical flaw in the world which Tolkien portrays.

[The 1,000 Reader]

To break up your life-wasting arguements for a moment, I'm sharing my two cents.

Numenor was already far gone before Sauron got there. In my opinion, Sauron's actions at that time did no more than set him up as a scapegoat for the remaining Numenorians to assault.

Eru destroyed Numenor because it was far, far too corrupt and because even the youths were corrupted horribly. All of the faithful (Elendil and co.) survived, and I also think that Tar-Mirel being late was a spiritual failure, not one of leaving too late.

In short, Numenor screwed itself over long before any Dark Lords.

[Raynor]

Being omnipotent, nothing was beyond him, so he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful. The wholescale destruction of an island and all its inhabitants does seem rather a blunt weapon, although suitable perhaps for the fleet.Then again, that would have left the island intact, as both the center of the empire, and, most likely, a place of corruption itself, given all the attrocities that were commited there and all the power Sauron spent in corrupting. Those on Middle Earth oppressing people in the name of Numenor would have had little if any motive to stop continuing to do so, esspecially if the main core of the faithfuls remains on the island. They would have interpreted this act as a larger scale set of ligthnings. They have been impervious to that sort of warnings. Look! Numenor still stands! Nothing can stop us! Let's get it on!!

I believe a better solution is in order.

Edit:
I take it from your statement "he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful" that in your variant there would be the same amount of victims as in the tale. Am I correct?

[davem]

I am not aware that he does.
You are mixing the situations in an uncalled for manner. I have never argued such a thing. You can see that from the quote above this.

I'll be honest. I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing as far as 'evil' children are concerned.

Nothing in that quote exonerates the germans on behalf of fear. That was the initial statement made by Lal, which is unsuporter by this particular letter. Furthermore, we would need to establish where the analogy with the germans should stop - ideology and manipulation doesn't match Sauron's marring, and anything that the nazis did doesn't amount to an actual attack on Valinor.

You see, I'm stepping back from that one, 'cos that last point is just too wierd.

Ok, let me ask you too: do you think a parent would rather have his children grow up to be instruments of the most horrible evil that can be conceived than not live at all? I agree, again, that this is the most crucial part of the debate.

I don't think you understand how parents think about their children. No parent would wish their child to grow up to do evil, but no parent would wish to see their child killed.

Free will doesn't come with a white check to do unrestrained evil, against one's self or others. If violence can be avoided, free will respected and life preserved, I agree it is the best way out.

Eru took away the Numenoreans' free will when he killed them, because in assaulting Valinor they were exercising said free will.

However, this is going round in circles. And I noticed something interesting.

The Akalabeth states that Eru was responsible for the Fall of Numenor, & that is the accepted version of the story. However, in the Letter to Milton Waldman of Collins Tolkien gives an alternative:

The Valar lay down their delegated power & appeal to God, & receive the power & permission to deal with the situation: the old world is broken & changed. A chasm is opened in the sea & Tar-Calion (sic) & his armada is engulfed. Numenor itself on the edge of the rift topples & vanishes for ever with all its glory in the abyss.

Now, there are a couple of interesting things here. First, this is a very different situation, in that Eru does not destroy Numenor, the Valar do - Eru simply gives them the power & authority to do so. In this scenario he is not personally responsible. And neither are the Valar.

Think about it - the Valar are described as acting effectively in self-defence - they don't trash Numenor on purpose - their intention is merely to remove Valinor out of harm's way, it just so happens that the Island is on the edge of the rift & falls in. One can almost hear Manwe's tortured cri de cour echoing from the heights of Taniquetil: 'Doh!'

Point being: the Valar in this version did not destroy Numenor with malice aforethought, & therefore could not be held morally accountable - & those of us who have a problem with the 'official' version would not (i suspect) have such a problem with this one.

So the other interesting thing to speculate on is why Tolkien chose the version where Eru is directly responsible for the destruction of Numenor over the one where the Valar are indirectly responsible. The 'Valar are responsible but its not really their fault' ( or TVARBINRTF) version is certainly easier to stomach than the 'Eru is responsible & it really is his fault' (or EIR&IRIHF) version, & no-one, really, comes off looking too bad in a moral sense.

Quite interesting, also, that the Second Edition of The Sil has the Letter as a Foreword, so the reader first of all reads TVARBINRTF before the EIR&IRIHF version.

Now, one recalls that Tolkien quoted Chesterton in OFS (on the subject of why children like the 'cruel' punishments meted out to villains in many traditional tales) along the lines of Children are innocent & prefer justice, while we (adults) are wicked & therefore prefer mercy. Does this apply here: 'Children' being 'innocent' prefer the EIR&IRIHF (conspiracy) version, because it clearly depicts Eru punishing the Numenoreans for their sins, while we 'grown-ups' would perhaps choose TVARBINRTF (Cock-up), where it was all an accident?

[Lalwendë]

We're still going on as though Numenor was destroyed because of many things that were not the cause of its destruction, e.g. following Sauron, being cruel to inhabitants of Middle-earth, not 'following' Eru etc. etc. Yet the 'reason' behind its destruction is given to us in the text! The motive is because the Numenoreans broke the Ban of the Valar. Note that the Numenoreans had not exactly been 'faithful' before Sauron's arrival - he was merely using their proclivities to his advantage in his mission to destroy them (and he did destroy them, with a little help from Eru ;) ); he accelerated their end, they would probably have broken the Ban anyway.

The fact remains that it was Breaking the Ban that prompted the Valar to call upon Eru. Their worship of Sauron had nothing to do with Eru's 'punishment'. So trying to justify the deaths of innocents by saying "Oh, Eru was punishing them for being inherently evil for worshipping Sauron" doesn't wash. The punishment was for breaking the Ban - what, exactly, would a two year old tot have to do with that?

I can readily accept the analogy between Eru and the God of the Old Testament. But I disagree that this resolves the problem, since I have no inclination to accept as credible that work, nor indeed to reconcile the portrayal of the God it presents with real life experience. But Tolkien is asking me, if I am to find his fantasy word credible, to accept as the source of all goodness within it the fictional God that he presents. Fine. But I find that credibility stretched to be told on the one hand that Eru is the embodiment and source of good within that world and that anything contrary to his will is evil, but be presented on the other hand with a deed perpetrated by him which I find hard to characterise as "good".

I think the crucial point is that we are not being told by Tolkien to accept the downfall of Numenor as 'good', or even as 'just'. Firstly, the story is couched in the language and imagery of tragedy, not of a lesson. This draws us back to our own myths about Atlantis/Lyonesse, lands where the people had become proud and eventually were lost to time - these stories are also told as tragedies, that humans can have the best lives, the best places to live, their own paradise, but their pride eventually leads to a downfall.

Then of course we must remember that this is a story, that Eru is a fictional character, Numenor is a fictional place, and it is entirely up to us to decide if this fictional god is 'just' or not. We are completely free to do that and Tolkien as not only a writer but a highly educated Oxford professor knew well that the reader, unless told in plain language how to read a text (which is why he tells us LotR is not an allegory, he knew that without telling us, readers may read all kinds of things into it and he did not want that to happen), will read it and judge the characters therein independently, using the text in front of them; if said text is ambiguous then the writer has done this on purpose and does not want us to reach a fixed conclusion. To think otherwise, to put assumptions onto the text, would be to denigrate Tolkien's own considerable intelligence and craft.

And then there is davem's point - is Eru actually a very well crafted god figure anyway?

I actually like the orcs of the Warcraft world. Not all orcs in all fantasies are the same. Some of them are examples of courage and nobility. The point in question was that those children were doing evil acts, which later would lead to a satanic cult at least for some of them.

Then I suppose you might think that we should also ban Hallowe'en, fancy dress parties and all games involving dress-up and make believe? Children playing at being Orcs are simply having fun, it certainly does not follow that this will result in being damaged or having a criminal frame of mind later in life! In fact, children forbidden from doing fun things such as exploring fantasy, scary stories and characters etc are probably more likely to grow up with hang ups and anxieties about such things, leading to very real psychological problems. Why, Tolkien even told his own children scary stories! ;)

I haven't made my question clear: it is a general one, where the mother - the judge - maintains independent judgement and her morality. The consequences of letting the children live are those that I mentioned. What is your answer?

Any mother would let her child live and see what happened. That's what parents do. They do it because love is more powerful than 'morality'.

[The Saucepan Man]

Then again, that would have left the island intact, as both the center of the empire, and, most likely, a place of corruption itself, given all the attrocities that were commited there and all the power Sauron spent in corrupting.Well, if he was omnipotent, he could surely have removed the island as well, without killing any innocents. Although, with the corruption removed, I don’t see why the island should necessarily become a place of corruption again. Isn’t that rather like saying that the land comprising Germany should be removed from the face of the earth because it was once a place where terrible deeds were perpetrated? Of course, the fact that it was enticingly close to Valinor was a contributor to what happened, and we humans are not exactly known for learning the lessons of history. But isn’t that what free will is all about?

I take it from your statement "he could presumably have surgically removed the corrupt (and the corruptor) and left the Faithful" that in your variant there would be the same amount of victims as in the tale. Am I correct?Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that all those innocent of corruption escaped in the nine ships.

Point being: the Valar in this version did not destroy Numenor with malice aforethought, & therefore could not be held morally accountable - & those of us who have a problem with the 'official' version would not (i suspect) have such a problem with this one.It would certainly be more consistent with the characterisation of Eru and the well-intentioned, but oft bumbling, Valar presented elsewhere. :D

I think the crucial point is that we are not being told by Tolkien to accept the downfall of Numenor as 'good', or even as 'just' ...

Then of course we must remember that this is a story, that Eru is a fictional character, Numenor is a fictional place, and it is entirely up to us to decide if this fictional god is 'just' or not.

Quite so. Hence my freedom to view this deed as an unjust one. The problem that I have is not that I feel coerced into finding it a good or just deed. It is an issue of credibility and consistency. Eru’s act here is inconsistent with what I am being told elsewhere about him. So, in my desire for credibility and consistency within the works of a man I admire, I find myself being led to conclude either that Eru’s part in the downfall is misrepresented, or that he is not the paradigm of good that we are otherwise presented with and that the characters that believed him to be were mistaken.

[Raynor]

I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing as far as 'evil' children are concerned.Even if you didn't understand my point, that doesn't justify that sort of distortion of my arguments.

I am asking if it is worth living as an instrument of evil.
You see, I'm stepping back from that one, 'cos that last point is just too wierd.Whatever. You tried your best shot with a letter that didn't address the issue at cause. I guess we should move on.
No parent would wish their child to grow up to do evil, but no parent would wish to see their child killed.So do you rennounce the choice? Do you expect Eru to rennounce the choice?
Eru took away the Numenoreans' free will when he killed them, because in assaulting Valinor they were exercising said free will.I don't see why you feign to miss my point. Free will has consequences; if those consequences are dire enough, the person in question should be stopped from perpetrating evil anymore. Free will doesn't exclude morality , responsibility and authority. This is common sense.
on the subject of why children like the 'cruel' punishments meted out to villains in many traditional talesI only saw they like justice. Where exactly is it said that children like "cruel" punishments?
The 'Valar are responsible but its not really their fault' ( or TVARBINRTF) version is certainly easier to stomach than the 'Eru is responsible & it really is his fault' (or EIR&IRIHF) versionI really don't see that much of a difference in both variants. In both cases, it was the power and designs of Eru at play. Neither situaion excludes the cooperation of Eru and the Valar, considering that at the heart of the world lies the imperishable flame and, on the other hand, "but this condition Iluvatar made, or it is the necessity of their love, that their power should thenceforward be contained and bounded in the World, to be within it for ever, until it is complete, so that they are its life and it is theirs". We don't know exactly how Eru operates, in general, or in this particular case.
we 'grown-ups' would perhaps choose TVARBINRTF (Cock-up), where it was all an accident?How could it be an accident?? How can you sink an island by mistake? If they really wanted to protect the numenoreans, why did they save, by their grace, only the faithfuls? Where is there a sign of the plan of changing the world overstepping its initial objectives?
We're still going on as though Numenor was destroyed because of many things that were not the cause of its destruction, e.g. following Sauron, being cruel to inhabitants of Middle-earth, not 'following' Eru That Eru was supplicated by the valar to intervene doesn't mean he is forbidden to consider the situation of the Numenoreans more generraly, considering what was at stake by not doing so.
I think the crucial point is that we are not being told by Tolkien to accept the downfall of Numenor as 'good', or even as 'just'.Does any character in LotR or Silmarillion call this unjust? Obviously, other than the targeted numenoreans.
And then there is davem's point - is Eru actually a very well crafted god figure anyway? So, what is the standard of a very well crafted god figure? If we are at it. I see the repeated dodging my question about what tools do we have for adequately describing a transcendent reality. Perhaps because doing so is, well, impossible. But don't hold your ideas :).
Then I suppose you might think that we should also ban Hallowe'en, fancy dress parties and all games involving dress-up and make believe?I am truly perplexed. How can you derive that from my statement?? I just said I like Warcraft orcs, if you read it again.
Any mother would let her child live and see what happened. That's what parents do. They do it because love is more powerful than 'morality'.Ok, I am growing uncomfortable myself with this line of reasoning, so I will change it. The problem is the value of individual damned lives, and not only to themselves, but in the greater scheme of things, esspecially when weighed against other lives (the numenoreans slew each other in madness), and esspecially more innocent lives (those who were sacrificied, most of whom were faithfuls). All the more, love has an object, but can the initial object of love be recognised in a Ringwraith (three were numenoreans), a Mouth of Sauron, a Necromancer, Black Numenorean (all these were or may have been numenoreans), orc (a possibility under Sauron too)? If we are to judge Eru, we are to walk in his shoes and take this extremely delicate position.

[Raynor]

And after my last post, I saw SpM's...
Well, if he was omnipotent, he could surely have removed the island as well, without killing any innocents.The question remains about those who were nonetheless tainted by Sauron's corruption, perhaps beyond redemption in the circles of the world. The Atrabeth hints that Eru can't, or won't, remove corruption in Arda unless he enters himself, at the end of time.
Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that all those innocent of corruption escaped in the nine ships.I don't think that there were any numenoreans who were free of corruption, yet not faithful. I don't think there was a middle ground, considering the powers at stake. And of the faithfuls, the text implies that all of them escaped. I know of no contrary proof.

[Lalwendë]

That Eru was supplicated by the valar to intervene doesn't mean he is forbidden to consider the situation of the Numenoreans more generraly, considering what was at stake by not doing so.

He is, actually. He sets that rule himself. He does not interfere with Arda, it is left to the management of the Valar. This is the one and only time he puts his nose in and he only does this because:

for that time the Valar laid down their government of Arda

If you look further, what he does is separate for ever the worlds of Men and Elves. In much the same way as Faerie is sundered from our own world except to those who know the path/Straight Road. It is not at all clear even if he intended to drown Numenor, he only intends to take Valinor away from the reach of mortals - but drown it he did, whether intentioned or not. Nothing is mentioned of it being to do with Sauron - in fact Sauron survives and goes on to greater things, having achieved his goal in having Numenor destroyed - if Eru was trying to deal with Sauron he would also have nixed all his future plans. ;) If as you say, Eru can do what he likes (which he can't, due to a rule he imposes on himself), then we have to say "Hey! Eru! Why didn't you deal with that problem too? What do you think you're playing at?!"

Does any character in LotR or Silmarillion call this unjust? Obviously, other than the targeted numenoreans.

Note that nobody talks of Numenor anyway, so why would they talk of the more serious matter of its destruction and if that was just?

even the name of that land perished, and Men spoke thereafter not of Elenna, nor of Andor the Gift that was taken away, nor of Numen6re on the confines of the world; but the exiles on the shores of the sea, if they turned towards the West in the desire of their hearts, spoke of Mar-nu-Falmar that was whelmed in the waves, Akallabeth the Downfallen, Atalante in the Eldarin tongue.

Yes, it seems to me that Men still remained deeply hurt by the loss, and unable to talk of it. They even still desired Numenor and to go West; taking the physical reality of the place away could never remove that yearning. No, not even Eru could take that away. And with this memory still so sore in the minds of Men, this suggests that the loss of life, the human tragedy too was sore. This is clearly Tolkien asking us to think more deeply about the nature of tragedy and how it echoes down the ages.

Ok, I am growing uncomfortable myself with this line of reasoning, so I will change it. The problem is the value of individual damned lives, and not only to themselves, but in the greater scheme of things, esspecially when weighed against other lives (the numenoreans slew each other in madness), and esspecially more innocent lives (those who were sacrificied, most of whom were faithfuls). All the more, love has an object, but can the initial object of love be recognised in a Ringwraith (three were numenoreans), a Mouth of Sauron, a Necromancer, Black Numenorean (all these were or may have been numenoreans), orc (a possibility under Sauron too)? If we are to judge Eru, we are to walk in his shoes and take this extremely delicate position.

I'm not quite understanding you here. Are you equating a tiny child with a Mouth of Sauron? Are you also suggesting that a tiny child is somehow less innocent than one of the adult Faithful? Given that a two year old simply does not, cannot, understand right and wrong, how can the child make any kind of decision to be one of the 'Faithful' or not? I'd also argue that a child up to the age of about 10 (and maybe even beyond - plenty of adults cannot break free of family religious constraints) does not have the capacity to go against his or her parents' moral/religious wishes so he or she simply cannot be held to account for decisions taken for the child. Likewise, no child is born 'evil' - this is a dangerous way of thinking. All young children are absolute innocents ready and waiting for the experience of life itself to shape them - the baby of a drug dealer or terrorist or despot is still an innocent child nonetheless and all of them possess the potential to grow and to be different to their parents. How many of us have followed our parents blindly? Few of us. That personal experience alone should tell us just how innocent children really are!

[Raynor]

He is, actually. He sets that rule himself. He does not interfere with Arda, it is left to the management of the Valar.Again, false dilemma. His interventions and the government of the valar are not mutually exclusive. I have gave plenty of arguments in that respect. Perhaps you could back your statement too?
If you look further, what he does is separate for ever the worlds of Men and Elves.That's a questionable argument at best. Men were forbidden to access Valinor from the begining, which became after the war of wrath the de facto destination of all elves, as they have been "if not commanded, then sternly counselled" to go there.
It is not at all clear even if he intended to drown Numenor, he only intends to take Valinor away from the reach of mortals I already asked what reasons are there that this was an accident, overstepping the initial objectives. Would you care to answer?
if Eru was trying to deal with Sauron he would also have nixed all his future plans. Myths Transformed stated that Sauron was a problem Men had to deal with finnally.
Note that nobody talks of Numenor anyway, so why would they talk of the more serious matter of its destruction and if that was just?Note that they still reffer to it, though by not its initial name, but by a name that, at least metaphorically, justifies its drowning: the downfallen. Note that Faramir reffers to it. It is also mentioned by those who composed the appendices.
They even still desired Numenor and to go WestAs in breaking that ban again?? What do you mean?
Are you equating a tiny child with a Mouth of Sauron? No. Since we are playing judging Eru, I am proposing to take his perspective. I believe that the extent of Sauron's corruption would have left, after a certain period of time, none of the Numenoreans (who weren't faithfuls) a choice to redeem themselves, not in the circles of the world, no matter what age they had. They were doomed to be in thraldom to evil, due to the amount of power Sauron spent to corrupt them.

[davem]

Even if you didn't understand my point, that doesn't justify that sort of distortion of my arguments.

I am asking if it is worth living as an instrument of evil.

You see - this is the problem. You seem to be saying 'Its better for a child who has chosen evil to die rather than grow up to be a 'monster'', but when I ask you 'Are you saying its acceptable to kill a child who has 'chosen' to be 'evil'?' you accuse me of misrepresenting you, but then you come right back & ask 'Is it worth living as an instrument of evil? And wouldn't any parent rather their child died than grow up to serve evil?' I honestly don't get what your position is.

Whatever. You tried your best shot with a letter that didn't address the issue at cause.

No - the letter refuted every one of your points:

There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you pleasse, they are rattlesnakes & don't know the difference between good & evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles & Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words no right, whatever they have done.

"Systematic extermination of a whole people is morally unnaceptable - whatever they have done" And to take your earlier point seriously I'm sure that if the Nazis could have assaulted Valinor they would have. In fact, I don't think the fact that the story of Numenor was developed & introduced into the Legendarium in the 1940's is entirely coincidental.

I don't see why you feign to miss my point. Free will has consequences; if those consequences are dire enough, the person in question should be stopped from perpetrating evil anymore. Free will doesn't exclude morality , responsibility and authority. This is common sense.

I know what you're saying. Of course a person may put themselves in a position where it is necessary to kill them as a last resort. But to kill them is to take away their free will. You argued that Eru had to kill the Numenoreans because he couldn't take away their free will - which is not logical. He killed them, thereby removing their free will.

I only saw they like justice. Where exactly is it said that children like "cruel" punishments?

I think I see how this dispute has come about - you're approach is an absolutely literalist one. Tolkien may use 3 or 4 different words in the Intro to LotR which mean 'entertainment' but because he doesn't use the actual word 'entertainment' you argue his intention was not to 'entertain'. The punishment suffered by the Queen in Snow White is cruel (as I remember she is forced to wear red hot shoes & dance until she falls down dead) & Tolkien speaks of child readers liking this kind of 'justice'.

How could it be an accident?? How can you sink an island by mistake? If they really wanted to protect the numenoreans, why did they save, by their grace, only the faithfuls? Where is there a sign of the plan of changing the world overstepping its initial objectives?

Because it is stated that the Valars' purpose was to remove The Undying Lands from danger & that Numenor happened to be on the edge of the rift. Hence, it was equivalent to someone being killed by a ricocheting bullet, rather than by one that was deliberately aimed. The way I read it, you don't just want the Numenoreans dead, you want them executed.

So, what is the standard of a very well crafted god figure? If we are at it. I see the repeated dodging my question about what tools do we have for adequately describing a transcendent reality.

One that convinces, behaves consistently, one who, if he is declared to be loving, compassionate & wise (as well as all-powerful) doesn't execute children.

[The Saucepan Man]

No. Since we are playing judging Eru, I am proposing to take his perspective. I believe that the extent of Sauron's corruption would have left, after a certain period of time, none of the Numenoreans (who weren't faithfuls) a choice to redeem themselves, not in the circles of the world, no matter what age they had. They were doomed to be in thraldom to evil, due to the amount of power Sauron spent to corrupt them.So you are saying that he pre-judged the strength of their will to resist corruption when removed from the source of corruption? Isn't that rather at odds with the gift of free will that he gave to them?

And, if he was so concerned to prevent those of his Children who became irrevocably tainted with corruption from having to endure such a life, why did he allow the continued propagation of Orcs?

[Raynor]

You seem to be saying 'Its better for a child who has chosen evil to die rather than grow up to be a 'monster''When did I say any Numenorean child chose to be evil? What I argued, concerning the children, was that they were tainted. If you look back, you will see that I argued that chosing sides was possible at most at the beginning of Sauron's corruption. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.
"Systematic extermination of a whole people is morally unnaceptable - whatever they have done" False analogy; the germans were not tainted by Sauron. And the judge is in one case Eru, in the other (this letter) humans. Of humans, Tolkien said they should judge others with utmost mercy, if they are to expect mercy. I believe this letter it is in the spirit of that idea.
In fact, I don't think the fact that the story of Numenor was developed & introduced into the Legendarium in the 1940's is entirely coincidental.According to the Chronology volume of Hammond and Scull, Tolkien first wrote of Numenor in about 1936 or 1937.
Of course a person may put themselves in a position where it is necessary to kill them as a last resort. But to kill them is to take away their free will.Which, in that situation, is of secondary importance.
Tolkien may use 3 or 4 different words in the Intro to LotR which mean 'entertainment' but because he doesn't use the actual word 'entertainment' you argue his intention was not to 'entertain'.IIRC, I was only arguing that what he wrote in paragraph does not exclude religion - which was your point.
The punishment suffered by the Queen in Snow White is cruel (as I remember she is forced to wear red hot shoes & dance until she falls down dead) & Tolkien speaks of child readers liking this kind of 'justice'.This kind of justice? Let me ask you again: where does Tolkien say that children like cruel justice?
Because it is stated that the Valars' purpose was to remove The Undying Lands from danger Since I dont know if you mean this literary, that it was their intent to remove Aman from Arda, or metaphorically, that they wanted the danger on Aman removed, please provide the quote you are reffering to.
Numenor happened to be on the edge of the riftTo interpret the text "Numenor itself on the edge" as meaning that it was there by mistake contradicts the logic of the story. Such a tremendous mistake, esspecially considering the status of those made it (Eru or the Valar, whichever you will) is almost inconceivable, impossible. And there is no evidence of the existence of such an error, only an interpretation which takes the event out of context.
The way I read it, you don't just want the Numenoreans dead, you want them executed.This is a learning process for me. I do admit I can be proven wrong in the end. Please make this the last assumtion you make on my part.
One that convinces, behaves consistently, one who, if he is declared to be loving, compassionate & wise (as well as all-powerful) doesn't execute children.And I presume that you think that Eru didn't live up to this, at least in the case of Numenor. However, when I have asked if there was any other way to end this story in a better manner, no viable option was offered. Accusing him of doing worse than he could, although we don't know of doing that any better, is, well, wrong.
So you are saying that he pre-judged the strength of their will to resist corruption when removed from the source of corruption? Yes. Tolkien speaks of encounters with evil that one cannot overcome. We also have the shadow cast on Maeglin by Melkor, or the allegiance of the ringwraiths to Sauron. Furthermore, when Sauron's power is objectified in an object, it can bend the will of those who it taints; I believe this was the case with Numenor too, that Numenor itself, by and large, became a medium of his corruption.
And, if he was so concerned to prevent those of his Children who became irrevocably tainted with corruption from having to endure such a life, why did he allow the continued propagation of Orcs?That orcs have fea is a matter of debate, as far as I understand. I don't know if we can come with a relevant conclusion on this part.

[drigel]

So you are saying that he pre-judged the strength of their will to resist corruption when removed from the source of corruption? Isn't that rather at odds with the gift of free will that he gave to them?

Furthermore, when Sauron's power is objectified in an object, it can bend the will of those who it taints; I believe this was the case with Numenor too, that Numenor itself, by and large, became a medium of his corruption.

Great point.

"beyond redemption" is the problem. But, when they chose to have the devil reside amongst them, free will becomes hijacked, I suppose. Sauron's deific powers, and his desire to be the enabler of their undoing, poses threats that even the high Numenoreans had no armor to protect themselves against. Couched in what looks like free will they sailed west, they didnt have a gun to their head to set sail, not physically. But, spiritually they had lost a fight that they never had a chance to win, in the first place. Is this why there was no proselytizing by the faithful? No unselfish act of martyredom, because there was no hope?

The crux lies in the idea of a time when the holy (and unholy) bestrode Ea with its inhabitants (including hapless man), and the time of transition to what we would call today's reality. The seperation of the spiritual and the physical. Cant make the omelet without breaking some eggs eh?

[davem]

When did I say any Numenorean child chose to be evil? What I argued, concerning the children, was that they were tainted. If you look back, you will see that I argued that chosing sides was possible at most at the beginning of Sauron's corruption. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.

And therefore they had no free will in any real sense for Eru to take away. Thus, any restrictions on his actions imposed by a desire not to remove their free will are obviated. He does not need to concern himself with their free will at all, because Sauron has already taken it away - which removes the justification you offer for his actions.

False analogy; the germans were not tainted by Sauron. And the judge is in one case Eru, in the other (this letter) humans. Of humans, Tolkien said they should judge others with utmost mercy, if they are to expect mercy. I believe this letter it is in the spirit of that idea.

Which means what, exactly? That an action which is 'morally wrong' for a human is morally right for God? Which means, what, that Divine morality & human morality may be totally opposed?

According to the Chronology volume of Hammond and Scull, Tolkien first wrote of Numenor in about 1936 or 1937. Which, in that situation, is of secondary importance.

And, being aware of that fact, I stated it was in the '40's that the account of Numenor was introduced & developed, not that it was in the 40's that Tolkien began writing about it. And besides, the point about possible influence of Nazism on Tolkien's thought is not contradicted by the 30's date, as the Nazi movement was on the rise in the 30's.

IIRC, I was only arguing that what he wrote in paragraph does not exclude religion - which was your point.

I thought we were to refrain from telling each other what our 'points' were.....

This kind of justice? Let me ask you again: where does Tolkien say that children like cruel justice?

Again, I think the problem is that are ignoring the spirit & implications of statements made. You refuse to accept that Miriel was one of the faithful because no-one has yet given you a quote in which Tolkien wrote 'Miriel was one of the faithful.' Does Tolkien anywhere say 'Frodo was a good person who sacrificed himself for others'? But does he need to? Is the reader not capable of picking up hints?

Since I dont know if you mean this literary, that it was their intent to remove Aman from Arda, or metaphorically, that they wanted the danger on Aman removed, please provide the quote you are reffering to.

The Valar lay down their delegated power & appeal to God, & receive the power & permission to deal with the situation: the old world is broken & changed. A chasm is opened in the sea & Tar-Calion (sic) & his armada is engulfed. Numenor itself on the edge of the rift topples & vanishes for ever with all its glory in the abyss.

Now, the 'situation' referred to is clearly not the general behaviour of the Numenoreans - which had been going on for a good while. The situation, clearly, is the attack of the fleet - this is clear because the result of the Valar's action is to open a chasm & engulf the fleet. The fact that the fate of Numenor is described in the passive (its on the edge of the rift & topples over) implies that it was a side effect, not a direct consequence.

And I presume that you think that Eru didn't live up to this, at least in the case of Numenor. However, when I have asked if there was any other way to end this story in a better manner, no viable option was offered. Accusing him of doing worse than he could, although we don't know of doing that any better, is, well, wrong.

If a new TV has a blurry, out of focus picture & distorted sound I can declare there is something wrong with it - even if I couldn't make a TV set myself, or even fix the faults on that one.

What you're missing is that many of us are uncomfortable with Eru's behaviour. Telling us 'Well, Tolkien said it was fine' is not to the point. If I said 'Celery makes me sick' that would be a fact. For you to respond 'Well, I've checked with a nutritionist & she says it can't make you sick, & there's nothing else to eat' is to completely misunderstand the situation & ignore the simple fact that celery makes me sick. Throw up all the quotes you want but it won't address the real issue of how many readers feel about what happened.

[Raynor]

Thus, any restrictions on his actions imposed by a desire not to remove their free will are obviated.However, as I have pointed previously, it may be that Eru could not or would not remove corruption in creation until the end of time. This is something which is mentioned in the Atrabeth; Myths Transformed also notes that the eradication of Melkor (or, if I may note, of his corruption) is not possible without the destruction of Arda - which points again to the end of the world.
That an action which is 'morally wrong' for a human is morally right for God? No, that is not how I understood Tolkien; God remains the ultimate source of good; however, we may not assume his omniscience, therefore not his judgement - and we also sin; to hope to have our sins forgiven, we must have mercy too. He was talking about being "extravagantly generous" in this aspect. In this, I believe he was also reffering to the Christian mercy, or to the love which forgives everything. In his comments to Frodo, he was indeed talking about two scales of morality which we must apply: absolute ideal for ourselves - and mercy for others.
And, being aware of that fact, I stated it was in the '40's that the account of Numenor was introduced & developedHe goes from a story to a full manuscript in that period, if I read Hammod correctly. However, I will pick no more on this and where you're heading with it. As far as I know, there is no evidence, so it's not worth my effort until it surfaces; debating almost alone with 3 other persons is challenging enough.
I thought we were to refrain from telling each other what our 'points' were.Forgive me if I was unclear; I was reffering to presuming personals values. I certainly don't want anyone to be executed; in this debate, I am following a line of argument which, for the time being, I believe it is correct. However, debating should not resort to painting the other persons in bad colors. I appologise in if I have done so.
Again, I think the problem is that are ignoring the spirit & implications of statements made. Ok, please present the context from which you derive that children like cruel justice.
You refuse to accept that Miriel was one of the faithful because no-one has yet given you a quote in which Tolkien wrote 'Miriel was one of the faithful.' Does Tolkien anywhere say 'Frodo was a good person who sacrificed himself for others'?False analogy; there is massive evidence that Frodo was good and was sacrificing himself, direct and indirect, in the books and letters; zero on Miriel behalf being a faithful.
Now, the 'situation' referred to is clearly not the general behaviour of the Numenoreans - which had been going on for a good while. The situation, clearly, is the attack of the fleet - this is clear because the result of the Valar's action is to open a chasm & engulf the fleet. The fact that the fate of Numenor is described in the passive (its on the edge of the rift & topples over) implies that it was a side effect, not a direct consequence.Since this provides a further deviance from the story, Tar Calion engulfed, before I answer I will go back to my HoME V to see what this could possibly mean.
Throw up all the quotes you want but it won't address the real issue of how many readers feel about what happened.If this is your final position, then fine by me. If no mather the evidence, you persist in a certain personal interpretation, it is your own right and choice and I respect that. However, if you imply there is "objective" (if I may say so) fault, then there is ground for discussion.

[davem]

However, as I have pointed previously, it may be that Eru could not or would not remove corruption in creation until the end of time. This is something which is mentioned in the Atrabeth; Myths Transformed also notes that the eradication of Melkor (or, if I may note, of his corruption) is not possible without the destruction of Arda - which points again to the end of the world.

Well, it may be he could not or would not - but isn't he omnipotent? And the point is the reader's feelings about Eru's behaviour. The reader is in a difficult position if he or she finds the behaviour of Eru not fitting with his supposed character, or with the reader's own moral value system.

No, that is not how I understood Tolkien; God remains the ultimate source of good; however, we may not assume his omniscience, therefore not his judgement - and we also sin; to hope to have our sins forgiven, we must have mercy too. He was talking about being "extravagantly generous" in this aspect. In this, I believe he was also reffering to the Christian mercy, or to the love which forgives everything. In his comments to Frodo, he was indeed talking about two scales of morality which we must apply: absolute ideal for ourselves - and mercy for others.

Fine but this a) assumes Eru = the Christian God & b) leads us to ask exactly how destroying all the Numenoreans equates to 'forgiving everything'?


Ok, please present the context from which you derive that children like cruel justice.

Chesterton once remarked that the children in whose company he saw Maeterlinck's Blue Bird were dissatisfied “because it did not end with a Day of Judgement, and it was not revealed to the hero and the heroine that the Dog had been faithful and the Cat faithless.” “For children,” he says, “are innocent and love justice; while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.” Andrew Lang was confused on this point. He was at pains to defend the slaying of the Yellow Dwarf by Prince Ricardo in one of his own fairy-stories. ”I hate cruelty,” he said, ”. . . but that was in fair fight, sword in hand, and the dwarf, peace to his ashes! died in harness.”

Yet it is not clear that “fair fight” is less cruel than “fair judgement”; or that piercing a dwarf with a sword is more just than the execution of wicked kings and evil stepmothers—which Lang abjures: he sends the criminals (as he boasts) to retirement on ample pensions. That is mercy untempered by justice. It is true that this plea was not addressed to children but to parents and guardians, to whom Lang was recommending his own Prince Prigio and Prince Ricardo as suitable for their charges. It is parents and guardians who have classified fairystories as Juvenilia. And this is a small sample of the falsification of values that results. ....OFS

If this is your final position, then fine by me. If no mather the evidence, you persist in certain personal interpretation, it is your own right and choice and I respect that. However, if you imply there is "objective" (if I may say so) fault, then there is ground for discussion.

This is not a case where an 'objective' interpretation can ever over-ride a subjective response. As Child & SPM have stated, this act of Eru's causes a serious problem for some readers, as it does not sit with his stated attributes of mercy & compassion. It is an act which many readers find unpleasant, yet those same readers love the world Tolkien has created - its just they feel that Eru is the wrong God for that kind of world - as if the real God of Arda has been kidnapped & replaced by some vengeful psychopath.

And so, we return back to the beginning - if Eru didn't exist, & the world was basically a polytheistic one ruled over by the generally decent & well-meaning Valar who get things right most of the time but occasionally cock things up big time (like trying to destroy the invading Numenorean fleet & going a bit too far & accidentally drowning the Island) it would be fine - but bring in an 'all wise, all powerful, benevolent & loving' God who also wreaks havoc & mass slaughter & the problems start...

[The Saucepan Man]

This is not a case where an 'objective' interpretation can ever over-ride a subjective response.Precisely. Which is why I feel that the current debate is never going to result in anything approaching agreement. You are both coming at it from entirely different perspectives, in which personal beliefs play a major part. Resolution is very unlikely in such circumstances.

As I have said before, the issue that I see as far more interesting is whether, and if so how, those of us who feel uncomfortable with Eru's actions here can reconcile that with our appreciation of the overall work.

[Raynor]

Concerning the drowning of Numenor by the valar: from what I read in HoME V, this was the manner in which things went only in the first sketch of the story, the first and the second variant; in those variants, the numenoreans cruised with their ships in the air, Melkor could come, if only by Shadow, to Numenor, Numenoreans could come close to Tol Eressea (even the kings could come to Valinor), the life length of the numenoreans was due to the light of Valinor, which they could enjoy and began to want more, and so on. These are obviously very early materials, which were later discarded. Begining with the revision of the second variant, Numenor is sank by Iluvatar. I am not sure how to explain Tolkien's pen slip in that paragraph, by writting about something which, as far as I can tell, he discarded. I guess regressing to the childhood memory of the Atlantis complex has its downsides ....
Well, it may be he could not or would not - but isn't he omnipotent?True, however Tolkien states that Eru guarantee the acts and choices of the valar, their free will which later translates into the basic reality of Ea, making specific refferences to the evil of Melkor.

In Osanwe kenta we have the unati, rules which will not be broken by anyone while the creation lasts; I would hold that this is one. In The Lost Road, Elendil also talks about laws, which cannot be changed, and rules, to which exceptions exists. While Eru may bring exceptions to rules, by his own will the laws will be upheld; in his case, this won't affect his options much, seeing that Tolkien states he can transform even his punishments into divine gifts.

In the Ainulindale, it is stated that even the evil of Melkor is part of the whole - and that his most triumphant "notes" are woven into a more solemn patern. Removing evil would mean making this particular creation less whole. It is also stated that the splendour of the End of Arda amazed the Ainur.
Fine but this a) assumes Eru = the Christian GodSeeing that Tolkien applies Christian percepts when discussing Frodo I don't see the problem.
b) leads us to ask exactly how destroying all the Numenoreans equates to 'forgiving everything'?You are changing the scope of my statement; forgiveness is to be acted by humans so as to atone for their sins. I don't know how Eru treats sins. One orthodox concept, which I think it is "shared" by the elves concerning Arda remade, is that all Men will enjoy a pleasant existence (forgiveness of all sins - I don't know the greek name, only heard it once, it almost broke my tongue).
Ok, please present the context from which you derive that children like cruel justice.I guess I am left to comment on this on my own. It is nowhere near clear that children enjoy cruelty, no matter what it accompanies, be it justice or not. I would hold this to be esspecially true since their desire for justice comes out of innoncence.
As Child & SPM have stated, this act of Eru's causes a serious problem for some readers, as it does not sit with his stated attributes of mercy & compassion.However, it seems that no other better way is possible in the circles of this world. All in all, this is the best solution possible to that situation. I won't repeat how I consider denigrating Eru, if we can't see something better to be done. You are both coming at it from entirely different perspectives, in which personal beliefs play a major part. The problem is that certain perspectives contradict what information we have about this world/work. As far as I can tell, his work is in consonance with the spirit of morality, humanity and spirituality. As such, this is not just about our personal opinions, but also about the relation of his works to these values.

[Thenamir]

May I be so bold as to suggest that the reason that this thread is generating so much more heat than light is that that there are those, myself included, who consciously or subconsciously see some of the comments being made here as a veiled accusation against the character of the God in which they believe. Conversely, I think it possible, and please forgive me if I am misinterpreting, that those who choose not to believe as I and others here do see the same kind of accusations made against them for not believing.

Now I am not trying to turn this thread away from Tolkien discussion and into theological debate, far from it. But this is the syllogism I see being hashed and rehashed here:

Major premise: Tolkien intended his portrayal of Eru to be like the Christian God
Minor Premise: Eru is either cruel or capricious (because of the destruction of Numenor)
Conclusion: The Christian God is either cruel or capricious (because of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah)

Now any student of logic can see the fallicies in this syllogism, but that's not really the point. The point is that neither side of the debate likes seeing their ox being gored, even if its under the veil of discussing ostensibly Tolkien-related topics. Thus, passions are roused that don't really make for enlightening and good-natured debate.

Anyone who's been around this forum for awhile knows exactly where I stand. And I have counter-arguments on the side I have chosen that I have not seen posted here. But I will not post them, because no matter how passionate I am about my beliefs (and I am, let me assure you), I don't believe that this is the space in which to do so. Whoever wants to carry on with me on this topic can do so in PMs, e-mails, or chat.

the issue that I see as far more interesting is whether, and if so how, those of us who feel uncomfortable with Eru's actions here can reconcile that with our appreciation of the overall work.

I second Saucy's motion here, well said.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Major premise: Tolkien intended his portrayal of Eru to be like the Christian God

As I pointed out earlier; the Atlantis myth from which Numenor likely comes from is not attributed to the Judo-Christian God so we cannot deduce any opinions on said Deity from the Numenor story. We here have two conflicting things; an overall idea of the supreme being, and Tolkien's desire for an Atlantis story.

The Christian God is either cruel or capricious (because of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah)

This has got me thinking. It has always seemed to me that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was due to the people of those cities being incredibly blasphemous and what not. Then one looks at Numenor; they were (at Sauron's prodding) worshiping Melkor. Weather or not this was the main reason for the destruction of Numenor or not, I do not know, but I think it was probably one of the larger straws that eventually broke the camel's back, so to speak.

I do not tend to think of Eru equaling YHVH, but being, if not inspired by, at least an attempt to portray some aspects of him. The Bible being so vast and having, to use a Rabbinical phrase, so many faces, any aspects that get emphasised by a writer are immediately argued away by arguments for other aspects. Tolkien, I like to think, probably didn't want the haste of arguing. Tolkien (neither J.R.R or Christopher) were (or are) the biggest brains on the planet and we cannot expect them to know everything about YHVH, so creating a character inspired or intended to represent or however you want to say it, by him is a difficult process to go through. They probably left things unsaid about him in order to avoid confrontation or controversy.

If I've said some of this before, I apologise. :rolleyes:

[Lalwendë]

This is not a case where an 'objective' interpretation can ever over-ride a subjective response. As Child & SPM have stated, this act of Eru's causes a serious problem for some readers, as it does not sit with his stated attributes of mercy & compassion. It is an act which many readers find unpleasant, yet those same readers love the world Tolkien has created - its just they feel that Eru is the wrong God for that kind of world - as if the real God of Arda has been kidnapped & replaced by some vengeful psychopath.

And so, we return back to the beginning - if Eru didn't exist, & the world was basically a polytheistic one ruled over by the generally decent & well-meaning Valar who get things right most of the time but occasionally cock things up big time (like trying to destroy the invading Numenorean fleet & going a bit too far & accidentally drowning the Island) it would be fine - but bring in an 'all wise, all powerful, benevolent & loving' God who also wreaks havoc & mass slaughter & the problems start...

Eru's actions aren't really a problem for me. Why? Well despite Eru being entirely alien to my concept of what our own God might be like, it doesn't stop me accepting Eru as the god of another world, which Arda is - it's a creation in a book and not in any shape or form real (news - Hobbits don't really exist ;) ). And Eru and his actions are consonant with what we're told about Eru as he creates the world, even as he creates what comes before the world. He's not like any God I know, this Eru also creates evil in the shape of Melkor, he's quite capable of doing things which seem 'bad' to my eyes. So smiting down a load of innocent kiddies isn't entirely out of character; it's part of his mystery, he's omnipotent so he can do it if he really wants to, and he's not a 'nice' character.

I think why so many people have a problem with Eru is that we love Tolkien's created world so much we believe everything about it must be perfect - and that includes the god of this world, who we firmly and rightly want to be beyond question, beyond doubt. We don't want Eru to do things like drown innocent children in Numenor! Despite the fact that I can accept it's consistent with his character as presented in the books, I still don't like what he does, I can find no justification for it beyond it being consistent with a god who would create Melkor (and allow Melkor to do what he wants, sing what he wants and then go on to create a world with innocent, organic beings within it, knowing that it will be tainted by Melkor). I want Eru to be beyond reproach but he isn't.

EDIT - and having seen what Thenamir has put prompts another thought or two...

Firstly, how interesting it is that some people who have encountered moral problems with the actions of the 'traditional' interpretation of the Christian God also have problems with the actions of Eru. It's that whole "But he killed innocent people! How can we call that just?!" that has led so many people out of the traditional church and into other faiths or none at all. And furthermore, how interesting it is that we don't just give up on Tolkien in the same way as the god of his world is like the traditional God we have turned from (cruel, to our minds) - I'd suggest that it's that Tolkien's Eru is just a character in a book that we can accept him as he is in the context of the book, or can just ignore him and think about the 99.9% of good stuff.

Secondly - no disrespect intended there! Just being honest. Now can we even say that a god like Eru is like the God known by all Christians anyway? No. So many Christians are like me and can only accept a wholly good God - anything beyond that is simply an act of nature or an act of evil (though there would be divisions over whether evil comes from other humans or from some devil figure).

Thirdly - the danger is that when you have people with strong faith who for some reason have come to associate Eru with their own God, that when you criticise Eru, they assume you're going after God. This is not the case. I see Eru as just words in a book, nothing more, so do bear that in mind when I talk about Eru. :)

[Hookbill the Goomba]

(news - Hobbits don't really exist ;) )

Don't ruin our dreams. :p

I think that Lal has an interesting point there: Eru and YHVH seem to be similar in some aspects but in the end they are from two different places. I have, however, always through of Eru as not so much a silent character in that he does nothing, but more that he does stuff but doesnt say anything. Bilbo finding the Ring, Smeagol falling over the crack of Doom, Bilbo's Birthday cake not exploding*, that kind of stuff could be argued as the silent acts of Eru. (We could go into long detail about these, but let's not).


*Sorry, I liked the idea.

[Lalwendë]

That's the thing. It's all so ambiguous. I disagree Eru can be found in these things but I aint going to fight over it unless you want me to. :p

I think it's testament to Tolkien's skill as a writer that he simply cannot be pinned down to one meaning or interpretation. Just imagine how dull his work would be if he'd said "Alright, it's a Christian/WWII/English allegory*. Get used to it reader!" Why! He'd be like Lewis! Now I know a lot of you like Lewis (I'm not that keen, his life story is far more interesting, though Aslan is cute) but let's be honest, he's not got quite the fan cult that Tolkien has, has he? ;)

*delete as appropriate.

Tolkien took the concept of the melting pot of the mind to its ultimate degree, and melded so many things into his work. That's why we argue so much about it. Let's not stop!

[Raynor]

Now can we even say that a god like Eru is like the God known by all Christians anyway?Two issues, both raised before:
- Tolkien applied Christian percepts to interpreting and commenting on LotR
- how could two transcendent realities differ?
I still don't like what he does, I can find no justification for it beyond it being consistent with a god who would create Melkor (and allow Melkor to do what he wants, sing what he wants and then go on to create a world with innocent, organic beings within it, knowing that it will be tainted by Melkor).Interesting. Can you reconcile your own positions?
If the world was 'perfect' then there would be no need for inspirational figures such as Gandhi or the Dalai Lama. There would be no need for scientific endeavour or even education and we could all lie around on our chaise longues eating chocolate tangents for eternity. There would be no need for Art as the world would be so perfect why would we need to express any joy or sadness in it. And there would be NO Tolkien!

Darkness is essential to the creation of satisfying Art, without it there is no plot, we merely have a succession of thoroughly nice chaps and ladies being thoroughly nice to one another. A bit like one of those manufactured Disney stories about pretty princesses endlessly marrying handsome princes - the only way to increase the excitement is to increase the bling. Or those awful platitudes expressed on 'inspirational' posters that you used to get in the workplace. Poetry would all be like greetings cards and music would all be bland manufactured non-threatening pre-teen boyband pap. If you look at all the great pop and rock music it is there purely because of suffering and struggle - The Beatles wanted to break free of the limited expectations set on them and did it by becoming musicians. Art is the same - there would be no Pre-Raphaelites had they not been struggling against the establishment, and remember there would be no work by Tolkien to even discuss had he not suffered in his youth - he'd probably simply followed his father into banking.It seems that you consider(ed) Melkor to be quite good for the Creation!

As a matter of fact, I quite like your point that evil will bring about Gandhi or the Dalai Lama. There is an interesting concept in the catholic religion, felix culpa, the happy sin that would bring about a great saviour:
Easter Sunday in the Christian calendar is the day on which the Resurrection of Jesus from the Crucifixion (on Good Friday). The day in between is Holy Saturday, and is also the occasion for a mass specially designed for the occasion. In the Latin version, which was in use in the Catholic Church almost universally until the early 1960s, one of the lines in this mass is: O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem. We might translate this "O blessed sin [literally, happy fault] which which received as its reward so great and so good a redeemer."

[Lalwendë]

Two issues, both raised before:
- Tolkien applied Christian percepts to interpreting and commenting on LotR
- how could two transcendent realities differ?

You're discussing this with a Universalist. So of course I am going to tell you that are limitless transcendent realities. I have no problem with there being even limitless interpretations of Christian transcendent realities, nor with limitless interpretations of Eruist transcendent realities. That wasn't perhaps what you expected, but that's where I come from and possibly why I can accept Eru for what he is within that context. ;)

About Tolkien applying Christian concepts to interpreting LotR - I think he did indeed apply some in retrospect*, but as for the actual drafting, I think rather he was most careful not to put specifics in there.

* And that's interesting in itself - as he took his place as mere reader alongside us, interpreting his own work. It's also not uncommon. Philip Pullman does much the same, pondering the 'meaning' of his own work and often making contradictory statements. Makes you wonder about the whole business of being creative...is it all just a psychological outpouring of influences?

On to Melkor...I think the text is clear that he came from Eru. It's possibly a difficult thing to accept if you have a particular view of your own God as being absolutely Good, but note, this idea is consistent with Catholicism, so is quite possibly actually the way Tolkien saw things in reality. And it's not a difficult thing to accept if you simply step back and view the work dispassionately (i.e. by not thinking of your own 100% Good version of God as you read).

Melkor being who he is and stemming from Eru makes the whole thing hang together. It does not make you question why Eru decided to create a flawed world, makes events like Numenor possible. It's also much more interesting from the writer's point of view - he was able to 'let rip' with horror and evil in this creation, and likewise, to contrast it with genuinely meaningful forces of Light. And what's more, it enables the writer to do things like have Numenor destroyed and not have his own sense of morality brought into question by readers - this was the action of a created God who himself created Melkor so does not have to be restricted to doing just the nice and fluffy kinds of things. ;)

[davem]

I have deliberately avoided speaking about YHVH because I don't believe
much light can be shed on Tolkien's creation by reading it in the light of the Bible. The Secondary World must be self contained & not dependent on the Primary - it may reflect aspects of the Primary but it is not an allegory of it.

One can only accept the events & characters of the S.W. as events that happened in, & characters who inhabit, another reality, one which is bound by its own rules & I attempted to demonstrate that applying the rules of this world to the S.W. is bound to lead to confusion - admittedly I have done that in a very roundabout way.

The only approach which is likely to work is to simply read the stories as far as possible without judgement & allow them to work on you as they will....

Or to put it another way, this has, imo, gone as far as it can & I can't sustain anymore interest in it.

So, unless someone manages to come up with some interesting new angle on things to draw me back in I shall leave you all to it now.....

[Raynor]

That wasn't perhaps what you expected, but that's where I come from and possibly why I can accept Eru for what he is within that context.What does it mean you accept it? That you think what he does is good? Or that a transcendent being can err? Or can it do actual evil?
About Tolkien applying Christian concepts to interpreting LotR - I think he did indeed apply some in retrospect*, but as for the actual drafting, I think rather he was most careful not to put specifics in there. In retrospect? He was writting in his letters as early as, arguably, 1951, that "myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world." The famous letter #131, the preface to the Silmarillion.
It's possibly a difficult thing to accept if you have a particular view of your own God as being absolutely Good, but note, this idea is consistent with Catholicism, so is quite possibly actually the way Tolkien saw things in reality.Compare this to: "Now can we even say that a god like Eru is like the God known by all Christians anyway?". Aren't your statements contradictory?
Melkor being who he is and stemming from Eru makes the whole thing hang together.How does the whole thing hold together, if you state that "he is not 'nice'" but he is repeatedly depicted as good, and that considering him bad is the root of evil? Please explain.

[Thenamir]

In answer to Saucy's question, I do not find that the compassion and kindness of Eru is incompatible with the story of the downfall of Numenor in the Akallabêth.

To quote something I said a long time ago in a wholly different thread on a barely related topic, When an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-compassionate Ilúvatar who has your best interests in mind says to you "Don't go there," then it isn't self-actualization, or rugged individualism, or even free-thinking to go there anyway -- it is probably suicide.

If you have laws, you have sanctions or penalties for breaking that law. To say that Eru Ilúvatar is not loving or compassionate because He enforces the rules He lays down is a fundamental fallacy. He didn't make rules for sport, or to prevent men from receiving good things, or to rain on their parties. The Ban was there for their good.
He warned,
And he sent messengers to the Dúnedain, who spoke earnestly to the King, and to all who would listen, concerning the fate and fashion of the world....it is not the land of Manwë that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the land; and there you would but wither and grow weary the sooner, as moths in a light too strong and steadfast.
He gave signs, out of the west there would come at times a great cloud in the evening, shaped as it were an eagle, with pinions spread to the north and the south; and slowly it would loom up, blotting out the sunset, and then uttermost night would fall upon Númenor. And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings, and thunder echoed between sea and cloud
He even slew some of them, which was then unheard of,
the lightnings increased and slew men upon the hills, and in the fields, and in the streets of the city
He did everything that he could do short of blunt coercion to get them to choose the right way. When they *chose* to listen to Sauron instead of Eru, to violate the Ban of the Valar, then Eru set the consequences (the sanctions of penalties of the law) in motion. Those who saw what was coming and took heed, Amandil and Elendil and all their company, and were saved from the destruction.

RE: Denying their free will. It has been said here that by killing them Eru is effectively removing their free will. That is quite correct. He allowed them to exercise their free will right up until the time that they violated his command. Just as we do -- we don't arrest criminals *before* they commit the crimes. But once they cross that line, the authority (whether it's Eru, a Shire bounder, or your local policeman) steps in to stop you, apprehend you, and remove your freedom to act further.

When you have an incorrigible child, you take away his free-will to act by putting him in his corner or his room, or perhaps you give them the child's "death penalty", a good spanking, in hopes that you can change his will, his self-destructive direction. When you have an incorrigble adult criminal, you take away his free will to act by either jailing him or executing him. When you have an incorrigible nation, as an omnipotent and all compassionate deity, you could possibly jail them, perhaps put up some kind of barrier around Numenor so that they cannot infect the rest of the world. But then you will have generation after generation, getting (as humanity generally does) worse and worse, going from lesser evils to greater ones, even if it's just amongst themselves. Or you can execute them -- bring the civilization to a screetching halt.

How, you ask, is this not cruel? Which is the more cruel, to allow countless thousands of lives to be born, live in evil and misery, and die? they were become quick to anger, and Sauron, or those whom he had bound to himself, went about the land setting man against man, so that the people murmured against the King and the lords, or against any that had aught that they had not; and the men of power took cruel revenge.
they came no longer as bringers of gifts, nor even as rulers, but as fierce men of war. And they hunted the men of Middle-earth and took their goods and enslaved them, and many they slew cruelly upon their altars.
in that temple, with spilling of blood and torment and great wickedness, men made sacrifice to Melkor that he should release them from Death. And most often from among the Faithful they chose their victims
Or to prevent that inevitability and forebear that future misery by cutting off and cauterizing that festering and rotted piece of the world forever? Remember, Eru is not a fallible man who can, as sometimes happens in our legal systems, convict and execute the wrong person -- He can see the inevitable results of inaction. What you *don't* do is allow intractible evil to forever interfere and trample down the good. At some point, the arm or leg has to be amputated in order to save what remains. Honestly, I don't understand the problem here.

Re: Killing innocent children. Children will be raised by their parents to follow in their footsteps. The evil is not that the children were playing at pretending to be orcs, it was that the parents didn't stop them. You cannot ignore the upbringing of children in how they will turn out -- as the twig is bent, so grows the tree. With Sauron there to continually egg them on, the entire society would go from bad to worse, or else end up destroying themselves. Were the parents killed and the children allowed to live (the dream of every angst-ridden teenager), they would only grow up with the memory of their parents' instruction, and rise up again in rebellion.

Lastly -- I have been mentally goaded into making this post against my better judgement. I feel that this post will change no minds, that it has said nothing really new. I've said all I want to say on this subject, and will gladly hear the rebuttals and counter-arguments which will come whether I like them or not. I am not so self-deluded that I think I have all the answers here. I will hear what has to be said, and will consider it thoughtfully. But I will not tilt at windmills.

[Lalwendë]

Thenamir, only problem with your analysis is that Eru's only action was to take the Undying Lands away from the mortal world - the destruction of Numenor and the flooding of the west of Middle-earth (something we don't think about - how many people died there?) was consequential.

The other problem is that Eru didn't send any signs or warnings, the Valar did all this. The 'Rules' were also laid down by the Valar, not by Eru.

I always find it quite interesting that these people in all these ages have no Rules laid out for them, nobody to tell them what to do, they must figure it out for themselves. Only the Elves of Valinor have any kind of Rules, and we're only assuming that as fact because they live close to the Valar; it may in fact be that they too have no rules. Compare that with the Bible where God is extremely active, handing out rules and regulations like there's no tomorrow (heh, a kind of cosmic nanny state ;) ) and sticking his oar in all over the place; Christians (and Jews and Muslims) have clear boundaries so it's fair enough if they get smote or a plague of boils inflicted on them or whatever. The people of Arda don't have that.

The only instance where a Rule is set is the one set by the Valar on not going to the West. And let's face it, it was a pretty stupid thing for the Valar to do, to allow men and Elves to live so close to one another and expect the mortals not to be intrigued by the possibility of endless life, anyone would be. These kinds of conflicts are common place in fantasy and sci-fi: Eloi and Morlocks in HG Wells, Inhabitants of Gormenghast Vs Villagers/Bright carvers, Muggles and Wizards... So, a Rule had to be set, but it wasn't likely to hold that long, Men being the intelligent, curious beings that they are.

And on the children of 'evil' parents - there is absolutely no reason that children will automatically follow in their parents' footsteps. Otherwise we would be doing unspeakable things to the offspring of killers and criminals today; case in point, the children of serial killers Fred and Rose West are often interviewed about the horrors they saw and were forced to take part in (worse than what Sauron had his followers do!), and one of the results of that is that they are even more determined never ever to follow that kind of path. So I'm afraid that saying the kids of the Black Numenoreans would have followed in their footsteps simply does not wash. I refuse ever to accept this as a justification and I refuse to accept that Tolkien, a devoted father before all else, would have even contemplated this.

What does it mean you accept it? That you think what he does is good? Or that a transcendent being can err? Or can it do actual evil?

I mean that I can accept all kinds of different beliefs as they are presented - I can understand them and see how they work without having to believe them myself. Some things that one god may do may not be in accordance with my own moral code but I can still see them as being consistent with that particular faith or belief. Eruism may not be for me but this does not stop me from seeing how it works, in much the same way that although I don't follow Islam I can see completely how it works.


In retrospect? He was writting in his letters as early as, arguably, 1951, that "myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world." The famous letter #131, the preface to the Silmarillion.

A comment about the 'reasoning' behind his writing is very different to the kind of textual analysis he was carrying out in response to letters from his readers who were responding to the text on the page. I'm talking about where he has a letter from someone saying "Oooh, Gandalf reminds me a bit of...." and Tolkien responds to that in much the same way as we respond to one another in discussion about the printed text. Tolkien's thoughts as he drafts are different - but even then he is not prevented from acting as a reader in response to his won work. That's what writers do - critically examine and edit their work in the draft, and frequently respond to it by noticing other meanings they had not thought about.

Actually, that's an interesting quote as it is Tolkien saying that any kind of moral truth must never ever be explicit and must not be able to be compared to the 'real world'.


Compare this to: "Now can we even say that a god like Eru is like the God known by all Christians anyway?". Aren't your statements contradictory?

No. Not all Christians see God in the same way. Many see God as entirely Good, a God who only does the nice things like give hope and courage and make kittens etc. Many see God as more involved also in the bad things such as war and death and destruction. Example: my ex-catholic grandmother told me God would smite me down for this that and the other, whereas my evangelistic great aunt was full of tales of how God was forgiving and gentle and evil was the work of bad people, nothing to do with God. Eru is not the kind of God a lot of Christians know today.

How does the whole thing hold together, if you state that "he is not 'nice'" but he is repeatedly depicted as good, and that considering him bad is the root of evil? Please explain.

That's because he is omnipotent. It's humans who decide what is nice and pretty and cuddly (our kind of good) - morally correct (a god's kind of good) according to an omnipotent god is not necessarily the same thing. Gods are beyond our humble ideas of 'nice'. So, to me, it's not 'good' that Eru creates Melkor, but to Eru it is indeed 'good' as it's just the way things are, and if he's omnipotent then his creating Melkor must also be 'good'. Maybe it helps if we have good for humans and Good for gods - to distinguish them?

[Raynor]

I mean that I can accept all kinds of different beliefs as they are presented - I can understand them and see how they work without having to believe them myself.So, if I may ask, does that basically mean that you understand and "tollerate" this work, but you do not consider it compatible with morality?
A comment about the 'reasoning' behind his writing is very different to the kind of textual analysis he was carrying out in response to letters from his readers who were responding to the text on the page. I'm talking about where he has a letter from someone saying "Oooh, Gandalf reminds me a bit of...." and Tolkien responds to that in much the same way as we respond to one another in discussion about the printed text. Tolkien's thoughts as he drafts are different - but even then he is not prevented from acting as a reader in response to his won work. That's what writers do - critically examine and edit their work in the draft, and frequently respond to it by noticing other meanings they had not thought about.This seems to me as a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. The fact that Tolkien didn't put in the drafts all his thoughts (and we don't even know all his drafts) doesn't mean that we should restrict our judgement of the mechanism of his writting strictly to what appears in the drafts. This interpretation ignores the great importance spirituality had for Tolkien, it enforces a chasm between stated intention and actual work, with no _single_ positive proof, while at the same time unwarrantly denigrates Tolkien, by implying a certain dishonesty on his part.
Actually, that's an interesting quote as it is Tolkien saying that any kind of moral truth must never ever be explicit and must not be able to be compared to the 'real world'.That's erroneous reasoning; not explicit does not mean or imply impossibility of comparison.
Maybe it helps if we have good for humans and Good for gods - to distinguish them?But is good different only due to our limited knowledge, or are we talking about two incompatible types of good?

[Thenamir]

But is good different only due to our limited knowledge, or are we talking about two incompatible types of good? I think it goes without saying that there is a single standard for morality, whether it is Eru's or man's. The difference is that our access to information is limited, we cannot see all the facts. We are forced to make decisions based on incomplete (but hopefully sufficient) information. This means that we will occasionally come to wrong conclusions, we will make mistakes, we may take wrong actions, even if our intentions are good.

Eru is not under this limitation -- He has all the facts (both of actions and intentions), he has perfect wisdom, and therefore is able to render flawless decisions (and therefore judgements), decisions which may seem cruel or random to our flawed and incomplete perspective. It is not an issue of quod licet jovi, non licet bovi (loosely translated "what is permissible for the gods is not permissible for men") -- it is a matter of the complete versus the partial, the perfect versus the flawed.

[littlemanpoet]

There is the distinct danger too that if one person strongly associates Eru with God (their God) then when someone comes along and criticises or puts an alternate view it is sometimes seen as Blasphemy! (the ! is important) and they will be Offended. But people have every right to question a character in a book, no matter what anyone else associates with it.There is always a temptation to read more into that which one likes well than that which the author intended. Perhaps it's inevitable. It's not necessarily a bad thing if the reader is aware of it.

It's a separate issue however to propound an alternate view compared to the stated nature of a character. In the case of Eru, part of that nature is transcendance and monotheistic deity. Quite simply, that is how Tolkien describes Eru. Therefore, the characteristics of a transcendant monotheistic deity adhere to this character. That there are many similarities to the Judao-Christian God comes therefore as no surprise. However, there are differences, and those are well worth studying .... so long as they really are there rather than being unexamined constructs (and opinions) of our own minds that we bring to the topic.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

That there are many similarities to the Judao-Christian God comes therefore as no surprise.

Which would include wiping out mankind in the Flood, and nuking Sodom and Gomorrah, and directing the Israelites to commit genocidal massacres.... So why is the Akallabeth so different?

[littlemanpoet]

So, [Eru is a]very boring character, & the reason I think he's best left out. The Valar are interesting because they're flawed, make mistakes & produce drama. Yet they themselves are too powerful when the story turns to focus on individual people in Middle-earth & have to be removed to the background.At the risk of beating a dead horse, I really must protest such a reductive reading of the character Eru.

Eru, being transcendant deity, is a fundamentally different type of character than any other. By definition, Eru cannot be flawed and make mistakes and produce that kind of drama.

To want or expect Eru to have done so is like asking the Sun to function like a planet. If one were to expect all heavenly bodies to exhibit the characteristics of planets, then there would be no light source for those heavenly bodies that really are planets, nor a strong enough gravitational pull to hold the planets around the sun.

Just so, Eru is the center of gravitation and light source, for the entire story. To miss this basic fact of Tolkien's creation is to have a somewhat povertystricken experience in one's reading of The Silmarillion. There are things about the story one simply will not comprehend.

The sequence of the creative process, interesting as it is, doesn't tell us as much as that which the mature author chose to include in the mature product.

[Milady D'Hobbit]

I think the fundamental difficulty in creating an UNFLAWED being/deity/whathaveyou, is that the author is not unflawed, is not pure, not holy, not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent...It's really difficult to create a character with whom you share NONE of the attributes.

Just a thought...I'll shut up now...As you were...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It's perhaps worth remembering that Tolkien set out to recreate the Atlantis-myth- the essential datum-point of which is the sinking of the island and the death of its inhabitants. For Tolkien to have ended it otherwise would have been to write a different story. As it is he's far more merciful than Plato, since he posits survivors; and goes to great length to assign a general guilt to the nation.

This last is perhaps a significant point. The ancient world-view, not only in the Old Testament but also in the classical world, was concerned with national gods and their placation; the fortunes of the people as a whole depended on the deity's pleasure or displeasure. When Jeremiah rants that the destruction of Israel was punishment for its sins, he's certainly not claiming that every Hebrew child was a sinner, but rather that the aggregate sins of the people had reached a tipping-point, so that YHWH had withdrawn his favor and protection. Before you call this 'primitive,' remember that sophisticated Athens executed Socrates for largely the same reason: he was held indirectly responsible for an act of sacrelige which was believed to threaten the safety of the state.

This sort of collectivism is I think inevitable in Tolkien's mythological mode, where peoples often stand in for characters. The Doom of Mandos destroyed a lot of Noldor (and Sindar and Men) who weren't even born at the time of the Kinslaying.

[davem]

This sort of collectivism is I think inevitable in Tolkien's mythological mode, where peoples often stand in for characters. The Doom of Mandos destroyed a lot of Noldor (and Sindar and Men) who weren't even born at the time of the Kinslaying.

Accepted....but we don't think in 'mythological mode'. We are 21st century readers with a 21st century perspective. The problem is, we could accept Morgoth or Sauron indulging in mass slaughter because that's the kind of thing the do - they are 'evil' & slay indiscriminately. Eru is supposed to fall into the other camp.

LMP's statement that Eru cannot be flawed makes the whole thing so much more difficult - we are required to accept that an omnipotent, omniscient deity will commit an act of horrific destruction without even questioning it. Eru did it so it is 'good'. But what standards are we applying - what constitutes 'good' - is it whatever Eru does? If so then Eru could go around hurling thunderbolts at all & sundry, good, bad, old, young, black, white & it would be 'good' simply because Eru does it. Yet no reader would accept that. The reader can only accept that Eru is 'good' if his behaviour conforms to some objective standard of 'good'. But does Eru's destruction of Numenor conform to this standard?

EDIT

Edit removed because not everyone watches The Catherine Tate Show & it seems they didn't get the joke. :(

[Lalwendë]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I really must protest such a reductive reading of the character Eru.

Eru, being transcendant deity, is a fundamentally different type of character than any other. By definition, Eru cannot be flawed and make mistakes and produce that kind of drama.

To want or expect Eru to have done so is like asking the Sun to function like a planet. If one were to expect all heavenly bodies to exhibit the characteristics of planets, then there would be no light source for those heavenly bodies that really are planets, nor a strong enough gravitational pull to hold the planets around the sun.

Just so, Eru is the center of gravitation and light source, for the entire story. To miss this basic fact of Tolkien's creation is to have a somewhat povertystricken experience in one's reading of The Silmarillion. There are things about the story one simply will not comprehend.

The sequence of the creative process, interesting as it is, doesn't tell us as much as that which the mature author chose to include in the mature product.

I think you misunderstand what davem is saying. He says that he doesn't need Eru to be there for the story to be satisfying, and he's entirely free to say that, as it's just a criticism of a piece of literature. I'd be quite happy with a few less Elves with names beginning in F (or indeed a few less Elves anyway, certainly less pathetically wimpy female Elves and a few more who do something, like Luthien or Aredhel). I'm allowed to say that. And davem not liking a character doesn't mean he does not comprehend things about the story or has somewhat less of a reading experience - that's an incredibly loaded statement to make.

It's perhaps worth remembering that Tolkien set out to recreate the Atlantis-myth- the essential datum-point of which is the sinking of the island and the death of its inhabitants. For Tolkien to have ended it otherwise would have been to write a different story. As it is he's far more merciful than Plato, since he posits survivors; and goes to great length to assign a general guilt to the nation.

It's interesting that the myths of Numenor and Atlantis also share a sense of mystery - we find ourselves asking why this happened, a question to which we can come up with a range of decent answers, but when we ask about drowned innocents we get stumped. In the case of Numenor, we at least know that Eru did it, and we can at least say he did it "because he can" - and say that this is just part of his own mystery and omnipotence.

[littlemanpoet]

... as 'creator' [Eru] seems more of an artist - his great concern seems not to be that what is produced be good in any moral sense, but rather that it be 'beautiful'. To the extent that morality comes into it at all it seems to be Eru's annoyance with Morgoth's attempted spoiling of his 'opera'.This view is based on a misunderstanding. All that is Good is of a piece. Before Evil enters creation, a thing that is beautiful is by definition good. It is only after evil enters creation that this harmony is ruined with such dissonances as beautiful evil and ugly good. Tolkien expresses this universal truth with an aesthetic pallet rather than a moral one; the truth he expresses does not change because he uses a different pallet.

[Raynor]

But does Eru's destruction of Numenor conform to this standard?No one has been able to come up with a better solution to the Numenorean problem. So, as stated previously, I fail to see the point of the critique.

[davem]

No one has been able to come up with a better solution to the Numenorean problem. So, as stated previously, I fail to see the point of the critique.

'Better' does not equal 'best'.

[Raynor]

'Better' does not equal 'best'.But surely you understand that if nothing is better than this, then it is, by definition, the best.

[davem]

But surely you understand that if nothing is better than this, then it is, by definition, the best.

But surely you understand that you haven't proven that nothing was better than this. I'm sure that in the sixties many people could not think of a better way of doing complex mathematical calculations than by using a slide rule. Calculators are now known to be better. Just because one cannot think of a better way to do 'x' does not make the way that is used the 'best' - just the 'best' one can come up with at the time.

But the point is we are dealing with an Omnipotent, Omniscient being here - & one who is supposed to be both good, merciful & compassionate.

[Raynor]

But surely you understand that you haven't proven that nothing was better than this.But you are unwarrantly shifting the burden of proof (and I and others have done 'our' part, by showing those other variants achieve less), since it is you who criticises the adequacy of this.
Just because one cannot think of a better way to do 'x' does not make the way that is used the 'best' - just the 'best' one can come up with at the time.As in others threads, I witness the hope that something will somehow pop up that will contradict Tolkien's statements. Until then, your critique is baseless.

[davem]

But you are unwarrantly shifting the burden of proof (and I and others have done 'our' part, by showing those other variants achieve less), since it is you who criticises the adequacy of this.

Yes, because it is inadequate

As in others threads, I witness the hope that something will somehow pop up that will contradict Tolkien's statements. Until then, your critique is baseless.

No, I was offering a perfectly logical critique of your statement.

[Raynor]

Yes, because it is inadequate An opinion contradicted throughout this thread, if you care to re-read it.
No, I was offering a perfectly logical critique of your statement.The story and the author state that He is good; nobody found a better alternative to his actions. Unless you come up with some evidence worth discussing, I will refrain from simply repeating the conclusions of this thread and wait for better times in this thread too.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

This sort of collectivism is I think inevitable in Tolkien's mythological mode, where peoples often stand in for characters. The Doom of Mandos destroyed a lot of Noldor (and Sindar and Men) who weren't even born at the time of the Kinslaying.

Accepted....but we don't think in 'mythological mode'. We are 21st century readers with a 21st century perspective. The problem is, we could accept Morgoth or Sauron indulging in mass slaughter because that's the kind of thing the do - they are 'evil' & slay indiscriminately. Eru is supposed to fall into the other camp.

LMP's statement that Eru cannot be flawed makes the whole thing so much more difficult - we are required to accept that an omnipotent, omniscient deity will commit an act of horrific destruction without even questioning it. Eru did it so it is 'good'. But what standards are we applying - what constitutes 'good' - is it whatever Eru does? If so then Eru could go around hurling thunderbolts at all & sundry, good, bad, old, young, black, white & it would be 'good' simply because Eru does it. Yet no reader would accept that. The reader can only accept that Eru is 'good' if his behaviour conforms to some objective standard of 'good'. But does Eru's destruction of Numenor conform to this standard?

Well, I guess William Cloud Hickli actually knocked the right door. What davem says here is true, we are 21st century readers and Tolkien was 20th century writer. But the Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits... are not 20th or 21st century beings. Middle-Earth is a world which does not have the modern or postmodern views on things, it is a mythical world. And people in the "mythical age" or how should I call it, all the cultures in past times of our Earth, had their myths that reflected reality in their understanding of it. And this is how Middle-Earth works, like a mythical world. The people back then didn't have that understanding of God as we have now - so their tales were quite generalized, as William Cloud Hickli said. This is for example the mentioned (and to Akkallabëth quite similar) tale of Sodom and Gomorrah - from our modern, also New-Testament-based view of the Christian God, it does not seem fitting for God loving its creation to wipe out whole city including even little children (and this is what makes it difficult for many people to accept the "drastic tales" of the original Hebrew Bible). But the point of that story lies elsewhere, and it is that the only one who was not wicked was saved - Akallabëth shows something very similar. The main thing is to realize that every tale has its context in the age in which it is presented, and understanding it depends on taking the viewpoint of people living in that age. I am not speaking now of simple reading the story for pleasure - we can enjoy the tale just by reading it; I think we all can read tales from, let's say, Greek mythology and not thinking about if it makes sense ("But Olympus was not that high", "But the Earth isn't flat"). But when we start digging deeper into it, we will ultimately hit some obstacle which wouldn't fit with our 21st century point of view. And here we have only two options: say "This is nuts, the story is silly, it does not make sense, we all know the Earth isn't flat" or try to look at the story from the point of its time. And the Akkallabëth, though it does not have any "real" background in the world (sorry to those who believe ME really existed back then ;) ), is written in the language of myths, so we have to accept it. "The whole island was destroyed, with all its men, women, and children" - total destruction, you have commited crime, the crime that is so great that it has impact on the whole nation. Saying "And everyone died, only the little children were taken by Elendil who collected them from all the homes" or something like that will totally destroy the point of the story. The motive of the story is Trespassing, no Repentance, Punishment.

This does not, by any matter, discard the point that Lalwendë and others have raised here, that Eru as an omni-creator and omni-ruler does ultimately have the right to do this if he wishes. But as davem correctly said, Eru is presented as good, not evil, and so if we want to preserve the logic of his character, we must take the story this way - as a myth, and not bother about whether even little children died there. We are 21st century readers, but I doubt the people in Middle-Earth thought about it like we do, they are not 21st century people. The point it would have for the inhabitants of the Middle-Earth would be a tale of Gift, of misusing it, of greed and many others... and warning for the Men not to do this again.

[davem]

Its interesting. We read The Illiad & The Oddysey (& Gilgamesh & Mahabharata if it comes to that) as tales of Man 'at the mercy' of the gods, who are temperamental, tetchy, selfish & pretty juvenile. Eru is the God that the inhabitants of M-e have, & they must make do.

One could, I suppose, read the OT in the same way - YHVH is hardly always kind, tolerant & compassionate. Yet we live (in the West at least) with 2,000 years of Christianity in our psyches & because of this we 'expect' a God who is loving, self sacrificing, compassionate - one who would not behave in such an 'Old Testament' fashion. Christianity has shaped our perception of how 'God' is supposed to behave, so we (Christian or not) will judge Eru by that standard, & in the destruction of Numenor he does not.

Hence, the only thing we can do is to put aside this idea of 'equivalence' & simply accept Eru for what he is - not good or evil, but a 'force' of nature, conscious, directing, ultimately in control, but not the God of Christianity by another name.

[littlemanpoet]

To read LotR from a 'secular' perspective makes the display of courage far more moving [than punishment avoidance]. Imagine there is no eternal reward, that Frodo is giving up everything for others knowing that there is nothing beyond the life he is sacrificing, no healing in the West, because going into the West is simply to die. Not Tolkien's intention, certainly, but still a possible reading - does that make it more or less affecting?

Note: "than punishment avoidance" is my phrase to summarize davem's previous point; I think it's accurate.

This is indeed more affecting than mere motivation to avoid God's punishment. However, a yet deeper motivation in Frodo is depicted in LotR: love of the Shire. This is significant.

That which davem describes is the Northern ideal; the Norse idea, I suppose you could say: sacrificing all even though there's nothing to be gained by it, because it's the right thing to do, the honorable thing. Yet Frodo's motivation was not mere honor, but love. Again, that is significant, and is a way through which Tolkien trumped the Northern ideal with something even higher.

[davem]

That which davem describes is the Northern ideal; the Norse idea, I suppose you could say: sacrificing all even though there's nothing to be gained by it, because it's the right thing to do, the honorable thing. Yet Frodo's motivation was not mere honor, but love. Again, that is significant, and is a way through which Tolkien trumped the Northern ideal with something even higher.

Yes, his actions are selfless. Which is the point. Long before the end of the Quest Frodo has no hopes of returning home, or of achieving anything for himself at all. It strikes me that whatever happens after the Grey Havens is outside the story, which ends with Frodo leaving the 'world'. Whether he 'dies' & ceases or dies & passes to another 'state' is not something the story takes up - rightly in my opinion, as it would make the whole of LotR just 'part' of a story of which the end is missing & it would thus feel 'unfinished' , rather than a 'complete whole'.